Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In the learning environment, both teachers and peers are influential social agents. In the present study, we differentiated between positive and negative aspects of teacher and peer relationships and examined how they predict adolescent students’ academic interest and self-concept, which in turn lead to different levels of academic achievement and subjective well-being at school. Additionally, we explored whether father absence moderated these predictive relationships. Results based on a group of 4274 Chinese middle school students revealed that positive social relationships were more closely related to interest, self-concept, and well-being than negative ones. The predictive paths from teacher relationships to motivation and achievement were stronger than those from peer relationships. However, peers played a prominent role in helping students with absent fathers build a positive self-concept, which led to improved achievement.

Keywords

Perceived teacher relationships perceived peer relationships academic self-concept academic interest school well-being academic achievement

Academic achievement and well-being at school are central outcomes of students’ learning quality (Clement, 2010; Halle, 2003; Langford et al., 2014). These two outcome variables are influenced by both intrinsic and significant social environment factors, including parents, teachers, and peers (Martin & Dowson, 2009; Wigfield et al., 2015). Perceived relationships with teachers and peers are crucial to students’ academic performance (Dotterer & Lowe, 2011) and school well-being (Wentzel, 1997) because students spend most of their time at school with teachers and peers (Ellerbrock & Kiefer, 2013).

During the course of their education, the social relationships between adolescent students and their teachers and peers can change dramatically. Particularly throughout secondary school, studies have revealed a clear upward trend in the quality of adolescents’ peer relationships and a downward trend in teacher–student relationships (Collins & Laursen, 2004; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997). Despite these changes, both teacher and peer relationships are essential for adolescents’ development (Martin & Collie, 2016; Roorda et al., 2017; Wentzel, 2017; Wentzel et al., 2021). Similarly, parent–child relationships also significantly affect students’ development (Amato, 2005; Barger et al., 2019; Boonk et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2014). For instance, fathers can influence the quality of teacher–student and peer relationships that their children develop at school (Epstein & Connors, 1995). Additionally, the quality of father–child relationships is also closely associated with children's learning experiences, academic achievement, and well-being (Becker & Luthar, 2002). However, father absence is becoming more prevalent in contemporary families (Amato, 2005). Typically, father absence is accompanied by low paternal involvement, which may be associated with decreases in students’ learning motivation, academic performance, and subjective well-being, as well as increases in problematic learning behavior and maladaptive academic functioning (Dawson, 1991; Moore et al., 2001).

Therefore, in this study we examined how perceived teacher and peer relationships predict adolescent students’ learning motivation, resulting in varied academic achievements and subjective well-being at school. Furthermore, we explored whether father absence moderates the predictive paths from perceived social relationships to academic motivation and educational outcomes.

Literature review

Perceived social relationships and students’ academic functioning

Adolescent students, especially those in the transition stage from primary to middle school, experience profound physical and psychological changes (Crone & Dahl 2012). Early adolescents are likely to seek assistance from their teachers and peers in establishing a new social network and adapting mentally and physically to their new learning environment. Consequently, multiple cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have concluded that early adolescents’ perceptions of their relationships with teachers and peers are crucial for academic achievement and well-being (e.g., Barger et al., 2019; Kiuru et al., 2020; Wentzel & Ramani, 2016).

As the main adults in schools, teachers have a significant impact on the academic achievement and well-being of students (Roorda et al., 2017; Martin & Collie, 2016; Wentzel, 2016). Interactions and teaching styles in the classroom can shape students’ perceived relationships with their teachers and influence their academic performance (Becker & Luthar, 2002). Positive teaching behaviors, supportive teaching practices, and patient guidance, for instance, contribute to high-quality teacher–student relationships, which may enhance students’ academic performance. Further, perceived teacher relationships can also affect students’ adaptation to the classroom and school, as positive teacher–student relationships are closely related to students’ ability to withstand the negative effects of certain school-related events and assist students in better adapting to academic pressure and achieving greater subjective well-being (Roorda et al., 2017; Wentzel, 2016; Wubbels et al., 2016). Despite the importance of teacher relationships to students’ academic functioning, longitudinal studies have revealed that adolescent students usually report lower-quality teacher relationships after transitioning to middle school (e.g., Feldlaufer et al., 1988; Goodnow, 1993).

While teacher–student relationships tend to deteriorate during adolescence, adolescents invest significantly more time and value in their peer relationships (Goodnow, 1993). Therefore, peer relationships are another key factor influencing adolescent students’ academic learning and well-being. For instance, high-quality peer relationships can provide opportunities for informal peer tutoring outside of class, thereby indirectly improving students’ academic achievement (Ginsburg-Block, Rohrbeck, & Fantuzzo, 2006; Ryan & Shin, 2018; Wentzel et al., 2021). Perceived peer relationships may directly influence students’ subjective well-being in school as well. For example, feeling accepted and recognized increases students’ subjective well-being, whereas feeling isolated and excluded decreases it (Wentzel, 1997). According to longitudinal studies, peer rejection and maltreatment are strong predictors of low academic achievement and depression in school (e.g., Liu et al., 2014).

Simultaneously, it is crucial to acknowledge that social relationships at school are complex and multidimensional. For example, Roorda et al. (2011) suggested that students tend to differentiate between positive and negative aspects of their social relationships. Wentzel (1998) noted that these various dimensions have distinct effects on the academic achievement and well-being of students. For instance, students who perceive positive relationships with their teachers and peers are more likely to pay greater attention to their studies and thus attain higher academic performance (King, 2015; Zee et al., 2013). In addition, positive relationships can alleviate loneliness and reduce the likelihood of being bullied, thus promoting student well-being (Ryan & Shin, 2018; Wentzel & Ramani, 2016). Conversely, perceived negative social relationships have a reverse effect on academic performance and well-being among students (Buhs & Ladd, 2001). Core elements of negative social relationships are value conflicts, emotional rejection, or excessive stress from teachers and peers, which can lead to a lack of contact and support in class, further diminishing students’ school well-being (Erkman et al., 2010; Roorda et al., 2011; Roorda et al., 2017). Perceived negative social relationships can also hinder students’ ability to engage in learning activities, resulting in poor academic performance (Buhs & Ladd, 2001).

Previous research has clarified the impact of both perceived teacher and peer relationships on adolescent students’ academic functioning. However, there is little research that differentiates the potentially distinct roles of perceived teacher and peer relationships for students’ learning outcomes and the different aspects of social relationships (i.e., positive vs. negative relationships) simultaneously in an integrated model. Therefore, in this study we distinguished the positive and negative aspects of perceived teacher and peer relationships and explored their impacts on students’ academic achievement and well-being at school.

Self-concept and interest as important motivational mediators

Many theoretical frameworks investigating students’ learning have emphasized the essential role of motivational beliefs as mediators between the perceived social environment and individuals’ academic achievement. Among the theoretical frameworks explaining students’ academic motivation, situated expectancy-value theory (SEVT), an updated version of the expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020), is among the most influential frameworks for systematically explaining students’ academic functioning. The situated expectancy-value theory posits that expectancies (or similar beliefs about one's competence, such as self-concept) and value-related beliefs (i.e., interest value, utility value, attainment value, and cost) are the two most influential factors in determining students’ learning motivation. Accordingly, students who expect to perform better in a given subject area and who value their learning in that area are more likely to pursue courses and activities related to it, engage more deeply with their learning in that area, and ultimately exhibit higher achievement (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000; Wigfield et al., 2016). SEVT emphasizes that both the expectancies and value-related beliefs are linked to a broader array of more distal psychological, social, and cultural determinants. School contexts provide unique environments of emotional support and communal expectations and values (Wentzel, 2017). Students’ interpretations of school experiences, such as perceived social relationships, can affect their expectancies and value-related beliefs, thereby predicting their academic-related choices and achievement (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Several empirical studies support the SEVT that educational outcomes are distal of perceived social relationships, and are mediated by expectancies and value-related beliefs (e.g., Ma et al., 2021; Morin et al., 2014; Wentzel, 2017).

According to SEVT, one important belief related to expectations is academic self-concept (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), which refers to students’ perceptions of their academic situation and their rational judgment of their ability level in a particular academic field (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Marsh & Martin, 2011). Various empirical and longitudinal studies indicate that academic self-concept can be influenced by the perceived teacher and peer relationships and can predict students’ academic performance (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and subjective well-being (Burnett, 2003; Wentzel, 2017). To some extent, teachers and peers are vital in helping students establish their academic self-concept by providing feedback. As a result, students are able to evaluate their academic performance, objectively assess their academic abilities, and adjust their academic functioning (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Gest et al., 2005). When they perceive a positive teacher–student relationship, students are more likely to develop a healthy self-concept and subsequently improve their academic achievement and well-being (Ma et al., 2021). For example, the manner in which teachers assess and provide feedback on students’ behaviors can influence their evaluations of the quality of their relationships with their teachers and their development of self-concept beliefs (McFarland et al., 2016). As this process is repeated, students’ perceptions of teacher relationships become internalized, and their academic self-concept develops further, eventually influencing their academic achievements (Burnett, 2003; Davis, 2003; Wentzel, 2016) and school adjustment (McFarland et al., 2016). A longitudinal study demonstrated, for instance, that teacher support indirectly improved student mathematics achievement via students’ academic self-expectancies (Yu & Singh, 2018). Burnett (2003) reported that positive feedback from teachers influenced students’ academic self-concepts through self-talk, causing them to persist longer in tasks and acquire adaptive attributions. In contrast, if students feel rejected or neglected by their teachers, they are less likely to cooperate or participate in class tasks, which hinders the development of their academic self-concept and further contributes to poor academic achievement and school well-being (Ma et al., 2021).

Moreover, researchers have discovered that students receive peer evaluations and feedback on interactive academic tasks. These processes can establish the academic self-concept of students and influence their academic achievement and well-being (Buhs & Ladd, 2001; Gest et al., 2005; Guay et al., 2003; Wentzel, 2017). During early adolescence, students develop a healthy self-concept primarily through peer encouragement and reasonable evaluations. These enable them to engage in more learning activities, foster their strengths, and improve their weaknesses, resulting in higher academic achievement (Buhs, 2005; Gest et al., 2008) and enhanced levels of well-being (Wentzel, 2017). In contrast, some longitudinal studies have revealed that peer rejection and inaccurate evaluations undermine students’ academic self-concept and further diminish their subjective well-being in school (Buhs, 2005; Reijntjes et al., 2010).

In addition to academic self-concept, interest value is a key variable within the SEVT (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). Interest value, which attaches great importance to the inner joy that individuals experience from a learning task, profoundly impacts what students choose to learn and how persistent they are in subsequent learning activities (Hidi & Ainley, 2002; Köller et al., 2001). Social factors such as perceived teacher and peer relationships can influence students’ interest value and subsequent learning (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020; Wentzel, 2017). For instance, a high-quality teacher–student relationship is characterized by the teachers’ sense of humor, encouragement, enthusiasm, and proficiency in content knowledge. These factors promote students’ learning, foster academic interest in specific subjects, and ultimately result in improved academic achievement and well-being (Marsh et al., 2005; Tambunan et al., 2021). By contrast, if students perceive boredom, indifference, or excessive control in their relationships with teachers, they may lose academic interest, resulting in poorer educational outcomes (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Wentzel, 2002).

Similarly, peer relationships can influence adolescents’ academic interests (Bergin, 2016; Furrer & Skinner, 2003). According to previous cross-sectional and longitudinal research, positive peer relationships, characterized by long-term interaction, close friendship, and loyalty, help students engage in and concentrate on school-related activities, thereby facilitating the development of their academic interests and further enhancing their academic achievement (Low et al., 2005; Wentzel et al., 2004). Wentzel (2017) reported that the correlation between perceived peer support and academic effort was significantly mediated by academic self-efficacy and internalized values. Conversely, negative peer relationships, such as those characterized by conflict or abuse, adversely impact students’ academic interests, resulting in a lower level of well-being (Wentzel et al., 2004).

Overall, self-concept and interest beliefs are important motivational mediators between adolescent students’ perceived social relationships and academic functioning. Perceived teacher and peer relationships may directly impact students’ academic self-concepts and interests, resulting in different educational outcomes (e.g., Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Wentzel, 2017).

Father absence as a potential moderator

According to Wentzel (1998), the family environment affects students’ perceptions of their relationships with their teachers and peers. For example, students’ perceptions of their relationships with teachers are mainly based on their prior experiences with their parents (McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015). If they lack parental involvement and guidance at home, students are more likely to perceive negative teacher relationships (Murray & Zvoch, 2011). Some researchers believe that peer relationships are less affected by the family environment (Youngblade & Belsky, 1995). However, students from highly supportive families have positive peer relationships (Ledbetter, 2009), whereas students with poor parent–child relationships with parents may exhibit more problem behaviors, making them more likely to experience peer rejection at school (Ladd et al., 1999).

To date, most studies that explore parental roles in children's academic functioning have focused on the mother, even though the father also plays an essential and unique role in an adolescent's growth and development (McKinney & Renk, 2008). For instance, it has been discovered that the absence of a father negatively influences students’ academic motivation, undermines academic interest, and impairs the development of an accurate self-concept (Gomez & McLaren, 2007; Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Students with absent fathers are also less able to adapt to school and exhibit more behavioral and emotional problems (Aunola & Nurmi, 2005), resulting in a lower level of school well-being (Hawkins et al., 2007; Pleck, 2012).

Unfortunately, in recent decades, the phenomenon of paternal absence has become prevalent (Amato, 2005). First, the rising divorce rate is a significant contributor to this phenomenon (Amato, 2005; CDC/NCHS National Vital Statistics System., 2021; Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China, 2017). Second, many fathers from Chinese rural areas, who are the main breadwinners for their families, are forced to leave their homes in order to earn more money in more developed regions (Shang, 2012). All these factors contribute to the absence of fathers in their children's daily lives, which can result in behavioral, psychological, and learning problems among children. No study has directly examined whether and how a father's absence may moderate the associations of adolescent students’ perceived teacher and peer relationships with their academic motivation and educational outcomes. However, existing evidence suggests that fatherhood may moderate adolescents’ perceived peer and teacher relationships and their academic functioning. According to Furrer and Skinner (2003), the relationship between parents and children influences teacher–student relationships in the classroom context. Students with perceived caring parental relationships had closer ties to teachers, while students with perceived negative parent relationships were more likely to perceive negative teacher relationships. In a recent survey of 321 early adolescents, Ma et al. (2022) discovered that parental involvement moderated the relationship between teacher–student relationships and students’ academic performance in Chinese Confucian heritage culture. Specifically, the results showed that a high level of parental involvement mitigated the adverse impact of negative teacher–student relationships on early adolescents’ academic achievement. Based on this evidence, it is reasonable to assume that father absence may also moderate between social relationships and academic outcomes in Chinese adolescents at school.

Present study

With a special focus on the Chinese educational context, we aimed to investigate the potential distinct roles of perceived teacher and peer relationships in adolescent students’ academic motivation and outcomes. Some cross-cultural studies have compared the importance of social agents in Chinese and Western cultures. For example, Chinese adolescents regard teachers and peers as more important than their American counterparts (Jia et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2013). Consistent with Western empirical findings, perceived peer relationships have become more important in influencing Chinese adolescents’ learning (Liu et al., 2014). However, teachers in China continue to play a more critical role in influencing students’ academic achievement and well-being (Chen et al., 2003; Gao, 2008; Jiang et al., 2013). This pattern may be attributable to the Chinese Confucian philosophy of filial piety (Stevenson et al., 1990), in which teachers are viewed as supervisors and guardians who substitute parents in schools, and schools provide greater support for students (Ye & Law, 2019). Additionally, compared with Western culture, teachers in China are regarded as academic authorities (Gao, 2008). Therefore, their influence on students’ academic motivation and outcomes has increased substantially (Zhou et al., 2012). Regardless of potential cultural differences, the quality of parent–child relationships can influence students’ other social relationships (Quach et al., 2015). For example, Ma et al. (2021) found that parents’ high involvement significantly mitigated the impact of negative teacher–student relationships on childhood academic achievement. However, high parental involvement during adolescence had no compensating effect on negative teacher–student relationships. In the Chinese educational context, no empirical studies have explicitly explored whether and how father absence may moderate students’ perceived teacher and peer relationships and lead to different academic achievement and well-being.

Therefore, we investigated how Chinese adolescent students’ perceptions of teacher and peer relationships at school predict their self-concept and interest, resulting in different school well-being and academic achievement levels. We distinguished between the positive and negative aspects of perceived teacher and peer relationships to identify the distinct functions of the differential aspects of social relationships. Moreover, we examined the potential moderating effect of paternal absence on these predictive paths. Specifically, we hypothesized that perceived positive social relationships would positively predict adolescents’ academic achievement and school well-being, whereas perceived negative social relationships would predict these outcomes negatively. Based on SEVT (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020), we hypothesized that self-concept and interest value would mediate the associations between perceived social relationships and educational outcomes. Considering the specific educational context of China, we hypothesized that, compared with perceived peer relationships, perceived teacher–student relationships would be more closely related to students’ academic motivation and educational outcomes. Given the lack of systematic research on this topic, our hypotheses regarding the moderating effects of father absence on the associations between perceived social relationships and academic motivation and educational outcomes were all tentative. Nevertheless, based on the literature on fatherhood and its influences on student learning, we assumed that perceived teacher relationships may have emerged as a more significant predictor of academic motivation and outcomes for father-absent students.

Method

Participants and procedure

Fifty-three academic-track schools in a large provincial capital city in central China agreed to participate in this study. All academic-track schools in central China follow a 6–3–3 education system, with middle school education beginning in the 7th grade. The sample comprised 4274 7th graders (2292 boys, 1981 girls, and one student who did not specify gender; mean age = 12.57 years, SD = .67). The sample comprised 99 classes; 67 students did not indicate their classes. In the present study, we were particularly interested in students with absent fathers. As the city's economic status ranked in the middle of all 23 provincial capital cities in China, the current sample supported our investigation into the father's absence. There are five districts in this capital city that have an underdeveloped economy, diverse population, and many migrant workers. Many fathers preferred to work in other areas around the city. We determined the father-absence group by asking students “Whom do you live with?” Those who answered that they did not live with their biological fathers were selected (N = 657). Those who lived with their biological father constituted the father-presence group (N = 3,617). The students took 45 min. to complete the paper-based questionnaire during their regular classroom hours. Data analyzed during the current study are available in the OSF repository, https://osf.io/46hcq/.

Measures

All measures were adapted from the LOSO (“Longitudinaal Onderzoek in het Secundair Onderwijs”; in English “Longitudinal Research in Secondary Education”) Well-Being Questionnaire (Van Damme et al., 2002). The items were put through the translation-and-back-translation procedure suggested by Brislin (1970) from English to Chinese. All items used a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) as the response format. Students were asked to respond to the items with respect to their school learning in general. All survey items are presented in the Appendix.

Perceived peer relationships

There were ten items measuring “social integration in the class,” which generally described students’ perceived peer relationships. The reliability of this subscale in the original questionnaire was α = .89. The scale measures both positive and negative aspects of perceived peer relationships in the classroom, with five items for each aspect. In the present study, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results indicated that a two-factor model, with one factor representing positive peer relationships and the second factor representing negative peer relationships, showed good model fit: χ² (34, N = 4238) = 174.15, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .03, SRMR = .02. In contrast, the model fit with a unidimensional scale structure was not acceptable: χ² (35, N = 4238) = 2188.53, CFI = .78, TLI = .71, RMSEA = .01, SRMR = .08. Therefore, we measured positive and negative peer relationships separately. In the present study, the reliability coefficients for perceived positive and negative peer relationships were αs = .88 and .86, respectively.

Perceived teacher relationships

There were ten items measuring “relationships with teachers”. The reliability of this subscale in the original questionnaire was α = .88. Just as for perceived peer relationships, the scale measures both positive and negative aspects of perceived teacher relationships, with five items for each aspect. Again, CFA results revealed that a two-factor model, with one factor representing positive teacher relationships and the other representing negative teacher relationships (χ² (34, N = 4239) = 318.59, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .04), showed considerably better model fit than the unidimensional CFA model (χ² (35, N = 4239) = 1847.60, CFI = .74, TLI = .67, RMSEA = .11, SRMR = .09). Accordingly, we measured positive and negative teacher relationships separately. The reliability coefficients for positive and negative teacher relationships were αs = .82 and .78, respectively.

Academic interest

Students’ academic interest regarding learning in general was assessed with eight items. The CFA demonstrated acceptable model fit: χ² (20, N = 4239) = 392.48, CFI = .94, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .04. The reliability of this subscale in the original questionnaire was α = 88. In the present study, the reliability was α = .81.

Academic self-concept

Students’ general academic self-concept was measured with nine items. The CFA demonstrated acceptable model fit: χ² (22, N = 4239) = 354.11, CFI = .94, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .05. The reliability of this subscale in the original questionnaire was α = .80. In the present study, the reliability was α = .77.

Well-being at school

Four items measured students’ feelings about attending their school. The CFA demonstrated acceptable model fit: χ² (2, N = 4237) = 10.38, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .03, SRMR = .01. The reliability of the original questionnaire was α = .86. In the present study, the reliability was α = .80.

Academic achievement

Students’ actual scores in Chinese, English, and math on a high-stakes unified examination were obtained from their schools as an achievement index. All students took the same exams and were scored equivalently based on a standard answer key. Scores ranged from 0 to 100. Students’ scores in three subject domains were standardized and considered as indexes for their academic achievement.

Overview of data analysis

All analyses were conducted in SPSS 25 and Mplus 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2016). We used the bootstrap method to account for the non-normality of the indicator variables (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2016). For all items, the percentage of missing data was relatively low (less than 0.30%). Nevertheless, we used the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) approach implemented in Mplus, which takes all available information into account when estimating the model parameters (Schafer & Graham, 2002).

First, the descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients were computed for the father-absence and father-presence groups of students. The control variables in the structural equation models (SEM) included students’ gender, age, and socioeconomic status (SES). SES was estimated as a component score based on an index of home possessions and educational resources (OECD, 2013). We also conducted a multi-group SEM to determine whether our hypothetical model differed significantly between the father-absence and father-presence groups. Moreover, we tested the distinct roles of perceived teacher and peer relationships by comparing the magnitude of the pathways between relationships with peers and teachers, including the mediation pathways. Following Satorra and Bentler (2010), we computed a chi-square difference test using log-likelihood values and scaling correction factors obtained with the MLR estimator between M0 and M1. M0 refers to the null model constraining the two path coefficients to be equal, while M1 refers to the model without constraints.

Several indexes were consulted to determine goodness-of-fit in the analyses: the chi-square (χ²) value and associated degrees of freedom, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root-mean-squared residual (SRMR). Specifically, values of RMSEA and SRMR below .08 indicate a reasonable model fit, and values of CFI and TLI above .90 and .95 indicate acceptable and excellent model fit, respectively (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2015). The criteria for analyzing mediation effects using a bootstrap method (MacKinnon, 2008). We set the number of bootstrap iterations at 1000 in Mplus, and a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval that included a non-zero interval was regarded as being a reliable mediation effect. The effect size measures for mediation models were calculated by dividing the indirect effect by the total effect (Miočević et al., 2018).

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and results of the t-tests among the variables. There were significant differences in teacher relationships, academic interest, and achievement between the father-absence and father-presence groups. Specifically, students in the father-absence group reported lower positive teacher relationships (t (4272) = −5.41, p < .001, Cohen's d = −.23) and academic interest (t (4272) = −4.54, p < .001, Cohen's d = −.20) than those in the father-presence group. Students in the father-absence group also showed lower math and English achievement than students in the father-presence group (t (4143) = −6.39, p< .001, Cohen's d = −.28 for math and t (4143) = −5.16, p < .001, Cohen's d = −.23 for English, respectively).

Table 1.
Descriptive and difference statistics across father-presence and father-absence groups.

Variable No. of items Father absence (N = 657) Father presence (N = 3616) t Cohen's d

a M SD a M SD

1. Positive peer relationships 5 .86 3.08 .54 .88 3.16 .55 −3.46 −.15

2. Negative peer relationships 5 .83 1.85 .58 .86 1.78 .60 2.81 .12

3. Positive teacher relationship 5 .80 2.98 .52 .83 3.10 .52 −5.41 −.23

4. Negative teacher relationship 5 .75 2.06 .54 .78 2.01 .58 2.14 .09

5. Academic interest 8 .78 3.06 .45 .77 3.15 .45 −4.54 −.20

6. Academic self-concept 9 .81 2.56 .45 .81 2.61 .44 −2.75 −.11

7. Well-being at school 4 .80 3.04 .56 .80 3.09 .57 −2.25 −.09

8. Chinese score – – 67.74 12.42 – 69.97 12.13 −4.23 −.18

9. Math score – – 60.49 20.62 – 66.11 20.27 −6.39 −.28

10. English score – – 68.82 21.52 – 73.59 20.57 −5.32 −.23

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01.

The correlation coefficients among latent variables are shown in Table 2. The correlation pattern was similar across the two groups. All correlations among variables were in the expected directions.

Table 2.
Correlation coefficients among latent variables across the two groups.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Positive peer relationships – −.65 .68 −.44 .47 .45 .48 .19

2. Negative peer relationships −.69 – −.40 .70 −.31 −.32 −.36 −.23

3. Positive teacher relationship .65 −.38 – −.59 .60 .60 .57 .22

4. Negative teacher relationship −.44 .70 −.56 – −.41 −.46 −.42 −.26

5. Academic self-concept .51 −.24 .54 −.33 – .56 .45 .31

6. Academic interest .48 −.36 .55 −.40 .56 – .61 .20

7. Well-being at school .47 −.36 .47 −.37 .37 .61 – .15

8. Achievement .26 −.19 .24 −.21 .24 .23 .21 –

Note: Correlation coefficients in the father-absence group are below the diagonal; those in the father-presence group are above the diagonal. All correlation coefficients were significant at p < .01.

Structural equation modeling

Before running the SEM model to answer the research questions, we confirmed that the measurement model exhibited adequate fit: χ² (874, N = 4274) = 9078.48, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .05. All factor loadings were statistically significant at p < .001, indicating that the latent variables were represented well by their respective indicators. We then proceeded to test the paths among the latent variables in SEM. Based on the modification indexes and for theoretical reasons, we covaried the disturbance terms for self-concept and interest. Model fit statistics indicated a reasonable fit: χ² (982, N = 4274) = 9078.47, CFI = .90, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .05¹. Figure 1 shows the statistically significant paths among the latent variables.

Figure 1.
Standardized path coefficients from the general model.

Perceived teacher relationships significantly predicted two motivation variables. Specifically, perceived positive teacher relationships positively predicted self-concept (β = .41) and interest (β = .42), whereas perceived negative teacher relationships negatively predicted self-concept (β = −.12) and interest (β = −.19). For perceived peer relationships, positive relationships significantly predicted self-concept (β = .17) and interest (β = .13), while negative peer relationships directly and negatively predicted academic achievement (β = −.10). Both perceived positive teacher relationships and perceived positive peer relationships directly and positively predicted well-being at school (β's = .21 and .10, respectively). On the one hand, we also found that positive peer relationship was negatively related to academic achievement at a marginal level (β = −.08, p = .05). On the other hand, the correlation between the positive peer relationship and academic achievement was positive, and we cautiously proposed that the opposite signs of this path may be because of multi-collinearity in the model. Additionally, self-concept positively predicted academic achievement (β = .25) and interest positively predicted well-being at school (β = .41).

Table 3 shows the indirect effects in the SEM model. Specifically, perceived positive peer and teacher relationships positively predicted self-concept, which then led to better achievement. Perceived positive peer and teacher relationships also positively predicted interest, which then led to higher levels of well-being at school. Conversely, perceived negative teacher relationships negatively predicted self-concept and interest, which then led to lower levels of achievement and well-being, respectively.

Table 3.
Standardized estimates of mediation effect.

B SE p CI Effect size

Positive peer relationships → academic self-concept → achievement .04 .01 .000 [.02, .07] .78

Positive teacher relationship → academic self-concept → achievement .10 .02 .000 [.07, .14] 1.00

Negative teacher relationship → academic self-concept → achievement −.03 .01 .022 [−.06, −.01] .34

Positive peer relationships → academic interest → well-being .05 .02 .010 [.01, .09] .39

Positive teacher relationship → academic interest → well-being .17 .02 .000 [.13, .22] .41

Negative teacher relationship → academic interest → well-being −.08 .02 .000 [−.11, −.04] 1.00

We also tested the distinct roles of perceived teacher relationships and peer relationships by comparing the magnitude of the pathways between relationships with peers and teachers. The results showed that the path coefficients from perceived positive teacher relationships to interest, self-concept, and well-being were significantly larger than those from perceived positive peer relationships (χ² (1) = 13.92, p < .001; χ² (1) = 8.56, p = .003; χ² (1) = 6.49, p = .011, respectively). The path coefficients from perceived negative teacher relationships to interest and self-concept also were significantly larger than those from perceived negative peer relationships (χ² (1) = 9.62, p = .002; χ² (1) = 5.06, p = .025, respectively).

Multiple-group comparisons

We then conducted multiple-group SEM to examine the potential moderating effect of father absence on the aforementioned relationships. To ensure that differences in the structural paths were not due to differences in the items’ functioning, we first tested for measurement invariance across the two groups. Specifically, we specified a series of nested models placing increasing invariance constraints across groups and examined changes in the goodness of fit. We began by fitting a configural invariance model, which consisted of measurement models with identical loading patterns but no invariance on any parameters. We then tested for weak (invariant factor loadings) and strong (invariant factor loadings and item intercepts) measurement invariance across groups. Following guidelines by Chen (2007) and Cheung and Rensvold (2002), a decrease of less than .01 in incremental fit indices such as the CFI in the more constrained model should be treated as support for that model. Chen (2007) also suggests that an increase of less than .015 in the RMSEA and an increase of less than .030 in the SRMR for the invariance of factor loadings and less than .015 for the invariance of intercepts should be taken as support for the more constrained model.

As shown in Table 4, the measurement model demonstrated strong measurement invariance across the two groups. We then investigated differences in path coefficients across the two groups. The final SEM model demonstrated acceptable fit with the empirical data: χ² (2076, N = 4274) = 10659.50, CFI = .90, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .05. Figure 2 shows the statistically significant paths among the latent variables. Two paths were found to be significantly different across the two groups. Specifically, the path coefficient from positive peer relationships to self-concept was larger in the father-absence group (β = .32) than that in the father-presence group (β = .15). In contrast, the path coefficient from self-concept to achievement was smaller in the father-absence group (β = .20) than that in the father-presence group (β = .27).

Figure 2.
Standardized path coefficients from the final model.

Table 4.
Invariance test statistics.

Model χ² df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR ΔX² (df) ΔRMSEA ΔCFI ΔSRMR

Configural invariance 9714.84 1748 .05 .91 .90 .05 – – – –

Weak measurement invariance 9783.14 1784 .05 .90 .90 .05 68.30 (36) .00 −.01 .00

Strong measurement invariance 9940.28 1864 .05 .91 .90 .06 157.14 (36) .00 .01 .01

Note: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; SRMR = standardized root mean-squared residual.

Discussion

The findings of the present study revealed that both teachers and peers are essential social agents in predicting students’ motivation, academic achievement, and well-being at school. Perceived positive relationships were closely related to adaptive academic functioning, whereas perceived negative relationships were associated with lower academic motivation and achievement. In addition, the relative importance of teachers and peers varies based on the aspect of the relationship that is emphasized. Moreover, this study went beyond previous studies by investigating whether the predictive paths from perceived social relationships to academic motivation and educational outcomes differ depending on whether students have an absent father. In specific, there are substantial differences between students with absent fathers and those who live with their fathers in terms of how perceived positive peer relationships influence academic achievement via self-concept.

Relative importance of perceived teacher and peer relationships in adolescent students’ academic functioning

Previous research has shown that adolescents’ relationships with their teachers tend to deteriorate (Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997). However, in our sample, perceived teacher relationships exhibited more significant predictive paths and larger coefficients to motivation and educational outcomes than did perceived peer relationships. This indicates that teachers continue to play a larger role in the academic functioning of early adolescents than their peers do. In China, school teachers are responsible for teaching and instructing and spend significant time guiding students in their daily lives and addressing their emotional issues (Jia et al., 2009; Ma et al., 2021). In China, teachers have been acknowledged as “parents at school” for adolescent students (Ye & Law, 2019). Compared with peer support, teacher support can have a greater positive effect on students’ motivation, school well-being, and academic achievement through targeted guidance, counseling, and assistance with academic and psychological functioning. Existing literature supports this conclusion. For example, McFarland et al. (2016) argued that if early adolescents perceive positive relationships with their teachers, they will engage more actively in learning tasks, develop positive self-cognition, and develop a positive self-concept. Likewise, Wentzel (2002, 2009) discovered that supportive teacher–student relationships can encourage students to become more motivated to learn tasks and engage in more academic activities. Moreover, Martin and Dowson (2009) found that positive teacher–student relationships empower adolescents to have greater confidence in overcoming learning challenges and developing a higher level of school well-being.

Although less influential than teachers, peers play an important role in adolescent motivation and educational outcomes. In this study, perceived positive peer relationships significantly and positively predicted school well-being, both directly and indirectly, via interest. They also significantly indirectly and positively predicted academic achievement through self-concept. These findings are compatible with previous findings that perceived peer support can have a significant impact on students’ interests and subjective well-being at school (Low et al., 2005). In terms of the relative importance of perceived teacher and peer relationships, this study's sample may account for why perceived teacher relationships exhibited stronger predictive utility for academic motivation and educational outcomes than peer relationships. After the transition from elementary to middle school, early adolescents in 7th grade experience intense external pressure related to normative grading and adjustment to a new school environment. At this developmental stage, teachers, as vital adults in schools, are particularly essential for fostering students’ development (Brooks, 2012). It is also possible that 7th-grade adolescents who have just started middle school have not yet fully engaged in the peer socialization processes that are typical during this stage of life. Thus, the effect of peer relationships on educational outcomes may not have fully manifested.

Furthermore, we found that positive and negative social relationships had distinct predictive utilities for educational outcomes. The patterns observed in this study were consistent with those of prior research. Positive interpersonal relationships are particularly linked to students’ academic motivation and educational outcomes (Pintrich, 2004). By contrast, negative interpersonal relationships, especially teacher–student relationships, affect students’ educational outcomes indirectly through motivation (Baker, 2006; Hamre & Pianta, 2001). Moreover, the predictive paths from perceived positive teacher relationships to academic motivation were stronger than those from perceived negative teacher relationships. Laursen and Mooney (2008) reported a similar finding in which high-quality positive social relationships alleviated the adverse effects of negative social relationships on students.

Self-concept and interest as important motivational links between perceived social relationships and educational outcomes

According to Wigfield and Cambria (2010), academic motivation is an essential intermediary between students’ interpersonal relationships and academic achievement. In this present study, we verified that academic self-concept and interest both served as vital links between students’ perceived social relationships and their educational outcomes. Specifically, perceived positive teacher and peer relationships are significantly and positively associated with self-concept, thereby contributing to academic achievement. Supportive teachers and peers can provide adolescents with positive feedback, advice, and approval regarding their academic performance. These positive resources catalyze students’ competence beliefs, which can enhance their academic achievement (e.g., Davis, 2003; Tarrant et al., 2006). In contrast, self-concept was negatively predicted by perceived negative teacher relationships, which led to a decline in achievement.

In contrast to the close relationship between self-concept and academic achievement, there exists a closer relationship between interest and subjective well-being at school. In particular, perceived positive teacher and peer relationships were significantly related to interest, thereby enhancing students’ well-being at school. In contrast, perceived negative teacher relationships were negatively related to interest, thus impairing well-being. Regularly, supportive teachers or peers provide adolescents with positive feedback, advice, and approval regarding their achievements, as well as emotional support and care. These positive resources directly impact students’ perceptions of their interest in school. According to the existing literature, positive teacher and peer relationships are more likely to encourage students to engage in learning activities, thus cultivating academic interest in specific subjects and ultimately resulting in greater subjective well-being at school (e.g., Roeser et al., 2000; Wentzel et al., 2004). Our findings support this conclusion.

Significant moderating role of father absence

Few studies have explored potential family-related factors that moderate the association between students’ perceived social relationships and academic functioning. This study found that whether a student had an absent father moderated our hypothetical model significantly. Students with absent fathers were affected more by perceived positive peer relationships when developing their academic self-concept—specifically, perceived positive peer relationships significantly impacted academic self-concept among students with absent fathers than among students with present fathers. Previous research has demonstrated the importance of peer relationships for understanding students’ school engagement and academic adjustment (e.g., Rubin et al., 1998; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). The findings of the present study contribute to this field of research by revealing that positive peer relationships assist students with absent fathers in developing a positive academic self-concept more than they assist students with present fathers. In other words, students with absent fathers may therefore rely more on peer support and affirmation to develop a positive academic self-concept (Buhs & Ladd, 2001). The multiple-group SEM also revealed that the relationship between academic self-concept and academic achievement was weaker among students with absent fathers compared to those with present fathers. One possible explanation is that self-concept internalization is strongly dependent on performance assessments by significant others (Wentzel, 1999). Therefore, students with absent fathers may be unable to develop a clear and accurate self-concept without objective assessments from their fathers.

Notably, the influence of teacher–student relationships on students’ academic motivation and educational outcomes of students with absent and present fathers did not differ significantly. Teachers have long been regarded as an important bridge between schools and parents (Leroy & Symes, 2001) and as parents’ collaborative partners in their children's learning and development (Epstein, 2018). Some researchers have argued that for students from single-parent families to avoid potential negative outcomes, such as personality disorders and behavioral problems, teacher support as a mature adult upon whom they can rely is crucial (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Roorda et al., 2011). However, no evidence was found in this study to support this argument. Instead, our findings suggest that students with absent fathers do not perceive teacher relationships differently than students with present fathers; and positive teacher–student relationships are equally important for all students.

Practical implications

Findings of the present study have several practical implications. First, given the vital role of teachers as specific attachment figures for students within the Chinese Comprehensive Heritage Culture (Ma et al., 2021), we suggest that teachers should focus on both fostering students’ knowledge and skill development as well as developing high-quality and supportive teacher–student relationships, thereby helping students in promoting academic engagement. Higher levels of teacher support in interactions with students may help students develop intrinsic value for learning, shape positive academic self-concepts, and improve their academic performance (Liem et al., 2008). Second, it is important to consider the influence of peer relationships on students’ academic interests. A supportive peer group is crucial for establishing a safe environment in the school context (Jiang et al., 2014), which can help students feel happy and comfortable in order to develop intrinsic interests in challenging academic activities and promote their well-being. Therefore, to nurture positive peer relationships, educators should establish supportive classroom contexts rather than competitive ones. In addition, positive peer relationships are critical in helping father-absent students develop competence beliefs, leading to better achievement. Previous studies have highlighted that sufficient teacher support is vital for improving the academic performance of students with low parental involvement (Ma et al., 2022). Furthermore, this study revealed that fostering stable and supportive peer relationships could benefit father-absent students. As close partners in school learning contexts, peers have the most potent influence on students’ daily experiences (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). Thus, schools and educators should help father-absent students foster supportive relationships with peers. Peer acceptance and encouragement would create irreplaceable emotional connections with them, allowing them to develop a positive self-concept and close the gap between them and father-present students in academic achievement.

Limitations and future directions

Despite the fact that this study yielded some important findings, there are several limitations and suggestions for future research that must be addressed. First, the present study relied on cross-sectional data, which prevented us from testing causal relationships among the variables. Future research may employ longitudinal designs to investigate the causal and reciprocal effects of variables over time. Second, this study relied on self-reported survey responses. Future studies should incorporate objective data, such as students’ actual learning behavior in schools. Third, this study was based on a sample of Chinese 7th graders; hence, further research is required to determine the generalizability of the findings to differently aged students or other school contexts. Fourth, all the variables were measured in a domain-general manner. Depending on the specific subject domain, students’ perceived relationships with teachers and peers may vary. Aspects of academic motivation, such as self-concept and interest, are also highly domain-specific (Schunk & Pajares, 2002). Therefore, future research should investigate whether examining domain-specific relationships with teachers and peers yields comparable results.

Conclusion

In the present study, we investigated how perceived teacher and peer relationships at school predict academic motivation and educational outcomes among adolescent students. We found that perceived positive teacher and peer relationships were more strongly and positively related to students’ self-concept, interest, and well-being. By contrast, perceived negative teacher relationships were more strongly and negatively related to students’ academic achievement. The predictive paths from teacher relationships to motivation and achievement were stronger than those from peer relationships were. However, peers played a prominent role in helping students with absent fathers build their self-concept, which led to higher achievement. This study's findings contribute to the existing literature by highlighting the importance of including multiple aspects of perceived social relationships and considering potential family-related factors to understand better adolescent students’ academic functioning in school.

Variable	No. of items	Father absence (N = 657)	Father presence (N = 3616)	t	Cohen's d
1. Positive peer relationships	5	.86	3.08	.54	.88	3.16	.55	−3.46	−.15
2. Negative peer relationships	5	.83	1.85	.58	.86	1.78	.60	2.81	.12
3. Positive teacher relationship	5	.80	2.98	.52	.83	3.10	.52	−5.41**	−.23
4. Negative teacher relationship	5	.75	2.06	.54	.78	2.01	.58	2.14	.09
5. Academic interest	8	.78	3.06	.45	.77	3.15	.45	−4.54**	−.20
6. Academic self-concept	9	.81	2.56	.45	.81	2.61	.44	−2.75	−.11
7. Well-being at school	4	.80	3.04	.56	.80	3.09	.57	−2.25	−.09
8. Chinese score	–	–	67.74	12.42	–	69.97	12.13	−4.23	−.18
9. Math score	–	–	60.49	20.62	–	66.11	20.27	−6.39**	−.28
10. English score	–	–	68.82	21.52	–	73.59	20.57	−5.32**	−.23

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Positive peer relationships	–	−.65	.68	−.44	.47	.45	.48	.19
2. Negative peer relationships	−.69	–	−.40	.70	−.31	−.32	−.36	−.23
3. Positive teacher relationship	.65	−.38	–	−.59	.60	.60	.57	.22
4. Negative teacher relationship	−.44	.70	−.56	–	−.41	−.46	−.42	−.26
5. Academic self-concept	.51	−.24	.54	−.33	–	.56	.45	.31
6. Academic interest	.48	−.36	.55	−.40	.56	–	.61	.20
7. Well-being at school	.47	−.36	.47	−.37	.37	.61	–	.15
8. Achievement	.26	−.19	.24	−.21	.24	.23	.21	–

	B	SE	p	CI	Effect size
Positive peer relationships → academic self-concept → achievement	.04	.01	.000	[.02, .07]	.78
Positive teacher relationship → academic self-concept → achievement	.10	.02	.000	[.07, .14]	1.00
Negative teacher relationship → academic self-concept → achievement	−.03	.01	.022	[−.06, −.01]	.34
Positive peer relationships → academic interest → well-being	.05	.02	.010	[.01, .09]	.39
Positive teacher relationship → academic interest → well-being	.17	.02	.000	[.13, .22]	.41
Negative teacher relationship → academic interest → well-being	−.08	.02	.000	[−.11, −.04]	1.00

Model	χ²	df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR	ΔX² (df)	ΔRMSEA	ΔCFI	ΔSRMR
Configural invariance	9714.84	1748	.05	.91	.90	.05	–	–	–	–
Weak measurement invariance	9783.14	1784	.05	.90	.90	.05	68.30 (36)	.00	−.01	.00
Strong measurement invariance	9940.28	1864	.05	.91	.90	.06	157.14 (36)	.00	.01	.01

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This paper was funded by the Grant 2019ECNU-XFZH015 from the East China Normal University. The work of Yi Jiang was supported by the the Program for Professor of Special Appointment (Eastern Scholar) at Shanghai Institutions of Higher Learning.

ORCID iDs

Yi Jiang

Fangwen Wu

Notes

Appendix: Items of Scales Used in the Present Study

Item
Positive peer relationship
1. I think that most of my classmates treat me in a nice way.
2. I feel at ease with my classmates.
3. There are enough classmates who help me when I ask them to do so.
4. I get on well with my classmates.
5. I quite easily make friends at school.
Negative peer relationship
1. In our class I feel that I am rather outside the group.
2. I have few friends in this class.
3. I often feel lonely in the class.
4. I find few of my classmates really kind.
5. I am often teased by the other students.
Positive teacher relationship
1. I think that most of the teachers are very helpful when I have problems with school work.
2. I feel at ease with most of the teachers.
3. There are enough teachers who listen patiently when I ask something.
4. I get on well with most of the teachers.
5. Most of the teachers treat me in a nice way.
Negative teacher relationship
1. Some teachers are kinder to others than to me.
2. There are few teachers who help me well with my school work.
3. There are few teachers who understand me.
4. Some teachers don’t have the patience to explain things to me.
5. The teachers dislike me.
Academic interest
1. I enjoy doing most of the subjects in the school.
2. To me, many things we have to learn in school are unimportant. (−)
3. I think that I learn useful things in school.
4. I am really interested in most of the subjects.
5. I think it is great that I learned all sort of things this year.
6. I think most of the subjects we are taught are very worthwhile.
7. I think that I have to learn things in school that I won’t ever need in future. (−)
8. Personally, I find the subject matter usually interesting.
Academic self-concept
1. I think I am able to deal with the subject matter.
2. I fear that I will fail the exams at the end of the year. (−)
3. I am usually slower at digesting the subject matter than my classmates. (−)
4. I think that I am good at learning.
5. My classmates are better at learning than me. (−)
6. I usually find the homework quite easy.
7. When I have studied something, I sometimes feel that I can’t tell much about it. (−)
8. When I take an exam, I usually feel that I am up to it.
9. I can keep up well with the pace of the lesson.
Well-being
1. I am glad to go to this school.
2. I think it's nice at school.
3. If the choice was mine, I would rather go to another school. (−)
4. If we were to move to another neighborhood, I would prefer to stay at this school.

Note. The label of (−) indicates a reverse coding item.

References

Amato

(2005). The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social, and emotional well-being of the next generation. The Future of Children, 15(2), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2005.0012

Aunola

Nurmi

J. E.

(2005). The role of parenting styles in children’s problem behavior. Child Development, 76(6), 1144–1159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00840.x-i1

Baker

J. A.

(2006). Contributions of teacher–child relationships to positive school adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44(3), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.02.002

Barger

M. M.

Kim

E. M.

Kuncel

N. R.

Pomerantz

E. M.

(2019). The relation between parents’ involvement in children’s schooling and children’s adjustment: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 145(9), 855–890. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000201

Becker

B. E.

Luthar

S. S.

(2002). Social-emotional factors affecting achievement outcomes among disadvantaged students: Closing the achievement gap. Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3704_1

Bergin

D. A.

(2016). Social influences on interest. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1133306

Bong

Skaalvik

E. M.

(2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302408382

Boonk

Gijselaers

H. J.

Ritzen

Brand-Gruwel

(2018). A review of the relationship between parental involvement indicators and academic achievement. Educational Research Review, 24, 10–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.001

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

10.

Bronfenbrenner

(2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Sage.

11.

Brooks

(2012). Life stage: School years. In Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2012. Our Children Deserve Better: Prevention Pays. London: Department of Health.

12.

Buhs

E. S.

(2005). Peer rejection, negative peer treatment, and school adjustment: Self-concept and classroom engagement as mediating processes. Journal of School Psychology, 43(5), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.09.001

13.

Buhs

E. S.

Ladd

G. W.

(2001). Peer rejection as antecedent of young children’s school adjustment: An examination of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology, 37(4), 550. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.550

14.

Burnett

(2003). The impact of teacher feedback on student self-talk and self-concept in reading and mathematics. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 38(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/23874243

15.

CDC/NCHS National Vital Statistics System (2021, February 25). Change in the reporting of marriage and divorce statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage-divorce.htm.

16.

Chen

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

17.

Chen

Chang

(2003). The peer group as a context: Mediating and moderating effects on relations between academic achievement and social functioning in Chinese children. Child Development, 74(3), 710–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00564

18.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

19.

Clement

(2010). Student wellbeing at school: The actualization of values in education. In Lovat

Toomey

Clement

(Eds.), International research handbook on values education and student wellbeing (pp. 37–62). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8675-4_3

20.

Collins

W. A.

Laursen

(2004). Changing relationships, changing youth: Interpersonal contexts of adolescent development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431603260882

21.

Crone

E. A.

Dahl

R. E.

(2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(9), 636–650. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3313

22.

Davis

H. A.

(2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student–teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3804_2

23.

Dawson

D. A.

(1991). Family structure and children’s health and well-being: Data from the 1988 national health interview survey on child health. Journal of Marriage & Family, 53(3), 573–584. https://doi.org/10.2307/352734

24.

Dotterer

A. M.

Lowe

(2011). Classroom context, school engagement, and academic achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(12), 1649–1660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9647-5

25.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

(2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153

26.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

(2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859

27.

Ellerbrock

C. R.

Kiefer

S. M.

(2013). The interplay between adolescent needs and secondary school structures: Fostering developmentally responsive middle and high school environments across the transition. The High School Journal, 96(3), 170–194. http://dx.https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2013.0007

28.

Epstein

J. L.

(2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving Schools (2nd ed). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494673

29.

Epstein

J. L.

Connors

L. J.

(1995). School and family partnerships in the middle grades. In Rutherford

(Ed.), Creating school/family partnerships (pp. 137–166). National Middle School Association.

30.

Erkman

Caner

Sart

Z. H.

Börkan

Şahan

(2010). Influence of perceived teacher acceptance, self-concept, and school attitude on the academic achievement of school-age children in Turkey. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 44(3), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397110366670

31.

Feldlaufer

Midgley

Eccles

J. S.

(1988). Student, teacher, and observer perceptions of the classroom environment before and after the transition to junior high school. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 8(2), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431688082003

32.

Furrer

Skinner

(2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148

33.

Gao

(2008). Teachers’ professional vulnerability and cultural tradition: A Chinese paradox. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.011

34.

Gest

S. D.

Domitrovich

C. E.

Welsh

J. A.

(2005). Peer academic reputation in elementary school: Associations with changes in self-concept and academic skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.337

35.

Gest

S. D.

Rulison

K. L.

Davidson

A. J.

Welsh

J. A.

(2008). A reputation for success (or failure): The association of peer academic reputations with academic self-concept, effort, and performance across the upper elementary grades. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.625

36.

Ginsburg-Block

M. D.

Rohrbeck

C. A.

Fantuzzo

J. W.

(2006). A meta-analytic review of social, self-concept, and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 732–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.732

37.

Gomez

McLaren

(2007). The inter-relations of mother and father attachment, self-esteem and aggression during late adolescence. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 33(2), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20181

38.

Goodnow

(1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431693013001002

39.

Guay

Marsh

H. W.

Boivin

(2003). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Developmental perspectives on their causal ordering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.124

40.

Halle

T. G.

(2003). Emotional development and well-being. In Bornstein

M. H.

Davidson

Keyes

C. L. M.

Moore

K. A.

(Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the life course (pp. 125–138). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

41.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

(2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00301

42.

Hawkins

D. N.

Amato

P. R.

King

(2007). Nonresident father involvement and adolescent well-being: Father effects or child effects? American Sociological Review, 72(6), 990–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200607

43.

Hidi

Ainley

(2002). Interest and adolescence. In Pajares

Urdan

(Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 247–275). Information Age.

44.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

45.

Jia

Way

Ling

Yoshikawa

Chen

Hughes

(2009). The influence of student perceptions of school climate on socioemotional and academic adjustment: A comparison of Chinese and American adolescents. Child Development, 80(5), 1514–1530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01348.x

46.

Jiang

Huebner

E. S.

Siddall

(2013). A short-term longitudinal study of differential sources of school-related social support and adolescents’ school satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 114(3), 1073–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0190-x

47.

Jiang

Song

Lee

Bong

(2014). Self-efficacy and achievement goals as motivational links between perceived contexts and achievement. Educational Psychology, 34(1), 92–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.863831

48.

King

R. B.

(2015). Sense of relatedness boosts engagement, achievement, and well-being: A latent growth model study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.002

49.

Kiuru

Wang

M. T.

Salmela-Aro

Kannas

Ahonen

Hirvonen

(2020). Associations between adolescents’ interpersonal relationships, school well-being, and academic achievement during educational transitions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(5), 1057–1072. 10.1007/s10964-019-01184-y.

50.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.

51.

Köller

Baumert

Schnabel

(2001). Does interest matter? The relationship between academic interests and achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(5), 448–470. https://doi.org/10.2307/749801

52.

Ladd

G. W.

Birch

S. H.

Buhs

E. S.

(1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence. Child Development, 70(6), 1373–1400. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00101

53.

Langford

Bonell

C. P.

Jones

H. E.

Pouliou

Murphy

S. M.

Waters

Komro

K. A.

Gibbs

L. F.

Magnus

Campbell

(2014). The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4, 1–249. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008958.pub2

54.

Laursen

Mooney

K. S.

(2008). Relationship network quality: Adolescent adjustment and perceptions of relationships with parents and friends. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.78.1.47

55.

Ledbetter

A. M.

(2009). Family communication patterns and relational maintenance behavior: Direct and mediated associations with friendship closeness. Human Communication Research, 35(1), 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.01341.x

56.

Leroy

Symes

(2001). Teachers’ perspectives on the family backgrounds of children at-risk. McGill Journal of Education, 36(1), 45–60. https://mje.mcgill.ca/article/view/8553

57.

Liem

A. D.

Lau

Nie

(2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 486–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.08.001

58.

Liu

Bullock

Coplan

R. J.

(2014). Predictive relations between peer victimization and academic achievement in Chinese children. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000044

59.

Low

K. D.

Yoon

Roberts

B. W.

Rounds

(2005). The stability of vocational interests from early adolescence to middle adulthood: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.713

60.

Lynch

Cicchetti

(1997). Children’s relationships with adults and peers: An examination of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(96)00031-3

61.

Liu

(2022). The association between teacher–student relationship and academic achievement: The moderating effect of parental involvement. Psychology in the Schools, 59(2), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22608

62.

Luo

Xiao

(2021). Perceived teacher support, self-concept, enjoyment and achievement in reading: A multilevel mediation model based on PISA 2018. Learning and Individual Differences, 85, 101947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101947

63.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Erlbaum.

64.

Marsh

H. W.

Martin

A. J.

(2011). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Relations and causal ordering. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X503501

65.

Marsh

H. W.

Trautwein

Lüdtke

Köller

Baumert

(2005). Academic self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development, 76(2), 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00853.x

66.

Martin

A. J.

Collie

R. J.

(2016). The role of student–teacher relationships in unlocking students’ academic potential: Exploring motivation, engagement, resilience, adaptability, goals, and instruction. In Wentzel

K. R.

Ramani

G. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of social influences in school contexts: Social-emotional, motivation, and cognitive outcomes (pp. 158–176). Routledge.

67.

Martin

A. J.

Dowson

(2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 327–365. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325583

68.

McFarland

Murray

Phillipson

(2016). Student–teacher relationships and student self-concept: Relations with teacher and student gender. Australian Journal of Education, 60(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944115626426

69.

McGrath

K. F.

Van Bergen

(2015). Who, when, why and to what end? Students at risk of negative student–teacher relationships and their outcomes. Educational Research Review, 14, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.12.001

70.

McKinney

Renk

(2008). Differential parenting between mothers and fathers: Implications for late adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 29(6), 806–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07311222

71.

Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (2017). 2016 Statistical Report on Social Service Development. http://www.mca.gov.cn/article/sj/tjgb/201708/20170815005382.shtml

72.

Miočević

O’Rourke

H. P.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Brown

H. C.

(2018). Statistical properties of four effect-size measures for mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0870-1

73.

Moore

K. A.

Evans

V. J.

Brooks-Gunn

Roth

(2001). What are good child outcomes? In A. Thornton(Ed.), The well-being of children and families: Research and data needs (pp. 59–84). University of Michigan Press.

74.

Morin

A. J. S.

Marsh

H. W.

Nagengast

Scalas

L. F.

(2014). Doubly latent multilevel analyses of classroom climate: An illustration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(2), 143–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2013.769412

75.

Murray

Zvoch

(2011). Teacher–student relationships among behaviorally at-risk African American youth from low-income backgrounds: Student perceptions, teacher perceptions, and socioemotional adjustment correlates. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 19(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426609353607

76.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2016). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed). Muthén & Muthén.

77.

OECD (2013). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do: Student performance in mathematics, reading and science (volume I). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19963777

78.

Pintrich

P. R.

(2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x

79.

Pleck

J. H.

(2012). Integrating father involvement in parenting research. Parenting, 12(2–3), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.683365

80.

Quach

A. S.

Epstein

N. B.

Riley

P. J.

Falconier

M. K.

Fang

(2015). Effects of parental warmth and academic pressure on anxiety and depression symptoms in Chinese adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(1), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9818-y

81.

Reijntjes

Kamphuis

J. H.

Prinzie

Telch

M. J.

(2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(4), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009

82.

Roeser

R. W.

Eccles

J. S.

Sameroff

A. J.

(2000). School as a context of early adolescents’ academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 443–471. https://doi.org/10.1086/499650

83.

Roorda

D. L.

Jak

Zee

Oort

F. J.

Koomen

H. M. Y.

(2017). Affective teacher–student relationships and students’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review, 46(3), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3

84.

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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793

85.

Rubin

K. H.

Bukowski

W. M.

Parker

J. G

. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In Damon

(Series Ed.), & Eisenberg

, Handbook of child psychology (5th ed.) (pp. 619–700). Wiley.

86.

Ryan

A. M.

Shin

(2018). Peers, teachers, and academics. In Bukowski

Laursen

Rubin

(Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (2nd ed, pp. 637–656). Guilford.

87.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

88.

Satorra

Bentler

P. M.

(2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y

89.

Schafer

J. L.

Graham

J. W.

(2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147

90.

Schunk

D. H.

Pajares

(2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

(Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 16–31). Academic Press.

91.

Shang

X. Y.

(2012). 2011 Chinese Children’s Policy Welfare Report. http://www.bnul.org/uploads/soft/1_110531163254.pdf.

92.

Steinberg

Morris

A. S.

(2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.83

93.

Stevenson

H. W.

Lee

Chen

Stigler

J. W.

Hsu

Kitamura

(1990). Contexts of achievement: A Study of American, Chinese, and Japanese Children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 55(1/2), i–119. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166090

94.

Tambunan

Sinaga

Widada

(2021). Analysis of teacher performance to build student interest and motivation towards mathematics achievement. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(1), 42–47. http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v10i1.20711.

95.

Tarrant

MacKenzie

Hewitt

L. A.

(2006). Friendship group identification, multidimensional self-concept, and experience of developmental tasks in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 29(4), 627–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.012

96.

Van Damme

De Fraine

Van Landeghem

Opdenakker

M. C.

Onghena

(2002). A new study on educational effectiveness in secondary schools in flanders: An introduction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(4), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.13.4.383.10285

97.

Wentzel

K. R.

(1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.411

98.

Wentzel

K. R.

(1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.202

99.

Wentzel

K. R.

(1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.76

100.

Wentzel

K. R.

(2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00406

101.

Wentzel

K. R.

(2009). Peers and academic functioning at school. In Rubin

K. H.

Bukowski

W. M.

Laursen

(Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 531–547). The Guilford Press.

102.

Wentzel

K. R.

(2016). Teacher–student relationships. In Wentzel

Miele

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 211–230). Erlbaum.

103.

Wentzel

K. R.

(2017). Peer relationships, motivation, and academic performance at school. In Elliot

A. J.

Dweck

C. S.

Yeager

D. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (pp. 586–603). The Guilford Press.

104.

Wentzel

K. R.

Barry

C. M.

Caldwell

K. A.

(2004). Friendships in middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.195

105.

Wentzel

K. R.

Caldwell

(1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68(6), 1198–1209. https://doi.org/10.2307/1132301

106.

Wentzel

K. R.

Jablansky

Scalise

N. R.

(2021). Peer social acceptance and academic achievement: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(1), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000468

107.

Wentzel

K. R.

Ramani

G. B.

(eds.). (2016). Handbook of social influences in school contexts: Social-emotional, motivation, and cognitive outcomes. Routledge.

108.

Wigfield

Cambria

(2010). Expectancy-value theory: Retrospective and prospective. In Urdan

T. C.

Karabenick

S. A.

(Eds.), The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (pp. 35–70). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016A005

109.

Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

(2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

110.

Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

Fredricks

J. A.

Simpkins

Roeser

Schiefele

. (2015). Development of achievement motivation and engagement. In Lerner

R. M.

(Series Ed.) & Lamb

, Handbook of child psychology and developmental science. Volume 3: Socioemotional processes (7th ed., pp. 657–700). John Wiley.

111.

Wigfield

Tonks

Klauda

S. L.

(2016). Expectancy–value theory. In Wentzel

K. R.

Miele

D. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 55–74). Routledge.

112.

Wubbels

Brekelmans

Mainhard

(2016). Teacher–student relationships and student achievement. In Wentzel

K. R.

Ramani

G. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of social influences in school contexts: Social-emotional, motivation, and cognitive outcomes (pp. 137–152). Routledge.

113.

Yang

Bear

G. G.

Chen

F. F.

Zhang

Blank

J. C.

Huang

(2013). Students’ perceptions of school climate in the US and China. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000002

114.

Law

W. W.

(2019). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of teacher morality in China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86(2019), 102876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102876

115.

Youngblade

L. M.

Belsky

(1995). From family to friend: Predicting positive dyadic interaction with a close friend at 5 years of age from early parent–child relations. In Shulman

(Ed.), Human development, vol. 7. Close relationships and socioemotional development (pp. 35–61). Ablex Publishing.

116.

Singh

(2018). Teacher support, instructional practices, student motivation, and mathematics achievement in high school. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1204260

117.

Zee

Koomen

H. M. Y.

Veen

I. V. D.

(2013). Student–teacher relationship quality and academic adjustment in upper elementary school: The role of student personality. Journal of School Psychology, 51(4), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.05.003

118.

Zhou

Lam

S. F.

Chan

K. C.

(2012). The Chinese classroom paradox: A cross-cultural comparison of teacher controlling behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1162. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027609

Distinct roles of perceived teacher and peer relationships in adolescent students’ academic motivation and outcomes: Father absence as a moderator

Abstract

Keywords

Literature review

Perceived social relationships and students’ academic functioning

Self-concept and interest as important motivational mediators

Father absence as a potential moderator

Present study

Method

Participants and procedure

Measures

Perceived peer relationships

Perceived teacher relationships

Academic interest

Academic self-concept

Well-being at school

Academic achievement

Overview of data analysis

Results

Descriptive statistics

Structural equation modeling

Multiple-group comparisons

Discussion

Relative importance of perceived teacher and peer relationships in adolescent students’ academic functioning

Self-concept and interest as important motivational links between perceived social relationships and educational outcomes

Significant moderating role of father absence

Practical implications

Limitations and future directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Notes

Appendix: Items of Scales Used in the Present Study

References