A meta-analysis of teachers’ provision of structure in the classroom and students’ academic competence beliefs, engagement, and achievement

AbstractStructure reflects a variety of practices teachers use with the intent to guide students’ behavior and increase academic success. A research synthesis was conducted on the role of classroom structure in the academic engagement, disengagement, competence beliefs, and achievement of preschool through high school students. A meta-analysis of 191 samples from 165 correlational studies revealed statistically significant correlations with achievement (.11), engagement (.28), and competence beliefs (.22), and a statistically non-significant relationship with disengagement (–.08). A meta-analysis of 71 samples from 46 structure intervention studies revealed a positive statistically significant average effect (g) on achievement (0.33), engagement (0.46), and disengagement (–0.34), but a statistically non-significant effect for competence beliefs (0.26). Consistent with a dual process model of engagement, associations were stronger for engagement than disengagement. Results related to variation suggested some universality, particularly across grade levels, and underscored the importance of emphasizing anticipatory strategies, minimizing the controlling aspects of structure, and considering the broader context, including the country context, income background of students, or whether structure is paired with other psychological supports. Methodological features also explained variation, highlighting the importance of using methods that center teachers’ and students’ experiences and align with the nature of the focal outcome. AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank Ed Emmer for his consultation and Denisse Carrasco, Rose Aristakessian, Anjali Kumar, Sherry Wei, Jennifer Sung, Eva Wang, Noor Alwadi, and Crystal Aguilera for help with coding for this project.Disclosure statementThe authors declare there is no Complete of Interest at this study.Notes1 We note that the number of correlational studies was less than reports because some reports (N = 16 overlapping reports) were reporting on the same datasets (N = 4 independent datasets across 16 reports). In cases where we had multiple reports of the same study/sample, we consolidated information from all reports as one study.Additional informationFundingThe research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A160406 to University of Southern California. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.