International Journal of Educational Investigations 2015 (November), Vol.2, No.

11: 1-17
Available online @ [Link] ISSN: 2410-3446

Student Engagement: Associations with Teachers and Peers as Motivators

Marilou B. Francisco1 , Richard DLC Gonzales 2 *, Marie Ann S. Vargas 2
1. Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines
2. University of Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines
*Corresponding Author’s Email: r-gonzales@[Link]

Abstract – The construct on student engagement is increasingly prevalent in the field of

education serving as the foundation of dropout prevention and high school reform initiatives.
The purpose of the study is to examine the predictive relationships between relationships
motivation and student engagement by The Student Engagement Instrument (SEI),
Relationships Motivation Scale (REMO), and the Student’s Information Sheet were
administered to a sample of 1,014 high school students from selected private and public
schools in Metro Manila. Six subscales of student engagement were considered: control and
relevance of schoolwork, future aspirations and goals, and extrinsic motivation are considered
cognitive engagement. Affective engagement included teacher-student relationships, family
support for learning, and peer support for learning. Teachers, peers as motivators, and
individual learning behavior were included in the subscales for Relationships Motivation
Scale. Results generally indicated that there are significant relationships between the different
factors of student engagement and relationship motivation. Subscales of the REMO
significantly predicted cognitive and affective engagement after controlling for demographic
variables. Based on the results, a proposed student engagement program is developed to
promote higher levels of engagement in school.
Keywords: student engagement, Student Engagement Instrument, relationship motivation,
Relationship Motivation Scale (REMO)

I. INTRODUCTION
Educational psychology broadens its interest in the area of student engagement through
the years. The concept of student engagement appears to resonate with educators who report that
many students seem to be disinterested and uninvolved (Appleton, Christenson, Furlong, 2008).
The construct has primarily has emerged in understanding school dropout and interventions had
been addressed to prevent this type of school problem (Reschly & Christenson, 2006). The
construct on engagement is important to promote school success and the necessary social skills
needed in the world of work (Appleton, et al, 2008; Finn, 1989). Survey of literature on
engagement presents multiple student engagement subtypes. These measurement and subtypes
remains the subject of debates, measurement (Fredricks, 2011). Behavioral, emotional, and
cognitive dimensions of engagement are common variables in engagement research and have
been found to relate to numerous desirable academic and behavioral outcomes (Fredricks,
Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004).; Marks, 2000; Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, & Hurley, 1998). In
addition, theoretical work and intervention results suggest the importance of cognitive and

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:[Link]
[Link]
 Francisco et al.

affective/psychological subtypes of engagement (Finn, 1989; Sinclair, Christenson, & Thurlow,

2005) and their influence on important educational outcomes (Connell &Wellborn, 1991).
In the Philippines, a study conducted on children funded by the UNICEF in 2004,
presents reasons why some children are not in school (Orbeta, 2005). The primary reason for not
being in school among high school students is lack of personal interest. It is interesting to note
that this reason of lack of personal interest starts early among those with some elementary
education and is considerably lower among those with some high school education (O rbeta,
2005). Engaging students in school is one of the challenges faced by educators especially those
who teach secondary school students.
In adolescence, peer relations become increasingly important. The role of peers as a
source of emotional and instrumental support becomes even more important than it was in the
childhood. Peers also become an important factor in organizing spare time and act as a factor of
sexual satisfaction and identity formation (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003). This is a critical
period for students’ Learning beliefs and behaviors such as self-regulation, autonomy, identity
exploration which lead to academic interests, self-regulative learning and commitment to
education. But for many adolescents this is also a period of doubts in their abilities to succeed in
academic activities, questioning the value and meaning of schoolwork and consequently the
decline of academic effort. The social environment in the classroom that includes perceived
teacher, as well as perceived peer support, is therefore crucial for this period (Ryan & Patrick,
2001).
Studies examining the role of teachers in students’ academic achievement originate
mainly from the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002), which stresses the need for
relatedness as one of the basic psychological needs. According to this theory, teachers’
involvement is crucial for the satisfying the need for related ness. This refers to the quality of
interpersonal relations with students and is manifested through teachers having time for students,
expressing positive feelings towards them, being flexible to their needs, etc. Teacher’s
involvement seems to be the strongest predictor of students’ academic motivation, among all of
the other presumably important dimensions of teachers’ behavior. The students of highly
involved teachers perceive their teachers not only as involved, but also giving more structure and
support to student’s autonomy, independently of the teacher’s actual behavior on these two
dimensions (Furrer & Skinner, 2003).
Wentzel and Caldwell (1997) conducted a longitudinal study of the relation between
students’ friendships and their academic achievement. The results of this study showed that the
relation between having a friend and academic outcomes held stable in the period of two years.
In another longitudinal study (Wentzel, Barry, & Caldwell, 2004) investigated the influence of
friendships on motivation and school adjustment of early adolescents. Students without
reciprocal friendships were less pro social, had lower academic outcomes and reported more
emotional distress compared to their peers with reciprocal friendships.
In many schools, there are deep concerns and with increasing rates of school motivation,
achievement, and engagement (Ladd, Herald-Brown, & Kochel, 2009). This paper is an
additional means to understand some existing relationships between relationship motivation and

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:[Link]
[Link]
 Francisco et al.

engagement. The current interest in motivation and relationship in school is examined (Goleman,
Boyatzis, & McKee, 2004). Tagged as the second home for adolescents, the school is a venue
educational goals are met and social relationships are strengthened. Essentially, peers and
teachers serve as motivational agents (Wentzel, Battle, Russell, & Looney, 2010) in academics
and psychological development (Flanagan, Erath, & Bierman, 2008; Raufelder & Mohr, 2011).
Important social contexts-peer and teachers are examined, roles as motivators of students in the
engagement process.
The stage of late childhood and adolescence, peer relations become increasingly
important. During the childhood, peer groups enlarge and become less supervised by adults
(Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003). In early adolescence, the role of peers as a source of
emotional and instrumental support becomes even more important than it was in the childhood.
Also, early adolescence is an especially critical period for students’ learning beliefs and
behaviors (Eccles & Midgley, 1990). For some early adolescents, the increase in autonomy and
identity exploration leads to new academic interests, an increasing self-regulative learning and
commitment to education (Goodenow, 1993). But for many adolescents this is also a period of
doubts in their abilities to succeed in academic activities, questioning the value and meaning of
schoolwork and consequently the decline of academic effort. The social environment in the
classroom that includes perceived teacher, as well as perceived peer support, is therefore crucial
for this period. Thus, early adolescence represents an especially sensitive period. For many
adolescents, this is a period of decrease in their academic achievement (Ryan & Patrick, 2001)
This study aims to address the gap in literature that examines how students differentially
rely on teachers and/or peers as sources of motivation and engagement. In addition to resources
in schools such as teachers and peers, research also included that school counselors have
important roles to play in helping students by establishing and sustaining effective programs for
students who may show some signs of disengagement.
There is an increasing need for school counselors to be more involved in organizing,
sustaining partnerships with other members of the academic team in order to foster academic
success (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). This is a challenge that calls for new directions among
counselors, teachers, and school administrators (Dahir, Burnham, & Stone, (2009).

II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

A. Engagement
The theory of student engagement posits that engagement is a multidimensional construct
that requires an understanding of affective states that promotes psychological connections in
school. It includes effort and other types of prosocial behavior that are manifested by learners
(Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Newman, Wehlage, & Lamborn; Carter, Reschly,
Lovelace, Appleton, Thompson, 2012).
The multidimensionality of engagement is conceptualized as four subtypes: academic,
behavioral, cognitive, and affective. Academic engagement is manifested in various indicators
such as time on task, amount of homework completed with accuracy, and course grades,

Electronic copy available at: [Link]

 Francisco et al.

especially the number of failing grades. Behavioral engagement is reflected such indicators as
attendance, effort and active participation in class, involvement is extracurricular activities, and
behavioral incidents such as office referrals, detentions and suspensions.
Because engagement is multidimensional, adopting an engagement orientation integrates
and harnesses students’ thoughts (cognitions), feelings, and behaviors toward achieving positive
learning outcomes and/or improving one’s academic competencies. It is not sufficient to focus
only on completion of learning activities. Student feelings, interests, and attitudes, as well as
self-perceived competence on the task or the use of strategy for doing one’s best, are part of this
identity.
B. Developmental Contextualism
Lerner (1991) posits that there is a dynamic interaction between relationship motivation
and the developing adolescent in his or her school context. This theory provides a rationale for
understanding diverse perspectives in school motivation and relationships. This framework
implies that the teacher–student relationship underscores the interconnectedness and
interdependent processes that are manifested in schools.
The impact of teachers on academic performance and engagement in school has been the
subject of studies in many schools. Additionally, teachers act as role models for students and
provide necessary interaction to students (Raufelder, Drury, Jagenow, Hoferichter, & Bukowski,
2013) and communicate with students in order to help them develop a sense of identity Jennings,
Greenberg, 2009).

C. Motivation
The Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002) posits that multiple aspects of
interpersonal relationships in school and environmental experiences assist young people to be
interested and positive about their feelings toward school (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Roeser,
Midgley, & Urdan, 1996; Wentzel, 1999). In the current study, the focus was on how these
environment factors can promote adolescents’ engagement in schools. Ryan and Deci (2000,
2002) suggest that engagement can be achieved if motivation and individual needs are defined.
In conclusion, a large body of research provides strong evidence for the roles of peers and
teachers in students' motivation. However, based on the survey of literature, no research has
emphasized on the relationships of teachers as motivators and peers as motivators in student
engagement. The question emerges as to whether these two contextual factors relate to
engagement and predict students’ engagement in schools. The complexities of the teacher–
student relationship and the student–student relationship will be examined in the study which
will be conducted in secondary schools. Another method to be utilized in the research to find out
students' expectations about teachers and peers, as motivators will be identified. Whereas for
some students positive feelings towards a teacher are essential to their motivation, other students’
motivation was not contingent on positive feelings towards their teachers; rather, they
appreciated the professional abilities of a teacher, such as a clear teaching style or a logical way
of explaining a subject matter.

Electronic copy available at: [Link]

 Francisco et al.

D. Research Questions
This study examines the relationships of engagement in schools and underlying
contextual factors in learning with emphasis on teachers and peers as motivators in the
engagement process. It also underscores the roles of peers and teachers as motivators on the
respondents’ self-report of engagement.
Likewise, these two social contextual variables will be examined on how these predict
student engagement.
Specifically, the following problems are addressed:
1a: What is the engagement scores of the respondents as measured by the Student
Engagement Instrument (SEI)?
1b: What is the relationship motivation scores as measured by the Relationship
Motivation Inventory (REMO)?
2a: Are there significant relationship between the demographic profiles and engagement?
2b: Are there significant relationships between relationship motivation and student
engagement?
3a: What type of relationship motivation predict/s engagement.

Figure 1. Hypothesized Relationships between Relationship Motivation and Student Engagement

Hypothesis 1:
There are no significant relationships between the demographic profiles and student engagement.

Hypothesis 2:
There is no significant relationship between relationship motivation and student engagement.

Hypothesis 3:
Relationship motivation do/es not predict student engagement.

Electronic copy available at: [Link]

 Francisco et al.

III. METHODOLOGY
A. Participants
One thousand fourteen (1,014) second year and third year high school students aged 13-
16 were selected to participate in the study using convenience sampling. All student-respondents
are enrolled in the current school year 2013-2014. Data was gathered during the months of July-
September 2013.

B. Instruments
The instruments of this study were:
1. The Student Engagement Instrument (SEI). Appleton & Christenson, (2004),
developed the Student Engagement Instrument, designed to measure 6 key dimensions of
engagement identified in the research literature. It was designed to measure the less overt
subtypes of student engagement: cognitive and affective. There are six (6) subtypes of student
engagement that are included in this study: Control and Relevance of Schoolwork, Peer Support
for Learning, Teacher–Student Relationships, Future Aspirations and Goals, Family Support for
Learning, and Extrinsic Motivation. The full version of the SEI has 36 items intended to measure
student levels of cognitive engagement and 26 items intended to examine affective engagement
from the perspective of the student. All items were scored via a five- point Likert-type rating
(1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4= agree and 5 strongly agree).
All items were coded (and reversed items were recoded) so that higher scores indicated higher
levels of engagement. In the sample, reliability of items comprising each factor ranged from α =.
77 to α. = 92.
2. Relationship and Motivation Scale (REMO). The REMO scale is primarily
developed to measure the motivation and social relationships in school. There are two main
scales of the REMO. The Teachers REMO also known as the T-REMO, which consists of two
underlying subscales: Teachers as Positive Motivators (TPM) with 6 items (α=.78).
The second main subscale of the REMO is the Peer REMO also known as the P-REMO,
which consists of 1) Peers as Positive Motivators (PPM) with 9 items (α=.80), (Responses are
scored on a 4-point Likert-scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
The consent to translate the Relationship and Motivation Scale (REMO) was obtained
from the author of the instrument. Two Filipino professors were asked to translate the items. The
Filipino version of the REMO was translated using the forward and back translation methods
(Fischer & Smith, 2006). Two Language professors back translated the Filipino translated
version. Then, Psychology researchers checked, analyzed and compared the two versions
(original and back translation) to ensure accuracy in meaning and concept.

Electronic copy available at: [Link]

 Francisco et al.

C. Data Analysis
Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics to summarize and establish profiles of
participants on the different variables of interest in the study. In addition, tabular presentation of
data was also used to enhance the presentation of the results on the different variables of study.
Concretely, the frequency count was employed to describe the profile of the participants in terms
of age, grade level, type of school grade point average, scholarship status, and socio economic
status. Mean and standard deviation were used to summarize the scores of participants in the
factors of engagement, and subscales of the relationship motivators.
Correlation was computed in order to determine if there are significant relationships
between factors of engagement and relationship motivation. Further analysis was done by
determining the amount of variance in the participants’ engagement accounted for by the factors
of relationship motivation using hierarchical regression.
Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the contributions of the
demographic variables and relationship motivation on student engagement. Examination of
teachers and peers as positive motivators was conducted to find out if it contributes to the
variance of student engagement. In step 1, demographic variables were entered as control
variables. In Step 2 peers as positive motivators was entered in the equation. In Step 3 teachers
as positive motivators was added.
Data gathered in the study was analyzed using the software Statistical Package for Social
Sciences Version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., released 2009).

IV. RESULTS
Table 1 presents the distribution of 1014 respondents. It shows the demographic profile
of the 1014 students, specifically their sex, age, school, grade point average, and family income.
Respondents were 535 female (52.8 %) and 479 male (47.2 %). In terms of age, most of the
respondents were 14 years old, 458 (45.2 %) and least 22 (2.2%) of them were in the age range
of 16 or higher. In terms of school, 611 (60.3%) of the respondents are in private and 403
(39.7%) are studying in public schools. There are 375 respondents whose grade point average is
between 86-90 (37%) and only 2 has 75 GPA (0.2%). Family income distribution: 21-30K
monthly income (f=357, 35.2%) and the least were 178 (17.6%) with a family income of 31-
40K.
Table 1 shows the mean and the standard deviation scores of the respondents for the
Student Engagement Instrument (SEI). Three factors compose the cognitive subtype of
engagement: control and relevance of schoolwork, future aspiration and goals, and extrinsic
motivation. Affective subtype of engagement includes teacher-student relationship, family
support for learning, and peer support for learning.

Electronic copy available at: [Link]

 Francisco et al.

Table 1. Demographic Profile of Respondents

PROFILE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

14 458 45.20
13 363 35.80
Age 15 171 16.90
16 or higher 22 2.20
Total 1014 100

Female 535 52.80

Sex Male 479 47.20
Total 1014 100

Private 611 60.30

School Public 403 39.70
Total 1014 100

86-90 375 37.00

81-85 349 34.40
91-95 185 18.20
GPA 76-80 99 9.80
98 or higher 4 0.40
75 2 0.20
Total 1014 100

21,000-30,000 357 35.20

Less than 20,000 290 28.60
Income of parents 41,000 or higher 189 18.60
31,000-40,000 178 17.60
Total 1014 100

Based on the weighted means (WM) of the responses, in general, the current sample
reports that they neither agree nor disagree that they have sense of control and relevance of
schoolwork (WM=2.95), agree that they have future goals and aspirations (WM=3.79), neither
agree nor disagree that they are extrinsically motivated (WM=2.90), neither agree nor disagree
that they have good teacher student relationship (WM=3.44), agree that they have family support
for learning (WM=4.50), and agree that they have peer support for learning (WM=4.18).

Electronic copy available at: [Link]

 Francisco et al.

Table 2. Student Engagement Scores

Factors Mean Std. Deviation
Control and relevance of schoolwork 36.70 6.12
Future aspiration and goals 22.70 4.00
Extrinsic motivation 8.02 2.12
Teacher-student relationship 38.12 6.43
Family support for learning 16.63 3.22
Peer support for learning 22.94 4.02

Table shows the mean and standard deviation scores for the level of motivators. Five
subscales of the Relationship Motivation (REMO) scale: peers as positive motivators (M=17.37,
SD=4.46), individual learning behaviors (M=16.85, SD=3.19) teachers as positive motivators
(M=9.78, SD=3.11).
Based on weighted means, in general, the current sample agree that peers are positive
motivators (WM=1.93), agree that teachers are positive motivators (WM=1.63).

Table 3. Relationship Motivation Scores

Motivators Mean Std. Deviation

Peers as positive motivators 17.37 4.46
Teacher as positive motivators 9.78 3.11

Table 4. Relationships between School Engagement and Relationship Motivation

CRS FAG EM TS R FS L PS L

p- p- p- p-
r value r value r value r value r p-value r p-value
-0.237** 0.00 -0.131** 0.00 0.02 0.45 -0.165** 0.00 .145** 0.00 - 0.00
PPM
.227**
-0.306** 0.00 -0.209** 0.00 -0.097** 0.00 -.242** 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00
TPM
.185** .227**

* 0.05 level (2-tailed)

** 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Electronic copy available at: [Link]

 Francisco et al.

There is an inverse relationship between peers as positive motivators (r=-.237, p<.01),

teachers as positive motivators (r-0.306, p<.01) with the engagement factor-control and
relevance of schoolwork. The scoring of the REMO having 4 as the lowest and 1 as the highest
in the Likert scale bring about the inverse relationship. This means that as the scores are higher,
the level of relationship motivation is lower. Furthermore, if the REMO scores are lower, the
level of motivation is higher.
The results imply that influences from peers and teachers increase, then, perceived
control and relevance of school increases. It also denotes that if there is an increasing support
from peers and teachers, students become self-regulated in attaining their goals and school
experiences become more relevant to them. Teachers can be perceived as support system in
school and this may have significant impact in the attainment of a positive aspirations and goals.
This type of relationship cognitively brings an association with development of goals and
aspirations of students. The immediate and long-term goals help student see the relevance of
schoolwork for their future endeavors. Peers on the other hand participate in influencing their
small unit in building skills that assist them in their plans for the future.
There is an inverse relationship between peers as positive motivators (r=. -0.131, p<.01),
teachers as positive motivators (r--0.209, p<.01) with the engagement factor-future aspirations
and goals. Students’ sense of aspirations and goals increases when their peers and teachers in
school motivate them. Moreover, engaged students find learning meaningful and are invested in
their learning activities to and perceive positive orientation of the future. Personal and
educational aspirations usher them to be highly energized in schoolwork when there is better
relationships with peers and mentors.
There is an inverse relationship between teachers as positive motivators (r--0.209,
p<.01), with the engagement factor-extrinsic motivation. This means that if their teachers and
peers are perceived to be extrinsically rewarding, then, the students manifest greater effort and
motivation in scholastic tasks. The contribution of the mentor is essentially important because
they can be most knowledgeable about students’ interests, strengths, needs, and educational
progress. Familiarity with the students helps the mentor suggest activities within the school that
are feasible and relevant to peer-building and students’ interests. And these experiences can be
rewarding to students. Programs in the classroom can be an instrument in building better
relationships among peers and teachers. Teachers facilitate students’ access to school-related
activities that are rewarding to the learners and tailoring students’ experiences to meet students’
needs.
There is an inverse relationship between peers as positive motivators (r=, -0.165, p<.01),
in the engagement factor-teacher-student relationship. This means that availability of quality
support from peers promote better relationship with teachers that can develop competence and
engagement in school tasks. Increasing support from the peer support system assist students
attain positive outcomes. Teachers must work hard to inform students of the importance of
associating with their peers in school. Teachers’ reinforcement of this message consistently and
regularly helps students believe in themselves as learners.

10

Electronic copy available at: [Link]

 Francisco et al.

There is an inverse relationship between teachers as positive motivators (r=, -.185,

p<.01), positive correlation between peers as positive motivators (r=.145, p<.01), in the
engagement factor-family support for learning. It means that disengagement can be prevented if
families participate with teachers and peers in school, then, sense of connection is enhanced in
school. The result underscores the importance of multiple contextual influences-home, school,
and community in preventing disengagement. Parents work with teachers to become persistent in
learning and direct their children in case distractions are present. Academic competencies are
developed when parents coordinate with school authorities in helping their children believe in
themselves as learners.
There is an inverse relationship between peers as positive motivators (r=-.227, p<.01),
teachers as positive motivators (r-.227, p<.01), positive correlation with the engagement factor-
peer support for learning. If teachers reinforce the relationships of students with their peers, then,
peer relationships become more meaningful among learners, thus, commitment to educational
goals, thus, learning can be manifested and enhanced. Engagement requires psychological
connections within the academic environment and the meaningful network among students can
fuel active student behavior.
Table shows the results of the three- step hierarchical regression for students’
engagement as predicted by relationship motivation. In terms of control and relevance of
schoolwork, step 1, neither age, sex, nor type of school predicted control and relevance of school
work (β=0.022, p>0.05; β= 0.038, p>0.05; β =0.059, p>0.05, respectively). Peers as motivators
was entered in the equation in step 2, and significantly predicted control and relevance of school
work (β=-0.238, p<0.01). An additional substantial 5.9% of the variance was explained. Peers as
motivators remained significant in step 3.
For extrinsic motivation, when age, sex, and school was entered in equation 1, sex and
type of school predicted extrinsic motivation (β=-0.141, p>0.01; β=-0.140, p>0.01). When peers
as motivators was entered in equation 2, this variable did not significantly predict extrinsic
motivation. In step 3, when teachers as motivators was entered, it significantly predicted
extrinsic motivation with an additional 5.1% of the variance explained over and above the
contribution of peers as motivators. Sex and type of school remained significant in step 3.
For the third engagement factor, extrinsic motivation, the results of the hierarchical
regression for students’ engagement shows that when age, sex, and type of school was entered in
the equation for step 1, type of school significantly predicted family support for learning
(β=0.174, p<0.01); When peers as motivators was entered in equation 2, it significantly
predicted family support for learning (β=0.146, p<0.01) and added a substantial 5.4% of the
variance explained. Type of school is no longer significant in step 2 but age became a predictor
(β=0.56, p<0.01) of family support for learning. In step 3, when teachers as motivators was
added in the equation, it significantly predicted family support for learning (β=0.127, p>0.01)
and added a substantial 6.3% of the variance explained by teachers as motivators over and above
the contribution of demographics. Peers as motivators no longer predicted family support for
learning while type of school remained as a significant predictor in step 3.

11

Electronic copy available at: [Link]

 Francisco et al.

For future aspirations and goals, when age, sex, and type of school was entered in
equation 1, age and sex significantly predicted future aspirations and goals (β=0.073, p<0.5;
β=0.073, p<0.5) with 1.1% of the variance explained. Type of school did not predict future
aspirations and goals. In step 2, when peers as motivators was added in equation 1, it
significantly predicted future aspirations and goals (β=0.133, p<0.1) and added a substantial
2.7% in the variance explained. Age and sex remained significant in step 2 while type of school
no longer predicted future aspiration and goals. In step 3, teachers as motivators was added in the
equation and it predicted future aspirations and goals (β=0.190, p<0.1) and accounted for 4.9%
in the change of the variance. Age and sex remained significant in step 3 (β=0.065, p<0.5;
(β=0.066, p<0.5).
For peer support for learning when age, sex, and type of school was entered in equation
1, type of school significantly predicted peer support for learning (β=0.098, p<0.1) with 1.1% of
the variance explained. In step 2, peers as motivators was added in the equation and it
significantly predicted peer support for learning (β=0.998, p<0.1) and accounted for 6.2% in the
change of variance. Type of school remained significant in step 2. In step 3, when teachers as
motivators was entered, it significantly predicted peer support for learning (β=0.124, p<0.1) and
accounted for a change of 7.1% in the variance explained. Type of school and peers as
motivators remain significant in step 3.
For teacher-student relationship, when the demographics-age, sex, and type of school was
entered in equation 1, age is a determinant of teacher-student relationship (β=0.070, p<0.5) and
accounted for 0.5% change in its variance. In step 2, peers as motivators was entered and was
found to be a significant determinant of teacher-student relationship. An additional substantial
3.1% of the variance was explained. Age remained a significant predictor in step 2. In step 3,
teachers as motivators was added in the equation and it predicted teacher-student relationship
(β=0.229, p<0.1) and accounted for an increase of 6.3% of the variance explained. Peers as
motivators did not significantly predict teacher-student relationship in step 3, but age remained
as a significant predictor.

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The objective in undertaking this study is to explore the relationships between the roles of
teachers and peers and engagement. Other studies have focused on school motivation behavioral
aspects of engagement (Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, Lehr, 2004) social contexts such as
parent-support and teacher-support in academic achievement and behavioral engagement (Fall
& Roberts, 2012). Additionally, a large number of research that indicates extreme importance of
relationships with adults and peers are sometimes overlooked as a point of intervention in
schools.
The results revealed that contextual factors such as teachers and peers as motivators in
scholastic achievement relate to affective and cognitive engagement of students. Positive
motivation from teachers impacts their engagement. Results from this study suggest that when
teachers affirm students and direct their efforts, sense of identification with the school is
established. Further, perceived control is manifested and relevance of schoolwork is identified.
12

Electronic copy available at: [Link]

 Francisco et al.

When teachers communicate well with students, internal mechanisms motivate students to be
affectively and cognitively engaged with school. The outcome of this effort will be on how
students manifest their behavioral engagement with the school.
Teachers act as role models in social relationship that can affect students’ well-being in
school. The amount of support provided by teachers significantly relate to the way students learn
in school (Wentzel, 2009). This dynamic process ensures that cognitive, social, and emotional
variables are learned in the interaction between teachers and students (Hodis, Meyer, McClure,
Weir, & Walkey, 2011).
The results of the study confirms previous findings and provides new evidence about
teacher support which are essentially important to children’s engagement in school in whatever
grade and ages they are in. A relationship that is perceived as secure relationship become a
resource that allows students to cope more effectively with academic and social demands. As
Little and Kobak (2003) found out that there exist a relationship between emotional security with
the teacher which can moderate stress in the classroom.
It is also evident in previous research findings that the role of teachers in students’
engagement (Deci & Ryan, 2001) further stresses the need for relatedness as one of the basic
psychological needs. Further analysis of the validation of this theory explains that teachers’
involvement is crucial for the satisfying the need for relatedness. The quality of interpersonal
relationship manifested by teachers can be the strongest predictor of students’ engagement in
school and other motivational dimensions expressed by teachers. The students of highly involved
teachers perceive their teachers not only as involved, but structures in the classroom are source
of support to student’s autonomy (Furrer & Skinner, 2003).
The results of the study further confirm how peer relations become increasingly
important than it was in childhood. Peers also become an important factor in organizing spare
time and act as a factor identity formation (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003). This is a critical
period for students’ learning beliefs and behaviors such as self-regulation, autonomy, identity
exploration which lead to academic interests, self-regulative learning and commitment to
education. But for many adolescents this is also a period of doubts in their abilities to succeed in
academic activities, questioning the value and meaning of schoolwork and consequently the
decline of academic effort. The social environment in the classroom that includes perceived
teacher, as well as perceived peer support, is therefore crucial for this period (Ryan & Patrick,
2001).
The result of the study also confirms recent studies that motivation can be enhanced by
social factors (Sheldon, Deci, & Ryan, 2004). Peers as motivators can serve as support in school
motivation and psychological adjustment to academic. It is implying that peer relationships are
important context for social engagement and scholastic motivation (Ladd et al., 2009; Wentzel et
al., 2010). Wide-ranging positive and negative effects on student engagement are related to
varying factors that explain engagement.
The results imply that influences from peers and teachers increase, then, perceived
control and relevance of school increases. It also denotes that if there is an increasing support
from peers and teachers, students become self-regulated in attaining their goals and school

13

Electronic copy available at: [Link]

 Francisco et al.

experiences become more relevant to them. Teachers’ roles extend from instruction to
involvement thereby promoting goals and aspirations of students. The immediate and long-term
goals help student see the relevance of schoolwork for their future endeavors. Peers on the other
hand participate in influencing their small unit in building skills that assist them in their plans for
the future.
The findings also suggest that students’ engagement relationship motivation can be a
starting point for many interventions that can promote school success. Peer support combined
with teacher support is more influential in the engagement process. However, demographic
variables such as age, sex, and type of school show no evidence of predicting engagement
specifically the factors attributed to it.
The current research has many limitations. The measure of peers and teachers as
motivators was limited in scope and design. Teacher support has a varying aspects, however, this
study examined one dimension only. Additional research that utilizes the varying contexts and
dimensions of peers and teachers are warranted. The relationship measure on teachers and peers
cover positive aspects of relationship. The research relied heavily on self-report measures which
may delimit responses on the attitudinal and perceptual levels. Longitudinal data can also support
the results of the study.
In conclusion, despite the limitations, the findings of the present study are significant for
both theory and practice. The study contributes to the literature by explicating the contributions
and peers and teachers on student engagement and the predictive value of one engagement
instrument. More specifically the present results highlight the idea that motivation from teachers
and peers promote future aspirations, identification with school, and perceived relevance of
schoolwork. Future studies that focus on other contexts might be beneficial and test the models
across diverse age groups.

REFERENCES
Anderson, A. R., Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2004). Check & Connect:
The importance of relationships for promoting engagement with school. Journal of
School Psychology, 42(2), 95-113.
Appleton, J. J., & Christenson, S. L. (2004). Scale description and references for the Student
Engagement Instrument. Unpublished manuscript.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school:
Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the
Schools, 45, 369-386.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and
emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of
educational research, 79(1), 491-525.
Carter, C. P., Reschly, A. L., Lovelace, M. D., Appleton, J. J., & Thompson, D. (2012).
Measuring student engagement among elementary students: Pilot of the Student
Engagement Instrument—Elementary Version. School Psychology Quarterly, 27(2), 61.

14

Electronic copy available at: [Link]

 Francisco et al.

Coakes, S. J., & Steed, L. (2009). SPSS: Analysis without anguish using SPSS version 14.0 for
Windows. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Christenson, S., & Sheridan, S. M. (Eds.). (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential
connections for learning. Guilford Press.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A
motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.),
Self-processes and development (Vol. 23). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dahir, C., Burnham, J., & Stone, C. (2009). Listen to the voices: School counselors and
comprehensive school counseling programs. Professional School Counseling, 12(3), 182-
192.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1990). Changes in academic motivation and self-perception during
early adolescence. In R. Montemayor, G. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), From
childhood to adolescence: A transitional period, 134-155.
Fall, A. M., & Roberts, G. (2012). High school dropouts: Interactions between social context,
self-perceptions, school engagement, and student dropout. Journal of adolescence, 35(4),
787-798.
Flanagan, K. S., Erath, S. A., &Bierman, K. L. (2008). Unique associations between peer
relationship and social anxiety in early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescen Psychology, 37, 75.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117– 142.
Fischer, R., & Smith, P. B. (2006). Who cares about justice? The moderating effect of values on
the link between organisational justice and work behaviour. Applied Psychology, 55(4),
541-562.
Fredricks, J. A. (2011). Engagement in school and out-of-school contexts: A multidimensional
view of engagement. Theory into practice, 50(4), 327-335.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic
engagement and performance. Journal of educational psychology, 95(1), 148.
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social
acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41(4), 235-
284.
Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale
development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30(1), 79-90.
Hodis, F. A., Meyer, L. H., McClure, J., Weir, K. F., & Walkey, F. H. (2011). A longitudinal
investigation of motivation and secondary school achievement using growth mixture
modeling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 312.
Ladd, G. W., Herald-Brown, S. L., & Kochel, K. P. (2009). Peers and motivation. In K. R.
Wentzel, & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 323–348 (1st ed.).

15

Electronic copy available at: [Link]

 Francisco et al.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Lerner, R. M. (1991). Changing organism-context relations as the basic process of development:
A developmental contextual perspective. Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 27-32.
Little, M., & Kobak, R. (2003). Emotional security with teachers and children's stress reactivity:
A comparison of special-education and regular-education classrooms. Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32(1), 127-138.
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary,
middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153– 184.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self-
and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school.
Journal of educational Psychology, 81(2), 247.
Murdock, T. B., & Miller, A. (2003). Teachers as sources of middle school students motivational
identity: Variable-centered and person-centered analytic approaches. The Elementary
School Journal, 103, 383–399. [Link]
National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering
high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC7 The National Academies
Press.
Newmann, F., Wehlage, G. and Lamborn, S. (1992) `The Significance and Sources of Student
Engagement', In F. Newman (ed.) Student Engagement and Achievement in American
Secondary Schools, pp. 11-39. New York, NY: Teacher's College Press.
Orbeta, A. (2005). Number of Children and their Education in Philippine Households.
Discussion paper series 2005-21. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Raufelder, D., Jagenow, D., Drury, K., & Hoferichter, F. (2013). Social relationships and
motivation in secondary school: Four different motivation types. Learning and
Individual Differences, 24, 89–95.
Raufelder, D., Drury, K., Jagenow D., Hoferichter , F., Bukowski, W. (2013).Development and
validation of the Relationship and Motivation (REMO) scale to assess students'
perceptions of peers and teachers as motivators in adolescence, Learning and
Individual Differences, 24,182-189.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement
by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169.
Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in
adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(2), 437-460.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory. In E. L. Deci & R.
M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.

16

Electronic copy available at: [Link]

 Francisco et al.

Reschly, A., & Christenson, S. L. (2006). School completion. In G. Bear & K. Minke (Eds.),
Children’s Needs-III: Development, Prevention, and Intervention. Washington, DC:
National Association of School Psychologists.
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological
environment and early adolescents' psychological and behavioral functioning in
school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88(3), 408.
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.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal
contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 475-486.
Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2005). Promoting school completion of
urban secondary youth with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Exceptional Children,
71(4), 465-482.
Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Evelo, D. L., & Hurley, C. M. (1998). Sustained School
Engagement. Exceptional Children, 65, 1.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of
teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581.
Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Antecedents and outcomes of self-determination in
three life domains: The role of parents' and teachers' autonomy support. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 34, 589–604.
SPSS Inc. (Released 2009). PASW Statistics for Windows, Version 18.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership:
Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child development, 68(6), 1198-
1209.
Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships:
Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of educational
psychology, 91(1), 76.
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.
Wentzel, K. R., Battle, A., Russell, S. L., & Looney, L. B. (2010). Social supports from teachers
and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 35, 193–202 [Link]

17

Electronic copy available at: [Link]