Development of the Teacher Control and Nurturance Scale: Assessing student perception of the underlying dimensions of teaching style.

Abstract

The results of 3 studies (n1 = 498, n2 = 774, n3 = 299) are reported focusing on the development and validation of a brief, psychometrically sound measure of students’ perceptions of 2 dimensions that may underlie differences in teaching. This approach resulted from applying parenting style and interpersonal theories to a teaching context, specifically these theories’ emphasis on control and nurturance as dimensions that capture a wide range of behavior. Across exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, the Teacher Control and Nurturance Scale (TCANS) items demonstrated a 2-factor structure corresponding to teacher control and nurturance. In addition to good internal consistency, the control and nurturance scales demonstrated initial concurrent and convergent validity. TCANS scores differed as predicted across the stylistic categories students selected as descriptive of their teachers, and TCANS scores from students within the same course corresponded to that teacher’s self-reported levels of control and nurturance. Control and nurturance were related to students’ perceptions of other teacher qualities and self-reported learning but not to objective measures of learning. The TCANS potential utility as an instrument in future research attempting to extend the parenting style construct to the classroom is discussed.

Teaching styles and troublesome students.

“…These teachers expect high achievement and reward it with good grades, but they don't nurture it through Note. A scale to assess the control and nurturance dimensions that appear to underlie these styles Has been developed and tested (Rogers et al, 2017).…”

“…In my own case, whatever writing abilities I have are rooted in the hyper-authoritarian English class exercises and demanding homework inflicted upon me in grade school by my all-time favorite teacher, Miss Inez M. Purcell. Many other students say that they prefer, feel more empowered by, and learn more from authoritative teachers, but those self-reports are not necessarily reflected in their test performance or course grades (Bassett et al, 2013; Cakir, 2015; Rogers et al, 2017). However, when it comes to discouraging unreasonable demands from chronically troublesome students—thereby freeing more time for the fun parts of teaching—my 40-plus years of teaching psychology have convinced me that an authoritative style is by far the best option.…”

“…That’s because we have control over our teaching style , the way we organize and teach our courses and the way we deal with our students. As few as 3 and as many as 13 teaching styles have been described in classification systems based on cognitive or educational theories, instructional designs, pedagogical methods, student–teacher role expectations, and other dimensions (Barrett et al, 2007; Behar-Horenstein et al, 2006; Collins & Pratt, 2011; Conti, 1990; Grasha, 1994; Kember, 1997; Leung et al, 2003; Mohanna et al, 2008; Mosston & Ashworth, 1986; Paquay et al, 2007; Persaud, 2019; Reinsmith, 1992; Trigwell & Prosser, 2004; Zhang, 2004), but I would like to highlight a system based on differences in the teacher–student relationship that parallel those between parents and children (Barnas, 2000; Bassett et al, 2013; Bernstein, 2013; Rogers et al, 2017). This system crosses two levels of teacher involvement/support with two levels of discipline/demand, yielding four teaching styles that echo Baumrind’s parenting styles (see Figure 2).…”

“…Here Just a Few of the Research Questions That Need to Be Answered About the Parenting-Oriented Teaching Style System Described Here, as Well as About the Control and Nurturance Dimensions That Are Hypothesized to Underlie It (Rogers et al, 2017) 1. How accurately do the four proposed teaching style categories map onto observable patterns of teaching behavior?…”

“… Note . A scale to assess the control and nurturance dimensions that appear to underlie these styles Has been developed and tested (Rogers et al, 2017). …”