This study compares perceptions of classroom climate between 1,431 students and 74 teachers from Texas elementary schools to identify factors influencing student satisfaction. Results reveal that student perceptions of cohesion and difficulty positively correlate with satisfaction, while friction and competition negatively impact it; notably, there is a low correlation between teacher and student perceptions, with only teacher perceived cohesion significantly related to student satisfaction. The findings emphasize the importance of student feedback in enhancing educational environments and suggest areas for further research in classroom climate dynamics.

1. NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
VOLUME 31, NUMBER 1, 2013
A COMPARISON OF TEACHER AND
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF
ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM CLIMATE
W. Sean Kearney
Scott Peters
Texas A&M University–San Antonio
ABSTRACT
This study examines student and teacher perceptions of classroom climate in
order to identify factors that enhance or detract from student satisfaction.
Surveys are analyzed from 1,431 students and 74 teachers from 36 fourth grade
and 38 fifth grade classrooms across 14 elementary schools in Texas utilizing
the My Class Inventory-Short Form (Fraser & O’Brien, 1985; Settlage, 2011).
Hierarchical Linear Modeling analyses are employed to identify which
classroom climate factors are significantly related to student satisfaction, and to
isolate potential interaction effects between level 1 (student) and the level 2
(classroom) variables. The results of the analyses demonstrate student
perceptions of cohesion and difficulty are positively related to student
satisfaction, while friction and competition impact negatively upon student
satisfaction. There is very little correlation between teacher and student
perceptions of classroom climate, with teacher perceptions of classroom
cohesion being the only teacher level factor that is significantly related to
student satisfaction within this study. Implications are discussed.
20

2. KEARNEY & PETERS21
Introduction
L
istening to students is an essential component of learner
engagement and success (Dewey, 2009). Unfortunately, giving
students a voice in their own education is increasingly rare in
U.S. public education, particularly at the elementary level (Angus,
2006). In a counseling setting, an experienced clinician will begin by
asking their client what they want to achieve from their counseling
sessions, what their goals are, and what will make them satisfied with
the experience. Based on the client’s feedback, the counselor uses
his/her training to masterfully blend the client’s needs and desires with
proven counseling techniques to help achieve the desired results.
Similarly, successful businessmen and women must ensure they are
meeting the needs and expectations of their clients if they hope to
maintain their contracts. But should educators ask for feedback from
elementary students? What knowledge might be gleaned from asking
elementary students for feedback on classroom climate?
The authors of this study set out to give voice to elementary
students by asking for their feedback on classroom climate. Student
perceptions are then compared with teacher perceptions to better
understand the relationship between these groups. In so doing, the
authors hope to add to the extant literature on classroom climate
factors that contribute to student satisfaction at the elementary level.
In order to inform our investigation, the discussion now turns to a
review of the existing literature in this field.
Literature Review
Theoretical Basis
Student involvement in their own education, specifically
related to decision-making has a solid foundation. Piaget and
Vygotsky provide theories of child development that underscore the
value of student-centered learning (Tzou, 2007). Arguably one of the

3. 22NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
strongest proponents of respect for the child as driver of their own
learning was Maria Montessori. She felt that students learn best when
they have a level of developmentally appropriate autonomy
(Lockhorst, Wubbels, & Van Oers, 2010; Lapota, Wallace, & Finn,
2005; Montessori, 1967). The Montessori method fosters free and
open discourse in which a student has a voice where meaningful
learning can occur (Lockhorst, Wubbels, & Van Oers, 2010).
Similarly, John Dewey viewed education as a democratic exercise,
requiring student involvement in their own educational choices
(Dewey, 2009).
Another pedagogical innovator who has emphasized student
involvement in their own education is Loris Malaguzzi. His
development of the Reggio Emilia approach was founded on the idea
that the child/student is capable of being an active participant in their
own learning (Caldwell &Gandini, 1997). Malaguzzi espoused a less
hierarchical structure in the classroom, replaced instead by a
collaborative relationship between student and teacher. In the Reggio
Emilia model, each student is treated as a part of the community of
learning (Caldwell &Gandini, 1997). Many other authors have
emphasized the importance of meaningful student involvement in their
own education as curriculum designers, self-advocates, and evaluators
in the classroom (Fielding, 2001; Fletcher, 2005; Friere, 1998; Klein,
2003; Wilson & Corbett, 2001).
Importantly, there is data to support the value of soliciting
student feedback. Rathunde andCsikszentmihalyi (2005) found that
compared to traditional educational settings, schools in which student
feedback was regularly solicited reported, “higher affect, potency…
and intrinsic motivation,”than schools with lower levels of student
feedback (p.363). Additionally, Kennedy, and Datnow (2011) have
identified increased student involvement as a common trait found in
highly effective schools, and WestlingAllodi (2007) found that when
student feedback is utilized to improve classroom climate, learning
outcomes improve.

4. KEARNEY & PETERS23
Student Satisfaction
“Although (students) spend a great deal of time in their school,
there is relatively little attention (given to) school
satisfaction”(Verkuyten&Thijs, 2002, p. 203). Fortunately, there has
been some promising research conducted recently in this area. Baker,
Dilly, Aupperlee, and Patil (2003) have begun to explore how a child’s
adjustment to schooling impacts their psychological well-being – their
theory is that student who do not have a satisfactory experience in
schools receive psychological harm that can follow them into
adulthood. Griffith (2000) conducted a large- scale study of
elementary school students (N=25,577) in which he examined the
relationship between student satisfaction, student teacher relationships,
and the level of order and discipline in the classroom. In this study,
increases in student teacher relationships and classroom discipline
were correlated with higher levels of student satisfaction (Griffith,
2000).
Schooling that is connected with the local workforce appears to
enhance student satisfaction. Caton, Brewer, and Brown (2000)
facilitated a research study in which science teachers co-taught with
local scientists to provide students with an increased understanding
and hands on experience working with real scientists. Student
satisfaction surveys indicate that this model of instruction dramatically
increased the level of satisfaction students had with their own learning.
There also appears to be a link between student and teacher
satisfaction. In a study of over 17,000 students in Finland, Ervasti et
al. (2012) found that when students are more satisfied with their
schooling, teacher sickness and absence rate declines, but in
classrooms where students report higher levels of dissatisfaction with
their schooling, their teachers utilize more sick days. Thus, a number
of studies have identified student satisfaction as a crucial outcome
variable useful in measuring the success of various classroom
initiatives. Nevertheless, student satisfaction remains an understudied
classroom climate variable, and many authors have called for more

5. 24NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
research in this area (McMahon, Wernsman, & Rose, 2010;
Verkuyten&Thijs, 2002).
Classroom Cohesion and Friction
There appears to be a relationship between classroom cohesion
and classroom discipline. In a study of 291 elementary and secondary
teachers, Riley (2009) found that teachers who had implemented
effective classroom management strategies were more likely to have
positive relationships (cohesion) with their students. Similarly, a study
conducted by McMahon, Wernsman, and Rose (2010) of 149 fourth
and fifth-graders found those students who felt more connected with
their teachers and classmates had higher levels of satisfaction than
their less connected peers.
Perhaps not surprisingly, there appears to be an inverse
relationship between classroom friction and student satisfaction. An
interesting German experiment was conducted in which saliva samples
were taken from students daily in order to measure changes in cortisol
(stress) levels. Additionally, students were asked to report on their
satisfaction with peer and teacher relationships. The results
demonstrated that the more friction existed in the classroom, the
greater the level of stress the students experienced (Ahnert, HarwardtHeinecke, Kappler, Eckstein-Madry, &Milatz, 2012). Similarly, a
Dutch study involving 1,090 students between ages 10 and 12 found
that when students identified a negative classroom climate (i.e.,
conflict with peers) their satisfaction with schooling diminished
(Verkuyten&Thijs, 2002).
Classroom Competition
Another factor to consider is the extent to which classroom
competition impacts students’ learning environments. A study by
Loukas, Suzuki, and Horton (2008) of 489 elementary and middle
school students found that classroom competition was negatively
correlated with school satisfaction. Similarly, Majeed, Fraser, and

6. KEARNEY & PETERS25
Aldridge (2002) conducted a study of 1,565 secondary students in
India in which they identified competition as a factor that adversely
impacts student satisfaction. This dissatisfaction with competition
appears to be even more pronounced at the elementary level. Ellison,
Boykin, Tyler, andDillihunt (2005) conducted a study of elementary
students in low socioeconomic areas in order to assess their
preferences for learning. Results indicated these students preferred
collaborative learning over competitive learning. Interestingly, the
African American students in this group had a significantly higher
preference for collaborative learning than their Anglo peers.
Classroom Rigor
A final dynamic considered in the present study is classroom
rigor. Wolf, Crosson, andResnick (2005) describe academic rigor as,
“emphasiz(ing) students’ opportunities for high-level thinking and
active use of knowledge” (p. 30). A study conducted by Overbaugh
and Nickel (2011) involved 262 college students in a hybrid course.
These authors utilized a pre-test post-test design to measure student
competency and satisfaction. Their findings indicated that a
challenging curriculum, whether on-line or face-to-face, increases
students’ overall satisfaction with the course. This also appears to be
true for elementary and secondary level students. Griffith (2000)
conducted a study of more than 25,000 elementary and middle school
students in which he found that the more challenging the level of work
students received from their teachers, the more students enjoyed the
class.
Method
Participants
For the purpose of this study, a survey design was utilized in
order to examine the relationship between teacher and student
perceptions of classroom climate. The authors surveyed a total of

7. 26NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
1,431 students from 74 elementary classrooms (36 4th grade
classrooms and 38 5th grade classrooms) utilizing the My Class
Inventory – Short Form (Student Version) (Settlage, 2011; Sink &
Spencer, 2005). Additionally, 74 teachers from the same classrooms
completed the My Class Inventory – Short Form (Teacher Version)
(Fraser & O’Brien, 1985).
Instrumentation
The My Class Inventory – Short Form (MCI-SF) was selected
because it is available both in a student and teacher version. The MCISF has demonstrated itself to be both valid and reliable. Cronbach’s
alpha levels of reliability are strong both for the instrument as a whole
(α = .91) and for each factor within the instrument (Satisfaction, α =
.88; Friction, α = .75; Competitiveness, α = .81; Difficulty, α = .73;
and, Cohesiveness, α = .80) (Fraser, 1982; 1998; Fischer & Fraser,
1981; Fraser & Fischer, 1982a, 1982b, 1986; Fraser & O'Brien, 1985).
The My Class Inventory – Short Form contains five factors that
appear on both the student and teacher versions. These are:
satisfaction, friction, cohesion, difficulty, and competition. Students
and teachers respond to items by selecting either true, false, or neither
true nor false (Fraser, 1991; Settlage, 2011). Sample items from each
factor are provided below in order to provide the reader with a clear
understanding of the terms.
One control variable is also included in this study: class size.
This variable was selected based on previous studies that have
identified it as a useful predictor of student satisfaction and success
(De Paola, Ponzo, &Scoppa, 2013; Fan, 2012).
Data Analysis
This study examines information from both student and teacher
surveys. In order to avoid the problems of aggregation bias the authors
determined it was necessary to analyze the data using a multi-level

8. KEARNEY & PETERS27
analytic technique, specifically, Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)
(Raudenbush&Bryk, 2002). First, an estimation of an unconditional
or intercept only model was conducted to determine the existence and
degree of unexplained variance in student satisfaction between
classrooms. Second, a level-1 model estimation was completed, which
included ratings of student perceptions of classroom climate. Finally,
a full level-2 model estimation followed with teacher perceptions of
classroom climate serving as the level 2 predictor of the intercept and
the level 1 slopes.
Results
Descriptive and Correlational Data
The average class size was 19 students per class, with the
smallest class having 11 students, and the largest class having 26
students. The number of years of teaching experience ranged from 1
to 33 years. The number of years of experience on campus for teachers
ranged from 1 to 14 years. The percentage of students on campus who
qualify for free or reduced lunch ranged from 10% for the wealthiest
school in this study to 71% for the poorest school in this study (Texas
Education Agency, 2011). Before utilizing the more complex
statistical design of Hierarchical Linear Modeling, the authors were
interested in identifying whether teacher and student perceptions of
classroom climate were correlated with one another. In other words,
are teachers and students perceiving the same thing? The results were
surprising to the authors of this study. There was no significant
correlation between teacher and student perceptions of satisfaction,
competition, friction, or difficulty. The only factor in which teacher
and student responses were significantly correlated with one another
was on perceptions of classroom cohesion (β = 0.277; p = 0.017).
Variability of Student Satisfaction Between Classrooms
The one-way ANOVA with random effects model revealed

9. 28NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
that within this sample, variation exists in student satisfaction between
classrooms ( 2 = 855.55, p< .001). The intraclass correlation (ICC), or
the ratio of between-group variance to total variance, was .3441,
indicating that 34.4% of the overall variation in student satisfaction
lies between classrooms.
One Way ANOVA Model in Equation Format:
Level 1 (Student Level):
Student Satisfaction =
Level 2 (Classroom Level):
0j = 00 +u0j
0j
+ rij
Impact of Student Perceptions of Classroom Climate on Student
Satisfaction
In the random coefficient model, variables at the classroom
level were added to the level 1 equation to assess whether any of the
student perceptions of classroom climate were related to student
satisfaction. Findings demonstrate a statistically significant
relationship exists between student satisfaction and classroom friction
( 10 = -0.27, t = -10.60, p< .01), cohesion ( 20 = 0.18, t = 5.31, p< .01),
competition ( 30 = -.12, t = -4.88, p< .01), and difficulty ( 40 = 0.15, t =
3.85, p< .01).
The standard coefficients reveal the level of impact that each of
the independent variables had on the dependent variable of student
satisfaction. Results demonstrate that for each 1 point rise in student
perception of classroom friction, student satisfaction decreased by 0.27
points. The opposite was true of cohesion. For each 1-point rise in
student perception of classroom cohesion, student satisfaction rose by
0.18. Interestingly, there is a negative relationship between
competition and satisfaction, as for each 1-point rise in student
perception of classroom competition, student satisfaction declined by
0.12. However, students in this sample were not adverse to rigor, as

10. KEARNEY & PETERS29
the results indicate for each 1 point rise in student perception of
difficulty of class work, student satisfaction rose by 0.18.
Random Coefficient Model in Equation Format:
Level 1 (Student Level):
StudentSatisfaction
=
0j+
(Cohesion) + 3j (Competition) +
2j
rij(ResidualUnexplainedVariance)
Level 2 (Classroom Level):
0j = 00 + u0j
1j= 10
2j= 20
3j= 30
4j= 40
1j(Friction)
4j
+
(Difficulty) +
Impact of Teacher Perceptions of Classroom Climate on Student
Satisfaction
In the intercepts and slopes-as-outcomes model, teacher
perceptions of classroom climate were added to the level 2 equation to
measure whether teacher perceptions of classroom friction, cohesion,
difficulty, or competition were related to student satisfaction.
Findings demonstrate that a statistically significant relationship exists
between teacher perception of cohesion and student satisfaction ( 05 =
0.20, t = 2.22, p< .05). However, teacher perceptions of friction ( 02 =
0.05, t = 0.38, p =n.s.), difficulty ( 04 = 0.28, t = 1.94, p =n.s.), and
competition ( 03 = -0.10, t = -1.13, p =n.s.) did not make a significant
contribution to the variance in student satisfaction (See Table 6). The
coefficient score reveals that for each 1 point rise in teacher perception
of classroom cohesion, student satisfaction scores rose by 0.20.
Impact of Class Size on Student Satisfaction
Researchers were also interested in identifying whether class

11. 30NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
size impacted student satisfaction within this sample. Findings from
the intercepts and slopes-as-outcomes model indicate that class size
did not make a significant contribution to the variance in student
satisfaction ( 01 = -0.02, t = -1.78, p =n.s.).
Intercepts and Slopes as Outcomes Model in Equation Format:
Level 1 (Student Level):
StudentSatisfaction
=
0j+
(Cohesion) + 3j (Competition) +
2j
rij(ResidualUnexplainedVariance)
Level 2 (Classroom Level):
+
0j =
00 +
01j(Classsize)
03j(Tcompetition)+ 04j(Tdifficulty) +
u0j
1j = 10
2j = 20
3j = 30
4j = 40
1j(Friction)
4j
+
(Difficulty) +
02j(Tfriction)
+
05j(Tcohesion) +
Discussion
The statistical analyses presented above revealed some very
interesting data. Student and teacher perceptions of classroom climate
are not highly correlated with one another. The only area in which
student and teacher perceptions were significantly related to one
another was in the area of classroom cohesion. Additionally, both
teacher and student perceptions of cohesion made a significant
contribution to the variance in student satisfaction. Thus students are
more satisfied with their class when they feel they are getting along
with their classmates, and teachers are able to ascertain when this is
so. This has important implications for teachers in that when a teacher
becomes aware of a lack of class cohesion, this pejorative climate is
likely to lead to a lack of student satisfaction with the class as well.

12. KEARNEY & PETERS31
Student perception of friction was a strong negative predictor
of student satisfaction.This means that as student perception of friction
rose, their satisfaction with the class declined. It is curious to note that
teachers were not well attuned to this measure. It could be that friction
between students may not be overtly expressed in a classroom setting.
Thus when teachers do not see students actively engaged in fighting,
they may assume that there is no friction, while student perception of
friction between classmates is more nuanced.
Classroom competition was also a negative predictor of student
satisfaction. When students felt as if they were competing against their
classmates, their satisfaction with the class went down. Once again,
this was counter to the perceptions of teachers in the classroom. It
could be that teachers in this study view student competition as a
means of motivating their students, while students view direct
competition with their peers as an additional stressor which reduces
their overall satisfaction with the classroom.
While students in this study may not want to compete with one
another, they do not appear to be averse to rigorous work. An
encouraging finding within this study is that as students’ perception of
the difficulty of their class work rose, their satisfaction with the class
improved as well. Thus simplifying the curriculum in order to curry
favor would not appear to work with these students. Taken in
conjunction with the results on competition, it would appear these
students want to be challenged, but they do not want the results of
their learning to be compared directly with their fellow students in a
competitive fashion.
The random coefficient model also explored whether class size
played a role in determining the level of student satisfaction. The
authors were somewhat surprised to find that contrary to the literature
in this area (DePaola, Ponzo,&Scoppa, 2013; Fan, 2012), the students
in this study did not express higher levels of satisfaction based on class
size. This is likely due to the small degree of difference between class
sizes for the classrooms within this study. While the smallest class in

13. 32NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
this study had only 11 students, that was an outlier. The next smallest
class had 18 students, and the largest class had 26 students. Thus there
was truly only a meaningful range of 8 students’ difference per class, a
difference that was not sufficient to reveal class size as a significant
predictor of student satisfaction.
The results of this study demonstrate the importance of asking
students for their feedback on classroom climate. This is particularly
important because teacher perceptions of climate so often differed
from student perceptions. The way students get along with one another
has a lot to do with student satisfaction. This may have policy
implications for principals in regard to the role of counselors.
Counselors may be well positioned to work with students to discuss
issues that may be causing personal friction with their peers.
Additionally, counselors may be able to provide training to teachers so
that they are aware of school counseling resources. Perhaps the most
important implication of this research is that elementary teachers who
are wishing to maximize student satisfaction would be well served to
provide a rigorous and challenging curriculum without placing
students in direct competition with one another.
Limitations
The generalizability of this study’s findings are limited due to
the fact that this study examined only 74 elementary classrooms in
Texas. Additionally, differences in student demographics were not
considered. The authors are interested in conducting follow up
research in a wider array of classrooms, across multiple states and
student populations, or internationally. Additionally, it may be
important for future studies to examine a wider age group for student
participants. This study focused on the perceptions of 4th and 5th grade
students – but these may differ from perceptions of students who are
slightly older or slightly younger than those who participated in this
study. For example, it may be interesting to examine whether
increased student competition continues to inhibit student satisfaction

14. KEARNEY & PETERS33
at the secondary level, and whether these results differ by gender or
other demographic factors.
Conclusion
Allowing students a voice in their own education and
providing students with a positive classroom climate are both essential
elements of effective schooling. The lack of substantial correlation
between teacher and student perceptions of classroom climate
highlights the need to solicit feedback from students rather than
relying solely on teacher perceptions. Understanding the factors that
contribute to student satisfaction can provide teachers with the
information they need to improve student satisfaction. For the
classrooms participating in this study, student perception of friction
and competition were negatively related to student satisfaction, while
increased cohesion and class work difficulty were positively related to
student satisfaction. With this information in hand, teachers can then
blend student feedback with empirically based pedagogical techniques
to maximize student learning and success.

15. 34NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
References
Ahnert, L., Harwardt-Heinecke, E., Kappler, G., Eckstein-Madry, T.,
&Milatz, A. (2012). Student–teacher relationships and
classroom climate in first grade: How do they relate to
students’ stress regulation?Attachment & Human Development,
14(3), 249-263.
Angus, L. (2006). Educational leadership and the imperative of
including student voices, student interests, and students’ lives
in the mainstream.International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 9(4), 368–79.
Baker, J. A., Dilly, L. J., Aupperlee, J. L., &Patil, S. A. (2003). The
developmental context of school satisfaction: School as
psychologically healthy environments. School Psychology
Quarterly, 18(2),206–221.
Caldwell, L. B.,&Gandini, L. (1997).Bringing Reggio Emilia home:
An innovative approach to early childhood education.New
York: NY. Teachers College Press.
Caton, E., Brewer, C., & Brown, F. (2000). Building teacher-scientist
partnerships: Teaching about energy through inquiry. School
Science & Mathematics, 100(1), 7-15.
DePaola, M., Ponzo, M., &Scoppa, V. (2013). Class size effects on
student achievement: heterogeneity across abilities and fields.
Education Economics, 21(2), 135-153.
Dewey, J. (2009). Democracy and education: An introduction to the
philosophy of education. New York, NY: WLC Books.
Ellison, C. M., Boykin, A., Tyler, K. M., &Dillihunt, M. L.
(2005).Examining classroom learning preferences among
elementary school students.Social Behavior & Personality: An
International Journal, 33(7), 699-708.
Ervasti, J., Kivimäki, M., Puusniekka, R., Luopa, P., Pentti, J.,
Suominen, S., & Virtanen, M. (2012). Students’ school
satisfaction as predictor of teachers’ sickness absence: A
prospective cohort study. European Journal of Public Health,
22(2), 215-219.

16. KEARNEY & PETERS35
Fan, F. A. (2012). Class size: Effects on students' academic
achievements and some remedial measures. Research in
Education, 87(1), 95-98.
Fielding, M. (2001).Students as radical agents of change. Journal of
Educational Change, 23,123-131.
Fischer, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1981). Validity and use of My Class
Inventory.Science Education, 65, 145-156.
Fletcher, A. (2005). Meaningful student involvement: Guide to
students as partners in school change. Retrieved from
http://www.soundout.org/MSIGuide.pdf
Fraser, B. J. (1982). Development of short forms of several classroom
environment scales. Journal of Educational Measurement, 3,
221-227.
Fraser, B. J. (1991). Two decades of classroom environment research.
In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational
environments: Evaluation, antecedents, and consequences (pp.
3-27). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments:
Development, validity, and applications. Learning
Environments Research, 1, 7-33.
Fraser, B. J., & Fischer, D. L. (1982a). Effects of classroom
psychosocial environment on student learning.British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 52, 374-377.
Fraser, B. J., & Fischer, D. L. (1982b). Evaluation studies: Predictive
validity of My Class Inventory. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 8, 129-140.
Fraser, B. J., & Fischer, D. L. (1986). Using short forms of classroom
climate instruments to assess and improve classroom
psychosocial environment. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 23, 387-413.
Fraser, B. J., & O'Brien, P. (1985).Student and teacher perceptions of
the environment of elementary-school classrooms.Elementary
School Journal, 85, 567-580.

17. 36NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
Friere, P. 1998. Pedagogy of freedom: Hope democracy and civic
courage. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers.
Griffith, J. (2000). School climate as group evaluation and group
consensus: Student and partent perceptions of the elementary
school environment. The Elementary School Journal, 101(1),
35-62.
Kennedy, B., &Datnow, A. (2011).Student involvement and decisiondriven making developing a new typology.Youth and Society,
43(4), 1246-1271.
Klein, R. (2003). We want our say: Children as active participants in
their education. Sterling, VA: Trentham.
Lapota, C., Wallace, N. V., & Finn, K. V. (2005).Comparison of
academic achievement between Montessori and traditional
education programs.Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 20(1), 1-9.
Lockhorst, D., Wubbels, T., & Van Oers, B. (2010). Educational
dialogues and the fostering of pupils’ independence: The
practices of two teachers. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
42(1), 99-121.
McMahon, S. D., Wernsman, J., & Rose, D. S. (2010). The relation of
classroom environment and school belonging on academic
self-efficacy among urban fourth- and fifth-grade students.
Elementary School Journal, 109(3), 267-281.
Montessori, M. (1967).Discovery of the child. New York: NY.
Random House.
Montessori, M. (2011).The absorbent mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford City
Press.
Overbaugh, R. C., & Nickel, C. E. (2011).A comparison of student
satisfaction and value of academic community between
blended and online sections of a university-level educational
foundations course.The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3),
164-174.

18. KEARNEY & PETERS37
Rathunde, K., &Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005). Middle school student’s
motivation and quality of experience: A comparison of
Montessori and traditional school environments. American
Journal of Education, 111(3), 341-371.
Raudenbush, S., &Bryk, A. (2002).Hierarchical linear models:
Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Riley, P. (2009). An adult attachment perspective on the student–
teacher relationship & classroom management
difficulties.Teaching & Teacher Education, 25(5), 626-635.
Settlage, J. (2011). Teaching science to every child: Using culture as a
starting point. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sink, C. A., & Spencer, L. R. (2005). My Class Inventory-Short Form
as an accountability tool for elementary school counselors to
measure classroom climate. Professional School Counseling, 9,
37-48.
Texas Education Agency. (2011). Academic Excellence Indicator
System, AEIS 2010-2011. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis
Tzou, P. W. (2007). The tension between teacher control and
children’s freedom in a child centered classroom: Resolving
the practical dilemma through a closer look at the related
theories. Early Childhood Education Journal.
Verkuyten, M., &Thijs, J. (2002). School satisfaction of elementary
school children: The role of performance, peer relations,
ethnicity and gender. Social Indicators Research, 59,203-228.
WestlingAllodi, M. (2007). Equal opportunities in educational
systems: The case of Sweden. European Journal of Education,
42(1), 133-146.
Wilson, B.,& Corbett, H. D. (2001).Listening to urban kids: School
reform and the teachers they want.Albany Press, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A. C., &Resnick, L. B. (2005).Classroom talk
for rigorous reading comprehension discussion.Reading
Psychology, 26(1), 27-53.