Keywords

An important part of children’s social experiences takes place in the context of school. In elementary school, young children spend their time primarily in a classroom context with a relatively stable group of classmates. The size and composition of the classroom can vary considerably depending on a range of circumstances. There are variations around the world in the time and duration of children’s elementary school experiences. In the United States, for example, children begin to attend elementary school when they are 6 (grade 1) for either 5 years, after which they transition to middle school, or 6 years, after which they transition to junior high school. In the Netherlands, children are required by law to begin elementary school when they turn 4 years old (group 1) and are in elementary school for 8 years (groups 1–8), after which they transition to a system of secondary education with three main tracks (lasting 4–6 years). In other countries and cultures, arrangements are comparable or vary in details. What is common is that for a substantial number of years in the first decade of their lives, young children spend a considerable number of hours each day in the presence of classroom peers, guided by teachers. This chapter focuses on these two important socializing agents of influence on children’s development in the classroom context, that is, their peers and teachers.

The starting point of our literature review was what in each country is understood by “elementary school.” As indicated, what is meant by elementary school varies somewhat from country to country. Thus, our literature review was not guided strictly by age, but by the grades determined by the boundaries of the elementary school context and the classroom contexts it includes. As indicated above, this corresponded with grades 1–5 or 1–6 (ages 6–11 years or 6–12 years) in North American publications, “groups” 1–8 (ages 4–12) in Dutch school settings and publications, and in between arrangements for data from other countries.

Chapter Overview

This chapter addresses children’s normative development. We focus on children’s normative social and academic development in school, as well as their well-being. We do not address the occurrence of serious forms of developmental psychopathology. To provide a conceptual framework, we used a matrix for the discussion of the socializing influences of peers and teachers in elementary school, presented in Table 1. On the “predictor” side, we distinguished four levels at which the socializing influence of peers and teachers can be examined. This was based on a common distinction made in research on peer relationships (see Bukowski et al., 2018), and we extended this to the socializing influence of teachers. On the “outcome” side, we distinguished three domains.

Table 1 Matrix for the socializing influence of peers and teachers in elementary school
Full size table

We discussed the socializing influence of peers in elementary school at four levels: the level of children’s individual characteristics (e.g., acceptance, rejection, popularity), the level of interactions or social-interactive behaviors (e.g., aggression, conflict, prosocial behavior), the level of dyadic relationships (e.g., friendships, mutual dislike), and the levels of groups and group processes (e.g., bullying, victimization).

We extended this distinction to the socializing influence of teachers. Here too we distinguished the socializing influence of teachers in terms of individual characteristics of teachers (e.g., work experience, classroom management style), the level of teacher-student interactions (e.g., expectations, attention, giving compliments), the level of teacher-student relationships (e.g., support), and again the level of group processes in the classroom (bullying, victimization, classroom norms).

On the “outcome” side, we distinguished three broad categories of outcomes in children’s development: academic functioning, social functioning, and well-being (social-emotional functioning). Each of these three is an important dimension of children’s functioning in schools and often represented as such in measures of children’s classroom functioning (see, e.g., Hightower et al., 1986).

Together, this resulted in a matrix of four levels of peer influence on three outcome domains and a similar matrix of four levels of teacher influence on the same three domains of child outcomes. In the two main sections below, we describe relevant knowledge and findings for each element of each matrix. We also address recommendations for further research. We close this chapter with a conclusion.

The Socializing Influence of Peers in Elementary School

This section focuses on the manifestation and the different layers of the peer system, namely, individual characteristics, social interactions, dyadic relationships, and group processes, and their impact on children normative academic, social, and emotional development (i.e., well-being) in elementary school.

Individual Characteristics

Definition

At the level of individual characteristic, we focus on two domains. The first is social status (Cillessen, 2009; Cillessen & Marks, 2011). The social status of children in elementary classroom peer groups is usually derived from peer evaluations of liking and disliking and results in continuous scores for social status and a classification in sociometric status types. The continuous dimensions are acceptance (liking received), rejection (disliking received), social preference (difference between acceptance and rejection), and social impact (sum of acceptance and rejection). The traditional system of sociometric status groups uses these continuous scores to classify children as accepted, rejected, controversial, neglected, or average in sociometric status. Social status can be based on (dis)liking but also on direct peer evaluations of (un)popularity. A continuous score for popularity often is derived from peer nominations of “who is most popular” and “who is least popular.” This score can be used to classify children in popularity groups, but this is less commonly done. Peer acceptance and preference are often referred to as sociometric popularity, whereas popularity per se is often referred to as perceived popularity (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998).

Children’s individual characteristics also include their social cognitions. Social cognition is used here as a broad term referring to how children think about themselves and others. Children’s social cognitions are based on their developmental history of interactions with adults and peers. According to models of children’s social cognitions related to peer relations, children build a database of cognitions and expectations in interactions with others (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge, 1986). Children use this database to make decisions about how to behave in social situations and how to interpret the behaviors of peers. Two well-known phenomena are children’s hostile attribution biases and their role in aggressive behavior (Crick & Dodge, 1994).

Academic Functioning

The connection between children’s functioning with their peers in school and their academic functioning is an important topic to address. The social processes of children in interactions with their peers can either facilitate or impair their learning. This is clear from a large body of research on the associations between sociometric status (based on peer acceptance) and academic outcomes. Newcomb et al. (1993) conducted an extensive meta-analysis of the research findings on the associations between the traditional sociometric status groups (accepted, rejected, controversial, neglected, and average) and measures of academic functioning in school, combined in a broadband category labeled “cognitive abilities.” The meta-analysis showed that peer acceptance is positively associated with academic functioning, whereas peer rejection is negatively associated with academic functioning. That is, children who have positive relationships with peers in the classroom do better in school, whereas children who have difficulties in their interactions with peers in the classroom do less well in school. The association between peer acceptance and academic achievement is expected to be reciprocal (Hughes & Chen, 2011; Hughes et al., 2014). On the one hand, not being able to work well with others impairs (collaborative) learning. Children who are disliked or rejected may be distracted by their worries about these negative interactions and therefore not able to direct their attention to learning. On the other hand, children who do less well than others academically may be perceived negatively by their classmates because they deviate from the norm, do not meet teacher expectations, or disrupt classroom processes when they are behind. Underlying third variables may also be at play. For example, (social) cognitive deficits may explain both why children do less well with their peers and less well on their school work. This hypothesis needs to be examined further in future research.

The second type of social status is (perceived) popularity. The empirical database for its association with academic achievement is smaller so far. Furthermore, this issue has been considered more among (early) adolescents in middle school, junior high school, or the beginning years of secondary education and less frequently in elementary school. This is partly because in the younger grades of elementary school, “popularity” is not yet a central construct, but begins to emerge in the second half of elementary school. Previous findings on the associations between popularity and academic functioning were mixed (see Schwartz et al., 2006). This has led researchers to hypothesize that the association between popularity and academic functioning is moderated by other variables. One moderator is aggression. Schwartz et al. (2006) demonstrated that children who are popular and aggressive score lower on academic functioning, whereas children who are popular but not aggressive do as well as others. Thus, the “popular-aggressive” group is a concern in terms of academic functioning (see also Rodkin et al., 2000).

Social Functioning

When examining the effects of children’s individual peer-related characteristics on their social functioning, an important individual factor is formed by children’s social cognitions. Here we focus specifically on cognitive biases or tendencies such as the hostile attribution bias. The attributions that children make for their social experiences are related to their social functioning. Specifically, the attributions that children make for their negative experiences have been related to their perceived social support and acceptance in the peer group (Visconti et al., 2013). Children who attribute peers’ negative behavior to their jealousy report feeling more accepted than children who blame themselves for their peers’ negative behavior. Whereas this study showed that children’s attributions are related to their perceived acceptance in the peer group, other studies have shown that they are also related to their actual acceptance. For example, children’s hostile attributions have been related to subsequent peer rejection. Specifically, there seems to be a reinforcing loop between peer rejection, hostile attributions, and aggression, highlighting the pivotal role of cognitions in children’s behavior and social functioning (Lansford et al., 2010). These examples indicate how children’s cognitions are related to their social functioning at school, indicating that children might feel less accepted depending on their cognitions but also that they might actually suffer social consequences related to their cognitive biases.

Well-Being

To assess the effects of peer relations on children’s well-being, researchers have examined loneliness, depression, (social) anxiety, and the experience of stress. Across sources of information, the absence of peer acceptance and low popularity are consistently associated with loneliness (Geukens et al., 2021). Whereas loneliness can be seen as a normative developmental outcome, depression and social anxiety are related but in the clinical domain of internalizing problems. Here too, there are consistent associations of low status (preference or popularity) with depression and anxiety (Prinstein et al., 2018). Sandstrom and Cillessen (2003) used a daily diary method to assess children’s feelings in the classroom related to their peer experiences. They also demonstrated that rejection experiences are associated with reported stress and less well-being. An important question is whether children would seek help for their social difficulties of children in the classroom. Recently, whether or not children would report their social difficulties in the classroom was investigated in relation to being bullied (van der Ploeg et al., 2021).

Children’s cognitions also play a role in their well-being. The study by Visconti et al. (2013) mentioned above also showed that the attributions children made for their peers’ negative behavior was related to their feelings of loneliness. When children blamed themselves, they reported greater loneliness. Furthermore, cognitions are not only concurrently related to well-being but also prospectively. Children’s self-blaming as well as hostile attributions were related to internalizing and externalizing problems respectively later on (Perren et al., 2013). It appears that children experience lower well-being when they blame themselves for their peers’ negative behaviors. Thus, breaking these maladaptive attributional tendencies is a fruitful avenue for interventions aimed at increasing children’s well-being. Such interventions have been shown to be effective for adolescents (Yeager et al., 2014) and might similarly be effective for children.

Interactions

Definition

Interactions or social-interactive behaviors refer to the one-on-one interactions between peers. It refers to the specific behavior of one child against another in a dyad or a group. The most commonly studied interactive behavior in the peer relationships literature is aggression, but other behaviors are studied as well. Typically, interactive behaviors are divided in three main groups: aggressive and antisocial behavior, prosocial behavior, and social withdrawal (or the absence of interaction) (McDonald & Asher, 2018). Social behavior can be measured with peer nominations or teacher ratings, but the ideal method is behavior observations that allow for detailed analysis of streams of interactive behavior. Specific analysis methods have been developed that are well suited for the analysis of social interactive behavior in dyads or groups, such as the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (e.g., Kenny et al., 2006). Children’s peer interactions and social-interactive behaviors are often studied in the context of specific situations or settings, such as the occurrence of conflict, or paradigms, such as unstructured playgroups, cooperative and competitive tasks, and the peer group entry paradigm.

Academic Functioning

Children’s peer interactions have been shown to be associated with their academic functioning. For example, Gommans et al. (2015) examined collaboration quality and knowledge gain of children in dyads during a collaborative learning task on a computer. Mutual listening had a positive effect on knowledge gain, whereas dominance had a negative effect. This was further qualified by the role of the children in the dyad, as one was more popular and the other less popular. Specifically, the knowledge level of the more popular dyad member predicted the knowledge gain of the less popular member later, specifically when there was more mutual listening and less dominance of the more popular member. Thus, the way in which children interact with classmates during moments of collaborative learning may be indicative for their academic outcomes.

The interactions between children in a group (rather than a dyad) have also been shown to predict academic functioning of the group as a whole. One consistent finding in the literature is that children who are aggressive or disruptive in the classroom (as seen by peers or teachers) also score systematically lower on measures of academic performance, either as seen by teachers or on objective tests (Cillessen & van den Berg, 2012). Conversely, peer acceptance and prosocial behaviors typically correlate positively with measures of academic functioning (Newcomb et al., 1993).

Social Functioning

Children’s social interactions and social-interactive behaviors with peers are closely related to their social functioning. Coie et al. (1990) conducted a narrative review of the literature on the impact of children’s social behavior on their peers. Their review included teacher ratings, peer reports, and systematic observations of social behaviors and interactions. Several observational studies used a clever design in which children interacted in unfamiliar peer groups – they had no previous reputation with each other (e.g., Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Dodge, 1983). This research clearly shows that children are primarily “data based” in their perceptions of their peers. Aggressive interactions lead to disliking, whereas prosocial interactions lead to liking.

Longitudinal studies have shown that the associations between children’s social-interactive behaviors and their peer relations are reciprocal (e.g., Ladd, 2006). For example, whereas aggression leads to peer dislike and rejection, rejection may lead to further aggression, because rejection is frustrating or because rejected children learn that this is a way to get others’ attention or to get what they want. This leads to a vicious circle, or, more formally, cascading effects across development, in which “the rich get richer” and “the poor get poorer.” Prosocial behaviors lead to positive interactions with peers, which then form a training ground in which children can further improve and develop their social skills and competence. Aggression and antisocial behaviors lead to exclusion and rejection, which deprives children of the opportunity to improve their behavior and social skills. This further emphasizes why effective interventions are important to change a downward negative spiral into a positive direction.

Well-Being

What are the effects of children’s social interactions and social-interactive behaviors with peers on their well-being? The interactions that children have with their peers also impact their well-being. Especially the absence of interactions can have severe consequences. For example, the absence of social interactions during playtimes has been shown to be associated with loneliness, depressive symptoms, and social anxiety (Coplan et al., 2015). Similar results have consistently been observed with regard to social exclusion. Children that are being ostracized in group play experience a lower psychological well-being and higher levels of negative mood after not being able to take part in social interactions (Lansu et al., 2017). Specifically, having even one interaction partner reduces the negative effects of ostracism substantially (Sandstrom et al., 2017), indicating the importance of social interactions for children’s well-being. It is particularly clear that negative interactions with peers have a negative impact on children’s well-being at school. Children who are excluded from interactions with their peers, who are rejected or ostracized in the peer group, or who are the targets of gossiping and exclusion develop externalizing behavior problems or internalizing behavior problems as a result (Asher & Coie, 1990).

Dyadic Relationships

Definition

What do we mean by dyadic relationships? This addresses the type of relationship between two children. Dyadic relationships are separate from individual characteristics such as status and social-interactive behaviors such as aggression. Dyadic peer relationships are often formed at school where children spend much time each day and play an important role in their academic and social development and well-being. The most commonly studied dyadic relationship is friendship. There is a large literature on children’s friendships (see, e.g., Bukowski et al., 2018). Other types of dyadic relationship are important as well, such as relationships based on mutual dislike, mutually aggressive dyads, bully-victim pairs, or bully-defender relationships. These relationships are less commonly studied. In adolescence, romantic relationships are important, but they are typically not studied in the elementary school context.

Academic Functioning

What are the effects of children’s dyadic relationships with peers on their academic functioning? The benefits of friendships, in terms of positive social functioning and well-being, may mediate an association with better school performance. For example, Zucchetti et al. (2015) examined the reciprocal associations between friendship and achievement over time and found that positive friendship quality in the third grade predicted school achievement in the fourth grade. Other research has shown that friends affect each other’s academic functioning. Gremmen et al. (2018) showed that students’ own engagement and achievement were associated with their friends’ engagement and achievement. Longitudinal social network analyses indicated that students increased in school engagement and achievement when their friends did. This shows that considering children’s friendship dyads is important for understanding their academic functioning at school. On the negative side, children who are involved in difficult relationships, such as being in a bully-victim dyad or a mutually aggressive pair, are expected to do less well in terms of their academic performance. Here it is difficult to discern whether this would be due to their specific dyadic relationship or to the general tendencies to be aggressive or the target of others’ aggression.

Social Functioning

What are the effects of children’s dyadic relationships with peers on their social functioning? There is a large literature on the social behavior of children in friendship dyads. Much of this research has been conducted using careful and detailed behavior observations. Children in friendship dyads have been observed in interactions with one another and compared to interactions between non-friends. This research in general shows that children in friendship dyads score generally more positively on prosocial behaviors, sharing and helping, than children in non-friend dyads (Hartup, 1996). However, Hartup et al. (1988) also demonstrated that children in friendship dyads have more conflict than children in non-friend dyads. This points to an important function of friendship – friendships are not only for mutual support but also a context that fosters the learning of critical social skills, such as conflict resolution. Finally, not all friendships are alike. There are also much variations within friendship dyads, related to other characteristics of the children in the dyad. Peters et al. (2010) examined variations between friendship dyads in social status and how this is related to variation in social behaviors. Thus, not all friendships are alike, but the studies on children’s social functioning in friendship dyads show that friendships are a context for positive behaviors and mutual support but also a context in which to learn critical social skills, such as conflict resolution (Hartup, 1996).

There are fewer observational studies on children’s social interactions in other types of dyads. One exception is an observational study by Coie et al. (1999) who observed boys in mutually aggressive dyads in playgroups of six boys. They found that mutually aggressive dyads displayed twice as much aggression as randomly selected dyads and attributed greater hostile intentions toward each other, which may explain their greater aggression toward each other. Hubbard et al. (2001) further examined the social cognitions related to dyadic aggression and found that hostile attribution biases toward a particular peer were related to reactive aggression toward that peer. Given these findings, a question is whether children’s social functioning in dyads can be improved to reduce hostility in the classroom. In an intervention study, van den Berg et al. (2012) used seating arrangements to improve children’s dyadic relationships and interactions in the classroom. (This study is also discussed below.) Given the importance of children’s dyadic relationships for their learning and social behavior, this effort is important.

Well-Being

Friendships are critical for children’s well-being. One important provision of friendship is social support, making it a buffer for negative experiences (see, e.g., Bagwell & Bukowski, 2018). Indeed, friendship quality serves as a moderator between victimization experiences and well-being (e.g., Cuadros & Berger, 2016). Friendships, especially when of good quality, alleviate the stress of negative peer experiences (Peters et al., 2011). In addition, friendship is a context in which children practice their social skills. Given the many provisions of friendship, it is not surprising that having good-quality (friendship) relationships is positively associated with children’s well-being (Bagwell & Bukowski, 2018). Conversely, being involved in enmity, an aggressive dyad, or a bully-victim pair does not bode well for children’s well-being, although here again it is hard to distinguish the relationship effects from general tendencies to be aggressive or victimized. This has been addressed in some studies (see, e.g., Peters et al., 2010, on friendship as a buffer for victimization). The effects of positive dyadic relationships on children’s well-being at school further emphasize the importance of interventions aimed at improving children’s dyadic peer relationships in the classroom as well as overall classroom climate.

Groups

Definition

Group processes among peers include group dynamics and behavior and group norms. First, group processes refer to the behaviors that involve multiple group members at once. One important group process is bullying. Although bullying has been described in the past as a dyadic process involving a bully and a victim, it is now considered a group process in which the whole peer group is involved in some way (Salmivalli et al., 1996). Bullying can be defined as the repeated harassment of the victim by one or more bullies, in which there is a power imbalance between the victim and the bully (Olweus, 1994). Other peers are often involved in this process either by defending the victim, by following or reinforcing the bully, or by trying to stay out of it completely (Salmivalli et al., 1996). The group effects of bullying are markedly demonstrated by the healthy context paradox, to which we refer further below. A second important focus at the level of groups is classroom norms. Classroom norms dictate which behaviors are accepted in the group; we discuss them briefly within the context of bullying and peer victimization. Below we address how children’s experiences with bullying, and the related group norms, impact their academic functioning, social functioning, and well-being.

Academic Functioning

Peer victimization has been shown to be related to school avoidance and lower levels of classroom engagement (Buhs et al., 2006). This association depends on the type of victimization, with physical harassment being related to school avoidance and relational harassment to lower engagement. Because both school avoidance and engagement are important contributors to academic achievement, peer victimization is a risk factor for lower academic attainment.

Social Functioning

Research has shown that group processes also play a role in children’s social functioning. For example, children’s role in a group process such as bullying is associated with their status in the group. Research examined how defending a victim would be rewarded by the peer group and found that defenders were both liked more and perceived as more popular by the victim they defended (Sainio et al., 2011) and were also rewarded with higher popularity in the peer group as a whole (van der Ploeg et al., 2017). Furthermore, peer victimization is bidirectionally related to social functioning. Research has indicated that children who have lower levels of social skills or who have a lower social status are at a higher risk for being victimized (e.g., Sentse et al., 2015). Additionally, being victimized was related to subsequent lower social status.

On the side of the bully, bullying is often related to higher social status in the form of popularity, although bullies are often disliked as well (e.g., Pouwels et al., 2018). Classroom norms, specifically popularity norms, play a role in how accepted bullying behavior is in the classroom. When popular children engage in bullying, the association between bullying and peer rejection becomes weaker (Dijkstra et al., 2008). This indicates that the behavior of popular children impacts how the group perceives bullying behavior.

Well-Being

The impact of peer victimization on well-being has been extensively studied. Several meta-analyses highlight the negative consequences of victimization (e.g., Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Moore & Woodcock, 2017; Reijntjes et al., 2010). For example, victimization is related to mental health problems, such as depression, social anxiety, and suicide intentions. Victimization is also related to externalizing problems such as aggression and risk taking. Interestingly, low well-being has also been identified as a precursor to victimization. Children who experience internalizing problems, such as depression, are more likely to be victimized (Forbes et al., 2019).

The negative consequences of victimization appear to be even stronger in a so-called healthy context. In an environment in which there are few victims, the victims experience higher levels of internalizing problems than victims in an environment with several other victims (Huitsing et al., 2012). This especially poses a problem for interventions to reduce bullying, as the remaining victims show decreases in well-being (Huitsing et al., 2019).

The Socializing Influence of Teachers in Elementary School

This section focuses on the socializing influences of teachers on children’s normative academic, social, and emotional development (i.e., well-being) in elementary school. Teachers play a large role in children’s development, directly and indirectly, in the way they manage the classroom peer group. In this section we examine individual characteristics of teachers, student-teacher interactions and relationships, and teachers’ role in classroom group processes (especially focusing on bullying and group norms).

Individual Characteristics

Definition

Teachers bring with themselves a number of individual characteristics into the classroom. These include their previous training and experience, their self-efficacy expectations regarding their own effectiveness as a teacher and abilities to manage the classroom, and any expectations or possible biases they may have regarding their students.

Academic Functioning

The individual characteristics that teachers bring into the classroom are likely to affect their teaching. Hence, teachers’ individual characteristics may be related to students’ academic functioning. The central construct in the link between teachers’ characteristics and students’ academic outcomes seems to be teacher quality (e.g., Croninger et al., 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Gerritsen et al., 2017; Harris & Sass, 2011; Stronge et al., 2007). Not only objective, observable variables such as experience, training, or professional development are studied within the scope of teacher quality research, but the student perspective is important as well. Fauth et al. (2014) found that student ratings of classroom management were positively associated with student achievement and that ratings of cognitive activation and classroom climate were positively related to students’ subject-related interest. In general, research on teacher quality has indicated that teacher experience plays an important role. In their study of Dutch twins who were assigned to different classrooms, Gerritsen et al. (2017) found that twins who had a more experienced teacher did better in both reading and mathematics. However, Huang and Moon (2009) did not find that teachers’ total years of experience predicted student achievement, but their years of teaching experience in a specific grade was related to reading performance. Teacher experience is closely related to teachers’ productivity, according to Harris and Sass (2011). Teacher productivity is defined as the extent to which teachers contribute to students’ achievement, and has been shown to increase with experience, most rapidly in the first few years of being in the profession (Harris & Sass, 2011). Stronge et al. (2007) found that highly effective teachers are specifically stronger than less effective teachers in instruction, student assessment, classroom management, and personal qualities.

Social Functioning

Teachers have an impact on children’s social competence development and their social behavior with their peers. Teachers are a role model of social behavior and serve as a social referent for how to interact with others (Hughes et al., 2001). When a teacher is more supportive of students, they show more prosocial behavior and more positive peer relationships with classmates (Hendrickx et al., 2016). Conversely, for children who are rejected by their peers, the teacher can be an important factor in reducing the chance of additional peer group difficulties (Elledge et al., 2016) or exacerbating the social difficulties of rejected children (Lucas-Molina et al., 2015). Teachers can play an important role in promoting the development and growth of social skills. However, negative interactions with teachers can contribute to maladjustment and behavioral problems (Brendgen et al., 2006).

Well-Being

Teachers’ individual characteristics have also been related to children’s well-being at school. Oldenburg et al. (2015) investigated how teacher characteristics were related to peer victimization in elementary school classrooms. They found higher victimization rates in classrooms of teachers who attributed bullying to external factors and in classrooms of teachers who had a personal history of bullying peers themselves. This shows that teachers’ individual experiences may indirectly influence students’ well-being through the way they handle classroom processes such as bullying. Similarly, teachers’ individual characteristics have been shown to predict how they respond to threats to students’ well-being, such as victimization. Troop-Gordon and Ladd (2015) found that teachers who view victimization as a normative process less often reprimand harassers and are more likely to suggest to victims that they avoid the harasser or solve the problem by themselves.

Interactions

Definition

The interactions that take place in the classroom affect students’ school lives. On the one hand, there are the actual interactions between teacher and students. These interactions are likely to reflect teachers’ personal perspectives, such as their academic expectations. These refer to the extent to which teachers expect their students to do well in school (e.g., McKown & Weinstein, 2008; Rubie-Davies et al., 2006) or their feelings of self-efficacy as a teacher, that is, their beliefs in their own ability to effectively fulfill their role as a teacher (e.g., Caprara et al., 2006; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). On the other hand, teachers shape the interactions among their students. Studies focusing on teachers’ contributions to classmates’ peer relationships and their interpersonal development at school refer to this phenomenon as “the invisible hand of the teacher” (Farmer et al., 2011). According to Farmer and colleagues, teachers have a twofold role when it comes to shaping youth’s social development, as they are both an authority regarding rules and expectations for social behavior and a facilitator of social interactions among their students.

Academic Functioning

Research has shown that students are able to distinguish between high and low teacher expectations based on their teacher’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Babad, 1990). Hence, the interactions between students and teachers affect students’ academic functioning through teacher expectations. Teachers can have expectations of individual students but also of the classroom as a whole. With regard to the individual level, the widely known study by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) showed how so-called Pygmalion effects can affect student achievement outcomes. Teachers were told at the beginning of the year that for some of their students, who were in fact chosen at random, a growth spurt with regard to academic achievement could be expected. The increased expectations that teachers had of these students then were associated with larger gains in intellectual development for these students compared to regular students, especially in the lower grades of elementary school. A recent study regarding trajectories of teachers’ academic expectations of individual students found that student achievement may not only be an outcome in this mechanism but also a moderator. Wang et al. (2020) found that trajectories of teacher expectations throughout the year differed between high- and low-achieving students in the sense that high-achieving students were systematically overestimated, whereas low-achieving students were systematically underestimated. Similarly, teachers’ class-level expectations were also related to students’ academic functioning, as their expectations of the class as a whole guide their interactions with students (Rubie-Davies, 2007). In Rubie-Davies’ study, teachers were observed twice in the school year during reading lessons. The study found differences in teachers with high, average, and low expectations in their interactions with their students. Specifically, teachers with high expectations of their classroom provided students with more instruction and explanation about content, gave more feedback, posed more higher-order questions, and used more positive behavior management strategies.

Social Functioning

The invisible hand of the teacher has predominantly been studied in relation to the teacher’s role in shaping peer relationships. Studies indicate that teachers mostly function as a social referent through their behavior. How a teacher interacts with a student is directly related to the acceptance of that student in the peer group and has shown to be a functional mechanism between the child’s behavior and their acceptance in the group (McAuliffe et al., 2009). Especially negative behavior by the teacher towards a student shapes classmates’ dislike towards that student (Hendrickx et al., 2017). Conflict between a teacher and a student thus impacts not only their relationship but also how the student is viewed by the entire class.

Well-Being

Whereas the effects of teacher expectations on students’ academic outcomes have been studied repeatedly, less is known about the potential effects on socio-emotional outcomes. Rubie-Davies et al. (2020) recently demonstrated the effects of class-level teacher expectations on students’ beliefs at the end of the school year. They found that the beliefs of students with a high-expectation teacher were higher by the end of the year than those of students with a low-expectation teacher. For example, when students perceived their teacher to have higher expectations, they also perceived their teacher as more supportive, which is expected to contribute to their well-being at school.

Dyadic Relationships

Definition

The everyday interactions of teachers with their students, as well as a complex interplay of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors, form a relationship between a teacher and individual students over the course of the school year (Hamre & Pianta, 2006). Teacher-student relationships (TSRs) have been widely studied, and their importance has been emphasized repeatedly (e.g., Hamre & Pianta 2001, 2006; Sabol & Pianta, 2012; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012; Wubbels et al., 2006, 2014). In research focusing on TSRs, different theoretical approaches are used, among which a framework based on attachment theory and an interpersonal theory framework. In the attachment-based framework, scholars consider TSRs in terms of three dimensions: closeness, conflict, and dependency (Koomen et al., 2012; Pianta, 2001). A TSR characterized by a high level of closeness and low levels of conflict and dependency is considered a safe haven and a secure base from which students can explore the world (Verschueren & Koomen, 2012). Teacher-rated closeness and especially conflict were moderately stable from kindergarten through the sixth grade (Bosman et al., 2018; Jerome et al., 2009; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004). Jerome et al. (2009) also found that boys had lower closeness and higher conflict scores than girls and that this gap increased in the mid-elementary school years. In interpersonal theory, TSRs are studied in terms of the dimensions of agency and communion in the interpersonal circumplex (Wubbels et al., 2006). All interactions in a TSR can thus be seen as a combination of these two dimensions. High levels of teacher agency and communion have been associated with effective TSRs (e.g., Wubbels et al., 2006). In addition to these two main approaches, other theoretical frameworks have been used in TSR research. Different studies adopt different approaches, but all have in common that they investigated the associations between TSRs and a wide array of socio-emotional and academic outcomes. Whereas research was first mainly focused on the teacher’s perspective, more and more studies of TSRs now include the students’ perception as well (e.g., Brinkworth et al., 2018; Koomen & Jellesma, 2015).

Academic Functioning

One of the most prominent interests in TSR research are students’ academic outcomes, as teachers have the potential to promote students’ academic functioning through the formation of positive relationships. Within the scope of research on TSRs and academic functioning, studies have focused on outcomes such as students’ achievement and motivation/engagement (e.g., Furrer et al., 2014; Sabol & Pianta, 2012. The link between TSRs and student achievement is well established and has been proven repeatedly. In their widely known study, Hamre and Pianta (2001) showed that these associations even last in the long run, as they found that negative aspects of kindergarten TSRs were related to academic achievement in upper elementary school. Similarly, the meta-analysis of Roorda et al. (2011) indicated that positive TSRs were positively related to both achievement and engagement and that negative TSRs were negatively related to both outcomes. They found that for elementary school students, TSRs were more strongly associated with engagement than with achievement and that engagement may mediate the association with achievement. An updated meta-analysis by the same authors indeed showed that engagement partially mediated the association between TSRs and student achievement (Roorda et al., 2017). In addition to studies investigating student achievement as affected by TSRs, other studies found differences in TSRs between students of different achievement levels. For example, Jerome et al. (2009) found that students who started in kindergarten with lower achievement levels had higher levels of teacher-perceived conflict, lower levels of teacher-perceived closeness, and lower-quality TSRs in general throughout the sixth grade.

Social Functioning

The interactions between students and teachers not only affect the academic side of students’ school lives but also the social side, as TSRs have been shown to have an effect on students’ perceptions of one another. For example, De Laet et al. (2014) examined the reciprocal associations of the TSR with perceived and sociometric popularity. They found that sociometric popularity was positively associated with teacher-child support, which in turn further predicted sociometric popularity. A higher perceived popularity was related to more conflict in the TSR, which in turn further increased perceived popularity.

Well-Being

The TSR has also been shown to be an important factor for students’ well-being in the classroom. Pianta and Stuhlman (2004) obtained parent and teacher reports of internalizing and externalizing behavior of first-grade students and found associations with closeness and conflict in TSRs. Less closeness in the TSR, as reported by the teacher, was linked to higher mother-reported internalizing behavior. Higher levels of teacher-rated conflict in the TSR were positively related to mothers’ reports of externalizing behavior. Comparable results were found for teacher-reported internalizing and externalizing behavior. Higher levels of conflict were associated with more internalizing and externalizing problems. Lower levels of closeness were related to more internalizing, but not more externalizing, behavior. Similarly, the meta-analysis by Lei et al. (2016) indicated that positive aspects of the TSR were negatively related to externalizing behavior problems and that the negative TSR components were positively associated with these problems. Lastly, although less focused on in TSR research, TSRs also seem to be associated with teachers’ own well-being. For example, positive aspects of TSRs have been found to be associated with outcomes such as job satisfaction or work motivation, whereas the negative aspects seem to be linked with teacher stress and burnout (Spilt et al., 2011). Likewise, Aldrup et al. (2018) found that the link between student misbehavior and teacher well-being was mediated by the TSR. When students misbehave, teachers tend to report a lower TSR, and this was linked to a lower occupational well-being.

Groups

Definition

In an elementary school classroom, several group processes are simultaneously at play. As it is beyond the scope of this chapter to provide a comprehensive overview, we focus on two group processes in which the teacher plays an important role: bullying and victimization and the classroom climate as a whole. Even though these are often studied as different constructs in the literature, they are naturally intertwined and are part of the larger, overarching process of the students forming a group together. As teachers are the leaders of their classrooms, they are in a key position when it comes to bullying and victimization, as they are the ones who can prevent the initiation or intervene in the continuation (Troop-Gordon, 2015). Both the extent to which teachers are aware of these processes (e.g., Ahn et al., 2013) and their beliefs and attitudes regarding them (e.g., Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2015; Yoon & Kerber, 2003) may affect the group as a whole. Furthermore, two factors may be of importance in teachers’ potential to create a positive classroom climate: teacher attunement and classroom seating arrangements. Teacher attunement refers to the extent to which the teacher’s knowledge of the peer ecology is accurate and matches the students’ perceptions (e.g., Hamm et al., 2011; Norwalk et al., 2016). Seating arrangements refer to both the physical layout of the room in terms of placement of desks and chairs (e.g., Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008) and to where individual students are seated (e.g., van den Berg et al., 2012).

Academic Functioning

Both bullying and victimization and classroom or school climate in general have been linked to students’ academic functioning. For example, Wang et al. (2014) found that victimization and school climate were both associated with a lower grade point average. Moreover, bullying and victimization and classroom or school climate are likely to affect one another, which is also shown by Yang et al. (2018). They found that victimization at the student level was negatively associated with student engagement and that this association was moderated by school climate. Likewise, the seating arrangement that teachers implement in their classroom has an effect on students’ academic achievement. Hastings and Schwieso (1995) found that all students spent more time on-task during mathematics and English lessons when they were seated in rows rather than groups; especially the most disruptive students showed the largest increase in on-task behavior. Bennett and Blundell (1983) found that students produced more work in the same time when seated in rows, but the quality of their work remained the same as in groups. For other academic outcomes, not rows but seating arrangements in which students face each other showed better outcomes. Students in circles show a higher level of participation in class discussions (Rosenfield et al., 1985) compared to being seated in rows or groups, and the frequency of question-asking was higher when students sat in semicircles than when they sat in rows (Marx et al., 1999). Finally, Gremmen et al. (2018) showed that also the classmates next to whom students are seated may affect their academic achievement, as they found that the scores of near-seated peers diverged more over time if they were not friends.

Social Functioning

The influence that teachers exert through these group processes has also been found to affect individual students’ social functioning in the classroom and the functioning of the group as a whole. Veenstra et al. (2014) investigated how students’ perceptions of their teachers’ antibullying attitudes, efficacy, and efforts to reduce bullying were associated with bullying. They found that when students saw their teacher as efficient in decreasing bullying, there was less peer-reported bullying in the classroom. In addition, students’ perceptions of their teacher’s efforts to reduce bullying were related to a decrease in peer-reported bullying over time. Likewise, seating arrangements are important for students’ social functioning. Van den Berg and Cillessen (2015) showed that the physical place where students sit in the classroom is associated with their likeability and popularity. Students who were seated more to the center of the classroom were liked better and perceived as more popular by their peers. Moreover, the study by van den Berg et al. (2012) even suggests that teachers could use seating arrangements as a tool to change peer affiliations. They found that decreasing the physical distance in the classroom seating arrangement between two students who disliked each other in the beginning of the school year led to increased likeability ratings, especially for students who were initially perceived most negatively.

Well-Being

Finally, both of these group processes have been shown to contribute to students’ well-being. Teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward bullying in particular seem to play an important part in student well-being. In order for teachers to support students who are victimized, they need to be able to identify them. However, Ahn et al. (2013) found that student-teacher agreement on bully-victim dyads was low (7.9%). Oldenburg et al. (2016) found this as well for teachers’ identification of self-reported victims (approximately 25%). Norwalk et al. (2016) found similar levels of teacher attunement to victimization, ranging from 0 to 36% across schools, and investigated how it was associated with school belonging. They found that when teachers were more attuned to peer victimization in the Fall, their students had higher expectations of their peers to intervene in bullying situations in the Spring and reported a higher sense of school belonging.

Troop-Gordon and Ladd (2015) found that teachers’ beliefs about peer victimization were associated with how they responded to students who reported being victimized. When teachers viewed peer victimization as a normative process, they were more likely to use passive strategies, such as advising the victim to avoid the bully, and they were less likely to punish the bully for their actions. This is in turn likely to affect victims’ well-being, as they may think their teacher does not care or is not capable of doing anything about it (e.g., Yoon & Kerber, 2003). In addition to teachers’ impact in bullying and victimization, the influence that they have on the group through seating arrangements has also been found to be related to students’ well-being. Troop-Gordon and Ladd (2015) found that when teachers separated aggressors and victims, this was associated with less aggression over time and lower classroom levels of peer victimization. Similarly, van den Berg et al. (2012) demonstrated that classroom seating rearrangements can lead to less peer victimization and social withdrawal. Likewise, van den Berg and Stoltz (2018) found that students with externalizing behavior problems benefitted from sitting next to a prosocial, well-liked classmate. Over time, their teachers reported that their students showed fewer externalizing behavior problems and were better liked by their peers. Importantly, their seatmates did not show more aggression or less prosocial behavior. These studies suggest that students’ well-being can be promoted through purposeful classroom seating arrangements.

Conclusion

An important part of children’s socialization takes place at school. Children spend a substantial amount of time in a classroom context with a relatively stable peer group. We examined four levels of the socializing influence of peers and teachers and their impact on children’s normative social development, academic development, and well-being. We examined the socializing influence of peers in elementary school at four levels: individual characteristics, interactions and social behaviors, dyadic relationships, and group processes. We also examined the socializing influence of teachers in terms of individual characteristics of teachers, teacher-student interactions, teacher-student relationships, and classroom group processes.

The impact of peers and teachers on children’s development in school represents a large area of research. Our review covered a selection, based on our choice of predictors and outcomes. There are other relevant topics to discuss, which were beyond the score of this chapter. At the same time, there are important directions for future research. For example, the use of physical space and seating arrangements to improve the social dynamics of classrooms and schools is an important direction for further research. In addition, this chapter did not address the virtual space of online social interactions between students and between students and their teachers, but this is obviously a critical direction for further research as well. It will be particularly important to examine how online peer interactions and online teaching are similar to or different from the findings from the existing literature, primarily based on offline interactions. Together, this review demonstrates that the social context of peer and teachers continues to be a critical factor in elementary school children’s academic development, social development, and well-being.