The text below is based on an assignment I wrote for a course in teaching in higher education. As I am working towards formulating a philosophy for my teaching and my approach to teaching, this forms the base for a reflection on the value and importance of the student-teacher relationship. It is very much work in progress and an exiting journey in my development as teacher!
A major motivation for me as teacher is the interaction with the students. Being in a position in which I can introduce students to a topic I am passionate about (oceanography) and support their growth and development both as young adults and towards their degree (through courses and through thesis or project supervision) is immensely gratifying and rewarding. A central aspect in this, and therefore also in my teaching, is the student-teacher relationship and my wish to create a relationship with my students that supports and promotes their learning.
Mann (2001) discusses student learning from the perspective of alienation versus engagement. While engagement would promote a deep learning approach, alienation leads to surface or strategic learning. One could also say that engagement promotes motivation, whereas alienation (disengagement) results in demotivation (as described in Case, 2007, but highly dependent on one’s perspective on the underlying theory as debated e.g. in Kahu, 2013). Alienation can arise from different factors of the student’s experience at university, but we as teachers can influence and promote engagement by being aware of these factors and our role in them. Mann (2001) suggests five responses that teachers can make to counter alienation: solidarity, hospitality, safety, the redistribution of power, and criticality. Although not specifically naming the teacher and the student, Mann (2001) calls for their relationship to be at the centre of learning, and importantly, where the student takes on an active and equal role, though the teacher having responsibility towards the student. Case (2007) provides an example of a successful student-teacher relationship, formed through direct communication between lecturer and students, good explanation (competency), and the lecturer’s enthusiasm for the topic. Komarraju et al. (2010) suggest that students who perceive their teachers as approachable, respectful and available for informal interactions, are more likely to report confidence in their academic skills and are motivated. Hagenauer & Volet (2014) review the existing research of the student-teacher relationship in higher education. They define two main dimensions in these relationships: the affective and the supportive dimension. Concepts within these dimensions include closeness, care, connection, safety, trust, honesty, fairness, respect, openness, support, encouragement, availability and approachability. Positive student-teacher relationships are suggested to be a precondition for successful learning, in particular for at-risk students, through a number of mechanisms.
In the following, I will discuss what I consider the two main factors that I base my work to form positive student-teacher relationships on, namely building trust, and promoting motivation and engagement. I will discuss their importance for student learning based on published literature, reflect on my approach, and outline a way for my further development.
Curzon-Hobson (2002) declared trust to be fundamental for students in order to experience freedom in their learning and be willing to take the required risks to realise what he called “their unique potentiality”, thus achieving transformation as learners and as persons. While trust comes in on different levels, it is essential between student and teacher. Askham (2014) show how lack of trust is one of the most important barriers to learning for adult learners. Carless (2013) analysed the practices of award-winning teachers and found that they were facilitated by the development of an open and trusting climate in the classroom. In particular for being able to accept and learn from feedback, students need to trust their teacher, which seems to be amplified for adult learners (Askham, 2014). Salazar (2016) theorized that trust was an activator and enabler in effective instructional leadership increasing student cooperation and engagement, which confirms Carless (2013)’s analysis of trust enabling active learning practices in the classroom as well as Askham (2014)’s findings that students are hesitant to engage in the classroom or seek support from teachers outside class when trust is not established yet. However, as Komarraju et al. (2010) highlight, this support-seeking dimension can be used to create positive outcomes for students, given the importance of student-teacher relationship for the students’ social-emotional functioning. If it is the “good” students, that would seek interactions with their teachers, one could wonder if and why they might be more willing to engage in the trust relationship with their teacher. As teachers though, it has to be our goal to promote a trustful relationship with all students.
Curzon-Hobson (2002) stressed the importance of the teacher’s own actions and reactions in creating a sense of trust. Salazar (2016) identified in particular three main dimensions of trust for effective teaching: personal, intellectual, and behavioural. Building trust needs to happen on all of these dimensions, and I aim to take these into account in my actions in class, in informal interactions with students, and student supervision for thesis or project work. Many of these actions seems trivial, however, they are vital to establish myself as a person, and to set the scene for open, honest, and respectful relationships with my students:
- I aim to be clear about expectations – what I expect from the students, but also what the students can expect from me. In this, I am also honest about my limitations – outside pressures, time limitations, me simply not always being in control, or me not having all the answers. This also includes that I will do my best to provide a good course and aim for trust from the students in my competency as researcher, but also as teacher regarding the “technical” aspects around teaching. At the same time, I am explicit about putting trust in my students that they will do what is needed to (at lowest level) pass the course and contribute in class, that they will take responsibility for their learning (Salazar, 2016).
- I aim to be approachable and present myself as a fellow human – e.g. by providing information about myself (related to my role as teacher/researcher, but also private), or by being honest and open about errors and limits of my knowledge. This will contribute to breaking down at least to a degree the power relationship that is inherent to the student-teacher relationship but prevents trust and engagement (Curzon-Hobson, 2002). Kumarraju et al. (2010) found approachability to be a key aspect in shaping effective student-teacher relationships, together with respect, informal interactions, and career development.
- I aim to be respectful and earn the students’ respect. This includes learning their names as quickly as possible, getting to know them as individuals, not only as group, and taking them seriously, both regarding their problems but also their expertise and their contributions and suggestions to the course. Both I and the students come into the classroom (or a supervision or to any informal interaction) with our different, diverse backgrounds and experiences, which Curzon-Hobson (2002) refers to as socio-historical experiences on the background of which all learning experiences will take place. In this context, it is crucial to acknowledge the circumstances in the students’ lives and be aware of their impact on the ability of a student to focus on their learning, on their motivation, and on their engagement. As teacher, simple actions in the classroom, such as patience with “stupid” questions, or better, encouragement of such questions to reveal barriers to understanding, authentic listening, and meaningful interaction and engagement in discussions with the students, can make (or destroy) trustful, positive and effective relationships.
Do I succeed? I hope so. In my course evaluations, I frequently get positive feedback on my approachability, on my handling of classroom interactions, and on creating a good learning environment. I certainly have areas to improve in, from removing structural barriers (e.g. access to office hours as somebody who is not based on campus) to working on my actions, assumptions and biases (e.g. regarding assumed prior knowledge, or own communication skills). Feedback to the students is important to build trust (and for learning; e.g. Ramsden, 2003; Biggs & Tang, 2011; Carless, 2013; Askham, 2014; and many more), and I struggle to implement good, useful forms of feedback that I manage to provide within the limited time available. At the same time, I require feedback from the students, and there, the major challenge is to reach the quiet and the potentially “at-risk” students – how do I know that they gave feedback in the course evaluations? How can I encourage immediate feedback from them in the classroom or in informal interactions? While my lectures already contain a large component of active learning, making them even more student-focused, and turning more from a content-centered to a learner-centered approach (e.g. Postareff & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2008) might be the way forward.
Given the setting at a university, one can assume that students who have chosen a course of study, are motivated to learn. The level and type of motivation, however, varies depending on a variety of factors like general interest and curiosity (intrinsic motivation), the wish or the pressure to get a degree (achievement, social or extrinsic motivation), and the circumstances the student is in (e.g. Ryan & Deci, 2000; Biggs & Tang, 2011). Other tasks, needs or pressures for students’ time and attention will impact motivation. Biggs & Tang (2011) discuss the different types of motivation in connection to quality of learning. As the categories of motivation lie on a continuum, a teacher should aim to promote a shift towards intrinsic motivation also in students who start out mainly extrinsically motivated to achieve higher quality of learning. This can be achieved by creating involvement and engagement in the students, including engagement with the teacher. However, engagement is equally affected by a range of factors (including motivation), can be seen to lie on a continuum, and fluctuates (Kahu, 2013)
I am lucky in that I teach a subject I am deeply passionate about, and not least the students are highly interested in (the ocean and the climate system). Although not a sole determinant for engaging students (see negative example in Biggs & Tang, 2011), a teacher’s enthusiasm for the subject and engagement in the course can create engagement and motivation (Bryson & Hand, 2007; Case, 2007; Kahu, 2013)). Similarly, perceived competence increases trust in the teacher and engagement. I therefore aim to be genuine and authentic about my passion for science and the ocean, but I am also open about which parts of the course I might not be so enthusiastic about. While this might counteract the attempt to engage through enthusiasm, I often can revert to turning this into an opportunity to strengthen the student-teacher relationship by encouraging contributions from students with relevant knowledge and experience and thus promoting a dialogical learning environment in which transformational learning is possible (Curzon-Hobson, 2002).
Of course, there are parts in my courses (and in student projects in case of e.g. thesis supervision) which are difficult and maybe in obviously interesting and engaging. In order to create higher level motivation also for those, I aim to set clear goals – why are we doing this, what are we trying to achieve, why is it necessary to have all these equations?? Setting a framework for the students to relate to (from intended learning outcomes to assessments to course topics and teaching methods) promotes engagement and motivation. Importantly, by the time we get to the difficult parts of the course, I hopefully was successful at creating a positive relationship with the students which allows open, trustful dialogue and discussion in the classroom (or during supervision meetings) and thus increases motivation and engagement (Case, 2007; Komarraju et al., 2010).
Positive student evaluations tell me that I succeed at least to a degree – I frequently receive feedback that although it was difficult and challenging, the course was interesting, the students benefitted from my teaching, and they were engaged. Does that mean that I manage to increase intrinsic motivation and encourage deep learning? Not necessarily. However, as discussed in my development project for the case of my assessment strategy, I constantly work to refine my teaching methods in order to promote good relationships with my students, high levels of motivation and engagement, and with that enable and facilitate high quality of student learning. This includes more student-centered approaches such as open, student-designed projects, self- and peer-review, opportunity for feedback (from me to the students, but also from the students to me), and even less traditional lecture-type teaching. The recent changes to teaching due to the COVID-19 restrictions have pushed all of us to explore new ways to teach, which in my case led to a great resource bank of instructional videos and online material that I can now put to use to increase the amount of class time used for student-active learning. I am looking forward to what is coming next!
Askham, P. L. (2004): The Feeling’s Mutual: Excitement, dread and trust in adult learning and teaching. PhD thesis, Sheffield Hallam University.
Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011): Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press, Maidenhead, England
Bryson, C., Hand, L. (2007): The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 349-362, doi:10.1080/14703290701602748.
Carless, D. (2013): Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. In: D. Boud & E. Molloy (eds.): Feedback in higher and professional education: understanding it and doing it well. Routledge, UK.
Case, J. (2007): Alienation and engagement: exploring students’ experiences of studying engineering. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 119-133, doi:10.1080/13562510601102354.
Curzon-Hobson, A. (2002): A Pedagogy of Trust in Higher Learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(3), 265-276, doi:10.1080/13562510220144770.
Hagenauer, G. & Volet, S. E. (2014): Teacher-student relationship at university: an important yet under-researched field. Oxford Review of Education, 40(3), 370-388, doi:10.1080/03054985.2014.921613.
Kahu, E. R. (2013): Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758-773, doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.598505.
Komarraju, M., Musulkin, S., Bhattacharya, G. (2010): Role of Student-Faculty Interactions in Developing College Students’ Academinc Self-Concept, Motivation, and Achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 51(3), 332-342, doi:10.1353/csd.0.0137.
Mann, S. J. (2001): Alternative Perspectives on the Student Experience: Alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 7-19, doi:10.1080/03075070020030689.
Postareff L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2008): Variation in teachers’ descriptions of teaching: Broadening the understanding of teaching in higher education. Learning and Instruction, 18, 109-120, doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.008.
Ramsden, P. (2003): Learning to teach in higher education. RoutledgeFalmer, Abindgon, UK.
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. (2000): Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Salazar, T. L. (2016): The role of trust in effective instructional leadership: exploring the perceptions of educational leaders. PhD Thesis, Dallas Baptist University.