6.1 Teacher-Student Relationships Hesrasn A. Doss Nox Cri Sa Unie Introduction Since the cary 1980s, a growing body of literature has documented the important relations of students persep- sionsof teacher relationships to therclassroom motivation, learning, performance, and sehool completion (Davis, 2008; Went, 2009). Ina metr-analysis, Comelius White (2008) found students’ perceptions of supportive teacher telatonships were correlated, on average, between 25 and 55 with academic and social outcomes including participation, satisfaction, self-efficacy, critica thinking, ‘undanlized achievement in math and language, increasing attendance, reduction in disuptive behavior, and higher srades. Conversely, findings suggest students’ motivation fan adjustment o school may be adversely affected when tei lationship with eachers ate distressed (Comelius- White, 2008), ‘Teacher-student relationships have been conceptualized Jnmany ways(Davis, 2003; Wenzel, 2009). The tree dom- inant frameworksin the Unite States tendo be extensions of parenting styles (Reeve, 2006; Walker, 2008), teachers beliefs (Woolfolk Hoy & Davis, 2005), and atachment theory (Pianta, 1999), Each ofthese frameworks posi that teachers, ike pares, interact with ehildenin ways that are oreo less responsive, warm, and contol. Fndingsane consistent aross ste, when teachers respond students in ways that are responsive o student needs, emotionally ‘wa, and provide for student autonomy, students tend ‘o not only feel more motivated in the classroom but also chieveat higher rats. Atachment frameworks furter add ‘o our understanding of the teacher relationship by arguing ‘at within the context of the parent relationship hlren develop generalized belies that they use to interpret their other nonparenal social relationships (Davis, 003). Find ings fom these studies sugges that stdent Bring tothe classroom prior ways of interacting with ther teachers that ‘may elect het previous ada relationships and contribute to the quality ofa given tacher-childtelatonship. More= over children wi have, in the past, expetiensed positive relationships with teachers tend to recapitulate supportive relationships wih eachers and experience benefits to ear ing and motivation (Davis, 2006. Research Bs For ove 25 years, Wubbels and colleagues (see Wubbels, Brekelmans, den Brok, & van Tartwijk, 2006 for review) Aetne communication as broadly as possible to encompass, “every behavior that someone displays inthe presence of someone els... [ths perspective] assumes that one cannot notcommuniat... whatever person's intentions ae, the ‘others will infer meaning fom [thie] behavior” (p, 1162), Their model is panicularly helpful for understanding the process by which teacher actions (and inations) come to Jmbue meaning for students independently of a teacher's fine. In thei mode, interpersonal communication can be described by two dimensions: dominance-submission (or influence) and oppositon-cooperation (or proximity) Underlying the influence dimension is the issue of who controls the communication, When teachers are directive an in contol ofthe communication, they ae sid 0 be Aisplaying dominant behavior. Underlying the proximity ‘dimension isthe mater of the tone of the communication, When teachers use a tne of patience and understanding, even if they ae issuing a directive they are sid to he dis playing cooperative behavior From these two dimensions Wabbels and colleagues rete eight ypesoeommunica- tion behaviors, ‘They argue tat each type of communication behavior an play an important role ina teacher's repertoire of n= terpersonal and relationship building skills: “Teachers can exhibit acepablebehuvioe in each str Inthe couse ofa day, ora week, most caches wil en ‘oun lsmom stations in bic ts appropri 0 he dissin, oruncerain or admonishing one ofthe