Journal of Further and Higher Education

ISSN: 0309-877X (Print) 1469-9486 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

Teacher and student interactions in the first year

of university

Claudia A. Rivera Munoz, Chi Baik & Jason M. Lodge

To cite this article: Claudia A. Rivera Munoz, Chi Baik & Jason M. Lodge (2019): Teacher and
student interactions in the first year of university, Journal of Further and Higher Education, DOI:
10.1080/0309877X.2019.1664731

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1664731

Published online: 25 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjfh20
JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1664731

Teacher and student interactions in the first year of university

a a b
Claudia A. Rivera Munoz , Chi Baik and Jason M. Lodge
a
Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia; bSchool of
Education & Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland,
Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The first year of university is often considered challenging and difficult for Received 18 November 2018
students who are adjusting to different academic and social demands. In this Accepted 1 September 2019
context, teacher-student interactions can play a crucial role in fostering KEYWORDS
student motivation, engagement in learning, a sense of belonging to the Higher education; first year
university and academic persistence. Although the benefits of teacher- of university; faculty-student
student interactions have been researched, to date few studies have exam- interactions; qualitative
ined in-depth the characteristics, role and value of these interactions from research
students’ perspectives in the Australian higher education context. Through
semi-structured interviews, this study investigated the experiences of 21
undergraduate students who reflected on their interactions with teaching
staff (lecturers and tutors) in the first year, particularly the type and frequency
of interactions they had with teachers and the influences these interactions
had on their learning and engagement in the subject as well as the broader
university. Overall, students reported that the majority of interactions were
positive and helpful in influencing their engagement in learning. However,
the benefits of their interactions with teachers were not perceived to extend
beyond the classroom to help them develop a sense of belonging to the
university.

Introduction
The challenges facing first year university students as they adapt to new academic and social contexts are
well known (Christie et al. 2016; Gibney et al. 2011). Numerous studies have shown that first year students
who report that they are seriously thinking of withdrawing from their studies are often those who feel less
connected with the institution, and less satisfied with the university experience (Tett, Cree, and Christie
2017; Thomas 2012a). In the period of transition to higher education, social interactions including
interactions with academic staff play a vital role in supporting the adaptation of new students to the
university environment helping them to succeed both academically and personally (Kift 2008; Pascarella
and Terenzini 1991; Tinto 1993; Xerri, Radford, and Shacklock 2018).
Teacher and student interactions have been associated with fostering student engagement, motiva-
tion and learning. Having frequent and meaningful interactions with staff seems to facilitate students’
involvement in their learning process (Astin 1999). Also, teacher-student interactions can promote
motivation by influencing experiences of competence and relatedness. Positive interactions facilitate
experiences of competence when students are encouraged to face challenging activities and tasks
receiving regular feedback from teachers (Niemiec and Ryan 2009; Ryan and Deci 2000). Warmth and
positive interactions promote relatedness or feeling connected to others when students feel valued and
respected in the educational context that promotes their motivation on learning (Niemiec and Ryan 2009;

CONTACT Claudia A. Rivera Munoz riverac@student.unimelb.edu.au

© 2019 UCU
2 C. RIVERA MUNOZ ET AL.

Ryan and Deci 2000). In the same line, empirical studies have shown that frequent and high-quality
interactions between teachers and students can promote students’ engagement and motivation with
their learning by supporting students’ learning (Trolian et al. 2016; Xerri, Radford, and Shacklock 2018).
Additionally, frequent and positive teacher-student interactions have been associated with
students’ sense of belonging to the institutions which has been related to students’ persistence
(Braxton and Hirschy 2005; Dwyer 2017; Thomas 2012a; Tinto 1993, 2015). Developing a sense of
belonging is usually defined as students’ perceptions and feelings of being accepted, respected,
valued and part of a group or institution (Hoffman et al. 2002; Strayhorn 2012). Meaningful
interactions, interactions in which students feel respected and valued, and perceive teachers’
interest for their educational progress and personal development, facilitate social and academic
integration (Dwyer 2017; Thomas 2012a). Having meaningful interactions with staff in classes
promote the feelings of ‘fitting in’ to the institutional/school context, particularly when teachers
employ active and participatory teaching strategies that make students feel included and sup-
ported (Dwyer 2017; Hixenbaugh, Dewart, and Towell 2012; Turner and Thompson 2014).
Although there is vast research on the benefits of teacher-student interactions, few studies have
examined in-depth the characteristics and role of these interactions in the first year of university. Of
the limited studies, some of the findings show that first year students report having few interac-
tions with their teachers in and outside classrooms, particularly with lecturers (Chan, Tong, and
Henderson 2017; Cotten and Wilson 2006; Hurtado et al. 2011). Most of the interactions in the
first year outside classrooms have an academic purpose, for example, to resolve an academic issue
(Cotten and Wilson 2006). Regarding the quality of the interactions, undergraduate students,
including first year students, tend to evaluate the quality of the interactions as positive and
consider them as relevant for having positive academic results, their general academic progress,
and future professional careers (Chan, Tong, and Henderson 2017; Snijders et al. 2018). Positive
interactions with teachers are perceived to influence students learning because students feel
connected to their classrooms and are willing to seek teachers support (Chan, Tong, and
Henderson 2017). When undergraduate students describe positive interactions, they often refer
to interactions based on respect (Grantham, Robinson, and Chapman 2015; Hurtado et al. 2011),
trust, affective commitment and honesty between students and teachers (Snijders et al. 2018).
Qualitative studies also have reported factors perceived to facilitate or hinder students’ inter-
actions with teachers. First year students view that teachers’ approachability, interest and disposi-
tion to interact influence the frequency and quality of the interactions (Cotten and Wilson 2006;
Hurtado et al. 2011). Positive nonverbal and verbal communication in classes are important in
showing approachability and a positive disposition to interact that encourages students to interact,
even if the actual interactions do not occur inside classrooms (Cotten and Wilson 2006). On the
other hand, students interpret teachers’ expressions of urgency or rushing in classes as lack of
interest in interacting with students (Cotten and Wilson 2006). Besides, there is a perception among
students that interactions are hindered by lack of opportunities to interact with teachers in large
classrooms, especially when teachers use teaching approaches with little emphasis on promoting
interactions (Cotten and Wilson 2006; Hurtado et al. 2011).
Also, Cotten and Wilson (2006) suggest that undergraduate students seem to be uninformed
about the potential benefits of interacting with teachers for their learning that affect the frequency
and quality of the interactions and may be related to students’ uncertainty about the interest of
academic staff to interact with them outside classrooms.
Recent findings based on large-scale surveys of the first year experience in Australian institutions
have concluded that students report relatively low levels of engagement and sense of belonging to
their institutions and limited interactions with their academic staff (Baik, Naylor, and Arkoudis 2015;
QILT 2018). In a context of increasing numbers and diversity of students entering universities, a lack of
engagement and limited interactions with teachers could lead to students having difficulties in
adjusting educationally and socially to university. A failure in the adjustment to the institution may
influence not only students’ learning and academic performance but also their well-being (Denovan
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 3

and Macaskill 2017; Postareff et al. 2017). In this context, it seems necessary to examine students’
perceptions of the interactions with teachers, the perceived value and nature of these interactions in
the first year, especially in universities with large cohorts of first year students. The findings of this
research can inform universities, coordinators and academic staff about the benefits and influence of
teacher-student interactions in the first year for engagement and learning to promote positive teacher-
student interactions in and outside classrooms.

The study
The current study investigated students’ perceptions about the nature and role of teacher-student
interactions to understand types, frequency and characteristics of the interactions that occurred in
and outside classrooms with tutors and lecturers in the first year of university. Also, this research
analysed the perceived influences of the interactions on engagement and motivation in students’
learning and sense of belonging to the university. Two research questions guided this research: a)
What are undergraduate students’ experiences of interactions with their tutors and lecturers in the
first year of university? b) How do students perceive these interactions influenced their motivation,
engagement, learning, and sense of belonging to their university?

Methodology
This research employed a qualitative methodology that enabled an in-depth investigation of
students’ subjective experiences of interactions with academic staff. Ethics clearance to conduct
the study was received by the university’s Human Research Ethics Committee.

Participants
Participants were 21 undergraduate students between 18 and 24 years old (Age average 20.1/
SD = 1.75) from five faculties of a large research-oriented university in Australia. From the 21
participants, 17 were women and 4 were men. Fifteen students were enrolled in the second year of
university and six participants were in the first year of university. Sixteen students had transitioned
directly from high school to the university.

Procedure
Students were invited to participate in the research through key stakeholders of the institution including
their lecturers and subject coordinators, and other students through snowballing. Participants were asked
to take part voluntarily in one semi-structured interview where they reflected retrospectively about their
experiences with lecturers and tutors that were conducted in academic semesters 1 and 2. Students were
asked about types of interactions they had with their teachers and the extent to which these interactions
were helpful (or not), to their learning in the subject. They were asked to identify the characteristics of
interactions that they thought were positive, and those that were perceived to be negative, and to
discuss how these interactions influenced their motivation to study, confidence, and sense of connect-
edness with the broader university. Some examples of questions asked were ‘what kinds of interactions
with teachers help you for learning in the subject? And how?’ and ‘what kinds of interactions with
teachers help you to feel connected with the university?’. Students were not given any definition of
‘interaction’ as the aim of the interview was to comprehend their understandings of interactions with
teachers.
Seventeen face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted in a meeting room at the
university between November 2016 and May 2017 over two academic semesters. Due to the availability
of students, four interviews were implemented in pairs in which each participant had equal time to
answer the questions. All interviews were audio-recorded taking an average of 42 minutes.
4 C. RIVERA MUNOZ ET AL.

Data analysis
Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis that consists of
systematically reducing the data describing meanings through the identification of patterns and
codes (Boyatzis 1998; Braun and Clarke 2006; Patton 2002). All participants’ names were replaced
by pseudonyms and codes to guarantee their anonymity. In this article, the codes for participants
consist of the first letter of participants pseudonyms and their bachelor’s degree. For example,
D. Arts, D refers to Daniel and Arts corresponds to the Bachelor of Arts.
To ensure that the results were trustworthy, member checks were conducted with three
participants who reviewed the consistency and accuracy of selected topics generated by the
data. The preliminary research findings were also presented to an audience of experts in higher
education who gave feedback and posed questions for consideration in drawing conclusions.

Results
Students were asked about the frequency and type of interactions with teachers in the first year.
Most indicated having few interactions with their teachers in the first year especially in large
lectures, compared to tutorials where they seemed to have more opportunities for interaction:
I don’t think there’s many interactions in lectures, sometimes the lecturer asks a question, but then, if there’s
a smaller lecture, people would answer but if it’s a big lecture hall, of 300 people, then no one would want to
answer. (G., Science).

There’s more frequency [in tutorials], we can ask questions and they [tutors] would explain what we don’t
understand. (J., Science).

Students reported that the majority of interactions with teachers in the first year had an academic
purpose. These interactions often had the purpose of supporting students’ learning in a particular subject,
most commonly clarifying content by asking questions to teachers about specific content, for instance:
They [questions] are about the subject, the knowledge we are learning during the last week or the learning
materials that we are doing in the tutorials. (H., Science).

While most interactions with teachers had an academic purpose such as discussing ideas or
clarifying assessment criteria, some students sought career advice and their interactions with
teachers were more broadly about their future career goals, for example:
I felt like a lot of the conversations that I had in the first year with the tutors were about understanding what it
makes being an academic [. . .] to give me a better perspective, help me to figure out and prioritise what
I wanted to do, what my long-term aims were gonna be. (D., Arts)

Most of the interactions described occurred in classrooms mostly in tutorials. Only few students
mentioned out of classrooms interactions, and they were limited. These out of classrooms inter-
actions occurred in the setting of ‘consultation hours’ or office hours in which students can discuss
individual academic issues with their tutor or lecturer during an office hour available.

Positive interactions
The majority of participants considered that their interactions in the first year were high-quality and
positive, especially with tutors. All students mentioned that they had more opportunities to interact
with tutors than lecturers having more positive and helpful interactions with tutors, for instance:
It’s easier to talk to the tutors, and when you ask the tutors something you don’t know there’s no like 300
people listening, it’s just you and the tutor, so it’s much more comfortable. (P., Science)

I think it’s easier to learn stuff with tutors because you get to ask questions that you actually need to know. (K.,
Biomedicine)
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 5

Students considered positive and helpful interactions to be those that were characterised by
closeness, care, and support where teachers showed an interest in and facilitated their learning
and growth. Table 1 summarises the characteristics of positive and helpful teacher-student inter-
actions with illustrative student comments.
One of the main benefits of positive interactions for students was to increase their sense of
competence. More than half reported that when teachers helped them to resolve questions, they
felt more confident in addressing other similar issues on their own increasing their motivation in
the subject. For example, a student explains:
A question that is really intimidating, they can break it out and help me through until actually, I can do it by
myself. They make me more confident in tackling stuff. (G., Science).

Having regular positive interactions with teachers, and feeling comfortable in seeking assistance
from them, especially tutors, contributed to students feeling supported, which in turn boosted
students’ motivation for learning. The following student explains the connection between feeling
supported and their learning:
When you know there’s someone else besides you that understands the subject and can help you, it makes it
easier and makes me feel that I want to study that subject more. (T., Science).

Students perceived that having their teachers’ support motivated them in achieving their learning
outcomes and obtaining high marks in assessments that influenced their engagement in
a particular subject. For example, a student comments:
After I had a good discussion with a tutor, I do walk away feeling that was a good class and that my learning is
developing and that the class is basically worth my money and time. (R., Arts).

Positive teacher-student interactions also encouraged students’ engagement in their academic

activities. The majority of participants mentioned that positive interactions with teachers encour-
aged them to spend time and energy studying, doing homework, reading, and interacting actively
with teachers in and out of classrooms, for instance:
For some tutors, I really look forward to doing the readings, thinking about stuff going to the class and
discussing those ideas and it is motivating to say “okay, in order to have these really good discussions I have to
go to lectures, do the work, do the readings”. (R., Arts).

Table 1. Characteristics of positive and helpful teacher-student interactions.

Characteristics Description Students’ quotes
Closeness and Teachers know students at personal and The tutors know my name and everything, they can
regularity academic level. Teachers and students have keep track on my progress, they can see how it is
regular interactions. from week 1 to week 12 (H., Arts).

Care and support Students feel understood, supported and
encouraged to interact with their teachers.
The tutors are more friendly, so you know you’re not
being judged if you ask them few questions,
whatever you say they keep their smile and they
always give feedback after the question, what you
need to do. (H., Science).

Facilitating students’ Teachers understand students’ needs and
learning and personal give particular and thoughtful responses to
growth their inquiries.
I think there was once where they [teachers]
answered the questions it’s not just ‘this is what you
have to do for this question’. It’s more like why is like
[. . .] I felt like this helped me to understand more
fully and also I felt I was listened to as well because if
I had questions, they would’ve answered me
seriously and considered more than just whatever
question I had, they give me back information as
well. (I., Arts).
6 C. RIVERA MUNOZ ET AL.

Students perceived that their motivation in the subject was related to their engagement. More
than half mentioned that when they felt motivated, they also felt more engaged to do academic
activities, which also reinforced their motivation with the subject. For example:

It’s motivating, you don’t really feel like you just have to do what to do then [. . .], you could think “yeah, I want
to study this”. (I., Arts).

The interactions are about questions or are about an issue from the lecture, this motivated you, engaged you
to do the exercise or prepare some materials otherwise you don’t know what to say. (A., Commerce).

Participants who reported positive interactions with teachers spoke of the influence that the
interactions had on their learning. For instance, half of participants mentioned that positive
interactions facilitated a deeper understanding of the subject’s content and learning how to
write assignments, as the following quotes exemplify:

If I ask a question and they (teachers) answer it well, it’s a lot easier to learn that way because it helps to understand
it, it helps to understand the concepts better, and it helps you to retain the knowledge as well, because I’ve found
that I learn really well when I’m talking to another people and we discuss the stuff. (K., Biomedicine).

I had a history unit in my first year, and I’ve never done history before, so [. . .] I think I went to his (tutor) office
hours twice in that semester and we worked in sources that I could use to reference whatever I was trying to
say in the essay, so that was pretty good, ‘cause I got a lot of one on one interaction, and actually to write my
essay because history wasn’t my strong point. (E., Arts).

Additionally, there was an association between positive teacher-student interactions and academic
performance. Participants described that having frequent interactions with teachers and feeling
engaged in academic activities influenced their academic performance in a particular subject. As an
Arts student notes, ‘The subjects that I have more interaction I did better’.

Interactions and sense of belonging

While students identified the benefits of regular teacher-student interactions on their learning, less
than half of them considered interactions with teachers to be related to their feeling part of the
university, for example:

I think just to communicate with tutors and lecturers don’t help me to be close and connected with the uni.
(A., Commerce)

Students felt that interactions with teachers were a small part of their experience with the whole
institution and most of them reported not feeling part of the university. Students mentioned that
developing a sense of belonging to the university would require first year students meeting peers
by joining extra-curricular activities in the university, for example, clubs and societies. Meeting
peers outside classrooms would facilitate their social integration in the university and their feeling
part of the institution. The following student explains this view:

If you wanna be part of the university, then you kind of have to make that effort, joining groups, make friends,
going to the camps and make friends, that’s the only way to really feel part of the university. (A., Science).

Few participants mentioned that regardless of not having a connection with the university in
general, they felt closer to their majors reporting that teacher-student interactions helped them to
feel part of a cohort and a subject. For example:

I feel close with the subjects and with my major, but I don’t think that I feel as closely connected with the uni.
(A., Commerce).
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 7

Negative interactions
While most students described some helpful interactions with teachers, all interviewees also
mentioned having at least one negative and unhelpful interaction with teachers in the first year.
Negative and unhelpful interactions were characterised by a sense of ‘distance’ with teachers and
a perception that teachers had little interest in getting to know them and helping them with their
learning. Table 2 exemplifies the characteristics of negative and unhelpful interactions with
representative students’ comments.

Barriers and facilitators of interactions

The majority of participants mentioned some factors that facilitated or hindered interactions. When
participants reflected on the frequency and types of interactions with their teachers in the
first year, two main factors emerged as being related to the frequency and recurrence of the
interactions: class size and teachers’ disposition. Table 3 presents examples of the two factors
affecting the interactions.
Class size was the most frequent factor perceived affecting the interactions, mainly that large classes
hindered the interactions with lecturers in the first year. The majority of students viewed that in
lectures, there was limited time to interact with lecturers, and some participants mentioned that it was
uncomfortable to communicate with teachers in that setting. For example, a student explains:
When it’s a lecture hall of 400 people, half of them [students] wouldn’t feel comfortable enough to put the
hand up in the middle of a lecture and answer the question, they [students] don’t even try, they get wrong
and embarrass themselves. (P., Science).

In contrast, small class sizes like tutorials were perceived as positive for the interactions. Students
reported that in smaller groups, they usually had more time to interact with tutors and resolve
academic issues.
The second theme that emerged from students’ comments on factors affecting interactions with
teachers was teachers’ disposition – that is, how available and encouraging teachers appeared to be of

Table 2. Characteristics of negative and unhelpful teacher-student interactions.

Characteristics Description Students’ quotes
Distance and infrequency Interactions are infrequent. Teachers and Lecturers definitely feel more distant because
students make limited and failed attempts to there is a whole lecture fill with people and we
interact. only see them once a week sometimes twice
a week, and that’s it [. . .] occasionally they
draw questions, but I don’t feel I want to
answer it, maybe because of the situation,
there’s so many people, and it feels like he’s
not directing the question to me, he’s directing
the question to the whole room, so I just feel
the distance. (H., Arts).

Lack of knowledge of Teachers have little or no knowledge of
each other students at personal and academic level.
Students usually do not know their teachers
personally.
A lot of my lecturers nearly all of them, I don’t
think they knew who I was like you know I was
part of the cohort. (P., Science).
You don’t even know your lecturers most of
the time you wouldn’t even like speak to them
one on one. (D., Arts).

Having little or no impact Teachers demonstrate little or no knowledge
on students’ learning and of students’ learning needs or progress
personal growth
Not all tutors do a good job because . . . they
won’t track your previous behaviour, so they
just give you feedback this time and don’t with
the previous behaviour, so you don’t see if you
improve it or not. (J., Science)
8 C. RIVERA MUNOZ ET AL.

Table 3. Factors facilitating (F)/hindering (H) teacher-student interactions.

Factor Students’ quote
Class size Small class size (F) Probably mostly come down to the size of the group, if there’s a smaller group,
they’re [teachers] gonna be able to help you more, dedicate more time to you, to
your problems than a big group. (P., Science).

Large class size (H) First year lectures are so big, it’s like 200 or 300 people in every lecture, so it’s not
possible to interact more with the lecturers during the lecture. (H., Science)

Teachers’ Positive disposition to All lecturers that I had, which would be five or so, have always said ‘if you have any
disposition interact (F) question you can speak to me after class’ and they ask questions even if we don’t
replay during the class, and they all seem very friendly and welcome to any
discussion. (R., Arts)

Negative disposition to You don’t want to talk to her (tutor) because if you go and ask her questions, she is
interact (H) like not happy to answer questions and can’t explaining properly. She (tutor) comes
late to class every time, and she’s quite grumpy, she’s like ‘Oh, you should know
this, shouldn’t you know this by now?’, she was always kind of condescending [. . .]
I don’t ask her questions anymore because I’m not very good at the subject, and
she’s just condescending making me feel upset. (A., Science).

interactions with their students. Students interpreted teachers’ willingness and enthusiasm to interact
through their verbal and nonverbal signals. For example, students considered teachers to have
a positive disposition when teachers verbally expressed their availability to meet students and answer
their questions, smiled and had a sense of humour. More importantly, teachers’ willingness to interact
with students was perceived when teachers showed they understood and care about students’
learning needs. For instance:
They [teachers] just really want each student to fully understands the concepts and they don’t care if there’s
a bit of extra time or another time of explaining things [. . .] they just really want their knowledge to pass on to
the students. (C., Science).

On the other hand, teachers who appeared to have a negative disposition to interacting with
students were described as ‘unapproachable’ and ‘unavailable’; for example, teachers who routi-
nely arrived late to class and left urgently at the end. When teachers were perceived to be too busy
or unavailable, students were more reluctant to establish interactions with them.

Discussion
This study reveals that first year students value supportive and close interactions with their teachers for
their academic and personal development. This finding is consistent with the published research on
the benefits of positive interactions for students’ learning and personal growth (Delaney 2008; Kim and
Lundberg 2016; Thomas 2012a). Experiencing caring and close teacher-student interactions are parti-
cularly important for the first year transition. Some researchers have argued that warmth and positive
interactions with faculty promote students’ feelings of comfort, acceptance and belonging to a new
and challenging context (Bowden 2013; Dwyer 2017; Pascarella and Terenzini 1991), and numerous
universities have employed first year advisors or tutors to help students academically and personally
(Box et al. 2012; Burnett and Larmar 2011; Clark et al. 2015).
The current study shows that positive teacher-student interactions can foster students’ engage-
ment and motivation in their learning in the first year. Regular and positive interactions with
teachers boost students’ feelings of self-confidence and engagement. When students perceive that
their teachers understand their needs and provide support accordingly, they report feeling moti-
vated and engaged in their educational experience. This is in line with Ryan and Deci’s (2000) Self-
Determination Theory which posits that intrinsic motivation (and wellbeing) is fostered by the
satisfaction of needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness to teachers in classrooms. Positive
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 9

teacher-student interactions are crucial for fostering relatedness which means students feel that
they are respected, valued and belonged to an educational context (Niemiec and Ryan 2009). Also,
teachers can provide opportunities for students to experience competence by using feedback to
promote students’ progress and the completing of challenging activities. This association is similar
to the experiences that students perceived in the present study. Experiencing caring and close
interactions with teachers is important for feeling supported, listened and challenged as well as
improving students’ perceptions of competence and their motivation with learning. From an
empirical perspective, these findings coincide with what other first year students have reported.
For instance, Komarraju, Musulkin, and Bhattacharya (2010) show that high-quality teacher-student
interactions were positively associated with students’ motivation, particularly when teachers were
seen as approachable and interested in students’ learning.
An interesting finding in the current study is the perceived lack of connection between teacher-
student interactions and a sense of belonging to the university. This finding is relevant because
developing a sense of belonging to the university has been associated with academic development
and students’ intention to continue their studies especially in contexts where the majority of
interactions with teachers occur in classrooms (Dwyer 2017; Thomas 2012a, 2012b). Perhaps, the
context of large classes in contemporary higher education has contributed to the disconnection
between sense of belonging and teacher-student interactions, as other qualitative studies have
reported (Chan, Tong, and Henderson 2017; Cotten and Wilson 2006; Hurtado et al. 2011). This is
a challenge for large higher education institutions with increasing first year cohorts.
Finally, it is possible that other factors can foster a sense of belonging that were not explored in
this research, for example, interactions with peers. When students in the present study talk about
their sense of belonging to the university, they refer mainly to the interactions with peers through
the participation in extra-curricular activities which have been reported in other empirical studies
about the first year experience and sense of belonging (Hughes and Smail 2015; Maunder et al.
2013). This conception of sense of belonging may suggest that students have a limited perspective
of sense of belonging and a lack of information about the benefits of interactions as other studies
have found (Cotten and Wilson 2006). Also, this perception can reflect a gap at the institutional
level of the promotion of interactions with teachers as a strategy to foster a sense of belonging.

Implications
This research shows that positive teacher-student interactions are valuable to promote academic
adjustment and learning in the first year, but it also shows the need to expand the use of the
interactions with teachers in large universities to fully use the benefits highlighted by the literature
in the topic. In this context, developing interactions between staff and students should be included
in the first year curriculum through first year orientations and programmes, and disciplinary and
core subjects. Using a broad approach to promoting positive interactions can make visible for
students the benefits, places and ways in which they can interact with staff. Knowing where and
how to interact with teachers can help students to know what expect in the university regarding
the interactions. An example of an university-wide approach to curriculum in the first year is the
work of Sally Kift and the transition pedagogy (Kift 2008). She proposes a framework for institu-
tional and academic strategies to create a supportive university environment for first year students
during the transition including strategies for engagement and assessment. Promoting close and
positive teacher-student interactions is one key strategy of Kift’s framework to encourage students’
academic and social adjustment to the university community (Kift, Nelson, and Clarke 2010).
The present research suggests that in a large university, some first year students have few
interactions with their teachers and perceive no relation with the sense of belonging to the
institution. In a context of increasing number of students enrolled in higher education, one
important implication of this research is that universities can focus on teaching strategies that
promote interactions in and outside classrooms, for instance, encouraging participation among
10 C. RIVERA MUNOZ ET AL.

students and facilitating active teaching strategies, as well as, showing positive disposition to
interact by nonverbal and verbal communication.
In this context, teachers play a crucial role in facilitating the interactions with their students.
Although there may be institutional characteristics and structural barriers for the interactions (e.g.
class size), it is important that teachers have the necessary skills and knowledge to promote
positive and useful interactions with students in the first year. Ongoing professional development
of teachers is one valuable strategy in supporting teachers to develop the skills and confidence to
better facilitate teacher-student interactions in and out of classrooms. These professional develop-
ment programmes are particularly relevant for tutors who often have more opportunities to
interact with students.

Conclusion
This study contributes to the understanding of students’ experiences about the nature and value of
the interactions with teachers in the first year of university. It affirms that establishing frequent,
close, and caring teacher-student interactions plays a key role in the academic and social experi-
ences of students in the first year of university. It also supports empirical studies showing that
frequent, high-quality teacher-student interactions contribute to student’s engagement and moti-
vation in learning (Groves et al. 2015; Kim and Lundberg 2016; Trolian et al. 2016; Xerri, Radford,
and Shacklock 2018). This study contributes to the literature by drawing upon the main compo-
nents of the Self-Determination Theory (Ryan and Deci 2000), showing the relevance of the
relatedness factor and its connection with developing competence in the university context.
Feeling related to teachers who support students academically and provide constant feedback
regarding their progress promote feelings of competence that ultimately improve students’ moti-
vation and engagement towards their studies. In brief, the relatedness factor can be essential for
the development of other factors like competence in educational contexts.
While the study has shed light on how students have experienced interactions with their
teachers, the study is limited to the experience of a small number of students at one large
metropolitan institution. Research conducted with diverse students at other types and sizes of
institutions may offer a different perspective on the topic. Besides, the study reported in this paper
involved a single interview with participants who reported retrospectively on their experience in
the first year. As building relationship with teachers is a process that develops and changes over
time (Kuh et al. 2010), it would be worthwhile to conduct a longitudinal study involving multiple
interviews with students at different times in their first year studies. Finally, this study found that
interactions with peers can be an essential way to foster sense of belonging to the institution,
particularly in institutions with large first year cohorts. Therefore, a future and interesting line of
research could be the study of interactions with peers and their influence on sense of belonging as
well as the possible links between the interactions with teachers and peers for achieving educa-
tional benefits that can extend beyond the classroom.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the University of Melbourne and the Graduate School of
Education for funding the Master’s studies through the Melbourne Research Scholarship.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 11

Notes on contributors
Claudia A. Rivera Munoz is a PhD student at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education at the University of
Melbourne. Her research focuses on higher education, particularly, on the first year experience of undergraduate
students and the factors that benefit adjustment and transition to university. Her recent studies have examined the
experiences of students in Australia and Chile.
Chi Baik is an Associate Professor in higher education. Her research examines factors affecting the experiences and
educational outcomes of diverse students in contemporary higher education. She has led major studies that have
contributed to informing institutional policies and practices including national projects on the first year experience,
student mental wellbeing, internationalisation of the curriculum, and the academic workforce.
Jason M. Lodge, PhD is Associate Professor of Educational Psychology in the School of Education and Institute for
Teaching and Learning Innovation at The University of Queensland. He is also Honorary Principal Research Fellow in
the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne. Jason’s research focusses on the cognitive,
metacognitive, social and emotional mechanisms of concept learning and conceptual change. He also conducts
research on the translation of the science of learning into practice in educational settings, particularly in digital
learning environments and higher education.

ORCID
Claudia A. Rivera Munoz http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7976-1026
Chi Baik http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0480-5522
Jason M. Lodge http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6330-6160

References
Astin, A. 1999. “Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education” Journal of College Student
Development 40 (5): 518–529. http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/195180247?accountid=
12372
Baik, C., R. Naylor, and S. Arkoudis. 2015. The First Year Experience in Australian Universities: Findings from Two Decades,
1994–2014. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne.
Bowden, J. L.-H. 2013. “What’s in a Relationship? Affective Commitment, Bonding and the Tertiary First Year
Experience – A Student and Faculty Perspective.” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 25 (3): 428–451.
doi:10.1108/APJML-07-2012-0067.
Box, G., N. Callan, T. Geddes, H. M. Kemp, and J. Wojcieszek. 2012. “University First Year Advisors: A Network Approach
for First Year Student Transition and Retention. A Practice Report.” The International Journal of the First Year in
Higher Education 3 (1): 91–100. doi:10.5204/intjfyhe.v3i1.107.
Boyatzis, R. E. 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2):
77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Braxton, J. M., and A. S. Hirschy. 2005. “Theoretical Developments in the Study of College Student Departure.” In
College Student Retention, edited by A. Seidman, 61–87. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Burnett, L., and S. Larmar. 2011. “Improving the First Year through an Institution-Wide Approach: The Role of
First Year Advisors.” The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 2 (1): 21–35. doi:10.5204/
intjfyhe.v2i1.40.
Chan, Z. C. Y., C. W. Tong, and S. Henderson. 2017. “Uncovering Nursing Students’ Views of Their Relationship with
Educators in A University Context: A Descriptive Qualitative Study.” Nurse Education Today 49: 110–114.
doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2016.11.020.
Christie, H., L. Tett, V. Cree, and V. McCune. 2016. “‘It All Just Clicked’: A Longitudinal Perspective on Transitions within
University.” Studies in Higher Education 41 (3): 478–490. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.942271.
Clark, J., L. Gurney, S. Lawrence, R. Leece, J. Malouff, Y. Masters, . . . J. Wilkes. 2015. “Embedding an Institution-Wide
Capacity Building Opportunity around Transition Pedagogy: First Year Teaching and Learning Network
Coordinators.” The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 6 (1): 107–119. doi:10.5204/intjfyhe.
v6i1.268.
Cotten, S. R., and B. Wilson. 2006. “Student-Faculty Interactions: Dynamics and Determinants.” Higher Education 51 (4):
487–519. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-1705-4.
Delaney, A. M. 2008. “Why Faculty-Student Interaction Matters in the First Year Experience.” Tertiary Education &
Management 14 (3): 227–241. doi:10.1080/13583880802228224.
12 C. RIVERA MUNOZ ET AL.

Denovan, A., and A. Macaskill. 2017. “Stress and Subjective Well-Being among First Year UK Undergraduate Students.”
Journal of Happiness Studies 18 (2): 505–525. doi:10.1007/s10902-016-9736-y.
Dwyer, T. 2017. “Persistence in Higher Education through Student–Faculty Interactions in the Classroom of
a Commuter Institution.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 54 (4): 325–334. doi:10.1080/
14703297.2015.1112297.
Gibney, A., N. Moore, F. Murphy, and S. O’Sullivan. 2011. “The First Semester of University Life; ‘Will I Be Able to
Manage It at All?’.” Higher Education 62 (3): 351–366. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9392-9.
Grantham, A., E. E. Robinson, and D. Chapman. 2015. “‘That Truly Meant A Lot to Me’: A Qualitative Examination of
Meaningful Faculty-Student Interactions.” College Teaching 63 (3): 125–132. doi:10.1080/87567555.2014.985285.
Groves, M., C. Sellars, J. Smith, and A. Barber. 2015. “Factors Affecting Student Engagement: A Case Study Examining
Two Cohorts of Students Attending A Post-1992 University in the United Kingdom.” International Journal of Higher
Education 4 (2): 27–37. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v4n2p27.
Hixenbaugh, P., H. Dewart, and T. Towell. 2012. “What Enables Students to Succeed? an Investigation of
Socio-Demographic, Health and Student Experience Variables.” Psychodynamic Practice 18 (3): 285–301.
doi:10.1080/14753634.2012.695887.
Hoffman, M., J. Richmond, J. Morrow, and K. Salomone. 2002. “Investigating ‘Sense of Belonging’ in First-Year College
Students.” Journal of College Student Retention 4 (3): 227–256. doi:10.2190/DRYC-CXQ9-JQ8V-HT4V.
Hughes, G., and O. Smail. 2015. “Which Aspects of University Life are Most and Least Helpful in the Transition to HE?
A Qualitative Snapshot of Student Perceptions.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 39 (4): 466–480.
doi:10.1080/0309877X.2014.971109.
Hurtado, S., M. K. Eagan, M. C. Tran, C. B. Newman, M. J. Chang, and P. Velasco. 2011. “‘We Do Science Here’:
Underrepresented Students’ Interactions with Faculty in Different College Contexts.” Journal of Social Issues 67 (3):
553–579. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01714.x.
Kift, S. 2008. “The Next, Great First Year Challenge: Sustaining, Coordinating and Embedding Coherent Institution–
Wide Approaches to Enact the FYE as ‘Everybody’s Business’.” Paper presented at the 11th International Pacific Rim
First Year in Higher Education Conference, An Apple for the Learner: Celebrating the First Year Experience. Hobart,
Australia.
Kift, S., K. Nelson, and J. Clarke. 2010. “Transition Pedagogy: A Third Generation Approach to FYE: A Case Study of
Policy and Practice for the Higher Education Sector.” The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 1
(1): 1–20. doi:10.5204/intjfyhe.v1i1.13.
Kim, Y. K., and C. A. Lundberg. 2016. “A Structural Model of the Relationship between Student-Faculty Interaction and
Cognitive Skills Development among College Students.” Research in Higher Education 57 (3): 288–309. doi:10.1007/
s11162-015-9387-6.
Komarraju, M., S. Musulkin, and G. Bhattacharya. 2010. “Role of Student–Faculty Interactions in Developing College
Students’ Academic Self-Concept, Motivation, and Achievement.” Journal of College Student Development 51 (3):
332–342. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0137.
Kuh, G. D., K. Jillian, J. Schuh, and E. J. Whitt. 2010. Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter. 1st ed.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Maunder, R. E., M. Cunliffe, J. Galvin, S. Mjali, and J. Rogers. 2013. “Listening to Student Voices: Student Researchers
Exploring Undergraduate Experiences of University Transition.” Higher Education 66 (2): 139–152. doi:10.1007/
s10734-012-9595-3.
Niemiec, C. P., and R. M. Ryan. 2009. “Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness in the Classroom: Applying
Self-Determination Theory to Educational Practice.” Theory and Research in Education 7 (2): 133–144. doi:10.1177/
1477878509104318.
Pascarella, E. T., and P. T. Terenzini. 1991. How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of
Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Postareff, L., M. Mattsson, S. Lindblom-Ylänne, and T. Hailikari. 2017. “The Complex Relationship between Emotions,
Approaches to Learning, Study Success and Study Progress during the Transition to University.” Higher Education
73 (3): 441–457. doi:10.1007/s10734-016-0096-7.
QILT (Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching). 2018. “2017 Student Experience Survey.” National Report. https://
www.qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/ues-national-report/2017-student-experience-survey-national-report/2017-
ses-national-reportb27e8791b1e86477b58fff00006709da.pdf?sfvrsn=1e96e33c_2
Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social
Development, and Well-Being.” American Psychologist 55 (1): 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Snijders, I., R. M. J. P. Rikers, L. Wijnia, and S. M. M. Loyens. 2018. “Relationship Quality Time: The Validation of
a Relationship Quality Scale in Higher Education.” Higher Education Research & Development 37 (2): 404–417.
doi:10.1080/07294360.2017.1355892.
Strayhorn, T. L. 2012. College Students’ Sense of Belonging: A Key to Educational Success for All Students. New York, NY:
Routledge.
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 13

Tett, L., V. Cree, and H. Christie. 2017. “From Further to Higher Education: Transition as an On-Going Process.” Higher
Education 73 (3): 389–406. doi:10.1007/s10734-016-0101-1.
Thomas, L. 2012a. “Building Student Engagement and Belonging in Higher Education at a Time of Change.” https://
www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/What_works_final_report.pdf
Thomas, L. 2012b. “What Works? Facilitating an Effective Transition into Higher Education.” Widening Participation &
Lifelong Learning 14: 4–24. doi:10.5456/WPLL.14.S.4.
Tinto, V. 1993. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. 2015. “Through the Eyes of Students.” Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 19 (3):
254–269. doi:10.1177/1521025115621917.
Trolian, T. L., E. A. Jach, J. M. Hanson, and E. T. Pascarella. 2016. “Influencing Academic Motivation: The Effects of
Student-Faculty Interaction.” Journal of College Student Development 57 (7): 810–826. doi:10.1353/csd.2016.0080.
Turner, P., and E. Thompson. 2014. “College Retention Initiatives Meeting the Needs of Millennial Freshman Students.”
College Student Journal 48 (1): 94–104. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/prin/csj/2014/00000048/
00000001/art00009
Xerri, M. J., K. Radford, and K. Shacklock. 2018. “Student Engagement in Academic Activities: A Social Support
Perspective.” Higher Education 75 (4): 589–605. doi:10.1007/s10734-017-0162-9.