Individuals:

Individuals:

 Demographic, Psychological, and Developmental Factors. At the most basic level, relationships incorporate features of individuals. They include biological facts

such as gender; biological processes such as temperament,

genetics, and responsiveness to stressors; developed features

such as personality, self-esteem, or social skills; as well as the

perceptions each individual holds of their relational partner

and the relationship itself. Below teacher and student characteristics that contribute to the development of their relationships with one another are discussed.

Teacher demographic factors show a fairly inconsistent

association with quality of the teacher–student relationship.

Teacher experience and education have shown little relation to

teachers’ or students’ reports about the qualities of their relationships (Stuhlman & Pianta, 2001; Wentzel, 2003). In contrast, teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about students andbout their own roles are much more salient to the formation

of supportive relationships in the classroom. Brophy (1985)

suggested that teachers view themselves primarily as instructors

or socializers and that their perceptions in relation to these two

roles affect the way they interact with students. Instructors

tend to respond more negatively to students who are underachievers, unmotivated, or disruptive during learning tasks,

whereas teachers who are socializers tend to act more negatively toward students they view as hostile, aggressive, or interpersonally disconnected. Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs may also

affect the nature of the relationship they develop with students. Teachers who believe that they have an influence on students tend to interact in ways that enhance student investment

and achievement (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989).

Furthermore, when teachers hold high generalized expectations for student achievement, students tend to achieve more,

experience a greater sense of self-esteem and competence as

learners, and resist involvement in problem behaviors during

both childhood and adolescence (e.g., Roeser, Eccles, &

Sameroff, 1998); thus, these expectations are quite salient to

student–teacher relationships.

Teachers’ mental health may also play a role in relational

experiences, as evidenced by two recent studies. Among a

group of child care providers and preschool teachers, caregivers

reporting more depressive symptoms were less sensitive and

more likely to engage in negative interactions with young students (Hamre & Pianta, 2004), likely resulting in less positive

relationships. Teachers experiencing a recent loss or depression

in their personal lives were also more likely to respond in a

dependent fashion to students’ needs and have difficulty establishing emotional or behavioral boundaries for students (Zeller

& Pianta, 2004). These teachers report their relationships with

students as being a source of emotional support and comfort.

Little is known about the consequences of this type of emotional investment on the part of teachers, but an extensive

body of research on parenting suggests that a lack of boundaries can be harmful to children’s social development.

Just as teachers bring features of themselves into the classroom, students begin to make impressions on a teacher from

the moment they enter a classroom, impressions that are

important in the formation of the relationships that develop

over the course of the school year. Some characteristics, such as

gender, are both static and readily apparent to teachers,

whereas others are more psychological or behavioral in nature.

Students’ relationships with teachers change from elementary to junior high school. Relationships between teachers and

students become less personal, more formal, more evaluative, and

more competitive (Harter, 1996; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997).

These changes can lead to more negative self-evaluations

and attitudes toward learning because the impersonal and

evaluative nature of the relational context in junior high does

not match well with the students’ relational needs (Roeser &

Galloway, 2002). This disparity applies particularly to students

who have lower levels of intrinsic motivation, in that teacher–

student relationships (typically viewed as potential resources)can actually exacerbate risk if they either are not positive or do

not match the developmental needs of the student (Harter,

1996).

Across grade levels, girls tend to form closer and less con-

flictual relationships with their teachers than do boys (e.g.,

Bracken & Craine, 1994; Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994).

Unfortunately the disproportionately female teaching workforce in elementary and middle schools makes it difficult to

determine whether this consistent finding is a reflection of gender bias. Findings from the adolescent literature suggest that

relational closeness may be higher for gender-matched dyads

(Drevets, Benton, & Bradley, 1996) but absent a major shift in

staffing of elementary and middle schools, the consequence

remains the same: Boys are at greater risk of relational difficulties in schools.

Other student characteristics that may be linked to the

relationships students develop with teachers include their own

social and academic competencies and problems. In particular,

disruptive behavior (observed, self-reported, and teacherreported) is consistently associated with formation of less supportive and more conflictual relationships (Hamre & Pianta,

2001; Ladd Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Murray & Greenberg,

2000). According to Ladd et al., this connection between

behavior and relationships may be the result, in part, of the

relational style of the student (moving toward, away, or

against), as discussed later in this chapter.

Information exchange processes: Feedback loops

between student and teacher. As with any system, the

components of the student–teacher relationship interact in

reciprocal exchanges, or loops, in which feedback is provided

across components, allowing information to be calibrated and

integrated in the feedback loops. In one way, dyadic relationships can be characterized by these feedback processes. This

view of interaction as carrying information is somewhat broader

than that of interaction as reinforcing or not. This perspective

makes explicit the link between interaction and the participants’ interpretation of the information embedded in the

interaction, which is consistent with the focus on relational

units of analysis. Furthermore, the qualities of information or

how it is exchanged (tone of voice, posture and proximity, timing of behavior, or contingency or reciprocity of behavior)

may be even more important than what is actually said or

done.

Research on student–teacher interactions as they relate to

student motivation provides some insight into associations

between these interactions and the quality of student–teacher

relationships. For example, a study of upper elementary teachers found that students had positive perceptions of the teacher

when teachers were more involved with students within the

social environment (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). A reciprocal

association was found between teacher and student behavior:

Teacher involvement fostered students’ classroom engagement,

and that engagement, in turn, led teachers to become more

involved. This study and others suggest that students who areable to form strong relationships with teachers are at an

advantage that may grow exponentially as the year progresses.