Who, when, why and to what end? Students at risk of negative student–teacher relationships and their outcomes

Highlights

• No review to date considers the influence of negative student–teacher relationships.

• Negative relationships impact student behaviour, adjustment and achievement.

• Attachment histories influence current and future student–teacher relationships.

• Relationships with teachers are both predictive and protective of negative outcomes.

• Students at risk of negative relationships benefit the most when they are positive.

Abstract

The student–teacher relationship is critically important: influencing children's academic, social, behavioural and emotional development. While much research has examined the predictors and consequences of the student–teacher relationship across the school years, no review to date has focused specifically on the characteristics and outcomes of students who are already at a heightened risk of experiencing a negative student–teacher relationship. This review explores the characteristics that place students at such risk, the periods throughout schooling when students are most at risk, the influence of previous attachment relationships, including those with other teachers and parents, and the impact that a positive or negative student–teacher relationship can have. It concludes by examining the predictive and protective functions of student–teacher relationships: both for students in mainstream cohorts and for students who are at risk.

Introduction

Student–teacher relationships are a highly influential aspect of a child's school experience: impacting development across social, emotional, behavioural and academic domains (Farmer et al, 2011, Murray, Zvoch, 2011, Roorda et al, 2011, Silver et al, 2005). Importantly, given the powerful role that student–teacher relationships play, emerging research also suggests that some students are at heightened risk of experiencing a negative relationship (e.g. Decker et al, 2007, Griggs et al, 2009, Murray, Zvoch, 2011). Paradoxically, however, these same students have arguably more to gain or to lose from their student–teacher relationship than do other students. It is therefore critical that researchers and educators alike understand who is most likely to experience a negative student–teacher relationship, when it is that the student–teacher relationship is particularly important, why relationships differ in quality, and what these differences equate to.

Earlier reviews have investigated the associations between teacher variables (such as warmth) and affective and behavioural student outcomes (e.g. Cornelius-White, 2007), and between student–teacher relationship quality and student engagement¹ and achievement (e.g. Roorda et al., 2011). Additionally, conceptual and methodological frameworks used to describe the student–teacher relationship have been assessed (e.g. Kennedy, 2008, Sabol, Pianta, 2012), with some attention given to relationship-oriented interventions (e.g. Sabol & Pianta, 2012). To date however, no review has focused specifically on the plight of students who are already at risk of negative student–teacher relationships. We discuss who these students are, when they are most at risk, and why. We then discuss the specific impact that such relationships have on students who are at risk, relative to other students. Rather than focusing on the interpersonal styles of teachers or the quality of the learning environment, we discuss student–teacher relationships as dyadic constructs.

The literature in this field is largely informed by three theories: attachment theory, self-determination theory (and other motivational theories), and ecological systems theory. While it is beyond the scope of our review to discuss these theories in depth, the most frequently discussed in the field is attachment theory. Attachment theory describes that caregivers in significant adult–child relationships act as a ‘secure base’ from which children can explore the world and return to when seeking comfort, safety or reassurance (Bowlby, 1969). While children's initial attachment is to parents, later-emerging relationships with teachers are also important. Children form internal working models (psychological representations) of these relationships, which are then used to interpret and predict the caregiver's behaviour and their own responses (e.g. see Sections 3.4 and 5). Self-determination theory (Deci et al, 1991, Ryan, Deci, 2000), in turn, describes that motivation² within the school environment is contingent upon three innate, universal and psychological needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy (or self-determination). Of particular relevance to the student–teacher relationship is the need for relatedness; that is, having secure and satisfying relationships (e.g. Furrer, Skinner, 2003, Hughes, Chen, 2011). Feelings of relatedness act as a motivational source for students, often associated with student engagement and achievement (see Section 6.6). Finally, Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) describes human development as contingent upon five contextual systems; the inner most of which contains dyadic relationships. Bronfenbrenner suggests that understanding the reciprocal nature of dyadic relationships is “…key to understanding developmental changes not only in children but also in adults who serve as primary caregivers-mothers, fathers, grandparents, teachers, and so on” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 5). Ecological systems theory has been used to suggest that peer acceptance is influenced by students' observations of the student–teacher relationship, as such observations may inspire similar interactions (e.g. Gest & Rodkin, 2011). Other research has investigated how a wide range of aspects of contextual systems influences student–teacher relationship quality (e.g. O'Connor, 2010). Note that these theories are complementary, not exclusive. As can be seen throughout this review, it is the combination of these theories that provides a cohesive framework of the relational, motivational and contextual aspects of the student–teacher relationship. Indeed several of the articles reviewed draw on two or three of these aforementioned theories (e.g. Hughes et al, 1999, Lynch, Cicchetti, 1997, Ryan et al, 1994).

Based principally on attachment theory, relationship quality is typically defined using Pianta's closeness, conflict and dependency (see Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995), and is most often assessed using the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, 2001). A positive student–teacher relationship scores high in closeness and low in conflict and dependency, whereas a negative student–teacher relationship scores low in closeness and high in conflict and dependency (Pianta et al, 1995, Sabol, Pianta, 2012). We modify this definition in two ways. First, we note that dependency is not negative in all cultures (Solheim, Berg-Nielsen, & Wichstrøm, 2012), at all ages, or with all attachment histories. Thus, we rarely discuss dependency in this review (see Roorda et al., 2011, for similar theoretical approach). Second, we caution that positive and negative relationships should not be seen as synonymous with closeness and conflict. For example, a student, teacher or both may perceive their relationship to be positive despite the level of conflict. We therefore propose relationship quality be defined as positive when it is beneficial to the needs of both members of a relationship, and negative when it is harmful to the needs of either or both members of a relationship.

Considering the aforementioned theories and drawing on the following review of literature, Fig. 1 illustrates the theoretical³ strength of relationships between the student–teacher relationship and student outcomes. When interpreting this interaction model, it is necessary to consider that all interactions are also informed by and contribute to one's psychology; including attitudes, emotions, temperament, and personality. Additionally, not shown in Fig. 1, certain bidirectional relationships may be stronger in one particular direction or may have commenced in one direction before becoming bidirectional. Though it was not possible to highlight every complexity, Fig. 1 nonetheless provides a useful starting point to interpret the bidirectional influences referred to throughout this review.