Student Perspectives on Educational Helping Instructor–Student Relationships

Method

This qualitative study was grounded in the analysis of students’ experiences of instructor–student relationships in the college classroom. Before going further, we position ourselves in relation to this study. The first author identifies as a White, Cuban American, and cisgender male. He conducted the interviews as part of his doctoral dissertation with participants who were peers seeking graduate degrees in the same college. He has worked as a student affairs administrator and as an adjunct instructor. The second author is a White, cisgender, gay, middle-class man from the Midwest who completed his doctorate in the same program as the first author at one of the largest Hispanic-serving institutions in the United States. The third author is a White, straight cisgender female, who served as the major professor to the first and second authors. Regardless of the institutional mission or culture, we believe higher education is highly political. All decisions involve power, whether it is at the government, institutional, or classroom levels. Decisions are not always made with the best interest of students in mind.

The 15 participants in this study were enrolled in graduate education programs. Six were enrolled in education master’s programs and nine in doctoral programs. Nine identified as women and six as men with ages ranging from mid-twenties to 70 years. Participants self-reported as Latinx (n = 8), White (non-Latinx, n = 6), and African American (n = 1). Seven reported employment in professional (noninstructional) roles in higher education, three in instructional roles in higher education, four in instructional roles in K–12, one was employed in the corporate sector, and two reported other forms of employment (some reported more than one occupation). Participants were selected using purposeful, convenience, and snowball sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As a form of convenience sampling, participants were recruited from a local urban research university in South Florida accessible to the authors. Participants identified other participants as a form of snowball sampling.

Although the higher education student population may be segmented in numerous ways (e.g., undergraduate, graduate, college, age, race, gender, and major), this study focused on graduate students. Graduate students have many years of study that serve as a frame of reference when reflecting on experiences in the classroom. In addition, this study was delimited to graduate students majoring in education because they were assumed to be more sensitive to concepts involving teaching and learning in an educational setting and would, thereby, facilitate dialogue and reflection about an area in which they were familiar (King & Kitchener, 2002).

Interviews were semi-structured and guided by an interview protocol that included main questions and follow-up questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Main questions included background information (e.g., How would you describe yourself as a person?), work and school experiences (e.g., Why did you decide to go to college for an undergraduate degree?), and questions about the student–instructor relationship:

Follow-up questions were used to obtain more details about the information that was shared in response to the main questions. A review group of doctoral students and dissertation committee members examined the initial interview protocol to provide feedback on the interview protocol (Flick, 2018). The interview protocol was revised based on the feedback.

Interviews ranged from 47 to 90 min. After each interview, the lead researcher recorded reflections, decisions, and communication with participants in a researcher journal that was reviewed and considered later during thematic reflection (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Professional transcriptionists transcribed all recorded interviews which were reviewed by the first author to verify accuracy of the data for analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).

The first step in analysis was to read transcripts and research notes to identify meaningful statements and shared concepts and to develop coding categories (Braun & Clarke, 2006). During subsequent readings, themes were considered when ideas and concepts were recurrent and emerged in the descriptions of respondents’ lived experiences in relation to the research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This process and resultant themes were considered by a review group of doctoral students, chair/third author, and dissertation committee members.

Themes were shared with participants as a form of member checking. The aim was for participants’ experiences to resonate with the initial findings and to give participants an opportunity to provide new insights about their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Of the 15 participants, nine responded and expressed support of the findings and that the themes reflected the experiences they shared during the interview process.

Findings

Three themes arose from this research. Participants described instructor–student relationships in three ways: perceived level of care and nurture, the concept of family as a metaphor for student–instructor relationships, and quality of class participation. Participants shared experiences that provided a range of supportive and challenging examples centered on these themes.

Discussion

The themes that emerged in this study (care and nurture, family metaphor, and quality of participation) resonate with the two main dimensions of instructor–student relationships proposed by Hagenauer and Volet (2014). The affective dimension consists of the elements that contribute to positive connections between instructors and students, generally understood by common characteristics such as honesty, trust, empathy (Meyers et al., 2019), compassion (Kaufman & Schipper, 2018), and respect (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014). Such positive behaviors by instructors have also been shown to decrease student incivility within classrooms (Klebig et al., 2016; Weger, 2018). The support dimension consists of actions, resources, or characteristics of the instructor–student relationship which promote student success, such as clear expectations and timely communication (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014). These two dimensions are present in each of the themes that emerged in this study. Participants identified the values of caring and nurturing as important qualities to understand the instructor–student relationship, particularly because students benefit from caring as a form of support (Strachan, 2020). Caring as support was evident in examples participants shared. For example, Gina and Nicole spoke about how their instructors were instrumental in helping them overcome personal hurdles and avoiding dropping out of school. Instructors were instrumental in getting them to publish, apply new skills in their own classrooms as teachers, or improve their writing skills (Plakhotnik & Rocco, 2016). Participants also recognized self-improvement and positive change in themselves.

The recurring metaphor of the family conveyed aspects of the function, values, and structure relating to instructor–student relationships. The instructor was perceived as a gatekeeper to the status or credentials sought in higher education (Swartz, 1997). For participants whose parents had a college education, college was a family expectation for their children because the parents had achieved that socioeconomic distinction (Swartz, 1997). A bar for educational attainment was set. Participants from immigrant families placed an emphasis on earning a college degree to climb the socioeconomic ladder and secure a better life and future than did their parents (Buttaro, 2004; Zalaquett, 2006). The primary source of socialization and influence for each participant, which is the family, emphasized the importance of instructors. The family was an important agent in legitimizing instructor power (Mortimer & Simmons, 1978; Weidman, 1989). Although the family metaphor helped convey the personal connection students perceived in the instructor–student relationship, there was no indication as to boundaries of those family relationships (Chory & Offstein, 2018). “The interpersonal relationship between students and university teachers is considered one that must be ‘balanced.’ This raises the question: How close should TSR [teacher–student relationships] in higher education be, and when does it become ‘too close’?” (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014, p. 377).

Some participants believed approachability was also reflective of a caring approach to teaching. Approachability was demonstrated in a number of ways, such as learning students’ names, availability inside and outside of the classroom, an openness to discussing personal circumstances impacting students’ learning or performance, and general forms of nonverbal communication. Approachability fosters positive instructor–student interactions (Karnita et al., 2017) and diminishes experiences of alienation by connecting students to their instructors and the institution (Stephen et al., 2008). Approachability comprises both affective (e.g., trust and interest) and supportive (e.g., communication and help) dimensions of care (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014).

When instructors did not exhibit caring and nurturing behaviors as expected, participants had to reevaluate the nature of the instructor–student relationship and identify new strategies they could use to reach their goals within the context of the newly defined relationship. The strategies they adopted were focused on completing course requirements rather than engagement with the learning experience or the instructor which are characteristics of a state of alienation (Mann, 2001). In these cases, participants emotionally distanced themselves from the relationship.

Participants gauged the openness and fluidity in the instructor–student relationship based on the quality of student participation in a higher education classroom. Due to the less hierarchical structure perceived by participants when they were in a highly participative and open classroom, participants placed less emphasis on the instructor’s formal authority in the classroom. Active learning methods that promote social interactions in the classroom benefit the social integration between instructors and students in the classroom (Cavanagh et al., 2018). Participants understood instructors validated other forms of student knowledge and ways of knowing when instructors opted for a participatory classroom.

Participants considered anything that supported or motivated them toward their educational goal as a positive consequence of instructor power. Some of the examples included instructors being flexible to students’ life demands outside of the classroom, access to resources and opportunities, exposure to new ideas, professional development, and a mentoring relationship extending the instructor–student relationship beyond the confines of the classroom. Individualized approaches centering on participants’ particular learning needs motivated and empowered them (Mandell & Herman, 2009).

The idea of care for students is generally “regarded as a humanistic value” in research literature (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014, p. 375). Care for students has been recognized as a primary concern for educators who value the development of their students:

. . . when we no longer consider learning to be primarily the acquisition of knowledge, we can no longer view teaching as the bestowal of it. If learning is about growth and growth requires trust, then teaching is about engendering trust, about nurturance-caring for growth. Teaching is thus preeminently an act of care. (Daloz, 1986, p. 237)

However, the concept of “care” can be problematic. The definition of care or caring may vary by instructor or learner (Chory & Offstein, 2018). This was evident as some participants used the family metaphor to describe the relationship and for others being a caring instructor was not always equated with having a personable or warm disposition. Another reason the concept of care can be problematic involves the question whether there is a duty for instructors to act in ways that convey care in a setting primarily comprised of adult learners (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014). There are challenges demarcating boundaries or finding balance between caring behaviors that shape positive learning environments for adult learners engaging in independent and self-directed learning and those caring behaviors that teeter toward coddling, which may be superfluous and potentially detrimental for both instructors and students (Chory & Offstein, 2018; Hagenauer & Volet, 2014).

Implications

These findings have implications for students in higher education and their ongoing efforts to secure positive outcomes in their relationships with their instructors. Students can use these findings to focus on ways to promote the development of positive relationships with their own instructor in a classroom. For example, one way for students to exert their own social power in the instructor–student relationship is to use prosocial behavioral alteration techniques to gain cooperation from instructors (Golish, 1999; Golish & Olson, 2000). Examples of prosocial behavioral alteration techniques include the following: honesty–sincerity (“I was sick all week and just couldn’t finish it.”), flattery (“I got a lot out of this project, but I also thought we could change it up a bit.”), group persuasion (“We were just talking before class and most of us don’t feel like we are ready.”), performance (“I have had consistently good grades all semester.”), evidence of preparation/logic (“I followed the rubric you gave us to complete this project and covered each point thoroughly”), and utilitarian justice (“If you gave us another week we can improve our papers and you can grade our work next weekend”; Golish & Olson, 2000). As students progress through higher education, they can learn and gain more confidence with managing and shaping their interpersonal relationships with instructors (Frisby et al., 2020). For example, students can engage with faculty during office hours and after class to increase opportunities to manage and shape their relationship with instructors.

Another way students can produce positive relationships with instructors is to collaborate beyond the classroom. For example, graduate students can pursue opportunities to conduct research or engage in scholarly writing with their instructors (Seepersad et al., 2016). Students can also actively seek out opportunities for mentoring relationships that will extend beyond the term of the course to the entirety of their degree programs or even into their careers. A mentoring relationship can be a source of psychosocial, instrumental, and networking support for students (Tenenbaum et al., 2001). When students perceive their instructors beyond gatekeepers to grades, students may increase their chances of gaining additional support such as letters of reference, connections to employment, or personal encouragement.

There are also implications for instructors. TSR can be regarded as a precondition of successful student learning. Viewing the instructor–student relationship as an educational helping relationship means a focus on developing the whole person cognitively (e.g., knowledge and intellectual powers), affectively (e.g., emotional, moral, and ethical capacities), and functionally (e.g., citizen and worker; Bowen, 1999). There are benefits to understanding teaching and learning as an educational helping relationship (D. L. Robertson, 1996). Understanding teaching in this manner encourages further exploration of the theory and research of other related helping fields; viewing the teacher as a helper emphasizes the importance of gaining knowledge on managing teacher–student boundaries; and this understanding makes it easier to change/normalize the critical professional supports already expected in other professions. Instructors also should increase their own expertise and their students’ learning, attend to their own and their students’ subjective reality, and focus on developing authentic relationships with students (Cranton, 2016).

The TSR seems to be of particular relevance for at-risk students in terms of student retention or dropout decisions. Studies on TSR in higher education have largely arisen from the need to explain and prevent the phenomenon of student dropout (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014). Drawing heavily on Tinto’s framework (1975) of student dropout, researchers have addressed the quality of academic and social integration as influential in determining whether students stay at or leave university.

Instructors should be mindful of the power differential with students, consider how their teaching practices may shape instructor–student relationships, and work toward creating a more inclusive classroom. Adult educators should establish helping relationships with students to foster transformative learning by serving as facilitators of learning and helping students understand the material (D. L. Robertson, 1996). To foster growth and awareness, instructors should engage in critically reflective teaching about their profession and how they approach instructor–student relationships in the classroom. Operating in an educational helping relationship within college teaching can be a difficult act to balance, as educators must find a way to integrate their role as a developer in charge of students’ learning and as an evaluator/judge. D. L. Robertson (1996) discusses three ways to integrate the two conflicting roles: negotiating with the self, lowering our standards in the “helper” and/or “judge” roles; negotiating with others, having open discussions with students about conflicting demands and best ways to handle them; and negotiating with neither self nor others and just trying harder, ignoring the conflict and trying harder to gain trust with students to be an effective educational helper.

These findings have implications for instructors interested in the practice of social justice education or instructors interested in promoting the central tenets of social justice education. For instance, although most participants self-reported being racial and ethnic minorities (eight Latinx and one African American), most did not describe their relationships with their instructors in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, or other diversity characteristics. Educators can engage with students in meaningful discourse about the presence and positionality of their own identities in the TSR to explore and support more equitable and inclusive educational and institutional practices in the classroom and beyond (Gibson & Cook-Sather, 2020).

Forming helping relationships with learners is extremely complex, and includes many challenges such as transference, countertransference, confidentiality, sexual attraction, supervision, and burnout (Chory & Offstein, 2018). Transference occurs when the learner transfers positive (liking) or negative reactions (dislike) toward the educator due to things experienced in their past (D. L. Robertson, 1996). Countertransference occurs when the educator transfers things they experienced in the past onto the learner. The complexity of transformative learning continues as the educator must challenge the learner’s views for a paradigm shift to occur; however, this dismantling of the old paradigm can impact the educator–learner relationship. During the paradigm shift, the dynamics of the teacher–learner relationship will intensify, and the teacher must be present for the learner as they struggle to deal with their feelings about this new paradigm. Instructors must also be careful not to disclose too much about themselves, especially if it is negative self-disclosure (Klebig et al., 2016).

Increasing rapport between students and instructors, creating positive helping relationships, checking instructor power, increasing participation, and other techniques are meant to increase learning. Most of us remember the teachers we had a strong positive relationship with and can describe the effect that teacher had on our learning in that class and beyond. We should all strive to build positive relationships with students to enhance their learning. Further research is needed to examine the complexities of these relationships both inside and outside of the classroom, the limits of caring, the process of moving from a teacher-centric to learner-centric approach in graduate education, and how each of these ideas influences learning and broader institutional interests such as student satisfaction and retention.