Dameanus Abun
Abstract
Choosing
proper relationships is an important matter to be considered particularly in the
school setting. Education is intellectual character and spiritual
formation. All kinds of relationships must be tailored toward such an aim. The
relationship between teachers and students must help the students to grow
intellectually and spiritually or morally. Based on my presentation, the nature of the relationship between teachers and
students must be pedagogical in nature, asymmetrical relationships or unequal. The teacher is there to
help the students to learn and to grow intellectually and spiritually.
Keywords: Interpersonal,
contractual, superficial and pedagogical relationship
Introduction
Teachers
are often called heroes. They are on the front line of helping citizens become
functional members of society. They are not paid much but their job is the most
important in laying the foundation of a great nation. Without teachers, man
cannot fully be developed as a human and functional human in society. Thus the
job of a teacher is not just simply to teach and fill the empty head of the
students with a lot of information which may not be relevant to the life of
students but the job goes beyond teaching. It is also about building a proper relationship
to develop other aspects of human life.
Learning
can happen not only by accumulating knowledge they receive from teachers inside the classroom but also through relationships or associations with their teachers or adults. Many things can be learned through informal relationships. Character
formation cannot be just developed through information that they got from the teacher in their class but it is through modeling or example that teachers show to their students. Thus the behavior of teachers matters much to the moral
development of students.
Effective
teaching is often time not measured by how well the teacher prepares the
subject but by how well teachers live their life based on what they are teaching
and they relate their life to the lives of students. Thus a teacher is not only
in the classroom but extends beyond the classroom. Their whole life must influence
and touch the lives of students. It happens only in the relationships. Thus the
relationship goes beyond the wall of the classroom. In such cases, the teacher has to be open and available anytime
to help the students outside the classroom, anywhere and anytime when the
students need them.
Since
teachers are teaching not only the things that they learned from the books but
also through their life examples which they reveal in the relationship, thus the
question for a teacher is how and what kind of relationship they need to
develop with the students. Since the issue is the relationship between teacher
and students, thus the relationship may not be any kind of relationship. Thus,
we need to explore different kinds of relationships that may or may not help the
students. We need to know these different relationships for us to know
the nature of man and to know what kind of relationship that a teacher must
develop with the students.
Interpersonal relationship: A relationship
between equals or symmetrical relationship
An interpersonal relationship is an association between two or more people that may range
from fleeting to enduring. This association may be created for different reasons
such as having a common interest, having regular business interaction, love,
liking and some other type of social commitment. The persons who go into
interpersonal relationships believe that through such relationships, certain
aspects of their needs can be satisfied. In this case, two participants are
interdependent, where the behaviour of each affects the outcomes of the other. This kind of
relationship can take place in a great variety of contexts, such as school, a community
and a relationship between teachers and teachers, teachers and students, the
workplace, clubs, and other forms of association. Kelley, et.al (1983) define a
close relationship as “one that is strong, frequent, and with diverse
interdependence that lasts over a considerable period”.
An interpersonal relationship is established by voluntary act
and therefore it is not structured or regulated and there are no external
forces to set the rule of engagement but only the persons who are in the
relationship. If the reasons for their relationship are met or not met, then
naturally the relationship may continue to grow or disappear. Thus, it cannot
be predicted the length of such relationship because it is only the individual
person can measure if his needs have been or have not been fulfilled yet by
such a relationship (MSG, n.d).
Why
do humans need relationships? It is one of our needs as human beings. It originated from our nature of men as a social being. House, et al. (2003) argued that interpersonal
relationships are vital and important to the physical and mental health of
individuals.
As a social being, humans have a natural need and tendency to relate themselves
to other human beings. They depend on another human being to fulfil certain
needs and to be able to grow. In such cases, humans may not be complete without
other humans. It is only by living with other humans, they can perfect
themselves. Decy and Ryan (2000, pp. 68-78) have identified one of the innate
psychological needs which is the relatedness need. It is built in all human beings
the natural desire to connect themselves to others to grow as a human
being.
The social nature of humans creates dependence. Dependence on others is not only in terms
of physical needs but also psychological needs. As an individual person, he/she
cannot fulfil all his physical/psychological needs by himself/herself, but
he/she needs other people to fill the gap. One of the psychological needs is
recognition. As a social being, he or she needs to belong to the group and to
be recognized. Abraham Maslow perfectly described the hierarchy needs of human
beings as physiological, safety and security, belongingness, self-esteem, and self-satisfaction
needs (Stoner, 2000, McShane, 2000). After Maslow, Clayton Alderfer as cited by
McShane (2000) also supported the idea of Maslow that humans have three
different needs such as existence, relatedness and growth needs. Related
needs are the same as the belongingness needs of Maslow that humans as social beings
need to relate himself or herself to other people. It is a deep human need to
relate and to belong to a group, to be accepted and to be recognized. The
same theory of needs is also presented by John W. Atkinson as cited by Stoner
(2000). Atkinson argued that humans are motivated by the need for achievement, need for power, and need for affiliation or
close association with others.
Human
beings are innately social and are shaped by their experiences with others.
Such innate social need motivates an individual to relate himself or herself
with others and such need must be satisfied because it will continue to push
the person to fulfil it until it is fulfilled. There are multiple perspectives
to understand this inherent motivation to interact with others. In fact, the
need to belong is so innately ingrained that it may be strong enough to
overcome physiological and safety needs, such as children's attachment to
abusive parents or staying in abusive romantic relationships. Such examples
illustrate the extent to which the psychobiological drive to belong is
entrenched. Baumeister and Leary (1995) had already argued that the need to
belong is a fundamental human need. They further explained that satisfying this
need requires
frequent, and positive interactions with the same individuals and must be long-term. It is considered imperative to establish long-term relationship with
a limited number of people is important.
The
theories that we have pointed out are just indicating that interpersonal
relationship is born out of human needs. Those are basic needs that must be
realized for a person to grow as a human being and a social being. Those needs
can only be realized by establishing relationships with other human beings. Besides
fulfilling and satisfying innate social needs, persons who enter into an
interpersonal relationship are driven by certain benefits. Good interpersonal
relationship brings satisfaction to both sides of people (UK, 2013) Therefore,
the benefits are mutual, not only one side. Individuals seek out rewards in
interactions with others and are willing to pay a cost for said rewards. It is
in this case, people are willing to sacrifice other things to maintain
the relationship. People could not afford to lose a beautiful relationship
because it would be considered a loss on both sides.
Studies
also pointed out that persons who are going into interpersonal relationships are
not just simply to meet their physical needs but as we have emphasized that
humans are social creatures and as social creatures, there is a need for
attachment, a need to be loved as Insel (2001) argued that attachment requires
sensory and cognitive processing that lead to intricate motor responses. As
humans, the end goal of attachment is the motivation to acquire love, which is
different from other animals who just seek proximity. Based on his study, there
is a neurological basis for attachment and further emphasized that pro-social
emotions and behaviours are prerequisites for a healthy relationship. The social
environment, mediated by attachment, influences the maturation of structures in
a child's brain. This might explain how infant attachment affects adult emotional
health.
Based
on what Insel (2001) pointed out in his study, we cannot deny then that
teachers and students are all social animals, then there is a need to be
associated with or to be belonged to, the need for attachment. Thus, as a
logical consequence of such an argument, then the school and teachers should promote
a healthy interpersonal relationship with their students. Promoting such kind
of relationship may help students to grow mature not only as an individual
person but also as a social person. However, one needs to be reminded that interpersonal relationship is a symmetrical
relationship, a relationship between equals. Both are there to share their
life and to enrich one’s lacking needs. In this case, both are growing together
and learn from each other. Therefore this kind of relationship is only applied
between the adult, not the adult and the child. Such presentation indicates
that interpersonal relationships may not be the proper relationship that teachers
develop with elementary, junior or high school students. Such kind of
relationship may be applied to higher years in college, depending on the
maturity level of the students.
Contractual relationships: Business
Relationships, Superficial and Impersonal
Before going into
defining the relationship between teacher and students, whether to choose a contractual relationship or not, one needs to understand the nature of a contractual relationship. Business Dictionary defines a contractual relationship
as “a legal relationship between contracting parties evidenced by (1) an offer,
(2) acceptance of the offer, and (3) valid (legal and valuable) consideration”.
It is legally enforceable agreement,
and any party, person or organization that enters into a contract has a
contractual relationship with the other parties. When a party enters into a
contractual relationship, it agrees to certain responsibilities and failure to
adhere to the agreed-upon responsibilities may constitute a breach of contract.
One can only exercise his/her task based on the stipulated contract, nothing
more, nothing less.
There are three
things for a contract to exist: an offer, acceptance and validity. A party is
offering a product or services and the second party is accepting the offer. To
make the agreement valid and binding, the contract has to be written and signed
by both parties which stipulate the duties and responsibilities of both
parties. Once it is signed and notarized by a public attorney, the contract is
legally enforceable. Violating the contract is tantamount to a breach of contract
and can lead to the cease of the relationship or court litigation. The relationship
emanating from the contract is functional (Markgraf, 2018). The relationship exists
as long as both parties are doing their functions stipulated in the contract.
Both parties are bound by the law to implement what has been agreed upon. The
focus is on the content of the contract and the services to be delivered. There is
no human relationship. Any actions done by both parties are only superficial
and it is done to enhance the functional relationship.
Applying such
kind of relationship between the teacher and students means that the
relationship is established because there is an offer or product to be sold to
the students and the students, after some analysis of cost and benefit, accept
the offer or purchase the product. Students enroll and pay the tuition fees and
the school assigns teachers to teach. Both parties (school/teachers and
students) are only allowed to do their duties and responsibilities within the
prescribed contract. Teachers must teach because they are paid by the students
and students should attend class. Violating the contract means the relationship
ceases to exist. Teachers are doing their duties as teachers which are to teach
and the students are paying tuition fees for their salaries. The problems of
whether the students are listening and understanding their subjects are no
longer the concern of teachers. If students listen, understand and then they can
pass. If they do not pass, they are terminated or repeat the subject. The concerns
of why students do not understand and do not pass the exam are no longer their
concern. Looking into the reason behind students’ failure and trying to fix
the problem are beyond their functions. No concern for the students. Just do
the job as demanded by the contracts (Albu, n.d, Quizlet, n.d). There is a rule
of engagement to be followed by both parties.
Such a relationship
implies that knowledge is a commodity. It is like many other things like oil or other products. It
is a commodity, widely used and widely available for sale (Adam, 2013). The teachers are only to deliver the knowledge or information and
the students listen and pay. It is only by listening they can understand and
gain some skills and therefore their investment can have some return. If they
do not listen and understand, they lose their investment. It is no longer the
problem of teachers as to why students fail.
Following such a line of thought, the relationship between teachers and students are business
relationship. There are several types of business relationships. First, is technical relationship. In this kind of relationship, the buyer recognizes that the
seller’s product is as good as or better than the competitor's. There is no personal
rapport between buyer and seller. The danger here is the buyer can go away once
there is a better alternative. The second is social relationships. This relationship
is friendly but superficial. The relationship may be friendly, but their
conversation does not touch on business issues. Lastly partner relationship. This
is the relationship in which the buyer trusts the seller. The buyer knows that
the seller is there to help them. The buyer gets the value out of the
interaction with the seller. As a result, the buyer would like to stay with the
seller (RelatedVision, n.d). The teachers are producers or sellers and the students
are customers or buyers. The focus of teachers is how to produce quality
products or services so that they can retain the loyalty of the students so
they do not go away. The teachers do everything possible to retain the
students. The teachers’ concerns are
preparing their lessons and delivering them well in class to retain the students. This is the only way how to maintain their customers’
loyalty. All activities done by the teachers are only to attract the students
to enrol on their subject and they can have money in return.
The relationship is
just superficial and impersonal. Superficial means “skin deep” or existing on
the surface. Teachers are superficially charming, but it is not coming from
within. Teachers may converse with the students but there is no solid
foundation of their talks (Psychologynet, 2016). Words are said but there is no
deep meaning in it. Teachers become
narcissistic because they are charming to draw people in themselves. They
fake their emotions. Smiling, laughing and talking with the students are not
sincere because in this kind of relationship is just a business strategy to
have a personal attachment with the customer and to retain them not to go away
and enrol in other subjects or another school. The relationship is between
the subject and the object. The teacher is the subject and the students are the object.
Students are used so that the teachers can teach and earn their living.
What
we have mentioned is being practised in the school environment in postmodern
education. Education is a commodity and is no longer an instrument of character
development. It was lamented by Lyotard
(1979) that there has been a significant change in the teacher-student
relation. This is now no longer seen as a pedagogical
relationship but a contractual one. Students, in paying ever higher fees for the privilege of attending
an educational institution, expect good value for their (private,
self-interested) investment. When the
services they 'purchase' do not measure up to expectations be threatened with
legal action for breach of an implied contract. He further reminded the institutions tertiary
institutions must be 'accountable' for what they do, and when they fail to
'deliver the goods', they should pay a (legal and/or financial) price for this.
In
conclusion, we may argue that a contractual relationship is not a proper relationship
to be developed between teachers and students because in such a relationship,
students are treated as customers, and buyers and not as persons who have personal needs such as physiological and psychological needs. Those needs
cannot be fulfilled or satisfied if there is no pedagogical relationship.
Pedagogical relationship
Before going
deeper into our discussion on pedagogical relationships, I want to share my own
experience in secondary education. When I was in secondary education, the
subject that I hated most was English subject. Every time a teacher came to the
class, I felt nervous because he was used to punishing the students who could not
give the right answer in English when he asked questions. What made it worse
was the fact that it was not only the English subject that was being feared but
also the teacher. The subject was hard and the teacher was hard. I was afraid
to ask questions because the teacher might punish me again if I asked the wrong
questions. I was not going any further in my subject, the ignorance continued to
rule. I almost quit but for the sake of finishing my studies, I endured the
situation.
Things changed
when I was in the second level of secondary school. The teacher for the English
subject was changed. He was an ex-seminarian. He encouraged students to ask
questions and correct the mistakes but did not punish the students. The feeling
was that it was ok to make mistakes. The excitement was growing. Not only that,
he allowed us to ask questions anywhere and anytime. He was always ready to
answer us. Such openness allowed us to develop relationships. I became a friend
to him and he helped me a lot with my English subject. I was no longer afraid to
ask questions and to make a mistake because I knew that he was there to guide
me. The result of such a relationship was that I love English subject and I was
always longing to see my English teacher. Not only love the subject but I
usually confide my personal problems to the teacher and he was there to listen
and guide me. Such a wonderful experience inspired me a lot and may the
teacher rest in peace.
The experience that I shared is just a
simple application and explanation of pedagogical relationships. The pedagogical relation refers to a special kind of personal
relationship between teacher and student or adult and child that is different
from other interpersonal personal relationships. The pedagogical relation is
discussed more recently in English by Manen (1991). Manen thinks
that educatorship is at least partly based on the ethical responsibility to
offer oneself constantly to be available to the child as a kind of instrument
or mechanism. Thereby the educator is assumed to act in such a way that s/he
produces the results that s/he immediately feels (believes) the child to intend
in his/her own action. It is not about conscious calculation, but a task that
opens up to the educator as an immediate requirement and responsibility. This
relation between child and parent/teacher is symbolized by 'living with the
child in loco parentis'. Manen means by
this the normatively loaded interaction between adult and child which is
permeated by the adult's responsibility to take care of the child's life and
growth into a responsible person.
As we have
discussed above, teachers have holding big responsibility. The job is not only
to master the subject and deliver it correctly with the correct strategy of
teaching. It takes more than knowing the content to be a good teacher. Teachers
are not only in words but also in action, their behaviour in dealing with the
students. One of the most important aspects of teaching is building
relationships with their students. Teacher-child relationships influence how a
child develops. The relationship can relate to a wide range of school
adjustment outcomes, including liking school, work habits, social skills,
behaviour, and academic performance.
When teachers are open and communicate with their students,
not only inside the classroom but also outside the classroom, they are transmitting not
only knowledge but also values that students need in their lives. As Stonkuvienè
( 2010) emphasized when we communicate with each other we are not only
transmitting messages, but also enriching experiences, perceiving emotions and
cultivating attitudes, values, and ways of being with others and the world. We are
co-building people. The educational context is a privileged environment for
communication, particularly interpersonal communication. Postic (2008)
criticizes theorists who support the study of teaching on the forging of
“teaching machines” and underrate the interpersonal influences of the
pedagogical context, as supported by Rogers (1985) and other authors. In a
dialogical and teleological human sense of education, communication is a
transversal element to all cultures. Communicating is a bio-psychosocial act;
conducted by the body, it involves personalities, roles and emotions.
The
relationship may not be symmetric but asymmetric; it is a relationship between
unequal, teachers and students. Teachers and students are not really equal
friends and their relationship is a relationship of an adult and a child.
Therefore in such a relationship, the teacher is still a teacher who is in the
presence of students who need help and guidance. As in (2013) pointed out your
students are not your friends. She is right because there’s a certain
responsibility in a pedagogical relationship. A
teacher must never confide in a student, or look to a student for emotional support. It is perfectly appropriate for a
student to do these things, however, with a teacher. A teacher stands in
loco parentis. Most college students are young people who have not yet made
their way in the world but who are going to college as part of their
preparation for that. They are more than their student numbers. They are
inexperienced adults who occasionally need support and guidance when
contemplating life’s larger questions, or simply how to survive a term in which
they are taking too many courses to minimize their student loan debt.
It
has been always emphasized that to be an effective teacher is not a matter of
knowing the subject very well but it is more than that, it is more on our
approach to students, and how we view and deal with the students. Students come to
school with their different situations, they are not coming to receive information from the teacher which they can get on the internet but they are
looking for something that could change their life and it may not be given
through the lectures but through our behavior that we show them every day. The
subjects that they learn every day may not inspire them and bring them
happiness, it is not even help them to become a mature person in the future
and help them in their pursuit of “the good life” in the classical sense. But
that can be done only by teachers who are willing to engage with their students
as human beings and who can draw on their own humanity, and not simply their
intellects, in those relationships.
The
call of duty as a teacher is not easy after all. The job goes beyond
preparing for class and teaching well. Ordinarily, nobody likes to occupy their
time entertaining students who come to your office just to see their good
teachers. No one likes to worry about the lives of other people but the call of
duty as a teacher reminds all teachers that it is one your duty to build a
pedagogical relationship with the students. They may not learn values and good
behavior in the classroom but they learn it when they are dealing with their
teachers. They cannot confide their personal problems and aspirations in the
classroom, in front of other students, but they can confide about their lives through
their relationship with their teachers. Listening to their aspirations and aspirations
will inspire them to define their own life of what kind of life they are going
pursue. Teachers need to know their students because by knowing them, teachers
know how to deal with and help them. As Noddings (2007) pointed out teachers
must know about students’ prior experiences and build on them with new learning
experiences. He continued that as the
child’s teacher, you know more about the child than the writers of the book you
are teaching. You can adjust the way you teach based on how your students
learn and what they take an interest in. The curriculum and content being covered
will be much more meaningful if delivered in a way the students favour. Teaching
methods would be enhanced by a curriculum that contributed to the relevance and
interest level of students' work and learning experiences. When students are
forced to go through material that they are not engaged in they will lose
interest. Students need to connect with what they are learning through
engagement. Curriculum approaches that promote combined social as well as
emotional intelligence of students are much more effective (Noddings, 2007).
As
a summary of the idea of pedagogical relationship, we may point out some
characteristics that mark the difference between interpersonal relationships.
In the pedagogical relationship, the adult is directed toward the child and the
relation is asymmetrical, a relationship between unequal. The adult is there
for the child and the child is not there for the adult. The purpose of such
kind of relationship is to help the child grow becoming a better person in the
future. This kind of relationship ends when the child grows up and
matures.
Conclusion
After
discussing three kinds of relationships, now we know what kind of relationship a teacher needs to develop with their students. The relationship is a need,
and it is not only true for adults or teachers but also for children or students.
All need to be able to relate themselves to one another. It is a social
need and it is inborn. Because of such inborn needs, building up interpersonal
relationships is the fulfilment of such needs and it is a must. But this kind
of relationship is between adult or symmetrical relationship, between the
equals, because both are there to fill the vacuum of each individual’s needs.
There is mutuality and reciprocity. Should you consider this kind of
relationship? The message is clear that this relationship is between equals.
The
solution is not even to take a contractual relationship as a replacement. This
kind of relationship is a business relationship, superficial and impersonal.
Therefore, contractual relationship has no place in an educational context,
though; it may be prevalent in postmodern education as lamented by Lyotard
(1979). Such kind of relationship is considered as subject and object
relationship. Both are using each other for individual interests at the expense
of the other.
Therefore,
interpersonal relationships and contractual relationships may not be qualified
for the relationship between an adult and a child or a teacher and student. It
has to be a pedagogical relationship, a relationship that is educational in
nature, a relationship that is oriented toward the growth of the child. It is an asymmetrical, relationship between the unequal. The teachers are there to help
the students. It is the student who needs a teacher.
References
Adams,
M. (2013). Knowledge is a Commodity. The Relationship Economy: Technology and
the Human network. Retrieved from http://www.relationship-economy.com/2013/04/knowledge-is-a-commodity/
Albu,
C. (n.d). Types of relationship between Teachers and Students. (Slide
Presentation). Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/ecaterinaalbu/types-of-relationships-between-teachers-and-students
Baumeister R. F., & Leary M. R. (1995). The
need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental
human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Essays, UK. (2013). Principles for good
interpersonal relationship. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/young-people/principles-for-good-interpersonal-relationship-young-people-essay.php?vref=1
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson,
D. (2003). Social Psychology of Health. In: Salovey, P. & Rothman, A. J.
(Eds.), Social Relationships and Health. New York: Psychological Press, pp.
218-26.
Insel, Th. (2001). The neurobiology of
attachment". Nature Reviews
Neuroscience.
Retrieved from http://www.neurosciencereview.com
Kelley,
H. H., Burscheid, E., Christensen, A. (1983). Close Relationships. New York: Freeman
Lyotard,
J.F. (1979). The Postmodern Condition:
A Report on Knowledge. London and New York: Routledge:
Manen,
V. M. (1991). The Tact of
Teaching: The Meaning of Pedagogical Thoughtfulness. http://www.maxvanmanen.com/biography/ retrieved,
September 8, 2014.
Markgraf, B. (2018). Contractual Relationship
in Management. Chron. Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/contractual-relationships-project-management-63182.html
McShane,
S. (2000). Organizational Behavior. McGraw-Hill: New York.
MSG (n.d). Stages in
Interpersonal relationship. Retrieved from https://www.managementstudyguide.com/stages-in-interpersonal-relationships.htm
Noddings, N. (2007). Critical Lessons: What Our Schools
Should Teach. University Press: Cambridge
Postic,
M. (2008). A Pedagogical Relationship. Lisboa: Padrões Culturais
Psychologynet.
(2016). What is Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.whatispsychology.net/what-does-superficial-mean/
in, M.G. (2013). The Pedagogical Relationship on Teaching. Drexel University. Retrieved from http://mgpiety.org/tag/the-pedagogical-relationship/
Quizlet
(n.d). Contractual Relationship. Retrieved from
https://quizlet.com/14411691/contractual-relationships-flash-cards/
Ryan,
R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation
of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development and Well-being. American
Psychological Association, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 68-78.
RelatedVision.
(n.d). Type of Business Relationship. Retrieved from http://www.relatedvision.com/Building-Relationships/business-relationships.html
Stoner,
J A., Freeman, F., Edward. G., & Daniel R. (2000). Management. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Stonkuvienè.
(2010). Communication as an essential element of the pedagogical process. London: Methuen
& Co.
It's Interesting
ReplyDelete