How Pupil–Teacher Relationships Contribute to Alienation of Pupils: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Fanny Huang and Version 1 by Benjamin Looker.

Pupil–teacher relationships have been widely researched, reaching the consensus that they have a significant impact on an individual’s development throughout their education. 

  • pupil–teacher relationships
  • grounded theory
  • critical realism
  • social contracts

1. Introduction

Pupil–teacher relationships have been widely researched, reaching the consensus that they have a significant impact on an individual’s development throughout their education [1,2,3][1][2][3]. Research by Kington [4] reported that positive teacher–pupil relationships centre on five key areas; namely, interaction, behaviour, expectations, proximity, and control. Findings indicated that teachers experience a series of “relationship transitions” (p. 189) in relation to the five areas, and that these transitions can often present teachers with “conflicting views of positive teacher-pupil relationships, creating personal dissonance as they try to make sense of their role in these relationships” [4]. The study concluded that, as teachers develop through their career, there are areas of tension which may have an impact on their future relationships with pupils. A subsequent study [5] found that teacher–pupil relationships evident in primary classrooms contribute to the overall learning environment particularly in relation to interactions, routines, and activities. In addition, there was found to be a statistical association between pupils’ views of their relationships with teachers and their self-reported satisfaction with school. Furthermore, the research demonstrated variations in perceptions of teacher–pupil relationships in relation to pupil year group, school context, and length of experience of the teacher.
Studies have shown that adolescents are more likely to lose enjoyment and interest at the start of the transition to secondary school [6], with suggestions that effective pupil–teacher relationships can have a protective effect against disengagement [7,8,9,10][7][8][9][10]. There is limited research regarding the association between pupils experiencing alienation and their academic progress. Despite this, the literature which does exist suggests pupils who experience alienation-like characteristics, such as disaffection and lack of engagement, are less likely to make significant academic progress when compared to their non-alienated peers [11,12,13][11][12][13]. Additionally, positive relationships between pupils and teachers have been shown to reduce rates of pupil dropout [14,15,16][14][15][16]. However, there remains limited research exploring how pupils experience these relationships with reference to alienation from their learning.

2. Alienation

As a concept, alienation was first described in 1844 by Karl Marx as a way of being estranged from the reality of labour [19][17]. Marx described this lack of connectedness as an ongoing cycle of making oneself alien to the products formed from labour, the products of labour, and their associated reality. The term alienation was later refined by Seeman [20,21][18][19] into an empirical concept [22][20], bringing its study to prominence in the social sciences. Seeman’s work on alienation aimed to unify the concept [20][18], which identified five ways in which the term alienation had been used. These have since been refined into the four accepted categories for the study of school alienation; powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, and social estrangement [22,23][20][21].
Seeman’s [20,21][18][19] descriptions of alienation are still used and have been applied to various research areas. This is not surprising, as although Seeman’s lens is sociologically oriented, his definitions are psychological [22][20], focusing on how individuals interact and interpret their situations. Eccles and Roeser’s review of the research explored the impact schools have on pupil development during adolescence [6] and suggested that pupils’ initial disengagement with school is psychological, followed by observable, behavioural actions. The use of the term ”disengagement” is not to be understood as a direct replacement for alienation. Archambault et al. [24][22] make a clear distinction between the terminologies by stressing that engagement and alienation are not to be understood as antonyms. They, instead, suggest that a decrease in school interest and motivation, observed as disengagement, are precursors to pupil alienation. That is to say that a lack of engagement is antecedent to alienation, not synonymous with it.
School alienation, as a stressor in adolescent life, has been examined in attempts to understand the significant challenges it presents to schools [25,26][23][24]. The body of literature on school alienation has attempted to streamline the broad definitions offered by Seeman [20][18], but a consensus has yet to be achieved. For example, Hascher and Hadjar [22][20] highlight that most of the existing research can be sorted by the purpose of the study; that is, those that focus on the (i) various forms of alienation from schools, (ii) symptoms and indicators, and (iii) concepts which specify pupil alienation as an empirical construct. A recurring theme throughout much of the literature is the interconnectedness between relationships and pupil alienation from school, although whilst some studies approach this directly, others only feature it as a part of the analysis or context.

3. Approaching a Definition of Alienation in School

Seeman’s attempts to add clarity to the term alienation resulted in the variety of categorisations identified above. In the years since these definitions were first suggested, educational researchers have carried out studies examining pupil alienation using a variety of different definitions. Hascher and Hadjar’s comprehensive review of school alienation [22][20] characterises Seeman’s approach to the conceptualisations of alienation as very broad. However, with much of the literature on alienation citing Seeman, it is understandable why subsequent attempts to define this concept lack homogeneity. It appears that, as a psychological construct, alienation either cannot easily be defined, or it is such a broad concept that it requires multiple, specific definitions.
Attempts to apply alienation to schools have ranged from using the term by relating it to atypical behaviour [27][25], equating it with estrangement [28][26], defining it in terms of intellectual alienation [29][27], and discussing alienation concerning marginalisation due to race [30][28]. In addition to those sources which use the terms disengagement [24,31][22][29] and disaffection [32][30], school alienation has also been described in terms of the relationship an individual has with the culture of the school [3].
For such a relationship to be classified as alienated, the individual must exhibit characteristics such as indifference or hostility which cause or lead to suffering [22][20]. Although attempts to provide clarity seem to have provided a broader understanding of the term, there is a degree of congruence running throughout all the studies, e.g., [29,33,34,35,36][27][31][32][33][34]; each use of the term fits into one of Seeman’s [20,21][18][19] definitions. The themes of powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, and estrangement run strongly throughout other studies, whether explicitly or implicitly. Of the attempts to define alienation, Hascher and Hadjar’s [22][20] reach the most inclusive definition. Their systematic analysis considers the many constructs which are accepted as being part of the concept and use these ideas to formulate a comprehensive definition of school alienation:
a specific set of negative attitudes towards social and academic domains of schooling comprising cognitive and affective elements. While the cognitive dimension relates to student appraisals of the school environment, the affective dimension relates to their feelings. These negative attitudes develop and change over time in terms of a state and can solidify into a disposition.
Hascher and Hadjar (p. 179) [22][20]
This definition, encompassing powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, and social estrangement [20[18][19][21],21,23], captures the constructs and experiences of alienation. It also refers to a set of negative attitudes, which is also a recurring theme, and encompasses Morinaj et al.’s [37][35] understanding that socialisation agents can vary for alienated pupils across the domains of learning, teachers, and classmates.

4. Pupil–Teacher Relationships and Alienation

Strong, positive pupil–teacher relationships, characterised by mutual respect and pupil participation in the classroom [38][36], have been identified through both qualitative and quantitative studies as crucial to preventing school alienation [39,40,41,42][37][38][39][40]. Schultz and Rubel [42][40] identified, through qualitative enquiry, that alienated pupils can feel a sense of powerlessness when describing negative relationships with their teachers; however, findings also showed that young people were still able to form positive relationships with at least one teacher who they viewed as supportive and nurturing. These positive relationships are characterised by teachers who express concern for pupils’ wellbeing in contrast to negative relationships which enhanced feelings of school alienation [42][40]. In a study following 178 pupils aged 5–13 years, it has been shown that strong, early, interpersonal relationships between teachers and pupils play an important role in the social development of all pupils in a school [43][41]. Their study does not explicitly explore alienation. Instead, when discussing positive pupil–teacher relationships, references are made to ”positive attachments”, indicating that a sense of belonging, or being-with, helps pupils develop socially. Furthermore, although it has been shown that these relationships often vary according to teachers’ career phase, they should be seen as dynamic, developing, and situated within the specific context of where they take place [44][42]. This supports the idea that relationships between pupils and teachers play an important role in feelings of alienation and are subject to changes throughout their progression.
Similarly, Amitay and Rahav’s [45][43] grounded theory study identified that teachers showing care to pupils helped to create meaningful learning. They reported that pupils who had experienced alienating encounters with teachers in the past were able to talk about positive relationships they subsequently formed. Their theoretical model proposes that by achieving this level of professional attachment, the teachers have been able to counteract the feelings of alienation experienced by the pupils. This suggests that for attachment to occur, meaningful relationships must be present, supporting Seeman’s description of meaninglessness as a construct of alienation [20,21][18][19]. Preston et al.’s review [31][29] of the extant literature further adds to the discourse, offering that feelings of powerlessness are relevant when conceptualising alienation and attachment. They suggest that attachment, engagement, and commitment are in direct opposition to alienation, defining attachment as the degree to which individuals feel part of their school community, including a sense of belonging.
Although research on alienation within education is a developing body of work, there remains a limited volume of literature exploring its intersection with pupil–teacher relationships [46][44]. Much of the work in this field has focused on either the alienation of educators [47,48,49][45][46][47] or of pupils from the practice of education, often in specific areas of the curriculum such as physical education [50,51,52][48][49][50]. However, it does seem to be clear that effective pupil–teacher relationships have a protective effect against school alienation [53][51], with emerging evidence suggesting pupil–pupil relationships also contribute to a protective effect [26][24].

References

  1. Kohn, A. Beyond Discipline from Compliance to Community; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2006.
  2. Sointu, E.T.; Savolainen, H.; Lappalainen, K.; Lambert, M.C. Longitudinal Associations of Student-Teacher Relationships and Behavioural and Emotional Strengths on Academic Achievement. Educ. Psychol. 2017, 37, 457–467.
  3. Davis, H.A. Conceptualizing the Role and Influence of Student-Teacher Relationships on Children’s Social and Cognitive Development. Educ. Psychol. 2003, 38, 207–234.
  4. Kington, A. Narratives of Variation in Teacher-Pupil Relationships across a Career. Eur. J. Educ. Stud. 2012, 4, 189–201.
  5. Kington, A. Interpersonal Relationships in the Primary Classroom: An Analysis of Social and Affective Outcomes. J. Psychol. Soc. Behav. Res. 2013, 1, 116–127.
  6. Eccles, J.S.; Roeser, R.W. Schools, Academic Motivation, and Stage-Environment Fit. In Handbook of Adolescent Psychology; Lerner, R.M., Steinberg, J., Eds.; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 404–434.
  7. Gorard, S.; See, B.H. How Can We Enhance Enjoyment of Secondary School? The Student View. Br. Educ. Res. J. 2011, 37, 671–690.
  8. Duffy, G.; Elwood, J. The Perspectives of Disengaged Students in the 14–19 Phase on Motivations and Barrier to Learning within the Contexts of Institutions and Classrooms. Lond. Rev. Educ. 2013, 11, 112–126.
  9. Maclellan, E. How Might Teachers Enable Learner Self-Confidence? A Review Study. Educ. Rev. 2014, 66, 59–74.
  10. Guvenc, H. The Relationship between Teachers’ Motivational Support and Engagement versus Disaffection. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2015, 15, 647–657.
  11. Lohmann, J.S. Public Alternative School Practice: Creating Spaces for Reengagement and Reconnection. Diss. Abstr. Int. Sect. A Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2010, 70, 4138.
  12. Dotterer, A.M.; Lowe, K. Classroom Context, School Engagement, and Academic Achievement in Early Adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 2011, 40, 1649–1660.
  13. Putwain, D.; Nicholson, J.; Edwards, J. Hard to Reach and Hard to Teach: Supporting the Self-Regulation of Learning in an Alternative Provision Secondary School. Educ. Stud. 2016, 42, 1–18.
  14. Hopkins, B. Restorative Approaches in UK Schools. Int. J. Restor. Justice 2007, 3, 3–18.
  15. Zabloski, J.; Milacci, F. Gifted Dropouts: Phenomenological Case Studies of Rural Gifted Students. J. Ethnogr. Qual. Res. 2012, 6, 175–190.
  16. Yildiz, B.; Alpkan, L. A Theoretical Model on the Proposed Predictors of Destructive Deviant Workplace Behaviors and the Mediator Role of Alienation. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 210, 330–338.
  17. Marx, K. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844; International Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1964.
  18. Seeman, M. On the Meaning of Alienation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1959, 24, 783–791.
  19. Seeman, M. Alienation Studies. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1975, 1, 91–123.
  20. Hascher, T.; Hadjar, A. School Alienation. Theoretical Approaches and Educational Research. Educ. Res. 2018, 60, 171–188.
  21. Mau, R.Y. The Validity and Devolution of a Concept: Student Alienation. Adolescence 1992, 27, 731–741.
  22. Archambault, I.; Janosz, M.; Fallu, J.S.; Pagani, L.S. Student Engagement and Its Relationship with Early High School Dropout. J. Adolesc. 2009, 32, 651–670.
  23. Morinaj, J.; Hascher, T. School Alienation and Student Well-Being: A Cross-Lagged Longitudinal Analysis. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2018, 34, 273–294.
  24. Grecu, A.; Hadjar, A.; Simoes Loureiro, K. The Role of Teaching Styles in the Development of School Alienation and Behavioral Consequences: A Mixed Methods Study of Luxembourgish Primary Schools. SAGE Open 2022, 12, 21582440221105477.
  25. Schultz, L.L. Targeting School Factors That Contribute to Youth Alienation: Focused School Counseling Programs. J. Instr. Psychol. 2011, 38, 75–83.
  26. Wang, Y. Embracing Dissonant Voices in English Classrooms. Contemp. Issues Educ. Res. 2010, 3, 21–27.
  27. Brown, M.T.; Rodriguez, L.F. School and the Co-Construction of Dropout. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 2009, 22, 221–242.
  28. Berryman, M.; Eley, E. Student Belonging: Critical Relationships and Responsibilities. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2019, 23, 985–1001.
  29. Preston, C.; Goldring, E.; Guthrie, J.E.; Ramsey, R.; Huff, J. Conceptualizing Essential Components of Effective High Schools. Leadersh. Policy Sch. 2017, 16, 525–562.
  30. Swann, S. Pupil Disaffection in Schools: Bad Boys and Hard Girls; Ashgate: Farnham, UK, 2013.
  31. Taines, C. Intervening in Alienation: The Outcomes for Urban Youth of Participating in School Activism. Am. Educ. Res. 2012, 49, 53–86.
  32. Lewis, J.; Coursol, D.; Bremer, K.; Komarenko, O. Alienation among College Students and Attitudes toward Face-to-Face and Online Counseling: Implications for Student Learning. J. Cogn. Educ. Psychol. 2015, 14, 28–37.
  33. Anderson, C.; Turner, A.; Heath, R.; Payne, C. On the Meaning of Grit…and Hope…and Fate Control…and Alienation…and Locus of Control…and…Self-Efficacy…and…Effort Optimism…and…. Urban Rev. J. 2016, 48, 198–219.
  34. Kumari, S.; Kumar, P. Study of Academic Performance among College Students in Relation to Student Alienation. Educ. Quest Int. J. Educ. Appl. Soc. Sci. 2017, 8, 375–380.
  35. Morinaj, J.; de Moll, F.; Hascher, T.; Hadjar, A.; Grecu, A.; Scharf, J. School Alienation Among Adolescents in Switzerland and Luxembourg: The Role of Parent and Peer Supportive Attitudes Toward School and Teacher Autonomy Support. Youth Soc. 2023, 55, 187–212.
  36. Glasser, W. The Quality School Curriculum. Phi Delta Kappan 1992, 73, 690–694.
  37. Taylor, J. Through a Critical Lens: Native American Alienation from Higher Education; Education Resources Information Centre: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED452753 (accessed on 11 July 2023).
  38. Studsrød, I.; Bru, E. Perceptions of Peers as Socialization Agents and Adjustment in Upper Secondary School. Emot. Behav. Difficulties 2011, 16, 159–172.
  39. Studsrød, I.; Bru, E. Upper Secondary School Students Perceptions of Teacher Socialization Practices and Reports of School Adjustment. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2012, 33, 308–324.
  40. Schultz, L.L.; Rubel, D.J. A Phenomenology of Alienation in High School: The Experiences of Five Male Non-Completers. Prof. Sch. Couns. 2011, 14, 286–298.
  41. Hamre, B.K.; Pianta, R.C. Early Teacher-Child Relationships and the Trajectory of Children’s School Outcomes Through Eighth Grade. Child Dev. 2001, 72, 625–638.
  42. Looker, B.; Kington, A. Developing Teacher–Pupil Relationships in the Classroom: The Influence of Primary Teachers’ Career Phase and Experience. In Social and Learning Relationships in Primary Schools; Kington, A., Blackmore, K., Eds.; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2020.
  43. Amitay, G.; Rahav, G. Attachment and Pedagogical Relevant Practices as Elements of a Successful Alternative School through the Narratives of Its Students. Psychol. Sch. 2018, 55, 1239–1258.
  44. Morinaj, J.; Scharf, J.; Grecu, A.L.; Hadjar, A.; Hascher, T.; Marcin, K. School Alienation, A Construct Validation Study. Frontline Learn. Res. 2017, 5, 36–59.
  45. Pugh, K.J.; Zhao, Y. Stories of Teacher Alienation: A Look at the Unintended Consequences of Efforts to Empower Teachers. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2003, 19, 187–201.
  46. Brooks, J.S.; Hughes, R.M.; Brooks, M.C. Fear and Trembling in the American High School: Educational Reform and Teacher Alienation. Educ. Policy 2008, 22, 45–62.
  47. Martinez, A.N.; Valdez, C.; Cariaga, S. Solidarity with the People: Organizing to Disrupt Teacher Alienation. Equity Excell. Educ. 2016, 49, 300–313.
  48. Carlson, T.B. We Hate Gym: Student Alienation from Physical Education. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 1995, 14, 467–477.
  49. Burkhalter, N.A.; Wendt, J.C. Prediction of Selected Fitness Indicators by Gender, Age, Alienation, and Perceived Competence. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2001, 21, 3–15.
  50. Spencer-Cavaliere, N.; Rintoul, M.A. Alienation in Physical Education from the Perspectives of Children. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2012, 31, 344–361.
  51. Mahmoudi, H.; Brown, M.R.; Amani Saribagloo, J.; Dadashzadeh, S. The Role of School Culture and Basic Psychological Needs on Iranian Adolescents’ Academic Alienation: A Multi-Level Examination. Youth Soc. 2018, 50, 116–136.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback