Expanding the Circle: Aaron Zimmerman on applying interpersonal theory to classroom teaching
Aaron Zimmerman
Michigan State University
Michigan State University
Interpersonal Theory and Classroom Teaching
Aaron Zimmerman
Michigan State University
Teachers consistently report interpersonal relationships to be one of the most satisfying – and potentially frustrating – aspects of their work (Hargreaves, 1998; Shann, 1998; Yoon, 2002). Interpersonal theory provides educational researchers with an intuitive and profoundly valuable tool in making sense of teachers’ classroom experiences. This edition of “Expanding the Circle” highlights the connections between teaching and interpersonal processes.
Just as parents have unique ways of interacting with their children (see Baumrind, 1978), teachers interact with their students in unique ways that mediate the efficacy of instructional practices. For example, asking students to remain seated and attentive until the school bell dismisses them can be expressed and employed by a teacher either as an act of strict control (“You must do exactly as I say”) or as an opportunity to develop students’ maturity (“Let’s talk about how we can best maximize our learning time”). In this way, a teacher’s “style” (the extent to which a teacher is strict, receptive to students’ needs, willing to compromise, etc.) will influence the degree to which students are receptive to their teacher’s influence.
One affordance of interpersonal theory is the ability to describe a teacher’s classroom “style” systematically. Based on Leary’s (1957) orthogonal dimensions of agency and communion, the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI; Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2005; Wubbels & Levy, 1991) employs a circumplex model to delineate eight discrete teacher styles: Leadership; Helpful / Friendly; Understanding; Giving student freedom; Uncertain; Dissatisfied; Admonishing; and Strict (see Figure 1). It has been shown that high levels of teacher dominance decrease classroom misbehavior while high levels of teacher cooperation increase students’ satisfaction with school (Nie & Lau, 2009; Walker, 2008).
Not all teachers, however, are able to
achieve these optimal combinations of control and nurturance; furthermore,
neither teachers’ educational background nor years of teaching experience has
been shown to have a significant relationship to the quality of classroom
relationships that teachers and students report experiencing in the classroom (Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997; Stuhlman &
Pianta, 2002; Wentzel, 2003). If neither professional experience nor
professional training can explain the evolution of a teacher’s classroom style,
increasingly intra-individual explanations may be required.
Interpersonal theory provides a powerful framework with which to explore teachers’ covert processing of interpersonal information (Kiesler, 1996). Teachers may tend to interpret their classroom interactions through their own internal working models of relationships (Pianta, 2006; Spilt, Koomen, & Thijs, 2011; Stuhlman & Pianta, 2002). These mental representations may motivate the distortion of interpersonal information; when daily teacher-student encounters do not satisfy a teacher’s unique interpersonal motivations (cf. Horowitz, 2004), teachers may tend towards emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (Carson & Templin, 2007; Carson, Templin, & Weiss, 2006). Even when recurring patterns of interpersonal functioning are emotionally painful and markedly detract from the quality of one’s teaching (e.g., ignoring student misbehavior; reacting with anger to student immaturity), these transactional patterns may be unconsciously maintained, being as they are consistent with teachers’ firmly established mental representation of self and other (Pincus & Hopwood, 2012; Sullivan, 1953).
It is useful to conceptualize classroom teaching as occurring across the dimensions of agency and communion (for example, via the QTI), and it is equally important to consider ways in which teachers’ internal working models of relationships may distort the processing of teacher-student interactions. Until educational researchers and teacher educators give weight to an individual teacher’s unique interpersonal style, it will remain an enigma as to why some teachers are able to sustain satisfying teacher-student relationships while other teachers respond with emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Interpersonal theory serves as a valuable epistemological and methodological tool that can help scholars better understand the (hidden) reality of what occurs in the classroom.
References
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32, 137-151.
Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth and Society, 9, 239-276.
Carson, R. L., & Templin, T. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and teacher burnout: Who says that the management of emotional expression doesn't matter? Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Annual Convention, Chicago.
Carson, R. L., Templin, T. J., & Weiss, H. M. (2006). Exploring the episodic nature of teachers' emotions and its relationship to teacher burnout. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Convention, San Francisco
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8), 835-854.
Horowitz, L. M. (2004). Interpersonal foundations of psychopathology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality, psychopathology and psychotherapy. New York: Wiley.
Leary, T. (1957). An interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press Company.
Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2009). Complementary roles of care and behavioral control in classroom management: The self-determination theory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 185-194.
Pianta, R. C. (2006). Classroom management and relationships between children and teachers: Implications for research and practice. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 685-709). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pincus, A. L., & Hopwood, C. J. (2012). A contemporary interpersonal model of personality pathology and personality disorder. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shann, M. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 67-73.
Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Thijs, J. T. (2011). Teacher wellbeing: The importance of teacher-student relationships. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 457-477.
Stuhlman, M., & Pianta, R. C. (2002). Teachers' narratives about their relationships with children: Associations with behavior in classrooms. School Psychology Review, 31(2), 148-163.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Walker, J. M. T. (2008). Looking at teacher practices through the lens of parenting style. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(2), 218-240.
Wentzel, K. R. (2003). School adjustment. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 7. Educational psychology (pp. 235-258). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher-student relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 6-24.
Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1991). A comparison of interpersonal behavior of Dutch and American teachers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 1-18.
Yoon, J. S. (2002). Teacher characteristics as predictors of teacher-student relationships: Stress, negative affect, and self-efficacy. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 30, 485-493.
Interpersonal theory provides a powerful framework with which to explore teachers’ covert processing of interpersonal information (Kiesler, 1996). Teachers may tend to interpret their classroom interactions through their own internal working models of relationships (Pianta, 2006; Spilt, Koomen, & Thijs, 2011; Stuhlman & Pianta, 2002). These mental representations may motivate the distortion of interpersonal information; when daily teacher-student encounters do not satisfy a teacher’s unique interpersonal motivations (cf. Horowitz, 2004), teachers may tend towards emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (Carson & Templin, 2007; Carson, Templin, & Weiss, 2006). Even when recurring patterns of interpersonal functioning are emotionally painful and markedly detract from the quality of one’s teaching (e.g., ignoring student misbehavior; reacting with anger to student immaturity), these transactional patterns may be unconsciously maintained, being as they are consistent with teachers’ firmly established mental representation of self and other (Pincus & Hopwood, 2012; Sullivan, 1953).
It is useful to conceptualize classroom teaching as occurring across the dimensions of agency and communion (for example, via the QTI), and it is equally important to consider ways in which teachers’ internal working models of relationships may distort the processing of teacher-student interactions. Until educational researchers and teacher educators give weight to an individual teacher’s unique interpersonal style, it will remain an enigma as to why some teachers are able to sustain satisfying teacher-student relationships while other teachers respond with emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Interpersonal theory serves as a valuable epistemological and methodological tool that can help scholars better understand the (hidden) reality of what occurs in the classroom.
References
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32, 137-151.
Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth and Society, 9, 239-276.
Carson, R. L., & Templin, T. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and teacher burnout: Who says that the management of emotional expression doesn't matter? Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Annual Convention, Chicago.
Carson, R. L., Templin, T. J., & Weiss, H. M. (2006). Exploring the episodic nature of teachers' emotions and its relationship to teacher burnout. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Convention, San Francisco
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8), 835-854.
Horowitz, L. M. (2004). Interpersonal foundations of psychopathology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality, psychopathology and psychotherapy. New York: Wiley.
Leary, T. (1957). An interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press Company.
Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2009). Complementary roles of care and behavioral control in classroom management: The self-determination theory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 185-194.
Pianta, R. C. (2006). Classroom management and relationships between children and teachers: Implications for research and practice. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 685-709). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pincus, A. L., & Hopwood, C. J. (2012). A contemporary interpersonal model of personality pathology and personality disorder. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shann, M. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 67-73.
Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Thijs, J. T. (2011). Teacher wellbeing: The importance of teacher-student relationships. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 457-477.
Stuhlman, M., & Pianta, R. C. (2002). Teachers' narratives about their relationships with children: Associations with behavior in classrooms. School Psychology Review, 31(2), 148-163.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Walker, J. M. T. (2008). Looking at teacher practices through the lens of parenting style. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(2), 218-240.
Wentzel, K. R. (2003). School adjustment. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 7. Educational psychology (pp. 235-258). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher-student relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 6-24.
Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1991). A comparison of interpersonal behavior of Dutch and American teachers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 1-18.
Yoon, J. S. (2002). Teacher characteristics as predictors of teacher-student relationships: Stress, negative affect, and self-efficacy. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 30, 485-493.