Developing Pedagogical

Relationships with At-Risk

Students
Clay Aitken

Introduction
The intention of this current project was to
highlight the need for educators to develop
pedagogical relationships with at-risk
elementary aged students and to share
strategies with teachers to help them begin the
relationship building process to increase
students overall chances of academic success.

Statement of Problem

Many students today do not have the skills

necessary to address their social and/or emotional
issues in order to be successful at school. This
causes them to be considered at-risk.

Many of these struggling students can get help in

the comfort of their homes from supportive families
(Hutton, 2008). However, there are many children
who do not have this support at home as their
families are struggling with similar social and/or
emotional issues (Hutton, 2008).

Students who exhibit problem behaviors at home are

more likely to have conflictual relationships with
their teachers at school (Murray & Murray, 2004).

20.4% of British Columbia youth live in poverty

(Child Poverty Affects 1 in 5, 2015).

Rationale for Study of

Problem

Due to an ongoing increase in students who are

identified as having social/emotional issues, and a
funding freeze for public education in British Columbia
for three years starting in 2014/15, all students,
especially elementary aged, are not able to get the
supports that they need to succeed within the
classroom (Culbert & Shaw, 2014).

Establishing a strong student-teacher relationship with

these students at an early age could have a dramatic
impact on not only their schooling, but the rest of their
lives. Student-teacher relationships from as early as
kindergarten are highly predictive of long-term
educational outcomes (Pianta, Hamre, & Stuhlman,
2003).

It is students who are at-risk for academic or

behavioral challenges that benefit the most from a
strong pedagogical relationship (Pianta et al. 2003).

Definitions
Pedagogical Relationship

The definition of a pedagogical relationship as defined by one of

the early European pioneers of this theory, Nohl, tells us that it is a relationship between a mature person and
someone who is developing (as cited in Spiecker, 1984). The purpose of the relationship is to help the
developing person achieve their fullest potential (as cited in Spiecker, 1984). Nohl goes on to discuss more
specifically in an educational setting how the sole focus of the teacher is developing that particular child
without any ulterior motive or personal gain on their behalf (as cited in Spiecker, 1984). In essence, the
relationship is one-sided, and needs to be, in order to help the child increase their capacity to learn (as cited in
Spiecker, 1984).

At-Risk -

The term at-risk describes a student who is in need of ongoing intensive intervention to
succeed socially and/or academically within the classroom. More specifically, they possess some or all of these
character traits: emotional or behavioral problems, truancy, low academic performance, lack of interest for
academics, risk of dropping out of school, and an expressed disconnection from the school environment
(Education and Economic Development Coordinating Council At-Risk Student Committee, 2008). These
students have difficulty transitioning into adulthood and are less likely to achieve financial stability (Koball,
2011).

The Need for

Interventions
Having a strong student-teacher pedagogical relationship has been shown to increase students overall
participation in class, increase their social skills, enhance academic scores, and to increase the students
resiliency both inside and outside of the classroom (Curby, Rimm-Kaufman, & Ponitz, 2009; Ewing & Taylor,
2009; Rudasill et al., 2010).

Teachers who were able to develop these relationships, which is shown by reports of high support and
closeness, as well as little to no documented instances of conflict, have reported that their students have
higher attendance rates, are more motivated to succeed, and are more constantly cooperative and engaged
compared to students who did not have this established relationship with their teacher (Decker, Dona, &
Christenson, 2007; Klem & Connell, 2004).

These at-risk students can at times be carrying a multitude of other issues in their lives, but until they have a
strong relationship with at least one adult, they will not trust anyone enough to be open to receiving
assistance on their other issues.

For some students, developing these relationships can take years.

Although these young students are generally the most difficult to connect and bond with, they are the ones
who need it the most.

Personal Context
I have spent the majority of my career working in alternate education. From my experience, the majority of the
students in alternate education are at-risk. They are at risk of academic failure, drug abuse, criminal offenses, and
other potential life threatening activities. These are also the same reasons why they are no longer attending their
neighborhood school. For whatever reason, their home school is unable to provide the types of services that these
students need in order to succeed.

We need to teach students to be able to attend to their own learning, before we can attempt to teach them anything
academic. Many of these students have significant academic gaps, and are well below grade level. This is often
because of missing large chunks of schooling due to these social/emotional/behavioral issues.

This past year I decided to make a switch to elementary school as a Student Support Teacher. My goal was to
recognize these at-risk students at an early age and attempt to develop intervention strategies so that they can be
successful in their latter part of elementary school and have continued success as they transition to high school.

My years in the alternate setting taught me how important it was to develop professional rapport and relationships
with these students.

Establishing pedagogical relationships ended up leading to greater life chances as students became more open to
communication not only with the trusted adult, but paraprofessionals as well. These students needed to learn how to
establish and maintain a healthy relationship. Once this skill had been formed, they were able to seek out these
relationships on their own in all different aspects of their life.

Research Question
What strategies and/or methods can an educator use to
develop pedagogical relationships with at-risk elementary
aged students so that they can successfully attend to their
learning?

Methodology
For the purpose of this current project I explored articles and other research
papers that share the importance of establishing a pedagogical relationship
with at-risk elementary students, what barriers an educator might face, and
different strategies to make these student-teacher connections.
After compiling this information a website (http://clayaitken.weebly.com/)
was created that shares the research about this topic, as well as suggestions
on how to start the journey.
The goal of this resource is ultimately to reduce dropout rates, help students
attend to their own learning, and allow them to create and maintain healthy
relationships throughout the course of their own life.

Literature Review

Introduction

A Pedagogical Relationship

This review highlights the factors that

cause a student to be at-risk and identifies
which ones are the most common. It also
shows what the key pieces to building
pedagogical relationships are, and several
of the studies discuss what the students
need in these relationships from their own
perspective.
This review documents not only the
successful impact these relationships can
have on students throughout the school
day, but how it can change their life
beyond the classroom.

There is significant evidence showing that a strong studentteacher relationship that is established during the early years of
learning will lead to greater educational success (Pianta et al.,
2003).

The first theoretical idea of a pedagogical relationship was

mentioned in 1911 by Wilhelm Dilthey. He called it the
geisteswissenschaftliche pedagogy (as cited in Spiecker, 1984,
p.203).

In 1957, Nohl, a student of Dilthey, building on the work of

Dilthey, developed the concept of pedagogical relationship (as
cited in Spiecker, 1984). He stated that a pedagogical
relationship is the loving relationship of a mature person with a
developing person, entered into for the sake of a child so that he
can discover his own life and form (as cited in Spiecker, 1984, p.
204).

Connecting with
Adults
Ingram and Worall (1993) believe that the students should be involved in deciding how most aspects of the

classroom are organized and run. This conversation should be facilitated by the teacher, but should allow
the students to voice their opinions and negotiate on the way certain things are done.
A similar idea came from Greene (1978) as he emphasized that in order to build healthy relationships you
have to have the ability to empower someone.
Paley (1990) discusses the importance of the teacher trying to see each students unique point of view about
any specific situation. She feels that in order to build the pedagogical relationship you must learn to
understand each child and show empathy to the students within your classroom by assessing their unique
academic skills, meeting their parents, and observing them socially to know their needs and challenges.
Establishing rapport was shown in several different studies as a main aspect of building a relationship
(Barnes, 1990; Miles, 1988; Miller, 1983).
There is a strong emphasis on the importance of the teachers personality, attitude, and genuine discourse
during their daily routines. It has been noted by Miller (1983) that students enjoy hearing about a teachers
life outside of school. They appreciate hearing about their family, hobbies, and interests.

Relationship for at-risk

Students
From my personal experience, I have always felt that trust is the number one issue that needs to

be established in order to build relationships with at-risk students.

For children to open up and trust you, they must feel that you accept them as people, that you
are nonjudgmental and noncritical of them as human beings (Zehm & Kottler, 1993, p. 55).
For at-risk students, their teacher is a substitute for their parent, which is why it is increasingly
important that the teacher develop a pedagogical relationship with these students to help put
them on the right path (Comer, 2001).
Black (2002) points out that there is evidence that suggests that student-teacher relationships
are an increasingly growing indicator as to whether or not students will drop out of school.
Metz (1983) says that this is even more dramatic when dealing with students who live in poverty
or are a minority. Positive relationships with a trusted adult who has shown that they genuinely
care about a child will enhance their desire to succeed in school.

What Students
Value
Bielenka (2011) uses the term at-promise instead of at-risk when describing struggling

youth to shift focus to the students potential rather than the current outcomes.
Bielenkas (2011) findings showed that developing strong relationships does not have a
specific sequence or specific actions that need to be followed, but that this is a process
that must be undertaken by considering the unique needs of each student.
Caring can be displayed by teachers in three main areas: activities, principles, and
environments (Bielenka, 2011).
Activities refer to what is being done within the classroom. Students enjoy choice,
flexibility, having fun, and the ability to have some ownership of their own learning.
Principles discusses the importance of trust, respect, safety, being present, and awareness
of a students background.
Environment refers to the students desire to have school as a happy and successful place
to spend their day.

Importance of Early
Intervention
Kathleen Rudasill, Joanne Reio, Natalie Stipanovic, and Jane Taylor (2010) focused on students who were

identified to have difficult temperaments at the age of 4.5 and were presenting risky behavior in the 4th,
5th, and 6th grade.
Early initiation of risky behavior exposes adolescents to harmful effects for longer periods. Indeed,
maladaptive risky behaviors may increase the likelihood of negative outcomes such as addiction, reckless
driving, unintentional injury, and HIV infection (Rudasill et al., 2010, p. 390).
Rudasill et al. (2010) produced three main findings from their study.
First, students family background, and difficult temperament (assessed at age 4.5) influenced risky
behavior in the 6th grade.
Secondly, these same factors also influenced the quality of student-teacher relationships with teachers
reporting that they were more likely to have conflictual relationships with these students, and students
from higher income families and receiving no special services were more likely to have close relationships
with teachers in 4th, 5th, and 6th grades (Rudasill et al., 2010, p. 404).
Finally, students who had quality relationships with their teachers that were identified with difficult
temperaments at the age of 4.5 were much less likely to engage in risky behaviors in grade 4, 5, and 6.

Impact of
Relationships
Lander (2009) focused on a negative relationship between a teacher and a 6th grade student. Using emotion-focused

therapy (EFT) he showed how negative classroom behaviors can decrease while a positive student-teacher
relationship can emerge.
The student and teacher, along with the author of this study met for 10 weekly EFT sessions in hopes of improving
their relationship.
The study discussed the current behavior issues of this student towards the teacher that included, but are not
limited to, pushing and hitting, swearing, scratching negative words into her vehicle, and throwing items.
Near the end of their sessions they were able to reach some of the primary emotions for the students behavior.
During a session the young boy wrote, It hurts like a fist when she brings me down, it is just like at home when they
beat me down, down, down, down down, straight into hell" (Lander, 2009, p. 235), when talking about his teacher.
This student has a complex background that his home life has negatively impacted. After learning this, the teacher
looked at the student differently and developed empathy.
After this information had been shared during the EFT sessions and the primary emotions for these behaviors had
been revealed, the final sessions revolved around rebuilding their relationship.
Results showed that the student was enjoying being in class, and that the teacher reported increased positive
interactions with her own family as a result of being less stressed and not talking with them as much about her
problems at work" (Lander, 2009, p. 237).

Successfully Building
Relationships
Woolfolk et al. (2007) share three main strategies for teachers to focus on when trying to build

relationships and establish a students trust within the elementary classroom, 1) avoid listening to
tattle-tale stories; 2) ensure that consequences are fair and consistent; and 3) avoid unwarranted
comparisons while allowing students opportunities to improve the quality of their work (p. 92).
Ignoring tattle-tale stories increases the students ability to problem solve while having to handle
small problems on their own.
Fair and consistent consequences allow students to know what will happen if they make a poor
decision, and that the repercussion of their choices will match their actions.
Comparing students to each other is unfair and puts unnecessary pressure on them. Each student
develops at a different rate, and should not be expected to be the same as others. The focus should
be on self-improvement, not becoming better than a peer.
The ability to take ideas and strategies and apply them class wide, rather than to individual
students, makes it easier for the teacher to be consistent, and for the students to understand what
is expected of them.

Tribes
The mission of Tribes is to assure the healthy
development of every child so that each has the
knowledge, competency and resilience to be successful in
todays rapidly changing world (Gibbs, 2001).
Intends to train teachers to build a cohesive relationship
with their students while enhancing the academic and
social performance (Gibbs, 2001).
Berky Hernandez-Owolabis (2012) study.

PATHS
Promoting Alternate Thinking Strategies (PATHS), developed by Dr.
Mark Greenberg (Greenberg, Kusch, Cook, & Quamma, 1995) is a
program for grades K-6.
Focuses on developing conflict resolution skills, building problem
solving skills, increasing self-control and awareness, and developing
positive relationships.
Educators working with this program on a daily basis reported
increases in positive peer interactions and a higher level of social and
academic engagement throughout the day (Bierman et al., 2010).

Responsive Classroom
Responsive Classroom (Rimm-Kaufman, Baroody, Larsen, Curby,
& Abry, 2014) is a class based intervention strategy that
combines social and academic learning in grades K-7.
Follows a daily structure that includes a daily meeting and
several choices of activities.
Rimm-Kaufman et al., (2014) found that teachers employing
these strategies on a daily basis had developed closer
relationships with their students when compared to what they
were before they started using these techniques

Reflecting
Comer (2001), and Metz (1983) have found that the principal factor of a student being considered at-risk

is an unstable home life.

Poverty plays a huge role in this situation and it often seems like a perpetual cycle that is almost
impossible to break.
Audas and Willms, (2001) and Rudasill et al. (2010) reported that if some sort of an intervention does not
occur to try and break this pattern that these students are at extreme risk of drug and/or alcohol abuse,
unsafe sexual behavior, drop-out, and criminal records at a young age.
One way to help mitigate between a students challenging home-life and their success at school is for the
student to build a strong relationship with a teacher.
Trust was the most common as it appeared as one of the main factors to building a relationship in studies
done by Janosz et al. (2013), Zehm and Kottler (1993), Fine (1991), Black (2002), and Metz (1983).
It has been shown that for students who are considered at-risk, or at-promise, that the development of
these relationships at an early age may be the only thing that keeps them in school (Audas & Willms,
2001; Rudasill et al., 2010; Koball, 2011; Murray & Murray, 2004).
Building a pedagogical relationship takes a tremendous amount of time and energy
If the teacher and student can become empathetic of one another they will be able to form a stronger
bond (Lander, 2009).

Conclusion and
Recommendations

Findings
Pedagogical relationships have tremendous impact on the success of all
students, but are increasingly more important for students who are at-risk
(Pianta et al., 2003).
At-risk students who do not develop these relationships with their educators at
an early age are far more likely to drop out of school, abuse drugs and alcohol,
have negative relationships outside of school, and have difficulty transitioning
into adulthood (Audas & Willms, 2001; Rudasill et al., 2010; Koball, 2011;
Murray & Murray, 2004).
The most important piece of building a pedagogical relationship is establishing
trust with the student (Janosz et al., 2013; Zehm & Kottler, 1993; Fine, 1991;
Black, 2002; Metz, 1983).

Recommendations
Teachers must be actively working towards building these relationships for it to actually

happen (Greene, 1986).

Miller (1983) suggests that the teacher needs to be genuine with their students and share
some of their hobbies and interests.
Teachers also need to help empower students within their classroom and let them have a voice
(Greene, 1978).
Sit down with all teachers and administrators in your school and discuss your current level of
social/emotional needs for your students (Gwynne et al., 2012).
If there is an apparent need for intervention, it would be beneficial to put a whole school
system in place
Having administration support and help in the planning of this model will make it a more
effective process (Bryk et al., 2010).
Schools that possess a staff community that focus on developing and nurturing pedagogical
relationships as one of their main goals achieve high graduation rates (Gwynne et al., 2012).

Recommendations
CONTINUED
As a school wide approach, or an individual classroom approach if the
previous is not an option, it is important to decide which strategy you want to
use to help build relationships.
Options to consider include Tribes (Gibbs, 2001), Responsive Classroom
(Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2014), or PATHS program (Greenberg et al., 1995).
Others may follow the research that a mentoring program is a strong
proactive approach to avoid early drop out for at-risk students (Reglin, 1998).
Regardless of what approach teachers decide to utilize to help students
develop pedagogical relationships, it is essential that they personally focus on
what students value the most: help, safety, openness, and respect (Bielenka,
2011).

Implications for Future

Considerations
It is important to note that building pedagogical relationships with students takes

a great deal of time and commitment from the teacher.

Greene (1986) stated that these relationships do not happen naturally and the
teacher must put in a purposeful and focused effort for the relationship to develop.
If it is not something a teacher values, or is willing to commit to, it will not happen.
Miller (1983), talks about the importance for teachers to be genuine and authentic
throughout their daily routines. This is very difficult for some educators and may
hinder their progress in creating connections with their students.
I will provide for you on-going mentoring opportunities on a daily basis that will
include before or after school check-ins depending on your preference.
We will discuss your plan and progress in a safe and caring environment and
brainstorm new ideas or strategies.

Future Practice
Throughout the research process I have learned the importance
of building pedagogical relationships with every student, but
that it is even more crucial for students considered to be at-risk
(Audas & Willms, 2001; Rudasill et al., 2010; Koball, 2011;
Murray & Murray, 2004).

THE END
Thank you!