What are Helpful Pedagogical Relationships when Teachers Work with Emotionally, Socially, and Behaviorally Vulnerable Children and Youth? A Theory Map for Enriching the University Students' Learning Experience

Abstract

The building of pedagogical relationships, particularly when teachers work with emotionally, socially, or behaviorally vulnerable children and youth, is regarded as one of the most important components of any educational work. What exactly is a helpful pedagogical relationship and how does it look like? How much empathy or pacing is necessary in a pedagogical relationship and how much objectification, demarcation or even confrontation is needed? To answer these questions we must draw from proven theories and models. Neither the present day education in general, nor special education in particular, could develop a consistent and comprehensive, evidence-based theory concerning the building of pedagogical relationships, particularly with regard to teaching children and youth who are vulnerable in their emotional and social development. What we have is a theoretical landscape of scattered, qualitative models, approaches and experiences from the pedagogical and also therapeutical fields. But it is not easy to apply therapeutical concepts to teaching in schools. Teaching in schools and classrooms implies many other factors than therapeutical work, which has different conditions, frames, and goals. Looking at the Responsible Thinking Process (Ford), an American school-wide time out model which has been largely adopted in Germany´s schools, a demonstrative friendliness is practiced by the teachers, who apply the model. But this friendliness looks superficial and mechanical, because there is no verifiable interest in the child´s or youth´s life situation. The rigid model does not allow to ask questions with regard to the youngster's life context and emotions and only focuses on the question: which problem behavior the child has performed and what the child will do next to behave better. School-wide Positive Behavior Support (PBIS) as an evidence-based intervention system seems to aim plausibly at a good pedagogical relationship, through practicing a generally positive attitude towards the students, even when they behave very challengingly. But PBIS offers not much space for the pedagogical reflection of the many phenomena which may occur in the complex educational reality and which are not covered by the model and also demand a solid relationship buiding. Much knowledge with regard to pedagogical relationship building can be drawn from John Bowlby´s Attachment Theory, including the Nuture Groups which have been established in countless British mainstream and specialized schools. The concept of a secure attachment is the key concept, which then allows the child to explore and discover his or her environment, and learn and develop. In those cases where the child could not internalize and build up such a secure attachment pattern, teachers must provide the necessary experiences to rebuild such a mental structure in the child belatedly. Other points of reference are provided through Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytical Pedagogy, which is sensitized for the processes of transference and counter-transference in pedagogical relationships. Additional theoretical stimuli and practical orientation evolved from the Client-Centered Approach in the tradition of Carl Rogers. Other components of pedagogical relationship building can be found in the European and American historical Reform Pedagogy, in the North American Urban Education and Teaching for Social Justice and in some scattered European models of a didactic which focuses on the lifeworld of emotionally, socially, and behaviorally vulnerable children and youth. In the field of the controversially discussed Confrontational Pedagogy very rigorous and hard arrangements of relationships between staff and youth can be observed. Here the argument is that empathy will not be sufficient to change the destructive behavior patterns of these youth. Moreover it is necessary to break their will first. Then the personality can be built up again. American Boot Camps inspired some German schools to adopt this kind of problematic pedagogy. In the past extreme embodiments of pedagogical relationships have occured, in both directions, when looking at Germany, from very close relationships with erotical undercurrents, which in some cases, ended up in sexual relationships between male teachers and male youngsters (e.g., Odenwaldschule) to the ice-cold elimination of vulnerable children and youth in psychopathological and totalitarian school cultures (e.g., the Schwarzegg Case). Both forms of abuse have their own ideological backgrounds.

Full text

What are Helpful Pedagogical Relationships when Teachers Work with
Emotionally, Socially, and Behaviorally Vulnerable Children and Youth?
A Theory Map for Enriching the University Students´ Learning Experience
Joachim Broecher, Regina Künzler-Knufinke, Julia M. Siebert, Anette Steimann
University of Flensburg, Flensburg, Germany
Department for the Education of Children and Youth with Emotional, Social, and Behavioral Difficulties
Pedagogical Relationsships Seen from Attachment Theory
Bennathan, M. and Boxall, M. (2000).
Nurture groups: Effective intervention in primary schools
. London: Fulton
Bowlby, J. (1969).
Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment
. London: Hogarth
Bowlby, J. (1973).
Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation
. London: Hogarth
Bowlby, J. (1980).
Attachment and loss, Vol. 3: Loss: Sadness and depression
. London: Hogarth
Bowlby, J. (2005).
The making and breaking of affectional bonds
. London: Routledge
Boxall, M. (2010).
Nurture groups in schools. Principles and practice
(2nd ed.). London: Sage
Bartick-Ericson, C. (2006). Attachment security and the school experience for emotionally disturbed adolescents in special
education.
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties,
11(1), 49-60
Boorn, C., Hopkins Dunn, P., and Page, C. (2010). Growing a nurturing classroom.
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties
,
15(4), 311-321
Colley, D. (2009). Nurture groups in secondary schools.
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties
, 14(4), 291-300
Doyle, R. (2003). Developing the nurturing school. Spreading nurture group principles and practices into mainstreaming
classrooms.
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties
, 8(4), 252-266
Garner, J. and Thomas, M. (2011). The role and contribution of Nurture Groups in secondary schools: Perceptions of child-
ren, parents and staff.
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties,
16(2), 207-224
Iszatt, J. and Wasilewska, T. (1997). Nuture Groups: An early internvention model enabling vulnerable children with emoti-
onal and behavioural difficulties to integrate successfully into school.
Educational and Child Psychology
, 14(3), 121-139
Kourmoulaki, A. (2013). Nurture Groups in a Scottish secondary school: Purpose, features, value and areas of develop-
ment.
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties
, 18(1), 60-76
Lucas, S. (1999). The nurturing school: The impact of Nurture Group principles and practice on the whole school.
Emotio-
nal and Behavioural Difficulties,
4(3), 14-19
Pedagogical Relationships Seen from the Client-Centered Approach
Kirschenbaum, H. and Land Henderson, V. (eds.) (1990).
The Carl Rogers reader
. London: Constable
Rogers, C. R. (1942).
Counseling and psychotherapy. New concepts in practice.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Rogers, C. R. (1951).
Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications and theory.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Rogers, C. R. (1961).
On becoming a person
. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Rogers, C. R. (1969).
Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become
. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill
Rogers, C. R. (1970).
On Encounter Groups
. New York: Harper and Row
The building of pedagogical relationships, particularly when teachers work with
emotionally, socially, or behaviorally vulnerable children and youth, is regarded as
one of the most important components of any educational work. What exactly is a
helpful pedagogical relationship and how does it look like? How much empathy or
pacing is necessary in a pedagogical relationship and how much objectification,
demarcation or even confrontation is needed?
To answer these questions we must draw from proven theories and models. Neither
the present day education in general, nor special education in particular, could de-
velop a consistent and comprehensive, evidence-based theory concerning the buil-
ding of pedagogical relationships, particularly with regard to teaching children and
youth who are vulnerable in their emotional and social development. What we ha-
ve is a theoretical landscape of scattered, qualitative models, approaches and expe-
riences from the pedagogical and also therapeutical fields. But it is not easy to
apply therapeutical concepts to teaching in schools. Teaching in schools and class-
rooms implies many other factors than therapeutical work, which has different
conditions, frames, and goals.
Looking at the Responsible Thinking Process (Ford), an American school-wide ti-
me out model which has been largely adopted in Germany´s schools, a demonstra-
tive friendliness is practiced by the teachers, who apply the model. But this friend-
liness looks superficial and mechanical, because there is no verifiable interest in
the child´s or youth´s life situation. The rigid model does not allow to ask questi-
ons with regard to the youngster´s life context and emotions and only focuses on
the question: which problem behavior the child has performed and what the child
will do next to behave better.
School-wide Positive Behavior Support (PBIS) as an evidence-based intervention
system seems to aim plausibly at a good pedagogical relationship, through practi-
cing a generally positive attitude towards the students, even when they behave
very challengingly. But PBIS offers not much space for the pedagogical reflection
of the many phenomena which may occur in the complex educational reality and
which are not covered by the model and also demand a solid relationship buiding.
A special education teacher and his students during an experiential learning trip
to the island of Sylt, North Germany, Foto: A. Schmachtenberg
Much knowledge with regard to pedagogical relationship building can be drawn
from John Bowlby´s Attachment Theory, including the Nuture Groups which have
been established in countless British mainstream and specialized schools. The con-
cept of a secure attachment is the key concept, which then allows the child to ex-
plore and discover his or her environment, and learn and develop. In those cases
where the child could not internalize and build up such a secure attachment pat-
tern, teachers must provide the necessary experiences to rebuild such a mental
structure in the child belatedly.
Other points of reference are provided through Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalyti-
cal Pedagogy, which is sensitized for the processes of transference and counter-
transference in pedagogical relationships. Additional theoretical stimuli and practi-
cal orientation evolved from the Client-Centered Approach in the tradition of Carl
Rogers. Other components of pedagogical relationship building can be found in
the European and American historical Reform Pedagogy, in the North American
Urban Education and Teaching for Social Justice and in some scattered European
models of a didactic which focuses on the lifeworld of emotionally, socially, and
behaviorally vulnerable children and youth.
In the field of the controversially discussed Confrontational Pedagogy very ri-
gorous and hard arrangements of relationships between staff and youth can be ob-
served. Here the argument is that empathy will not be sufficient to change the de-
structive behavior patterns of these youth. Moreover it is necessary to break their
will first. Then the personality can be built up again. American Boot Camps inspi-
red some German schools to adopt this kind of problematic pedagogy.
In the past extreme embodiments of pedagogical relationships have occured, in
both directions, when looking at Germany, from very close relationships with ero-
tical undercurrents, which in some cases, ended up in sexual relationships between
male teachers and male youngsters (e.g., Odenwaldschule) to the ice-cold elimina-
tion of vulnerable children and youth in psychopathological and totalitarian school
cultures (e.g., the Schwarzegg Case). Both forms of abuse have their own ideolo-
gical backgrounds.
Pedagogical Relationships Seen from Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytical Pedagogy
Aichhorn, A. (1955).
Wayward youth. A psychoanalytical study of delinquent children illustrated by actual case histories
.
Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press
Aichhorn, A. (1964).
Delinquency and child guidance. Selected papers
. New York, NY: International Universities Press
Bettelheim, B. (1950).
Love is not enough: The treatment of emotionally disturbed children
. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press
Bettelheim, B. (1955).
Truants from life: The rehabilitation of emotionally disturbed children.
Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press
Blos, P. (1962).
On adolescence, a psychoanalytical interpretation
. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press
Blos, P. (1985).
Son and father: Before and after the Oedipus Complex
. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press
Freud, A. (1963).
Psychoanalysis for teachers and parents
. New York, London: W.W. Norton and Company
Freud, A. (1992).
The ego and the mechanisms of defence
. London, UK: Karnac Books
Redl, F. and Wineman, D. (1965).
Children who hate: A sensitive analysis of the anti-social behavior of children in their
response to the adult world.
New York, NY: Free Press
Pedagogical Relationships Seen from a Didactic which is Focused on the Students´ Lifeworld
Broecher, J. (2000). A didactic approach emphasizing the social habitat as an attempt to meet growing social disintegration:
Teaching in classes with youth of conspicuous behaviour using aesthetic and cultural means of communication.
Disability
and Society
, 15(3), 489-506, Link
Pedagogical Relationships in Urban Education and Teaching for Social Justice
Garza, R. (2009). Latino and white high school students´ perceptions of caring behaviors: Are we culturally responsive to
our students?
Urban Education
, 44(3), 297-321
Jackson, I., Sealey-Ruiz, Y. and Watson, W. (2014). Reciprocal love: Mentoring Black and Latino males through an ethos
of care.
Urban Education
, 49(4), 394-417
McHugh, R.M., Horner, C.G. , Colditz, J.B. and LeBaron Wallace, T. (2013). Bridges and barriers: Adolescent perceptions
of student-teacher-relationships.
Urban Education
, 48(1), 9-43
Michie, G. (2009).
Holler if you hear me: The education of a teacher and his students
(2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College
Press
Michie, G. (ed.) (2005).
See you when we get there: Teaching for change in urban schools
. New York: Teachers College
Press
Sapphire (2009).
Push. A novel
. New York: Vintage Contemporaries
Shevalier, R. and McKenzie, B.A. (2012). Culturally responsive teaching as an ethics– and care-based approach to Urban
Education.
Urban Education
, 47(6), 1086-1105
Pedagogical relationship-building in practice:
An expert teller of tales and seaman´s yarns
Rainer Lüders led generations of children and youth by the Wadden Sea and on the Southern
end of Sylt, including those from alternative schools for students with emotional and behavio-
ral difficulties. This teacher was an expert teller of tales and seaman´s yarns. Holding out the
prospect, say, of finding weapons dating from World War Two in the tidal flats, he motivated
youngsters that scarecely ever walked any distance to set out on long hikes.
Source: Broecher, J. (2015).
Inspirational moments in an educator´s life
, p. 33, Foto: J.B.
Pedagogical Relationships in Confrontational and Paramilitary Pedagogies
Broecher, J. (2016). The long struggle to turn around an inhumane, corrupt, paramilitary school specialized for students
with emotional and behavioral difficulties. In R. Nata (Ed.),
Progress in Education
, Vol. 38 (39-72). New York: Nova Sci-
ence Publishers, Download
Broecher, J. (2014). The interconnection between formal inclusion and internal exclusion: How the `Training Room´ Pro-
gram in German schools seeks to improve classroom discipline, but in doing so inhibits the development of a participative
and empowering learning culture.
Studies in Social, Emotional and Behavioral Education
, Vol. 3. Norderstedt: BoD
Pedagogical Relationships Seen from the Behavior-Approach
Bambara, L.M. (2002). Are you a behaviorist or a bonder? Smashing artificial dichotomies and entering into a dialogue of
shared knowledge and multiple perspectives.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
, 4(1), 17-20
McLaughlin, M.D. and Carr, E.G. (2005). Quality of rapport as a setting event for problem behavior: Assessment and inter-
vention.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
, 7(2), 68-91
Sanchez Fouler, L.T., Banks, T.I., Anhalt, K. and Hinrichs Der, H. (2008). The association between externalizing behavior
problems, teacher-student-relationship quality, and academic performance in young urban learners.
Behavioral Disorders
,
33(3), 167-183
Pedagogical Relationships Seen from Teaching across Cultures
Ikpeze, C.H. (2015).
Teaching across cultures. Building pedagogical relationships in diverse contexts.
Rotterdam, Nether-
lands: Sense Publishers , Preview
Suggestions for further reading….