Many student accounts in the literature reveal how central their relationships with their teachers are to their learning experiences. According to Young (1998 in Bathmaker, 2001) teacher-student relationships are significant and essential to learning. Students in the literature identified ‘good’ teachers who would enable their learning and ‘bad’ teachers who made learning and engagement difficult.
As discussed earlier, some of the institutional practices of the colleges which teachers are required to implement such as attendance and behavioural policies, served to disengage some students as they felt they were being treated as ‘kids’ similar to their experiences at school. In his research with students on pre-vocational courses, Avis (1984) found that students displayed resistance to the ‘infantalisation’ (p.141) they experienced but also as a means of dealing with a boring class or an unpleasant teacher. Resistance here took the form of messing about in class; challenging or setting up teachers, general disruptive behaviour such as joking and talking, and at times absenting themselves from the class. To an extent, the wider college practices themselves influenced the learning relationships teachers and students formed, as indicated in Avis’ findings (1984) prior to any learning taking place, measures such as taking the register and attendance monitoring reminded students of school and hindered the process of forming the adult learning relationships students sought at college.
However, many student accounts of their relationships with teachers indicates a positive learning experience. In Sailsbury and Jephcote’s research (2008) students felt motivated to learn if their teachers were approachable and able to understand and empathise as this this created a sense of being cared for. Students in Mayes and Crossan’s (2007) research felt that positive learning relationships could be established with their teachers if the teachers were personally and genuinely interested in their progress, not only in terms of their formal learning but also in their personal development. Characteristics such as patience, a sense of humour, helpfulness and discretion were valued by the students and enabled them to forge a strong learning and personal relationship with their teachers. This is consistent within Dziubinski’s (2014) research where positive relationships according to the students, involved more mature interactions than those they had experienced with teachers at school. Students felt that generally their relationships with tutors at college compared to school were more social as tutors were more approachable and open and students could refer to them on first name terms. Students believed this created a more equal power balance and enabled them to feel more connected to their teachers. Students felt valued and experienced increased confidence when their teachers took an interest in their personal views, even if this was beyond the remit
47
of the subject being taught, and when teachers understood student’s individual needs and abilities.
In Bathmaker’s study (2001) students felt that having a good relationship with their teachers was important to their learning. For these foundation GNVQ students a good teacher would help, supply information and make time for them whilst treating them respectfully. In contrast to their school experiences these students felt that a good teacher would not pressurise them or ‘stress them out’ (p.93) and could relate to them on a more informal level. According to Bathmaker (2001) a key reason contributing to the success of these students on their vocational course (in contrast to their failure at school) was ‘closely linked to their relationship with teachers and their acceptance within the college environment’ (p.97). This demonstrates how social and reciprocal the learning process is, as it is negotiated between students and teachers. Students value the importance of their tutors being flexible and engaging with them as equals, thus establishing a learning relationship which is continually negotiated between the two (Mayes and Crossan, 2007).This is confirmed in the findings of Avis et al (2006) who refer to teachers and learners working and participating collectively within their classroom community in order to accomplish the qualification outcomes.
Hodkinson and Bloomer (2000) further illustrate this by stating that teacher-student relationships are ‘constructed and continually negotiated within… strongly bounded and stable shared values’ (p.200) This was particularly evident in the focal SFC within their research, where a positive culture of learning was created and maintained. Students contributed to and preserved the purposeful working atmosphere and valued the responsibility they could assume for their own learning. These positive learning experiences for these students stemmed from their positive accounts of their relationships with their teachers.
The research reveals that the differing teaching and learning styles offered to and expected of students varied depending upon the level and type of qualifications. As illustrated in Hodkinson and Bloomer’s study (2000) SFC students both valued and initiated independent learning in line with the expectations of their A-level courses, their teachers and the whole college culture. Whereas, the students enrolled on vocational courses, placed the responsibility for their learning with their teachers. According to Bathmaker (2001) for these students, GNVQ offers a safe option with limited failure, in which they do not intend to manage or take responsibility for their own learning. Avis et al (2006) also found that GNVQ students lacked confidence and motivation as a result of their previous educational experiences. Rather than being capable of taking responsibility for their own learning, accounts from their teachers
48
revealed they needed a considerable amount of help and support to enable them to succeed on their course.
This need for closer teacher support and guidance was also found in the A-level student accounts of Dziubinski’s (2014) research. These students revealed that the responsibility they were required to take for their own learning and progress made them feel insecure as this differed from their school experiences, and they felt in need of closer direction from their teachers. Focus group discussions within this research illustrated that positive relationships (as detailed earlier) with teachers enabled the students to feel part of a learning community and this in turn contributed to success in their A-level studies.
Whalberg and Gleeson (2003) highlight the contradictions evident in the learning accounts of the GNVQ students in their research. Students sought to be perceived and treated as adults within the college environment however, a ‘good’ teacher was viewed as ‘someone in charge, who knows their subject area’ (p.441) and who can essentially ‘deliver’ the learning required. In ‘contrast the tutor who leaves it up to the students to learn for themselves is seen to be unprofessional’ (p.441). Therefore, for learning to be enabled, the teacher is required to deliver the necessary knowledge and curriculum content and the student needs to be motivated and prepared to respond to this accordingly.
This of course is a simplistic notion gathered from the subjective perspectives of the students in the research. To be perceived as ‘good’, a teacher needs to be able to adapt to and respond to the learning needs of the students enrolled on a particular course. They need to deliver course knowledge and ensure course objectives are met whilst creating a respectful and informal relationship with students. This is arguably a difficult balance to achieve as there is no ‘one-size fits all’ approach to teaching nor is there an exact science to being a ‘good’ teacher. As explored earlier, learning should be understood as a complex cultural process involving prior educational experiences and the dispositions young people bring to their learning, teacher-student relationships, classroom interactions and institutional practices (Hodkinson and Bloomer, 2000, James and Biesta, 2007).
Accounts from tutors in the research also provide descriptions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ students. The ideal student is ‘one who manages their own learning, participates in the course and seeks advice about their assignments’ (Bathmaker, 2001 p.89). ‘Bad’ students showed no sign of motivation or desire to complete work and were described as ‘hanging in’ (Whalberg and Gleeson, 2003, Avis et al 2006), absenting themselves and avoiding contact with teachers. For those students who did display signs of engagement with their learning,
49
teachers showed a high level of time and commitment towards providing additional support for them (Avis et al, 2006). These findings suggest that the learner is as much a contributor to the learning process as the teacher, as it is through negotiation and collaborative working that learning is enabled (Hoogsteder, Maier & Elbers, 1998). This suggests that learning relationships are not necessarily those that exist between teacher and student but are also those relationships which exist between the students themselves.
Mayes and Crossan (2007) propose that learning can be enabled by providing learners with access to the learning experiences of other learners. Through a process of social learning, a student’s approach and attitude to learning is shaped via their observation of other learners. This process of social learning is underpinned by the extent to which a student identifies with the other students within their learning environment. Mayes and Crossan (2007) suggest that learning should be considered as situated at different levels; ‘the sociocultural level of the community, at the organisational level of the college main campus or learning centre, at the more localised learning or teaching group, and at the level of individual relationships’ (p. 292). Thus, student learners are simultaneously represented in and shaped by these multiple levels and the practices in place within them. From this a student will experience a need to identify with other members of their learning community and a strong need to participate within this as a full member.
According to Mayes and Crossan (2007) ‘the attitudes and norms of the learning group are powerful determinants of the nature of the learning that actually occurs’ (p. 293). They suggest that a student’s motivation to learn can be determined by social goals that have very little association to the curriculum or the characteristics of the learning environment but are instead linked to peer esteem. Deriving from social identity literature, Mayes and Crossan (2007) posit that a student can become defined more by a group or community, and their motivation to learn stems from the desire to belong fully to the group. Thus, the group provides the student with a reason to learn.
This concept of learning being a social process shaped by both student and staff within a learning community is a salient feature in the literature and is central to understanding and exploring student experience at SFC. Theories from which this idea emerges from include situated learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991) and Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998). These are presented and discussed in more depth in the following chapter.
These findings, further illuminate the complex interactions between a student’s personal and educational biography, their choice of course and college and the interactions and
50
relationships formed between fellow students and staff, and how in complex and differing ways they can either enable or disable learning. Linked within this are the varying curriculum objectives of the course a student undertakes. These shape the course delivery and style of teaching implemented by teachers which in turn contribute to and shape the formation of learning relationships.