Relational Competence and Leadership

DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, LANGUAGES AND MEDIA

Degree Project with Specialisation in English Studies in

Education

15 Credits, Second Cycle

Relational Competence and

Leadership

Relationskompetens och ledarskap

Henrik Riber

Pontus Sjögren

Master of Arts in Secondary Education, 270 credits English Studies and Education

Date of submission: 2021-01-17

Examiner: Shaun Nolan Supervisor: Damon Tutunjian

Individual Contributions

We hereby certify that all parts of this essay reflect the equal participation of both signatories below:

The parts we refer to are as follows:

• Planning

• Research question selection

• Article searches and decisions pertaining to the outline of the paper • Presentation of findings, discussion, and conclusion

Authenticated by:

Abstract

An increasing number of studies suggest that a positive teacher-student relationship is an important element of successful education. Yet, resources and awareness about how teachers in Sweden can develop skills for supporting positive teacher-student relationships seem to be limited or lacking in popular teaching training programs where almost all focus is put on subject-knowledge and didactics.

One potential means of promoting a leadership that endorses a positive teacher-student relationship is through the development of relational competence. Briefly, relational competence can be understood as how the teacher meets a student on a level where the

teacher plans his or her actions by knowing the students experiences and life situation. This is connected to the teachers' communicative, differentiation, and social-emotional competence (Aspelin, 2018). Such an approach has been demonstrated to be successful in Denmark, where it has been introduced in teacher training programs as well as in the school system. In this paper we investigate to what degree current English teachers in Swedish compulsory school are aware of relational competence as a tool, what features from relational competence do the teacher currently use in their classroom leadership, and what aspects of relational competence teachers perceive as difficult to adopt or implement as a concept.

Results show that Swedish English teachers work with relationships in connection with leadership and didactic competence, but that a majority of the informants do not have sufficient knowledge, terminology, time, or training to work with relational competence. Additionally, the teachers find it a challenge to implement the concept when it comes to significantly changing their view in the classroom to include not only the student or situation but the whole interactional situation between teacher and student.

Keywords: Classroom Leadership, ESL, Relational Competence, Teacher-Student

Table of contents

1. Introduction 5

2. Aim and research question 8

2.1 Research Questions 8

3. Literature Overview 9

3.1 Relation competence - a definition 9

3.2 Perception of relationship competence 12

3.3 Teacher challenges when creating relationships 16

4. Method 19 4.1 Participants 20 4.2 Materials 22 4.3 Procedure 24 4.4 Ethical considerations 25 4.5 Analysis 26

5. Results and Discussion 28

5.1 Analysing and interpreting question 1 28

5.2 Analysing and interpreting question 2 32

5.3 Analysing and interpreting question 3 35

1. Introduction

One important responsibility that teachers have is to create a good and successful learning environment for the students. In the Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the leisure-time centre, the Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket) states that teaching should promote all students' development and learning and create a lifelong desire to learn. It is also stated that the school's mission is to promote learning that stimulates the individual to acquire and develop knowledge and that the school values should be

characterized by care, consideration and generosity for the individual. In addition, teachers are tasked to strengthen the students´ willingness to learn and create confidence in the students' own abilities. Skolverket also emphasises that teachers must assume that students are able to and desire to take personal responsibility for their learning and their work in school (Skolverket, 2011). As such, it is implied that Swedish teachers should consider the well-being of students and endorse a leadership that enables relationships that considers students' needs both emotionally and within subject development.

Thornberg (2013) advocates that a good leader in the classroom listens to the children's views and opens a certain space for negotiation. The teacher also works for the students to act independently with a good self-regulation. The respect between the children and the teacher is emphasised, and understanding of rules, values and expectations are obtained through reasoning. The relationship with the children is based on emotional support characterized by warmth, respectfulness, care, and closeness. A similar approach to leadership in the

classroom is found in Drugli (2014) who points to the importance of emotional support for creating a good learning environment. Here, the interaction between teacher and student should be one defined by warmth and support and where explanations and instructions are given in dialogue with the student group. In return, it can increase the probability of a better relationship between the teacher and the student.

A basic quality that is made visible by both Thornberg (2013) and Drugli (2014) is that leadership in the classroom consists of creating a better and closer relationship between teacher and student. This thus means that a leadership that promotes good teacher-student relations is something teachers should strive for. In fact, an increasing number of studies suggest that a supportive, positive teacher-student relationship is an important element of successful education (Aspelin, 2016; Aspelin & Jonsson, 2019; Hughes, 2012; Martin,

Marsh, McInerney, Green, & Dowson, 2007; Pianta, Nimetz, & Bennett, 1997; Klinge, 2016; Murray and Pianta, 2007). Yet, despite this wealth of evidence, resources and awareness about supporting positive teacher-student relationships seem to be limited or lacking in popular teaching training programs for teachers in Sweden.

One potential means of promoting positive teacher-student relationships could lie in the conceptualisation of relational competence. Relational competence can be understood as how the teacher meets a student on a level where the teacher plans his or her actions by knowing the students experiences and life situation. This is connected to the teachers' communicative, differentiation, and social-emotional competence. Studies on relational competence have had a major breakthrough in Denmark, where the concept has been introduced in teacher training programs and the school system, but in Sweden the concept has not had the same attention (Malmström, 2020). Aspelin (2018) points out that almost all focus in Swedish teacher training programs is put on subject-knowledge and didactics within the subject even if some attention is turned towards pedagogical leadership in the classroom.

In a recent article by Malmström (2020), published by Skolverket, results of research in relational competence are presented. In the article, it is acknowledged that relational competence can be trained. This is in contrast to earlier beliefs where the ability to build relationships was seen as something natural that comes with time and was created from within the individual person. It then becomes interesting to investigate what aspects of relation competence current English teachers in Sweden are aware of or would define as part of their classroom leadership. An investigation of Swedish ESL teachers’ current level of knowledge of relational competencies in class 7-9 might provide new insights in the field.1

Further, it can potentially give support towards what aspects of relational competence that should be focused upon when educating teachers or coming teachers.

Additionally, it would be of interest to touch upon what can prevent teachers from adopting the concept or understanding of relational competence. Aspelin (2018) suggests that teachers’ low relational competence can be associated with the teacher following a rigid order of interaction in order to maintain leadership and position in the classroom which is not associated with the aspects that defines relational competence. Two international studies by Aultman, Williams-Johnson and Schutz (2009) and García-Moya, Moreno and Brooks, 1_{Primary school in the Swedish school system covers the first compulsory 9 years from class 1 till class 9.} Students in class 7-9 will normally be 13 to 15 years old.

(2019) both investigate challenges for teachers when trying to establish relationships with students. The authors in both studies argue for a significant problem for teachers in this respect seems to be tied in with a constant fear of losing control or being able to maintain control over the students. Further, it is mentioned that the teachers have received little or no training in relationship building in the classroom. Such research raises the question as to how English teachers in Sweden define their role in the classroom and the willingness to or security in abandoning the rigid order of interaction to explore new ways to lead the teachings in the classroom.

2. Aim and research question

The aim for this study is to use a set of semi-structured interviews to conduct a qualitative investigation of to what degree English teachers in Swedish compulsory schools in class 7-9 are aware of and make use of features related to relational competence in their own practice as leaders in the classroom.

2.1 Research Questions

● To what degree are English teachers in class 7-9 in Swedish compulsory schools aware of relational competence as a tool for classroom leadership? ● What features from relational competence do Swedish compulsory school

teachers in class 7-9 currently use in their own teaching practice?

● What aspects of relational competence do teachers perceive as being difficult to implement?

3. Literature Overview

In this section, we begin with an exploration of recent studies that define relation

competence. We then turn to a presentation of international research which illustrates how teachers and teacher students tend to perceive the notion of relation competence. Finally, we present research which identifies potential challenges that teachers perceive themselves facing when working to create relationships with the students.

3.1 Relation competence - a definition

Jensen and Juul (2002) define relational competence as the educator's ability to see the individual child on the child's own terms and adjust his or her own behaviour accordingly without relinquishing leadership, and the ability to be authentic in the contact. Thus, Jensen and Juul give the concept of relational competence two significant meanings, namely the pedagogical craft, i.e. the ability to see and meet the child without relinquishing leadership and authenticity, and the pedagogical ethics, which is about the pedagogue's ability and willingness to assume full responsibility for the quality of the relationship. The authors also believe that developing students' social skills is a pedagogical task, and that this process is precisely about good relational skills in the adult, as one competence is developed in interaction with the other.

A study that further investigates which aspects comprise relationship competence was carried out by Klinge (2016). The purpose of the study was to develop knowledge about relational competence as it appears in the interaction between teacher and student. The relational competence is defined as “establish and maintain relationships with students, individually as well as collectively; relationships that support the class’ collective learning and thus the well-being and versatile development of the individual student” (Klinge, 2016, our translation).

The study observed four teachers teaching in classes 5, 6 and 7 and was carried out in two schools situated in Copenhagen. The observations followed two teachers who found it challenging to create positive relationships with the students and two teachers who did not find it challenging. The study also interviewed teachers and 50 of the teachers' students. Klinge's analysis generally supports that quality in the teacher-student relationship and that the teachers’ relational competence affects the individual student’s well-being, social conduct

and subject-related engagement. Klinge also shows that teachers act with relational

competence when they ethically care about the students, when they adapt and agree with the students, and when they work to support the students' sense of self-determination,

competence and belonging. In addition, individual students and whole classes act significantly differently in various situations depending on the teacher being relationally competent or not. Finally, Klinge concludes that relational competence pointed at individual students differs from the one pointed at groups of students, the first form being more personal and empathetic then the latter. Relational competence is a general human competence, and a teacher can to a certain extent act with relational competence in the interaction with students. However, such relationship skills are likely to be situationally dependent and personally dependent, because teachers can act differently even if they work in very similar

circumstances (Klinge, 2016).

Aspelin (2018) also attempts to define relational competence and to establish how it can be developed. In this, Aspelin connects to Nordic and international research to give a view of a growing research area where he addresses research within teacher-student relationships and the importance of positive relationships in the development of students. In a research

overview by the Danish organisation Clearinghouse for Uddannelsesforskning (Nordenbo et al, 2008, c.f. Aspelin, 2018) 70 national and international effect studies from 1997 to 2000 are viewed in order to examine which competencies are of most importance for the student's achievements. It was concluded that three competencies are central in a good teacher: 1) Didactic competence, 2) Leadership competence, and 3) Relation competence.

Aspelin (2018) builds on the findings of Nordenbo et al (2008), looking more closely at the relative contribution of the three competencies identified therein. He concludes that didactic and leadership competencies are well-researched and recognised whereas relational

competence does not have the same attention. Aspelin further connects the relational competence to theories of Buber (1990B/1953, c.f. Aspelin, 2018), where Buber makes a distinction between two relational expressions, and Scheff’s (1990, c.f. Aspelin, 2018) relational theory into a model of his own by claiming that relational competence can be defined as “...good ability to communicate and build stable social bonds”. Aspelin argues that a more refined terminology is needed and proposes a model (see Figure 1.) where the

Figure 1.

Model of relational competence

Note. Aspelin, 2018

The first sub-component is communicative competence which concerns the teacher's capability of verbal and non-verbal communication which contributes to meaning creation and progression in a high degree of cognitive and emotional attunement in relation to the students. The actions of the teacher encourage mutual understanding and respect in interactions with students. Simply put, such teachers are skilled at coordinating his or her speech and gestures when communicating through facial expression, body position, body movements, and through tone of voice which influences the students’ perception of the situation.

The second component, differentiation competence, relates to the ability to find a golden mean between proximity and distance between individuals. It is the capability of teachers to regulate the degree of closeness and distance in order to create a space where both teacher and student can discern themselves as individuals, without compromising social bonds. From one extreme, the teacher is too concerned with him or herself and/or the goals and workflow in the classroom, thus losing contact with the student. From the other extreme, the teacher points too much focus on the students’ thoughts, feelings, behaviour, background,

experiences, needs, interests, wishes and so on thus losing contact with important aspects of the work in class and him or herself.

The last component socio-emotional competence relates to the ability to be sensitive to emotional signals concerning the status and quality of social bonds in interpersonal communication. The actions of the teacher evoke and encourage feelings of pride, while acknowledging and channelling feelings of shame in a direction that is productive in relation to educational achievements. The teacher, in and through the verbal and non-verbal

communication, interprets the student’s as well as the teacher's own emotional response (Aspelin, 2018).

Summing up, relational competence as construed by Aspelin and colleagues can be defined as how the teacher meets a student where the teacher can ethically evaluate and plan his or her actions with knowledge of the students' experiences and life situation. The three

competencies work as an ongoing communication process where the teacher's actions promote the relationship with the student. This involves both verbal and non-verbal

communication, the ability to achieve an adequate degree of adaptation and differentiation in a way that is sensitive to emotional signals so that students' and teachers' emotions are channelled to promote educational objectives (Aspelin, 2018: Aspelin & Jonsson, 2019). Aspelin (2018) continues to summarize his model into the following definition: “Relational competence includes the teacher's ability to communicate so that there is harmony and differentiation in relation to the student and that the student - and the teacher's own - feelings are channelled in a fruitful way” (Aspelin, 2018, p. 51, our translation).

3.2 Perception of relationship competence

Aspelin and Jonsson (2019) examined how the development of teacher students’ relational competence can be supported through the use of digital video recordings. In the study, the Aspelin (2018) conceptualisation of relational competence is used. The study was conducted under the auspices of Kristianstad University, and the collection of data for the study was done during a course for teacher students with a focus on class 4-6. The selection of participants was based on a convenience sample in which six teacher students participated. Each teacher student was presented with three video sequences based on a teacher-student interaction where the teacher's relationship skills in the videos are challenged. The teacher

students then had to analyse the video sequences in writing. The written analyses by the students were then subjected to a thematic analysis in order to identify patterns in what the teacher students focused on. The results from the study showed that the teacher students gave higher priority to concepts, phrases(phrasing) and words(wording) in their written analyses to aspects that were about didactic competence and leadership competence rather than the teacher-student interaction. Only a few descriptions and interpretations were expressed from the teacher students regarding how teachers and students communicate in the videos, or regarding how they interpret and are influenced by each other’s actions in a continuously changing situation.

From this, Aspelin and Jonsson (2019) hypothesized that teacher students may not be able to distinguish teacher-student interactions in the situations in the films (i.e., that they do not see it, because they do not know what to look for), or that they do not have the right professional language to communicate about teachers' relationship skills. They argue that the results of their study demonstrate a need for development among teacher students in terms of

communicative competence, differentiation competence and socio-emotional competence. In detail, Aspelin and Jonsson propose that teacher students need to develop skills for describing and interpreting how teachers communicate verbally as well as non-verbally, and how

teachers and students think and feel during communication. Teacher students need to understand how empathy for the students’ side of the relationship can contribute to more effective communication. Also, teacher students need to become aware of how to encourage an adequate degree of closeness and distance in teacher-student relationships, and how teachers can encourage feelings of pride and avoid humiliating situations for the students. Further, teacher students should learn how teachers can deal with feelings of shame in both the students and themselves, and how teacher-student communication affects the students' learning and development. Lastly, Aspelin and Jonsson argue that the three sub-components within relational competence can be used to guide the attention of teachers and teacher educators regarding relational competence.

A similar study by Plantin (2020) used a so-called lesson study to examine how teachers' theoretical understanding of relational competence increased during a teacher-led intervention (conducted by the researcher) on relational competence. The primary focus of the study was on teachers' ability to observe and explain non-verbal and verbal communication. A lesson study is a collaborative method where teachers work together to plan, implement and evaluate

the effectiveness of a lesson in terms of students' learning and behaviour. The lesson is then revised based on results from the evaluation. The researcher's teaching team that created the design and method for the study consisted of supervisors and doctoral students who all had employment as teachers at Malmö University and Kristianstad University. The study done by Plantin used a mixed method approach. The quantitative method was used to measure the effect of the intervention, and the qualitative method was used to provide a deeper

understanding of more complex dimensions of the teachers' understanding of relational competence. Data for the study were collected primarily through a pre- and post-test from a web questionnaire that contained both closed (quantitative) and open-ended questions

(qualitative). In addition to the results from the pre- and post test, a collaborative analysis was carried out during the intervention which was later qualitatively analysed. The study was conducted in a Swedish municipality, where twenty-seven lead teachers were invited to participate in the study, of which 19 participated.

The results showed that a majority of the participants consider the intervention to contribute to an increase in their understanding of the teachers' relational competence. However, it was during the collaborative analysis that the teachers drew attention to the non-verbal

communication. The survey showed that the participants' relational competence are

significantly higher in the post-test compared with the pre-test. According to Plantin, this was surprising as the intervention was short, and all participants had many years of teaching experience. A closer interpretation of the web questionnaires together with the recorded parts of the intervention showed that the participants have an implicit and partial pre-understanding of relational competence before the intervention, but appropriate words and concepts to verbalise relational competence are lacking.

In a Danish study, Wahlgren, Mariager-Anderson and Sørensen (2016) investigated the development of teachers’ relational competence and relational actions after having

participated in various educational activities with a focus on relational competence. The data collection for the study consisted of participating teachers in a two year adult education from five Danish universities. The study used a questionnaire survey and interviews. The

questionnaire survey was divided into two different parts, where the first questionnaire examined how well the participants consider themselves to be in relational competence and relational actions. The second survey was conducted to analyse the development of the

participants' competence and action development after participation in the training program's activities.

The interviews consisted of two participants from each university and were conducted on three occasions during the program period. Of the approximately 200 participants in the survey, approximately 100 participants consisted of so-called core participants who were directly involved in the teaching program. The rest of the participants - other teachers - were only involved in knowledge-sharing activities led by the core participants. The study thus wanted to make visible whether the teaching program could document an effect on the core participants and whether their teacher-led knowledge-sharing activities had an effect on the total group of teachers - other teachers.

The results from the study showed that the participants consider themselves to be quite competent in terms of relationship skills. On the other hand, the study showed that core participants consider themselves to have better relationship skills after participating in the teaching program. It was also stated that they became better at talking to a student's personal situation outside the classroom and at understanding the social interaction within the class. From the interviews of the study, which underwent a thematic content analysis, it is shown that the participants in the training program expressed an increased understanding of the importance of relational competence and what relational competence entails.

The studies of Aspelin & Jonsson (2019), Plantin (2020) and Wahlgren., Et al. (2016) thus highlight a pattern of teachers and teacher students who have limited knowledge in

relationship skills. The reason may be that they do not have enough knowledge of

relationship skills or that they lack a professional language in the field. The consequences of this is that we potentially miss out on a relevant tool to promote pedagogical leadership and motivation in the classroom.

A study by Aspelin (2017) that examined how teacher-student relationships are constructed in and through communication further highlights the importance of relational competence for teachers. The study was based on the concept that individuals are considered to be mutually dependent, and that actions are constructed in a mutual process. The focus was mainly on the non-verbal communication, but Aspelin also aimed to discuss implications regarding

teachers' degree of relational competence in a situational teaching. The study had an interactionist approach which focuses on seeing teacher-student relationships and teachers'

relationship competence through how individual and social events are related in an ongoing interaction.

The data collection for the study consisted of a video recording from a classroom in a

Swedish high-school class in economics where the meeting between teacher and student takes place in an authentic context. The material has since been transcribed and the article provides a detailed description and interpretation of the communication that takes place between the teacher and the student. The analysis for the data consisted of an interpretation process inspired by Thomas Scheff’s part and whole analysis. The interpretation is described as referring to the exchange in an interaction such as, for example, a person's action plus another person's response. The interpretation included both external and internal bits from the

interaction to gain a better understanding of what is happening in the meeting.

Based on the analysis of the study, it appears that phenomena such as relationships, norms, sanctions (allowances/permission) and roles arise in an interaction. The analysis emphasised that non-verbal communication has a major role in the formation of relationship

constructions, and that the teacher tries to regulate communication by following conventional and rational systems. The student's actions show views on interpersonal systems that the teacher sometimes reluctantly and only temporarily pays attention to.

Aspelin (2017) noted that the teacher in this demonstration has a low level of relational competence, because the teacher strives for an interaction where the student must follow a certain agreement. The study suggested that the teacher often uses non-verbal communication to get students to follow an order and a pattern of behaviour that corresponds to their position in the interaction. That is, the teacher is the teacher, and the student is the student. The study also suggested that the teacher's low relational competence in the situation can be associated with the teacher following a rigid order of interaction. By maintaining such an order,

relationships based on mutual respect, tolerance and empathy are prevented from supporting, activating and motivating students which are the aspects that define relationship competence.

3.3 Teacher challenges when creating relationships

The challenge for the teacher to create relationships and maintain order in the classroom is further addressed by two studies investigating the potential tensions and boundaries for building teacher-student relationships. A qualitative study by García-Moya, Moreno and

Brooks (2019) explored English and Spanish secondary school teachers' views of

relationships with students in their professional roles, and the benefits and potential tensions associated with relationship building. Twenty teachers participated in the study, eleven from a southern county in England, and nine from a city in the south of Spain. Data was collected from semi-structured interviews that took place in a face-to-face setting. These were then transcribed, and a thematic analysis of the data was applied. The results of the study showed an overall theme of relationship building as a very complex process with continuous

balancing acts required on the part of teachers. The teachers expressed that the personalised type of interaction that serves to connect with students can be damaging in specific situations, such as when dealing with problem behaviour. In order to protect the relationship a

non-confrontational de-personalising interaction with calmness became fundamental. The teachers signalled that the most difficult part of the job is about the delicate balance between maintaining closeness with students and being perceived as an authoritative figure who engages students in school work. This difficulty was navigated in different ways, but most frequently it involved a teacher's decision to limit their closeness in relationships with

students. Two patterns emerged, one being a reactive approach where a change towards a less nurturing and more controlling or authoritarian style took shape in response to a perception that the focus on relationships does not result in good management of the class in specific groups. The other pattern was a preventive strategy where teachers in the beginning of the year had an initial self-imposed neutral approach with a smaller focus on learning that can be broadened to incorporate relationship building when good class management has been achieved, and when the teacher is confident that good behaviour will be maintained. As such, García-Moya, et al. (2019) findings suggested that feelings of reduced control of the teachers are the consequence of too much closeness in relationship with students, or that reduced caring is applied and shifted towards a more controlling role in response to behavioural problems. They further pointed out that these approaches are problematic, because asserting control in response to problem behaviour can cause negative consequences of reinforcing forced interaction cycles.

The conflict between caring and control in the teacher-student relationship can as such be a dilemma which arises and challenges the creation of good relationship building between the student and teacher. The conflict can in turn be connected with teachers' difficulties

concerning having an appropriate level of distance and closeness (differentiation), as pointed out by Aspelin (2018) in his study.

This is further addressed in a study by Aultman, Williams-Johnson and Schutz (2009) that examined teachers’ perspectives of their relationships with their students as well as how they described and negotiated relationship boundaries. Aultman, et al. found that actions which promote emotional involvement - for example exhibiting interest in students or attempting to help students during a difficult time - are the sort of actions where teachers may feel that the students take advantage of them, or the teacher feels called into question ethically and morally. From the thirteen semi-structured interviews from a university in southeastern United States and a local school system in the same area, the in-service teachers of the study acknowledged the problem of defining a boundary line between themselves and the students as well as being able to convey that line to their students. Aultman., et al. (2009) argued that the extent of teachers demonstrating a caring teaching identity while maintaining a healthy and productive level of control in the classroom is reflected by the teachers own identity and beliefs. Additionally, boundaries for the teacher-student relationship depend on a certain level of communication and self-disclosure whereupon the level of personal information sharing from both the student or the teacher could result in the teacher feeling taken advantage of or that too much personal information sharing of the student would result in a feeling of

discomfort. Aultman., et al. (2009) pointed out that the nature of teacher-student interactions are manifested when the teachers talked about emotional boundaries. The results showed that extreme emotions in the classroom, either pleasant or unpleasant, are perceived by teachers as leading to a loss of control. This is also the case with in-relationships with the students, since being too friendly would also end up in a perceived loss of control. The study further pointed out that experienced teachers tend to change their involvement with the students as

confidence gained through experience allowed them to more easily make decisions in the negotiation process to develop their own balance between a sense of professionalism and useful level of involvement. Lastly, the study revealed the participants as being unequipped to deal with many of the emotional experiences they encounter. The teachers in the study also reported that they have virtually received no training related to students' emotions or

emotional development as their teacher education programs have been poor in this field, and that they feel alone in negotiating the boundaries.

From both of these studies, a significant problem for teachers to create good relationships seems to be tied with the teachers’ choice of closeness and distance to the students. The relation between establishing a balance in this concept are closely tied with the constant fear of losing control or being able to maintain control with the students.

4. Method

In this study, we chose the model and definition established by Aspelin (2018) as our understanding of relational competence. Our standpoint is that no human is an island. It is through interaction with the world around us that we develop as thinking persons, and through reflection we find and define new ways to act and express ourselves. This is how we understand and adapt new knowledge or know-how. These solutions or new knowledge are carried forth by individual belief systems in greater or lesser degrees of consciousness. But it is complicated to access, as this knowledge is not a physical product, but a social

phenomenon that arises and is found in the individual's life world and understanding of meaning (Brinkjær & Høyen, 2013). This demands a study and research design that can accommodate this complexity.

Our research uses semi-structured interviews following a phenomenological approach to gain insight regarding the extent to which English teachers in Swedish compulsory schools are aware of and make use of features related to relation competence in their own practice as leaders in the classroom as well as their perceived challenges in doing so.

Phenomenology concerns the individual's life world and how the world is experienced by the subject. In pedagogical contexts, phenomenology has found use in psychologically oriented areas such as descriptions of professionals' experiences in their business, which is referred to as experiences in the life world (Brinkjær & Høyen, 2013). We connect the

phenomenological approach with the qualitative research interview to gain access to the understanding of the social phenomena from the interviewees perspective and describes the world as it is experienced by the interviewees from the presumption that the essential reality is how people experience it (Kvale, 2004). This approach is in line with other Scandinavian research, where the tradition is a qualitative approach to understanding (Aspelin, 2018). The qualitative semi-structured research interview with a phenomenological approach is relevant because our questions relate to the individual teacher's life world, and how he or she experiences his or her use of relational competence within the structures of the classroom. This experience is not a neutral one, as we are part of a social system that creates a prior assumption on which we base our experience. Phenomenology focuses on an open-minded description of that experience through the qualitative interview - that is the phenomenon

itself. Through qualitative semi-structured interviews, we can create a series of stories that provide meaning and coherence in the experiences concerning relational competence in the English classroom. We are not looking for an evaluation of the relational competence concept as described above, but we are looking for the subject’s experience of the space that is created when exercising relational competence. It is the language that creates an understanding of the contexts we are part of. It is necessary to target the life story towards themes and frameworks in the qualitative interview which later can be conceptualised in different ways. Kvale (2004) argues for the significance of phenomenology in qualitative research and proposes a

condensation which is about dividing the natural units of meaning in relation to the central themes. Brinkkjær and Høyen (2013) argue for an alternative model for condensation, which consists of epoch, phenomenological reduction, fantasy variation and synthesis. Like Kvale’s (2004) model, it is about seeking explanations for a given phenomenon. However, in any model there is a challenge in that the language, one tries to get behind, is also the language that is used in the phenomenological analysis (Brinkkjær & Høyen, 2013).

4.1 Participants

Our choice of informants is based on a desire to have interviews that contain profound stories and perspectives on how Swedish English teachers in classes 7-9 create relationships with students in the classroom. In this study, the age of the student in compulsory school class 7-9 ranges from 13 to 15 years. As such, a conscious convenience sample was made whereupon already employed English teachers at Swedish compulsory schools in southern Sweden were asked to participate because of relatively easy access.

A convenience sample makes the study less generalisable for the wider population, but in this case it is motivated by access to possible participants (Cohen et al., 2007). This study was restricted in data collection due to the covid-19 pandemic crisis during 2020-2021 which limited the possibilities of visiting different schools as well as English teachers’ availability to participate in the research. In our choice of method, qualitative interview with a

phenomenological perspective, we found it important to conduct personal interviews where the dynamic of actually sitting in the same room was contained. Thus, we had to take advantage of one person in the team having access to specific schools through employment. Initially, we contacted four English teachers in one school in the municipality of Kävlinge, Sweden. Two of these immediately responded positively to taking part in the interviews. One

teacher had to decline because of ongoing national tests, and one teacher was unavailable due to illness. Therefore, we contacted the administrative secretary of a school within the

municipality of Kävlinge. Furthermore, realising we could not conduct all interviews in person because of the covid-19 pandemic crisis, we reached out to a school in the

municipality of Hässleholm in order to establish contact with more English teachers suitable for the study. As a result, one teacher from the municipality of Kävlinge responded positively to taking part in our research.

All teachers received a letter of intent where we explained our research and positions in the matter. Likewise, the teachers were informed of their right to anonymity as well as other ethical conditions. The actual date and time for the interview were arranged through email and personal calls. Information about the participants are presented in Table 1. The

respondents identify themselves as two females and one male and are anonymised by means of numbers.

Table. 1.

Participants

Name anonymized Years as teacher Education

1 20 Certified to teach English, German,

Swedish, andSwedish as a second languagefor the compulsory school year 7-9.

2 7 Certified to teach Swedish and

mathematics for the compulsory school, English for both the compulsory school and the upper secondary school, and Spanish for the compulsory school.

3 6 Certified to teach French and English

4.2 Materials

In the creations of the interview questions we were inspired from the studies by Aultman, et. al. (2009), García-Moya, et. al. (2019), and Klinge (2016) which all have explored a similar topic and approach. Adaptations from those studies were made based upon several features that comprise the exploration of teachers perceived qualities of relationship or relational competence with students. This includes teachers’ beliefs, barriers, facilitators and practices that creates, builds, and maintains both connection and positive relationships with students. Consistently, throughout those studies semi structured interviews were designed and open questions were asked, thus we also designed it in a similar way.

To understand to what degree English teachers in Swedish compulsory schools in class 7-9 are aware of and make use of features related to relational competence in their own practice as leaders in the classroom, we wanted to create a data mass in the form of interviews where we could analyse and understand the meaning of choices made about the teacher's use of relations. Thus, we designed a series of questions suitable for explorative, open and

semi-structured interviews (Kvale, 2004). Additionally, throughout the design of questions we were mindful of the research project and kept a reasoning behind what questions we ask and why so that we during the interviews could clarify the meanings relevant to the project (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Hereof, three banks of questions were created set within three themes, see Table 2. Interview Guide.

The first bank of questions is about the teachers own history and demography. This was given as a handout before the interview session started. The second bank of questions targets what teachers do more generally about leadership and how they specifically handle relationships in that leadership. The final bank of questions was designed to target approaches of relational competence and if teachers received any training of relational competence during their teacher education. This also included what challenges teachers might face for implementing the different approaches for relational competence.

Table 2.

Interview Guide

Theme Interview questions

Demographics/ teacher history

● How old are you and for how long have you been working as a teacher?

● What subjects do you teach besides English? For what years? ● Have you been working with other age groups?

Leadership in the classroom

● How would you describe your approach to leadership in the classroom?

● Tell me about an incident in the classroom involving one or more students where you were really satisfied with your leadership. What elements of that leadership worked, do you think?

● Now tell me about an incident in the classroom where you were really dis-satisfied with your leadership? What elements of that leadership did not work, do you think?

● What abilities should a teacher have if he/she is a good leader?

Relationships ● Overall, how would you describe your relationships with students?

● Can you share how you work to create relationships with your students?

● How would you describe a good teacher-student relationship, what should it look like?

● Can you share what strategies/features are important for you to think of/use when working with relationships?

● Tell me about a situation in the classroom where relationships with one or several students were central to the solution. ● Tell us about a situation where you found it difficult to create

relations with your students. What part in that relationship building was a challenge for you?

● Have you heard of “getting too involved with a student” when forming a relationship - what do you think about that? ● Have you received any training in working with

relationships to your students as part of your teacher education program?

● Are your aware of an approach to relationship that endorse

1: emotional attunement in relation to the students through verbal and non-verbal communication, 2: the teacher regulating the degree of closeness and distance to create space for both him or herself and the student,

3: being sensitive to the students’ emotional signals and encouraging a sense of pride in the student.

● What challenge do you see in implementing this approach in your own teaching?

4.3 Procedure

On the day of the interview, a prearranged room was established for the interview on the specific school of the interviewee. One interview, however, was changed to a video conference due to the school closing down because of a covid-19 outbreak. All interviews were recorded and carried out in Swedish with any significant shift in physical expressions noted in writing. All interviews were initiated with the same intro, and for that reason we worked with a script to - at least to some extent - create a likewise space for each interviewee. The ability to listen is significant in a phenomenological approach to an interview. The

descriptions of their experiences to unfold undisturbed. To interrupt the interviewee with new questions can also be to interrupt the realisations connected to the experiences (Kvale, 2004). Likewise, we found it important to pay attention to body language, tone of voice, or any shift in the interviewees expressed feelings during the interview in order to mark out significant reactions to any given line of reasoning (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). This was applied in the later analysis.

During each interview, we tried to create an open space where we directed the cause of the interview through the structured questions, but where we also were ready and willing to follow the interviewee’s line of reasoning and in this way, through new or supporting questions, could obtain new information and aspects on the beliefs of the interviewee. Our main purpose was to clarify the interviewee’s opinions, choices, and reasons to use or not use relation competence in class and ultimately understand their belief system. As such, we were aware of the need to return to one interviewee to clarify any new information obtained with another interviewee. We were working with several dimensions for our interviews, as we wanted to research what elements of relational competence the teachers in class 7-9 refer to, are aware of and use as part of their classroom leadership. Furthermore, we also look for the difficulties in implementing relational competence.

We conducted semi-structured interviews, which were at all times guided by the themes for the interview. Thus, the questions were designed around themes, but comprised open questions which left space for each interviewee to expand or follow up on relevant statements. Our primary interest was to capture and document any realisation(s) by the interviewee about his or her own beliefs and in-the-moment interpretations.

4.4 Ethical considerations

In any research, there are a number of general ethical considerations to observe. These are all connected to the individual taking part in the research and refers to voluntary participation, integrity, confidentiality and anonymity (Bryman, 2011). Vetenskapsrådet (2017) highlights the importance of an ongoing reflection in the research work, and that attention to ethics will improve quality in the work. In our research, we follow the ethical rules as they are described by Vetenskapsrådet (2017). Thus, we abide by the requirements of information, consent, confidentiality and use (Codex, 2020). Additionally, we follow the Malmö University rules

for confidentiality and the collection of data follows the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Codex, 2020).

4.5 Analysis

In a phenomenological research design, it is common to analyse meaning content. The researcher is interested in the content of the data material, for example what an informant expresses in an interview. The researcher interprets the data material during the reading and wants to understand the deeper meaning of the individuals' experiences(Christoffersen & Johannessen, 2015).

The analytical meaning content method for this research is inspired from Malteruds (2003) descriptions for obtaining meaning from phenomenological content (Christoffersen & Johannessen, 2015). The first step includes gaining an overall impression and summary of meaning from the content. This provides a summarized version of the collected data where the densification of the meaning from the content is done by shortening the statements of the information and compressing long sentences into shorter ones. Any irrelevant information is sorted out, and the summary will emphasize meaning in the content from the text as well as to express the first understanding that the researcher has of the data material. During this step, we as researchers were observant to the fact that interpretations can change during this work with the data.

The second step consists of finding meaningful elements in the material. As part of the interpretation process it implies a systematic review of the material and identifies text elements that provide knowledge and information about the main themes. This part is called Coding, and it aids the organisation of meaningful elements in the information by the use of structuring the text in themes and categories from concepts that are central in the analysis. As such, we can find and compile all parts of text that belong to a particular question,

hypothesis, concept or theme. Under the coding process of the information, one uses both descriptive codes and interpretative codes where descriptive codes are those that are close to the meaning of the content from the data material that they label. Interpretive codes refer to concepts, contexts or perspectives that reflect how the tendencies in the material can be understood and interpreted. As stated, the coding process cannot be separated from the interpretation process, since the categories and code words that the researcher uses depend on the understanding of the material that the researcher develops during the work.

The third step is to abstract the meaning in the content that is contained in the established codes. This step is called condensation, and in this part text elements that are coded and identified as meaningful elements are chosen in order to get a reduced material. The reduced material is then put into tables or matrices, where the information or meaning that the

informants have given this code are filled in. In this phase you see if codewords can be merged or arranged under each other. This forms the basis for writing a more condensed text. The researcher can also select quotations that illustrate the meaning under the different code words

The last step is labelled summary or recontextualization. In this phase the material gathered from the earlier steps are used to design new concepts and descriptions. This implies an assessment of the summarized descriptions is consistent with what appears in the original material before the coding process. The purpose is precisely to identify patterns and contexts in data that are not immediately visible.

5. Results and Discussion

We now turn to a presentation and analysis of the results of this work. We began with three research questions. These questions guide our analysis and are central in our work in extracting information from the interviews. The research questions are as follows:

1. To what degree are English teachers in class 7-9 in Swedish compulsory schools aware of relational competence as a tool for classroom leadership?

2. What features from relational competence do Swedish compulsory school teachers in class 7-9 currently use in their own teaching practice?

3. What aspects of relational competence do teachers perceive as being difficult to implement?

For (1), we aim to extract the information in the interviews that will give us a picture of the degree of knowledge concerning relational competence, both the understanding of the concept but also the understanding of the concept as a tool for leadership. We will connect this understanding to the research presented earlier in this paper. In regard to (2), we will present and interpret the parts of the interviews that show how the understanding and the practical use of relational competence is manifested. In this, we will try to unearth the teacher’s conceptual understanding and goal setting contrary to the natural ability of relationship making. We will connect to the theory and research presented earlier in this paper. Finally, for (3), we will point to difficulties in implementing the concept of relational competence as experienced by the teachers. Here, we are looking for any obstacle, perceived by the teacher, in implementing the features of relational competence, and we will connect to the systems, in which the teachers operate.

All quoted data represent our translation from Swedish to English.

5.1 Analysing and interpreting question 1

In addressing the question To what degree are English teachers in class 7-9 in Swedish compulsory schools aware of relational competence as a tool for classroom leadership?, we sought to identify what approach to leadership is described in the response and if and how relational competence is included in that approach.

When asked about leadership, all the informants were very aware of their leadership role in the classroom. All informants share a very strong belief about clarity in the classroom, and all informants return to the statement of clarity repeatedly when defining their leadership. Thus, this word seems to appear as a concept or an understanding of the leadership role in the classroom. It is associated with the teachers’ position as the leader in the room, the teachers' awareness of being the adult in the relationship with the students, the teacher’s awareness of students' individual needs, the teacher giving instructions, maintaining order, and setting the rules in the classroom.

Informant 1 and informant 3 mentioned that relationships are an essential part of the

leadership role. This is exemplified by informant 1 putting emphasis to democratic leadership by clearly letting the two words “democratic leadership” stand strong in the formulation of the informant’s leadership. This utterance was further strengthened by the informant’s described actions in the classroom where any concerning issues that arise with students are solved by means of communication that emphasises a conversation with respect towards the relation between the teacher and the student. In return, space for democratic agreements between the teacher and the student are created.

Informant 3 described an inclusive leadership that involves the aspect of relations between the teacher and the student. But, the informant has to some degree difficulties expressing the exact role of what inclusive leadership pertains to, and of how relations come into play during such a leadership. This is addressed when informant 3 is asked to give examples of situations in the classroom about the informant's leadership. Instead, general considerations of how the informant acts is expressed, and a lower level of reflection of how the informant includes relations in the leadership becomes apparent.

All informants indicated that the leadership role is connected with being professional and personal but never private. In this case, being professional is expressed by the ability of not taking things personally, that the teacher can withstand negative aspects or comments from the students and maintain a professional role as a teacher. It also includes being observant and acting responsible towards the well-being of the students and of yourself as a teacher. Two of the informants expressed that if you carry too much of a student's life experiences, problems and emotions with you, it will become too much to handle. At the same time, it is expressed as important to act or report further if a student’s well-being is in danger.

The concept of being personal is expressed as the teacher's level of accessibility as a person and the level of being true to yourself. Informant 2 connected personal with being open towards the students and exemplified that this openness can be about sharing family

situations, causing the lesson to be delayed. As such, this shows that you are a human being underneath the role as a teacher. This opinion was shared by informant 3, who at the

beginning of the interview did not express a meaning behind the concept of being personal. But later, when the concept of being personal was further discussed, related it to sharing personal events and experiences, opening up, and being able to talk about ups and downs in the informant's life as a means to exemplify for the students that everything doesn't have to be perfect. Informant 3 concluded that being able to open oneself in this way creates an

authenticity. An authenticity is also expressed by informant 1, who very distinctly responds that being personal is about being authentic. This was expressed via a story in which the informant tried to apply a specific teacher role, influenced by stories from colleagues. As it turned out, informant 1 was very uncomfortable in playing that role, and the informant discovered that the students could actually see through the role. Thus, informant 1 concluded that you need to be true to who you are as a teacher. In addition, the informant refers to the importance of being personal to some extent, since the informant has to have a relationship with the students for the teaching to function.

A second finding is that being private is simply related to the ability to not share intimate information about yourself, as such information can damage the professional role of being the teacher. This was expressed by informant 1, who stressed the fact that being a private person and a teacher are two completely different things. Informant 2 acknowledged that answering a private question concerning the informant’s private relationships backfired heavily on the role as a teacher. In hindsight informant 2 understands that the students could not handle that information with mutual respect.

From the examples, it becomes visible that all the informants use the definitions of being professional and personal but not private as a manner to adjust a level of closeness and distance towards the students or the student. As such, a certain degree of willingness occurs from the informants to create a space where both teacher and student can discern themselves as individuals, without compromising social bonds, which is in line with Aspelin (2018). However, it is questionable if the informants' usage of the concept of being professional and personal but not private is within their understanding of relational competence. From all

informants, an expression of uncertainty towards their awareness when building relations is mentioned, and two of three informants refer to their abilities to work with relations as tied to the individual personality. Moreover, other formulations such as “clarity”, “clear

communication”, “defined roles”, “not their friend”, “being grown up” are also used to define their role in being professional and personal but not private. Those formulations are

interpreted more as a leadership concept since those words embodies a concept of how to be a leader in the classroom.

Through the interviews with all three informants, it is apparent that there is distribution of roles in the classroom. It is quite clear for all informants that they are responsible in the interactions with the student or students. It is for the teacher to support, be interested in, or help the students in any given situation. However, the teachers very clearly express that this is not an equal relationship through formulations about being professional and/or personal as well as holding the responsibility for the goal setting and results in the classroom. Still, they do want to create a feeling with the student of being part of the relationship and being seen as an individual in any interaction. Thus, the informants all see their responsibility in creating a relationship to the individual student as a professional responsibility. They do, however, only partly connect building relationships to leadership in the classroom. The informants all express a desire to “see all students” and they express this through formulations like listening to them, seeing them individually, making eye contact, and they know me and I know them. Further, they all express a wish of being present or available for the individual student, and the teachers initiate contact to mark out a availability towards the students. Notably, one of the informants seems to see relationship as relational competence in the definition of Aspelin (2018) and expressed very clear relational competence abilities and understandings. Two informants seem to struggle with examples to underline our understanding of their belief systems, and they appear to be in need of examples or cases from the interviewer to actually expand and express their own understanding of real-life situations from their own classroom. This can also be the result of the informants distinctively answering that they have not received any relational competence education during their teacher education programs. Informants 2 and 3 have not received any particular training of relational competence

following the years after the teacher education program. This can be a factor that explains the limited exemplifications, self-reflections, thoughtfulness, and knowledge to define certain concepts of how they work and interact to create relations with students. Informant 1 has,

however, taken further studies to extend teaching capabilities and as such received training and awareness of features that are in correspondence with relational competence as explained by Aspelin (2018).

5.2 Analysing and interpreting question 2

In order to address the question What features from relational competence do Swedish compulsory school teachers in class 7-9 currently use in their own teaching practice?, we analysed the interview from the perspective of each element in the relational competence as defined by Aspelin (2018). It is important to understand that the three components in the model of relational competence are theoretical tools that can help in analysing pedagogical relations. The concept is not to be divided into the three components, but is to be seen as one phenomenon. Also, relational competence is realised between people, in this case between teacher and student (Aspelin, 2018).

As mentioned earlier, all informants share a common agenda of being clear or having clarity in their leadership, and this is also reflected in their communication. A pattern that emerged is that the informants often seem to use verbal and non-verbal communication to create and maintain a classroom atmosphere where the group, including both the student and teacher, can work towards the learning outcome for the lesson. Informant 1 states a belief in that order and atmosphere is built in the classroom by both teacher and student. Informant 3 points to being open to the students’ opinions and stand points in the classroom. This is in

correspondence with Aspelin’s (2018) understanding of the sub-component communication competence, which is about the actions of the teacher encouraging mutual understanding and respect in interactions with students. But, the communication is affected by the informants’ notion of clarity, and the communication seems to become structural and more of a means for maintaining leadership through establishing the positioned roles and pointing out what to do in the classroom. For example, informant 3 expressed a satisfactory leadership when being clear in communication and maintaining order with the students by the means of

low-affective response in hand gestures or a hard gaze. This is also exemplified by informant 2, who in a situation with a student focuses the communication of the interaction towards order and work-efficiency in the classroom. “We have to sort of make this work, we can not keep on monkeying about”. The informant talks to the student about how we need to get this to work, but in reality just asks the student to sit down so that work can proceed.

Additionally, the aspect of communicative competence often includes a certain degree of unawareness from the informants, and concepts of seeing the students, talking to the students, listening to the students, and being personal are often expressed without further details on how the informants use their communication to endorse those concepts. As such, the communication becomes more of a social interaction without a deeper thought of actually working to enhance a relationship bond with the student. Only informant 1 expressed a specific goal for the interaction with the students which is to always verbally or non-verbally acknowledge each student in the classroom through eye contact, individual talks, and

addressing individual students while walking around the classroom. Informant 1 here stated “I try to see them all. Eh, each and everyone as an individual despite them being 30 students”. The informant is conscious, thoughtful, and reflective about communication with the

students, as the informant acknowledges situations that can occur where the relationship with a student could be damaged meaning that the process of relationship might have to start over again. The informant exemplified this by pointing out never raising the voice towards the student or being very sure that a relation exists before engaging in more serious conversation with a student. The informant also recognised the need to back off if the student does not want to engage in an interaction. As such, the informant appears to be conscious about the leverage between distance and closeness to the student and thoughtful of the relationship between them. This can be connected to an understanding of relationship building that matches relational competence.

Furthermore, the informants all stated that they recognise that they behave differently

depending on what group they are working with. The informants adjust the teacher role in the classroom depending on what leadership needs to be required in order to maintain an

atmosphere they believe is beneficial for the students. This adjustment can be a way for the teacher to obtain a certain level of control. This is exemplified by informant 2 expressing that the ability to be calm and determined equals being successful in the leadership when handling a troublesome situation with one or several students. This points to a lower level of reflection towards the differentiation competence. In this case, the informant seems too occupied with the goals for the lesson or fixing the situation that they compromise the direct contact with the students. For Aspelin (2018), that direct contact should always be balanced between the student and the teacher. Informant 2 finds it hard to relate to the process of the interaction, focusing on the need for outcome. Only when asked further about the specific approach, the

informant relates to the need of ensuring the student a certain degree of space when being confronted. A similar pattern is seen with informant 3.

However, informant 1 seems to have a higher degree of consciousness towards the

differentiation competence, as the informant is conscious about using different methods in the leadership depending on the subject as well as the current status of the relationship with the group. The informant indicated continually reflecting on how the subject of English can create a more free and open space in the classroom compared to other subjects, English being a subject of language and culture that requires ongoing communication and reflective

approaches to many cultural phenomena. According to informant 1, such a space can be beneficial if the students can administer the work in such a free atmosphere. However, if the students cannot handle such an atmosphere the method has to be changed. The informant continues to stress the importance of not stagnating as a teacher and is willing to alter the layout of student exercises depending on how an exercise might take shape with a certain group. Overall, the level of changing their teaching practices within a relational focus is not overly addressed by the informants, rather the didactic and the leadership competences receive the focus. This is expressed by informant 2 who talks about lesson planning and structure in the classroom when asked about relational strategies. This is in line with the studies of Aspelin and Jonsson (2019), Plantin (2020) and Wahlgren., Et al. (2016) that highlight a pattern of teachers who have limited relationship skills. The reason may be that they do not have enough knowledge of relationship skills or that they lack a professional language in the field.

In terms of relationship creation with the students, various features are expressed from the informants such as using humour, being personal, being open towards the student, being available to the student, having talks with the student, and so on. While these can be seen as relational features and, thus, an understanding of working relational, the conceptual

understanding of these relational features is only remotely in line with relational competence. We connect this to Aspelin (2018) noting that the teacher has a low level of relational

competence, because the teacher strives for an interaction where the student must follow a certain agreement. Aspelin suggests that the teacher often uses non-verbal communication to get students to follow an order and a pattern of behaviour that corresponds to their position in the interaction. That is, the teacher is the teacher, and the student is the student.