The early education teacher-child relationship: How teachers experience closeness with children in child care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationship building is the core of meaningful early childhood education programs (Pianta, 1999). There are numerous ways teacher-child relationships have been conceptualized. For example, teacher-child relationships are conceived as professional relationships, where a teacher maintains a distance (Katz, 1980), as caregiving relationships, where a teacher provides attachment security (Howes, 1999), and as intimate relationships, where teacher and child have personal relationships based on mutuality (Weingarten, 1991). This study explores whether teachers' experiences of relationships contain ideas that correspond with existing models in the literature, or that have yet to be identified. Participants consisted of 24 female early education teachers of 3-5 year old children in child care settings located in the Greater Toronto Area. In-person interviews were comprised of open-ended questions regarding teachers' conceptions of closeness using long interview methodology (McCracken, 1988) and specific close experiences using critical incidents technique (Flanagan, 1954). Thematic qualitative analysis (Braun & Clark, 2006) revealed three conceptions. The dominant theme was a personal relationship corresponding with Weingarten's (1991) conception of intimate interactions as co-constructed mutuality. Less dominant were themes corresponding with caregiving/attachment relationships, followed by professional models of teacher-child relationships. Other analyses showed (1) closeness was conceived as personal two-way relationships similar, yet distinct, from parent-child relationships (2) closeness was managed through past expectancies and projections of future interactions, and (3) closeness was exemplified by personal and professional tensions impacted by individual systems (teacher, profession, parent/child). The teachers' work experience was not significant except in areas related to conceptions of closeness, while the teachers' years of professional education were significant. Gender was not found to have an impact. The findings in teacher-child relationships can be understood in terms of relational perspectives (Hinde, 1979) and are conceived as dynamic and fluid for social interaction. From an applied perspective, these findings serve to advise educators on future directions in early childhood education and provide insights for teaching pre-service early childhood education programs at colleges and universities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".