Teacher's Perspectives on Student-Teacher Relations and Classroom Management: Strategies for Intertwining Positive Relations and Effective Management in the Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research study focuses on teacher perspectives and experiences on building positive relations with their students as a strategy for classroom management. The study was guided by the following research question: How do a sample of intermediate and high school teachers foster relationship building with their students and use/implement this as a classroom management strategy? To inform this research study, an extensive review of the literature was conducted on the conceptualization of classroom management and current strategies for relationship-building and management of a classroom. Data was collected from three face-to-face semi-structured interviews with intermediate/high school teachers currently teaching in the Toronto/Greater Toronto Area. Four themes were identified from the interview data: (1) Participant’s notions of ‘positive’ classroom management consisted of having students be involved and engaged in the classroom, which was manifested through a positive classroom environment, (2) Participants emphasized the importance of connecting with students both within and outside the classroom, noting its significance in effectively managing a classroom, (3) The teachers recognizing that student empathy towards their teachers and peers is an outcome of strong relationship building, drawing on the idea of teacher ‘disappointment’ in student behaviour and how it can be used to effectively manage the classroom, and (4) The participant’s realized limitations and challenges of using the relationship building approach towards classroom management. This study concludes with a discussion of the findings in relation to the literature, the implications of the findings on the educational community, strategies for teachers in relationship-building and classroom management, and recommendations future research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".