AgnieszkA RoszkowskA, JustynA tRepkA-stARostA
The Role of Interpersonal Communication Style in the Teacher-Student Relationship eugeniA RostAńskA
Linguistic Representations of Relationship Experience in Child-Teacher Communication nAtAliiA kolodiichuk
Toward a Definition of Foreign Language Lexical Competence
liliyA MoRskA, iRynA siMkovA Communication of Ukrainian School Students in Social Networks: Linguistic and Pedagogical Aspects
AgnieszkA JedlińskA
Communication Behaviors of Preschool Children with and without Hearing Loss Born in Hearing Families
MAłgoRzAtA zAboRniAk-sobczAk Deaf Parents’ Communication with Their Hearing Children (Everyday Problems) AleksAndRA kARwowskA, gAbRielA loRens
Assessment of the Use of ©GORA Gestures in Language Communication Therapy of a Child with Impaired Speech Development (A Therapist’s Perspective)
łukAsz kowAlczyk
Parental Level of Anxiety over Stuttering Symptoms in their Preschool Children AnnA ŚniegulskA
The Educational Role of the Mother in Adult Daughters’ Observations – A Contribution to Considerations about Family Communication
AnnA boRzęckA
Functioning and Interpersonal Commu- nication in a Victim of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning – A Case Study
JustynA ŻulewskA, AgAtA MęŻyk Assessment of Communication Quality by People with Broca’s Aphasia RenAtA RAszkA
Manifestations of Child Entrepreneurship in Written Narratives with a Financial Thread piotR Modzelewski
FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) – An Educational and Behavioral Problem in Times of New Communication Forms
nr 1(14)/2020
issn: 2300-6471
Konteksty Pedagogiczne pedAgogicAl contexts4)/2020
pedagogical contexts
Konteksty Pedagogiczne
Pedagogical Contexts
Konteksty Pedagogiczne
Pedagogical Contexts
1(14)/2020
CIHLARS (Niemcy), PIERO CRISPIANI (Włochy), ALWIRA GALKIENE (Litwa), TOMASZ GMEREK (Polska), JAN GRZESIAK (Polska), ZDZISŁAWA JANISZEWSKA-NIEŚCIORUK (Polska), WOJCIECH KOJS (Polska), WIESŁAWA KORZENIOWSKA (Polska), MIROSŁAW KOWALSKI (Polska), EWA KUBIAK-SZYMBORSKA (Polska), DAVID LUTZ (USA), IRENA MASOJĆ (Litwa), RADISLAV MILLROOD (Rosja), NATALIA MYKYTENKO (Ukraina), KAREL NEUBAUER (Republika Czeska), DANIELA DATO (Włochy), KRZYSZTOF ORLEAŃSKI (Norwegia), SŁAWOMIR PRZYBYLIŃSKI (Polska), BOGUSŁAW ŚLIWERSKI (Polska), ALINA SZCZUREK-BORUTA (Polska), BEATA WEBB (Australia), MILUŠE VÍTEČKOVÁ (Republika Czeska), JOLANTA ZIELIŃSKA (Polska), SHU-LAN YANG (Tajwan)
ZESPÓŁ REDAKCYJNY / EDITORIAL BOARD
Redaktor naczelna / Editor-in-chief: JOANNA SKIBSKA (kontakt: jskibska@ath.bielsko.pl)
Sekretarz redakcji / Editorial assistant: JUSTYNA WOJCIECHOWSKA (kontakt: jwojsciechowska@ath.bielsko.pl) Redaktorzy tematyczni/Associate editors: COSETTE FOX (USA) – psychologia/psychology; BOŻENA GRZESZKIEWICZ (Polska) – pedagogika przedszkolna/pre-school education; EWA KOCHANOWSKA (Polska) – pedagogika wczesnoszkolna/early education; MIROSLAV PROCHÁZKA (Republika Czeska) – pedagogika społeczna/
social pedagogy; REMIGIUSZ J. KIJAK (Polska) – pedagogika specjalna/special education; URSZULA SZUŚCIK (Polska) – pedagogika twórczości, psychologia/pedagogy of creativity, psychology; STEFFAN ROLLNIK (Niemcy) – edukacja matematyczna/mathematics education; LILIYA MORSKA (Ukraina) – lingwistyka stosowana/applied linguistics Redaktor tekstów anglojęzycznych / Co-editor (English texts): KATARZYNA OŻAŃSKA-PONIKWIA (Polska) Redaktor statystyczny / Statistical editor: PIOTR ZIEWIEC (Polska)
CZASOPISMO RECENZOWANE / PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL Lista recenzentów jest drukowana w ostatnim numerze danego roku List of reviewers is printed in the last issue of the journal of the year REDAKTOR NUMERU / VOLUME EDITOR
Liliya Morska ISSN: 2300-6471
Tłumaczenie: Zuzanna Szatanik
Redakcja tekstów polskich: Elwira Zapałowska Korekta tekstów anglojęzycznych: Elena Rozbicka Skład: LIBRON
Projekt okładki: LIBRON
Czasopismo indeksowane w bazie Index Copernicus, POL-index, CEEOL, CEJSH, Śląska Biblioteka Cyfrowa Journal indexed in Index Copernicus Journals Master List, POL-index, CEEOL, CEJSH, Silesian Digital Library Czasopismo afiliowane na Akademii Techniczno-Humanistycznej w Bielsku-Białej
The journal is affiliated by the University of Bielsko-Biala
Tłumaczenie zawartości 12, 13, 14 i 15 numeru czasopisma „Konteksty Pedagogiczne” i ich wydanie – zadanie finansowane w ramach umowy 462/WCN/2019/1 ze środków Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego w ramach programu
„Wsparcie dla czasopism naukowych”
Translation of the content of the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th issues of “Konteksty Pedagogiczne” (“Pedagogical Contexts”) and their publication was financed under contract no. 462/WCN/2019/1 with funds from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Poland within the program “Support for scientific journals”
ADRES REDAKCJI / ADDRESS OF THE EDITORIAL OFFICE Instytut Pedagogiki
Akademia Techniczno-Humanistyczna w Bielsku-Białej ul. Willowa 2, 43-309 Bielsko-Biała
tel. 33/827 92 99
WYDAWCA / PUBLISHER Wydawnictwo LIBRON – Filip Lohner al. Daszyńskiego 21/13, 31-537 Kraków tel. 12/628 05 12
e-mail: office@libron.pl
Foreword / 7
Agnieszka Roszkowska, Justyna Trepka-Starosta
The Role of Interpersonal Communication Style in the Teacher-Student Relationship / 9 Eugenia Rostańska
Linguistic Representations of Relationship Experience in Child-Teacher Communication / 27 Nataliia Kolodiichuk
Toward a Definition of Foreign Language Lexical Competence / 47 Liliya Morska, Iryna Simkova
Communication of Ukrainian School Students in Social Networks: Linguistic and Pedagogical Aspects / 67
Agnieszka Jedlińska
Communication Behaviors of Preschool Children with and without Hearing Loss Born in Hearing Families / 83
Małgorzata Zaborniak-Sobczak
Deaf Parents’ Communication with Their Hearing Children (Everyday Problems) / 103 Aleksandra Karwowska, Gabriela Lorens
Assessment of the Use of ©GORA Gestures in Language Communication Therapy of a Child with Impaired Speech Development (A Therapist’s Perspective) / 125
Łukasz Kowalczyk
Parental Level of Anxiety over Stuttering Symptoms in their Preschool Children / 141 Anna Śniegulska
The Educational Role of the Mother in Adult Daughters’ Observations – a Contribution to Considerations about Family Communication / 155
Anna Borzęcka
Functioning and Interpersonal Communication in a Victim of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning – A Case Study / 167
Renata Raszka
Manifestations of Child Entrepreneurship in Written Narratives with a Financial Thread / 199 Piotr Modzelewski
FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) – An Educational and Behavioral Problem in Times of New Communication Forms / 215
“We take communication for granted because we do it so frequently, but it is actually a complex process.”
Joseph Sommerville, an American communication and
presentation skill expert
The word “communication” is used as a multifaceted “umbrella” concept denoting various aspects of our life.
Taking a retrospective look at our evolution, we can find language at the roots of human development. Humanity has evolved into the present-day global community together with the emergence of linguistic semiotic systems, which, with time, were embodied in various modern languages. The numer- ous tongues known today (around 5000), though triggering some obstacles in multilingual communicative environments, make it possible for people to understand each other very well, often through mediation of professionals in two or more languages.
At the same time, while it would be true to say that people speaking one and the same language should interact without any comprehension problems, why are there so many misunderstandings and embarrassing situations which often bring a bitter flavor into conversations, or even sometimes cause irre- versible disasters? The answer to this question has been very clearly worded by Anthony Robbins, an American author, public speaker and life coach:
“To effectively communicate, we must realize that we are all different in the way we perceive the world and use this understanding as a guide to our com- munication with others.” This idea should urge us to remember that words can be both healing and wounding, and it is up to speakers to choose which ones should be said aloud.
Another indisputable idea implies that communication provides essential life skills. One can hardly point out any single aspect of our everyday activi- ties which can be realized without this or that form of communication, be it lifelong personal or professional development, art admiration, or creation of technological innovations. The ability to express ourselves and understand the thoughts of those around us opens doors to the world of successful hu- man interaction. One such absolutely significant discourse pattern is educa- tional interaction. Everyone would agree that it is impossible to gain good knowledge without smooth and mutually enriching communication between teachers and students. This paramount idea has been discussed from various perspectives in the first three articles of the current issue.
Furthermore, communication has become closely related to information technologies (or IT, often referred to as information and communication tech- nologies), which are enhancing human interaction more and more intensively changing the way people use language in their daily life. Younger generations are the most sensitive to such changes by being quick to accept and acquire all the novelties of ever more intriguing fancy gadgets. At the same time, both children and grown-up individuals often find it hard to recognize the negative impact of information communicated by means of the all the more access- ible IT. The consequences of the interactions between these technologies and their users is the topic of research in two other papers of this volume.
Although technologies enhance communication, they are helpless in un- derstanding the secrets of language and its emergence in the human brain.
As a result, when brain disorders occur, the ability of a person to communicate becomes impaired, leading individuals to face disastrous obstacles in their daily routines and preventing them from enjoying their lives to the fullest. People with speech disabilities and related physiological problems need specific help and care, special pedagogical procedures. This is the domain which has received the most attention from the contributing authors to this volume.
I hope this broad range of thought-provoking papers will be of enormous interest to scholars searching for the best of knowledge and expertise in the realm of communication.
Liliya Morska
ISSN 2300-6471 pp. 9–25
https://doi.org/10.19265/kp.2020.1.14.240
Agnieszka Roszkowska
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1132-8840 University of Bielsko-Biala
aroszkowska@ath.bielsko.pl
Justyna Trepka-Starosta
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8267-9605 Katowice Business University
pstar@mp.pl
The Role of Interpersonal Communication Style in the Teacher-Student Relationship Rola stylu komunikacji interpersonalnej w relacji nauczyciel–uczeń
Summary: Communication skills are mentioned in pedagogical literature more and more often. In the contemporary school, the teacher is expected not only to transfer knowledge, but also to support and advise the student in finding the best solutions; they are also expected to be flexible and ready to stimulate the stu- dent’s initiative and to shape their independence and creativity.
Many scientists have been thinking for a long time about what it is that has the greatest impact on the results achieved by students in the teaching process, and what characteristics and skills should the teacher have to make them do their best work.
In connection with the above, the study attempted to deter- mine whether or not (and to what extent) the teacher’s commu- nication affects the assessment of the quality of student-teacher relations, the anxiety felt by the student in the relationship with the teacher, and whether the manner of communication ORIGINAL PAPER
Received: 19.02.2020 Accepted: 5.03.2020
Keywords:
teacher, student, communication
style, school communication
The study involved 144 students in grades 6-8. The obtained results show that the teacher’s effort to use nondirective ways of communication has enormous potential and can pay off in both the broadly understood individual development of the student and in the strengthening of bonds and development of social competences within the structure formed by the class team.
Streszczenie: O umiejętności komunikowania coraz częściej wspomina się w literaturze pedagogicznej. We współczesnej szkole od nauczyciela oczekuje się nie tylko umiejętności prze- kazywania wiedzy, ale też wspierania i doradzania uczniowi w poszukiwaniu najlepszych rozwiązań; oczekuje się także tego, aby był elastyczny i gotowy do pobudzania inicjatywy ucznia, oraz by kształtował jego samodzielność i kreatywność. Wielu naukowców nie od dziś zastanawia się nad tym, co tak napraw- dę ma największy wpływ na wyniki osiągane przez uczniów w procesie nauczania oraz jakimi cechami i umiejętnościami powinien charakteryzować się nauczyciel, aby jak najlepiej wy- konywał swoją pracę.
W związku z powyższym w przeprowadzonych badaniach próbowano ustalić, czy i w jakim stopniu sposób komunikacji nauczyciela wpływa na ocenę jakości relacji uczeń–nauczy- ciel, na lęk odczuwany przez ucznia w relacji z nauczycielem oraz czy sposób prowadzonej przez nauczyciela komunikacji wpływa na ocenę własnych kompetencji uczniów.
Badaniem objęto 144 uczniów klas 6–8. Uzyskane wyniki pozwalają stwierdzić, że podjęty przez nauczyciela trud stoso- wania niedyrektywnych sposobów komunikowania się niesie za sobą ogromny potencjał, który ma szansę zaprocentować zarówno w szeroko pojętym rozwoju indywidualnym ucznia, jak i pozytywnym zacieśnianiu więzi i rozwoju społecznych kompetencji wewnątrz struktury, którą tworzy zespół klasowy.
Słowa kluczowe:
nauczyciel, uczeń, styl komunikacyjny, komunikacja w szkole
Introduction
According to many educators and psychologists, interpersonal relations between teachers and students are among the most important social interac- tions. Teachers are responsible for what is happening in the classroom. They determine the character of mutual relations with their students and set the tone of their meetings with the young people. It is the teacher, treated as a conduit for information, who becomes one of the main (if not the main) tools in shaping desired traits in students. In a modern school, the teacher is expected to be able to not only transfer knowledge, but also to positively influence the student, as well as support and advise them in finding the best solutions. The teacher is also expected to be flexible, ready to stimulate the child’s initiative and prepared to shape their independence and creativity.
In the teaching-learning process, social communication – including in- terpersonal – is important (Kojs, 2001; Nęcki, 2000; Okoń, 2003; Stufa, 2008; Sztejnberg, 2006). It is defined as a process which takes place between people, the purpose of which is to convey information or change the behavior of a person or group of people. Thanks to it, we create, receive and interpret messages from other people, and we respond to them in a specific way. Dur- ing interpersonal communication, each party sends messages (emits signals) and receives them (perceives the signals and pieces together the message contained in them). This also occurs in the teacher-student relationship, which is why communication between them is an inseparable element of school teaching.
In the pedagogical literature (Nowicka, 1999; 2012; Klus-Stańska & No- wicka, 2005), the following features of school communication implemented during the lesson are discussed:
– it is individual and forms into series: teacher-student, teacher-students, student-student;
– it is group communication, which takes the form of a series of ques- tions and answers formulated on a single topic; however, it should be emphasized that “the teacher does not give the floor to students fairly”
(Nowicka, 1999, p. 22);
– it is oral or written in form, implemented as communication activity during the lesson;
– it is verbal and non-verbal (uses non-verbal elements accompanying or preceding statements);
– it is asymmetrical and manifests itself in the form of teachers’ ques- tions and the concurrent lack of questions from students. In practice, it means transforming a dialogue into the teacher’s monologue, during which the student finds out that “nobody is interested in what they re- ally think” (Rittel, 1994, pp. 56–57). This asymmetry is also manifested in the fact that students are not able to formulate longer statements, and their questions relate to obtaining teacher’s consent for a certain activity, their acceptance, or explanation;
– it is directive and guided by the teacher (as regards the choice of the subject of communication and the people involved in the communica- tion process);
– it is mostly a monologue;
– it is limited by the specific arrangement of space (the traditional ar- rangement of school benches channels the communication activity of the student to and from the teacher, making it vertical and public:
each statement requires the attention of everybody present. Students
“should be able to establish conversation and continue it as intended by the teacher” (after: Kuszak, 2013).
Evidently, therefore, the teacher in the current education system is still characterized by their central position and directiveness. This tool of discipline is used to assess the students’ work and behavior, which has a negative impact on shaping their attitudes, and teaches them absolute obedience and uncritical acceptance of the teacher’s statements. As a result, the students’ passivity is rein- forced, limiting their curiosity and openness to asking developing questions.
Consequently, what appears desirable in the realities of the modern school is educating and equipping teachers with new and varied competences; in the context of content – it should be more general than highly specialized, more open than closed, more creative than imitative, and in the context of the nature of the teacher’s professional role – they should depart from the role of communicator and executor to one of guide and translator.
(Kwieciński, 2011, p. 7)
In respect of these comments, one should ponder what can improve the teaching process. One of the many factors influencing the effectiveness of education is didactic communication skills. The role of strong communica- tion competences of teachers, and the need to improve them, has been high- lighted, among others, by Wacław Strykowski, Czesław Kupisiewicz, Wojciech
Kojs and Aleksander Sztejnberg (Kojs, 2001; Kupisiewicz, 2005; Strykowski, Strykowska & Pielachowski, 2003; Sztejnberg, 2002). According to these authors, the quality of the educational process depends on the teacher and, to a large extent, on their communication competences. These researchers believe that every teacher should develop their communication skills to be able to effectively teach and educate students. Since the implementation of many didactic and educational tasks requires the teacher to send messages in a way that allows their proper interpretation by the student, it is extremely important to choose the right language, adequate to the situation and to the students as recipients. The teacher should, therefore, express their own thoughts in a clear, simple, direct, as well as interesting, way. Proper communication is therapeutic, creates a good atmosphere in the classroom and transforms the teacher into a mentor and partner for their students. Satisfying pupils’
psychological needs (respect, belonging, self-development) is as important as their intellectual development. Mieczysław Łobocki (2007) emphasizes that the effectiveness of the teacher-student dialogue lies in adjusting it to the age, intellectual level and interests of the interlocutor (or even their well-being on a given day). Teachers’ statements should be short and clear, and should give the recipient – the student – the opportunity to express their opinion.
Non-verbal messages, such as gestures, facial expressions, touch, eye contact, physical distance and body position, are important elements of teacher-student communication, too. Research results, including those of Thomas Gordon (1999), Bogusława Dobek-Ostrowska (1999) and Beata Sufy (2008), unequivo- cally prove that it is desirable for the student that the teacher be smiling and have a cheerful expression. These elements of non-verbal communication lead to better learning results and allow for a more pleasant classroom atmosphere.
The positive personality traits of teachers which are reflected in their ability to communicate with students are a condition for achieving such results.
The teacher can positively influence the school environment and contribute to their students’ educational success by developing personality traits that af- fect the way they communicate with others. Table 1 shows attributes that are positive and desirable for teachers.
Table 1
Teachers’ positive personality traits affecting students’ educational success Cognitive features intelligence, interest, imagination, verbal fluency
Pedagogical skills way of transferring knowledge, organizational skills, the ability to listen attentively
Character traits justice in judgment, kindness towards students, patience, empathy Behavioral traits ease in making contact with young people, the ability to control their
own emotional states Resistance to stress stability of behavior
A cheerful disposition and an optimistic attitude modeling behaviors and attitudes which indirectly affect students’
attitudes towards themselves and their duties Source: Obuchowska, 1996, pp. 132–133.
Analyzing the scientific achievements of recent years devoted to communi- cation in education (cf. Mądry-Kupiec, 2011; Okrasa, Maliszewski & Fieder, 2015; Putkiewicz, 1990; Sztejnberg, 2002; 2006), it is possible to distinguish many communication styles used by teachers during lessons which influence the teacher-student relationship. They depend, among others, on the level of the teacher’s education, personality, temperament and involvement in per- forming their professional activities. Numerous publications referring to the characteristics of teachers distinguish the following styles of teacher-student communication:
• authoritarian – a one-way communication style. The teacher plays the role of group leader and manager, and hates objections. Such teachers impose their own model of interaction with the students. This style of communication is characterized by the lack of feedback from students.
The lesson is usually conducted using the lecture method;
• cooperative – a communication style that is two-sided. Both the student and teacher can act as senders and recipients of messages. The teacher accepts the views and opinions of the student, actively listens and con- firms that they understand the student’s statements;
• lenient – focused on the freedom and rights of students. During class, students enjoy a great deal of freedom in both horizontal and verti- cal communication. The purpose of this way of communication is to develop student independence by enabling them to make decisions;
• behavior modification – is based on forced control of students’ behavior in the classroom. It places great emphasis on the use of rewards and penalties for behaviors consistent or inconsistent with the teacher’s expectations.
Analyzing the cited examples of communication styles in education, it should be stated that each of them has its own advantages and disadvantages. The authoritarian style of communication is referred to as one-sided, which means that the teacher plays a dominant role in the process and expects students to mainly listen and receive what he or she communicates. There is no place for feedback and questions. Students cannot express their opinions or influence their school reality. Most often, this style of communication causes an unpleas- ant emotional atmosphere in the classroom. Pupils do not want to engage in tasks but feel external coercion and fear of the teacher. They have no desire to identify with the school they most often have negative feelings about. Similarly to behavior modification, which uses not only rewards but also punishments, the authoritarian style makes students feel pressure and imposes a fear of con- sequences and failure. Conversely, the cooperative, behavior modification and lenient styles are methods of communication in which the process of the mutual exchange of messages, views and emotions takes place. There is both feedback and listening to feedback complementing each other. This gives students a sense of co-creation of the tasks they perform, which increases their motivation and makes them believe that what they do makes sense. In the lenient style, in an atmosphere of apparent slack, the teacher allows students to make decisions independently and create their environment, giving them much freedom and significantly reducing the distance between the teacher and the student.
Assumptions of the methodology of own research
Numerous studies (Bochno, 2004; Brzezińska, 2002; Mądry-Kupiec, 2011) characterizing the teacher-student relationship allow one to assume that proper interpersonal communication between teachers and students is not only a con- dition for the proper course of the teaching process, but it also facilitates the resolution of many conflicts in the classroom (on the lines student-student, stu- dent-teacher) and allows for the meeting of the psychological needs of students (including their needs for security, respect, recognition and self-fulfillment).
The aim of the research was to examine which communication methods are used by educators and look at whether/to what extent the teacher’s communication
affects selected aspects of students’ experience (such as anxiety experienced in their relations with the teacher and the assessment of their own competences).
Apart from professional expertise, interpersonal communication is a very important element of the teacher’s work. Correct communication helps to achieve mutual understanding between the teacher and the student. It gives the teacher the opportunity to express themselves and, importantly, facilitates exerting influence and solving problems, and so is of great importance in the process of education. The teacher, by shaping the didactic structure and social processes in the class, has an impact on the individual development of students (Brzezińska, 2002).
For the purposes of this study, the research was conducted at a primary school in Chorzów in 2019, during weekly class meetings. It involved 144 stu- dents who were informed about the complete anonymity of the research and their voluntary participation in it. Identical instructions were given to all groups of students.
To determine how teachers communicate with pupils, a questionnaire was prepared in which students were asked to refer to 16 statements about the course of teacher-student communication based on situations well known to them from everyday school life. An example is the statement: “I feel that my teacher listens to me carefully when I speak to him/her.” Children had a choice of one of the following categories of answers: “often,” “sometimes”
and “never.” Answers were scored on a three-point Likert scale from 0 (“never”) to 2 (“often”). This method aimed to identify three ways of communication between the teacher and students:
1) authoritarian;
2) mixed; and 3) nondirective.
In addition, in order to determine whether – and to what extent – the students experience anxiety in their relationships with teachers, the STAIC questionnaire (version C1 and C2) was used in the Polish adaptation by Spiel- berger, Sosnowski and Iwaniszczuk (2005). The STAIC questionnaire allows for the measurement of state anxiety, i.e., situation-related anxiety, and trait anxiety, understood as one’s predisposition to react, as based on Spielberger’s concepts. Each subscale (C1 and C2) consists of 20 questions to which the respondent responds by choosing one of four categorized answers. The results range from 20 to 80 points. The higher the score, the higher the level of state anxiety and trait anxiety.
Due to the fact that the teacher’s activities (i.e., their style of communica- tion) can affect the self-efficacy of the pupils, Zygfryd Juczyński’s KompOs Personal Competence Scale (2012) was used to study this feature in students.
The KompOs Personal Competence Scale allows one to measure the general- ized sense of self-efficacy and its two components: strength – necessary to initiate action, and perseverance – necessary to continue it. It consists of two scales: A (strength) and B (perseverance), each containing six statements. The overall score is between 12 and 48 points. The higher the score, the higher the sense of self-efficacy.
In addition, a survey was carried out among the students which was used to collect basic information about them regarding personal data (name, age, gender), demographics (school, class, place of residence, number of siblings, people living with the child) and the assessment of the teacher’s communica- tion methods.
The participants of the study included 144 students from grades 6–8 of a primary school in Chorzów. The breakdown of the respondents according to age and gender is presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Age and gender of the respondents
Age (in years) Girls Boys
n % n %
11 14 9.72 10 6.93
12 20 13.94 14 9.72
13 22 15.30 23 15.96
14 12 8.33 20 13.94
15 3 2.01 6 4.15
Jointly 71 49.30 73 50.70
Source: own research.
The majority of students came from full families (104, or 72.2%), 12 from incomplete families (8.3%) and 28 from reconstructed families (19.4%).
Analysis of own research results
The analysis of the empirical data began with the calculation of descriptive statistics for individual variables. The average level of state anxiety in the study group was M = 42.6; SD = 1.23, and was close to the result in the standardiza- tion test. In the studied group of students, the source of anxiety felt at school was teacher-student interaction. In fact, as many as 55% of respondents indi- cated the way the student was treated as one of the causes of school anxiety. The students particularly emphasized such problems as the lack of understanding, lack of partnership, the role of “judge and executioner” played by the teacher, verbal oppression, unfair assessment and motivation by intimidation.
Next, the ways of teacher-student communication were analyzed. The results are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Teacher-student communication styles Teacher’s communication style Numer of people
n %
Autoritarian 23 15.90
Cooperative 47 32.60
Lenient 18 12.50
Behavior modification 56 38.99 Source: own research.
Table 3 shows that in the study group, the most indications were given to the communication style based on behavior modification, because the teachers task is still mostly to educate the student. At the same time, however, a large group of respondents assessed the teacher as using the cooperative model of communication. A nondirective attitude, consisting in presenting proposals for solutions, rather than indicating and imposing them, is the first step towards treating the student as a partner in dialogue.
Analyzing the cited examples of communication styles in education, it should be stated that the most compatible with today’s model of open edu- cation is the cooperative style. Communication in this case is smooth; both the teacher and the student actively participate in it. The teacher’s attitude
towards the student is balanced and based on mutual understanding and acceptance. The teacher then becomes an authority and a model, as well as a person the pupil can turn to in case of problems.
The surveyed students also indicated the sort of messages of “non-acceptance”
they experience in contact with the teacher. The results are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Types of “non-acceptance” messages sent by the teacher * Type of non-acceptance
messages Number of people
n %
Judging 80 55.55
Insulting 23 15.97
Commanding 77 53.47
Threatening 11 7.63
Moralizing 98 68.05
Excessive questioning 4 2.77
Other 21 14.58
* The results do not add up because participants had the option to choose multiple responses.
Source: own research.
The respondents indicated that such behaviors of teacher-tutors as moral- izing, judging and commanding threaten the freedom of the relation and make them reluctant to ask the adult for help or advice. These behaviors evoke a lot of negative emotions among students, such as rebellion, anger, resentment and bitterness, which contribute to increasing the distance in their relations with the teacher. As a result, they do not want to cooperate, they rebel more often, they do not like their teachers and negate the knowledge they transfer.
At the same time, this translates into a lower mood of the adolescents, because if they are constantly rebuked, they come to the conclusion that there is no need to talk, and thus their self-esteem decreases.
Table 5
Types of “acceptance” messages sent by the teacher * Type of acceptance messages Number of people
n %
Treats with respect 66 45.83
Does not judge 46 31.94
Listens to what I have to say 74 51.38
Speaks directly 38 26.38
Does not command 64 44.45
Is able to praise 56 38.88
Other 17 11.80
* The results do not add up because participants had the option to choose multiple responses.
Source: own research.
The surveyed students declared that teachers’ behaviors such as active listen- ing and treating the pupils with respect, instead of ordering and judging them, make them willing to share problems with the teacher, and instigate the need to contact them. The respondents also said that acceptance messages have a very good impact on the classroom atmosphere as they reduce competition, especially if the teacher treats all students in the same way. In this relationship, students do not feel anxious, they are able to cooperate with the educator, to express their own ideas more often; they are not afraid to take action and they learn that relationships with adults can be cordial and safe.
These results confirm the research conducted by, among others, Ronald Edmonds (1986), who showed that teacher support is one of the determinants of student attendance and the extent to which they fulfill their school duties.
Edmonds’ research also showed a relationship between a sense of belonging (manifested in the sense of acceptance, support and respect from peers, teach- ers and other adults belonging to the school community) felt by students, the motivation to learn, school results, school behavior patterns and behavior patterns outside of school.
The next step in the study was to analyze the correlation between the teacher’s communication style and such variables as the students’ sense of personal com- petence, the level of state anxiety and the level of trait anxiety. The results are presented in Table 6.
Table 6
Communication style and studied variables
Communication style Sense of personal competence State anxiety Trait anxiety
Authoritarian 0.021 0.371** 0.228*
Cooperative 0.291** -0.261** 0.112
Lenient 0.222* 0.117 0.147
Behavior modification 0.153 -0.145* 0.111
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.001 Source: own research.
Significant correlations were observed between low strength variables and moderate strength ones. The strongest relationship concerned the correlation between the authoritarian method of communication and the level of students’
state anxiety, as well as the relationship between the low level of anxiety and the cooperative method of communication with the students. The relationship between the cooperative style of communication and the student’s sense of personal competence was also significant.
Therefore, it should be recognized that the more often the teacher’s authorita- tive style of communication occurs, the more often the student reacts to them and their school situation with anxiety. This may have a negative impact on the student’s school achievements, as well as may be a reason for their reluctance towards school or the occurrence of various negative psychological symptoms, e.g., somatization or depressed mood.
An inverse relationship occurs between the collaborative style of teacher communication and the low level of anxiety experienced by the student in this relationship. This style determines greater openness and mutual trust in rela- tionships, which undoubtedly has a positive effect on the student’s education and upbringing process and, therefore, on obtaining higher personal compe- tences, such as creativity, conflict resolution skills and stress management. The reason why developing the collaborative style of communication is difficult is that it is much easier to give instructions than to motivate someone to act.
At the same time, as research shows, the collaborative pattern of teacher-student communication is much better than the authoritarian one because it makes students feel less fear and experience a greater sense of self-efficacy. Because the process of communicating in the collaborative style is based on emotional
warmth, adolescents are well-disposed to the class, and in return the teacher can feel that their work is effective.
Conclusion
In the light of the obtained research results, it can be stated that a teacher’s effort to develop effective communication with the student has enormous potential and can pay off in the broadly understood individual development of the student, in the correct implementation of the intended educational and educational goals, as well as in strengthening bonds and developing competence within the structure of a class team. The results of the conducted research indi- cate that a teacher’s non-directive attitude in contact with the student – the co- operative and behavior modification styles of communication (i.e., such ways of teacher-student conversation that consist in presenting proposals for solutions, not indicating and imposing them) – is extremely important in the teacher- student relationship. It is, in fact, the first step towards minimizing the level of students’ anxiety in school situations, towards treating the student as an equal partner in dialogue and helping them to develop personal competences.
Conversely, teachers who behave in the authoritarian manner – fake a dia- logue, interact with persuasion, orders or threats – establish relationships with students in a completely different way. These teachers reinforce the level of anxi- ety in students, thus discouraging them from presenting their own opinions, independence and creativity. Students do not treat such teachers as conversation partners because they are afraid of them not accepting their feelings, views and opinions. In a situation where the level of anxiety prevails over the level of trust in the class, it is not possible to conduct an effective dialogue aimed at solving difficult problems and thus, eliminating threats leading to educational crises (e.g., school phobia, peer aggression and pathologies in behavior).
In the context of the above information, it is very important to make educa- tors aware of the extremely important role of appropriate teacher behavior – building an atmosphere of mutual trust in the classroom – which behavior can be a constructive method of helping students overcome school anxiety, build their own effectiveness and autonomy. The most important goal of education that teachers should strive to achieve is to develop a model of com- munication in which they will talk to students, not instruct them; cooperate, not give orders; suggest, not explicitly say how to do the task. Only a teacher well prepared in terms of communication skills can create proper conditions
for the development of pupils in the class, making the student feel like an unconditionally accepted person, treated with due respect. Proper interpersonal communication between teachers and students is not only a condition for the proper course of the teaching process, it also allows the teacher to solve many conflicts in the classroom. In addition, it is necessary in the process of satisfy- ing the psychosocial needs of the student (the need for security, emotional communication with others, respect, recognition and self-fulfillment).
Meeting these needs is as important as the intellectual development of students. Proper communication is therapeutic, creates a good atmosphere in the classroom and transforms the teacher into a guide and partner. Acquiring proper communication skills by teachers will undoubtedly contribute to im- proving the quality of teaching-learning in every modern Polish school and will give children the opportunity to increase the number of people they will be able to turn to in case of problems. All this will translate into better educa- tion and educational results.
References
Bochno, E. (2004). Rozmowa jako metoda oddziaływania wychowawczego. Studium teoretyczno-empiryczne [Conversation as a Method of Educational Influence. Theoretical and Empirical Study]. Kraków: Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls.
Brzezińska, A. (2002). Szanse rozwoju w okresie dorastania [Growth Opportunities during Adolescence]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Fundacji Humaniora.
Dobek-Ostrowska, B. (1999). Podstawy komunikowania społecznego [Social Communica- tion. The Basics]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Astrum.
Edmonds, R. (1986). Characteristics of Effective School. In: U. Neisser (ed.), The School Achievement of Minority Children (pp. 93–104). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gordon, T. (1999). Wychowanie bez porażek w szkole [School Education without Failure], transl. A. Makowska & E. Sujak. Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy PAX.
Jagieła, J. (2004). Komunikacja w szkole. Krótki poradnik psychologiczny [School Com- munication. Short Psychological Guide]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Rubikon.
Juczyński, Z. (2012). Narzędzia Pomiaru w Promocji i Psychologii Zdrowia (podręcznik) [Measurement Tools in Promotion of Health Psychology (A Textbook)]. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwo Pracowni Testów Psychologicznych.
Klus-Stańska, D. & Nowicka, M. (2005). Sensy i bezsensy edukacji wczesnoszkolnej [The Sense and Nonsense of Early School Education]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Harmonia.
Kojs, W. (2001). Procesy komunikacyjne w szkole [Communication Processes at School].
Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Kupisiewicz, C. (2005). Podstawy dydaktyki [The Basics of Didactics]. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.
Kuszak, K. (2013). Paradoksy komunikacji w szkole – rozważania na temat wybranych ograniczeń w rozwoju kompetencji komunikacyjnych uczniów we współczesnej szkole [Paradoxes of School Communication – A Reflection on Selected Restrictions on the Development of Students’ Communication Competences in a Modern School].
Kultura. Społeczeństwo. Edukacja, 2(4), 23–37.
Kwieciński, Z. (1998). Edukacja wobec nadziei i zagrożeń współczesności [Education in the Face of the Hopes and Threats of Modern Times]. Poznań: Polskie Towarzystwo Pedagogiczne.
Kwieciński, Z. & Śliwerski, B. (2007). Pedagogika. Podręcznik akademicki [Pedagogy.
Academic Handbook]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Łobocki, M. (2007). W trosce o wychowanie w szkole [In the Interest of School Education].
Kraków: Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls.
Mądry-Kupiec, M. (2011). Komunikacja werbalna nauczyciela i ucznia na lekcji [Verbal Communication of the Teacher and Student during the Lesson]. Krakow: Impuls Pub- lishing House. Kraków: Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls.
McKay, M., Davis, M. & Fanning, P. (2011). Sztuka skutecznego porozumiewania się.
Praca, rodzina, zabawa [The Art of Effective Communication. Work, Family, Fun], transl. A. Błaż. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Pedagogiczne.
Nęcki, Z. (2000). Komunikacja międzyludzka [Interpersonal Communication]. Kraków:
Wydawnictwo Antykwa.
Noam, G.G. & Fiore, N. (2004). Relationships Across Multiple Settings: An Overview.
New Directions for Youth Development, 103, 9–16.
Nowicka, M. (1999). Mówienie w szkole [Talking at School]. In: D. Klus-Stańska
& M. Dagiel (eds.), Edukacja polonistyczna na rozdrożach [Polish Language Education at Crossroads] (p. 23). Olsztyn: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego.
Nowicka, M. (2012). Socjalizacja na lekcjach w klasach początkowych. Praktyki – prze- strzenie – konceptualizacje [School Socialization in Primary Classes. Practices – Spaces – Conceptualizations]. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek.
Obuchowska, I. (1996). Drogi dorastania. Psychologia rozwojowa okresu dorastania dla rodziców i wychowawców [Ways of Growing Up. Developmental Psychology of Adoles- cence for Parents and Educators]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.
Okoń, W. (2003). Komunikacja interpersonalna w szkole [Interpersonal Communica- tion at School]. Edukacja i Dialog, 1, 50–53.
Okrasa, M., Maliszewski, W.K. & Fieder, M. (2015). Komunikowanie się w środowisku szkolnym i pozaszkolnym, nowe trendy i obawy [Communicating in School and out- of-school Environments. New Trends and Concerns]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek.
Putkiewicz, E. (1990). Proces komunikowania się na lekcji [Communication Process in Class]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.
Ridley, D.S. & Walther, B. (2005). Jak nauczyć dzieci odpowiedzialności [Teaching Children Responsibility], transl. K. Rogowski. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Pedagogiczne.
Rittel, T. (1994). Metodologia lingwistyki edukacyjnej [Methodology of Educational Lin- guistics]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe WSP.
Spielberger, C.D., Sosnowski, T. & Iwaniszczuk, D. (2005). Inwentarz Stanu i Cechy Lęku dla Dzieci (polska adaptacja) [Inventory of State and Trait Anxiety in Children (Polish Adaptation)]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Pracowni Testów Psychologicznych.
Strykowski, W., Strykowska, J. & Pielachowski, J. (2003). Kompetencje nauczyciela szkoły współczesnej [Competences of a Contemporary School Teacher]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo eMPi2.
Stuhlman, M.W., Hamre, B. & Pianta, R. (2002). Building Supportive Relationships with Adolescents. Middle Matters. Fall, 5, 9–16.
Sufa, B. (2008). Komunikacja niewerbalna. O porozumiewaniu się nauczycieli i uczniów w edukacji wczesnoszkolnej [Nonverbal Communication. On Communication between Teachers and Students in Early School Education]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej.
Sztejnberg, A. (2002). Podstawy komunikacji społecznej w edukacji [Basics of Social Com- munication in Education]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Astrum.
Sztejnberg, A. (2006). Komunikacyjne środowisko nauczania i uczenia się [Communication Environment for Teaching and Learning]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Astrum.
ISSN 2300-6471 pp. 27–46
https://doi.org/10.19265/kp.2020.1.14.241
Eugenia Rostańska
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3118-7766 WSB University in Dąbrowa Górnicza erostanska@wsb.edu.pl
Linguistic Representations of Relationship Experience in Child-Teacher Communication Językowe reprezentacje doświadczania relacji w komunikacji dziecka i nauczyciela
Summary: Child-teacher communication in educational situ- ations is a special form of communication based on the dyadic structure and the relationships of the participants. Its specificity is expressed in various types of statements demonstrating the dyadism of the educational situation and the asymmetry of the relationship. These statements include ones accepting the child’s independence, expressing readiness to help, confirming the child’s dependence, confirming the teacher’s independence and ones of the children expressing themselves. Their occur- rence determines the quality of education. Recognition and crea- tion of an appropriate relationship with the student by building a proper relationship with them is a necessary skill of the teacher.
Streszczenie: Porozumiewanie się dziecka i nauczyciela w sy- tuacjach edukacyjnych stanowi szczególną formę komunika- cji, opartą na diadycznej strukturze i relacjach osób w nim uczestniczących. Jej specyfika wyrażana jest w różnych typach wypowiedzi, demonstrujących diadyczność sytuacji edukacyjnej i asymetrię relacji. Należą do nich wypowiedzi akceptujące ORIGINAL PAPER
Received: 12.11.2019 Accepted: 20.12.2019
Keywords:
communication, child, teacher, rela- tionship, relationship asymmetry, relation- ship statements
Słowa kluczowe:
komunikacja, dziecko, nauczyciel, relacja, asymetria relacji, wy- powiedzi relacyjne
potwierdzające niezależność nauczyciela i wypowiedzi dziecka eksponujące siebie. Ich występowanie stanowi o jakości eduka- cji, a rozpoznawanie i tworzenie przez właściwe zastosowanie odpowiedniej relacji z uczniem jest niezbędną umiejętnością nauczyciela.
Introduction
The relationship between education and communication manifest in stu- dent-teacher interaction is the subject of various pedagogical analyses and its importance is confirmed by multiple studies conducted by linguists, psycholo- gists and educators. They expressly emphasize the specificity of the situation of communication between an adult and a child, as well as the teacher-student relations built in this way (Zalewska-Bujak, 2017, p. 60). The structure and special roles of interlocutors are indicated as significant components of com- munication. The purpose and result of communication are also important because the quality of the child-teacher connection is one of the basic condi- tions for effective education (Adamek, 2014, p. 21).
The relationship between communication and learning/teaching is the subject of much research into the education process. It is distinguished by the purpose of the analyses defining the importance of the research and the diversity of perspectives: psycholinguistics, text linguistics, dialogue structures, language forms and behavior, educational discourse, aspects of interpersonal relations and activity in various environments (see Bochno, 2004; Van Dijk, 2001; Harwas-Napierała, 2006; Kojs, 2014; Oelszlaeger-Kosturek, 2018;
Ostrowska, 2000; Retter, 2005; Rostańska, 2010; and others). Regardless of the diversity, however, it shares the research space which is the communication situation between a child and a teacher.
Communication with children in elementary school is a specific area of research. This specificity is determined by the subject, which is the child and their development, as well as the fact that what is important in the relationship between education and communication in early school education is contained in the child’s and teacher’s speech. Using a variety of spoken language, the
elementary schoolteacher builds relationships, explains, directs, assesses and stimulates the child’s cognitive activity. In speaking – often using colloquial speech with its characteristic features, like the occurrence of anacoluthons, retardation phrases, inclusions, as well as with non-verbal features of the semantics of speech – the child also communicates their experiences, doubts, emotions or information. Both the teacher and the child build and demonstrate the image of their world using this form of language (Retter, 2005), which occurs interpersonally, in direct communication (Frydrychowicz, 2005). Fea- tures characteristic of this type of communication include the spontaneity and situationality of speaking, asymmetry of the relationship resulting from the child-teacher role system, ambiguity of the language tool, as well as children’s experience of using language. This experience consists of both sensations and attempts to use language in communication. Hence the fields of analysis of the communication between a child and a teacher in the context of interper- sonal relations focus on the dyadic structure and role asymmetry (Eggins
& Martin, 2001, pp. 153, 180).
Dyadic structure and accounts of participants in educational communication
The dyadic structure is made up of persons in the communication dyad:
a child and a teacher as the senders and recipients of messages and relational statements. Elements that model communication in the dyad are the child’s situation in contact with an adult, the characteristics of this contact and pre- vious experience. For the adult, the basic elements building communication situations are his or her role as a teacher and the features of contact with the student built through verbal interactions, a common field of attention, be- haviors and statements that open, build, maintain and close communication (Frydrychowicz, 2005, pp. 97–98).
In the child-teacher dyad, participants’ statements demonstrate their mutual relations and communication status. This happens in a situation of understand- ing (acceptance of an idea, explanation of view, consideration of thoughts, paraphrasing thoughts, developing thoughts, agreement), judgment (posi- tive assessment, negative assessment, opposition, other suggestions, suggest- ing assessment), showing oneself (limited communication, dialogue with an
“arbitrator”), formal and indirect assessment, as well as assessment as an “act of care” as a factor disrupting communication between a child and a teacher (Ostrowska, 2000).
In the situation of child-teacher communication, the features of role asym- metry expressed in their statements are also important. For the teacher, it is self-focus, creating unjustified assumptions about the child’s ability to un- derstand their signals and statements, and ignoring the attitudes and experi- ences of the child. For both the child and the teacher, role asymmetry can be expressed when the message reaches the recipient but the intentions are not seen or their meaning is misunderstood. It may also happen that the message noticed by the interlocutor is irrelevant to them and a wrong interpretation or answer is not in line with the sender’s intention. The recipient then recognizes in the message intentions that were not expressed by the sender. The asym- metry of the child and teacher roles significantly affects their experience of relationships, which is manifest in their statements in educational situations.
The significance of dyadism in the situation of teacher-child communication is grounded in Martin Buber’s understanding of a genuine meeting. It can be defined as a specific contact in which entities, i.e., I-Thou, shape the course of the meeting through their own individuality (see Rostańska, 2010, p. 160).
Outline of the concept of research on visible relations between a child and a teacher in educational communication
Indications of the importance and complex nature of educational commu- nication in the context of the child-teacher dyad imply the need to determine specific features of the relationship created by the educational asymmetry of the roles of the adult/teacher and child. Hence, an important question for early school pedagogy concerns the relationship between a teacher and a child as built in direct communication, as well as its visible signs. The answer to this question requires an analysis of the child’s experience of relationships in interactions and acts of communication in school situations. Their visible sign is the statements of the communication participants expressed by language representations of relational behavior. An analysis of statements in communication dialogue is focused on the search for significant language features and their description, which is the basis for creating a picture of the child-teacher relationship. In stud- ies on education, this corresponds to a qualitative research approach that seeks to capture experiences in their natural context, occurring naturally, as a clearly identified phenomenon embedded in this context (Flick, 2012, p. 14; Gibbs, 2015, p. 27). Therefore, an analysis of collected data requires reduction and representation in order to draw conclusions (Miles & Huberman, 2000, p. 11).
The research and analyses carried out for the sake of the following study were intended to determine how language relations between the child and the teacher are expressed. Therefore, the examined statements met the specific requirement for this relationship, namely, the principle of dyadism (i.e., they were uttered between two participants only – a child and a teacher – com- municating in a conversation situation). What is more, the situation of these relations could not be declarative or organized, but natural and spontaneous.
Only then do the statements become visible linguistic signs of the relationship.
This constituted the organizational difficulty of the study.
The research material, collected since 2010, contains over one and a half thousand transcribed recordings of school situations. Their goal had been the methodological documentation of the classes conducted rather than reporting their course. This enabled the registration of the participants’ natural behaviors in typical, random situations without a pre-determined role system and set ways of expressing themselves (such as determining who asks questions and who answers them). These recordings were made in schools during student internships in random school situations. Direct communication of primary school teachers with children – girls or boys ages 7–9 – has been registered.
From the collected material, situations have been selected that corresponded to the research assumptions, namely, the dyadism of the teacher-child contact and direct communication. For the analysis of language phenomena in com- munication, the frequency of their occurrence has not been significant but – due to the potential of the language – their appearance in the context of the quality of teacher-child communication in early school education has been considered highly significant.
In order to exemplify the research, and to conform to the publication recommendations, examples of relational statements recorded at school were compiled during lessons, during breaks, before lessons and in spontaneous situations, during conversations of children from classes 1–3 with their teacher, without first specifying their topic or course. The collected linguistic material was subjected to transcription, which is the basis for selecting verbal representa- tions of relational statements in teacher-child contact, as experienced individu- ally. The collected and transcribed material on the basis of data aggregation was then reduced (Rubacha, 2008, p. 260), and the relational statements were differentiated, the demonstration of which is presented in exemplifying situations in which the statement of a child or teacher is a visible sign of their relationship.
Experiencing a child-teacher relationship. Representations of statements in exemplifying situations
Relations between a child and a teacher have their linguistic representation in communication of relational statements (Nęcki, 2000, pp. 59–60). Relational statements are a visible sign of relationships. Their language representations are specific types of utterances which are
• connected with planning the course of communication;
• connected with creating the course of communication;
• related to the regulation of adult-child relationships;
• developing relationships;
• developing communication;
• facilitating contact;
• accepting the independence of the child;
• not accepting the child’s independence;
• highlighting dependence;
• demanding involvement;
• emphasizing mutual commitment.
Language representations have their dimension both in the communica- tion itself and in the ways its participants treat each other. An illustration of this are the statements regarding the child’s independence, involvement in communication situations and those determining the child’s communication dependence on the teacher.
Language representations are also a set of indicators confirming and de- scribing the functioning of the category of child-teacher relations in the space of experiencing communication.1 The communication relationship is made up of the people who are participants of the communication. Their perception of each other is expressed in language statements and is con- firmed by commitment and acceptance. Therefore, thematic narratives and children’s emotions are accompanied by statements planning and expanding communication, as well as emphasizing mutual commitment (Rostańska, 2019, p. 351).
Mutual involvement is strengthened by a signal of optimism that the teacher sends to the child:
1 A detailed description of the category of relational statements is included in the publication of E. Rostańska (2010).
Teacher: Have you finally patched things up?
Child: Only at the end of the break.
Teacher: So, everything’s all right now, right? That’s great, sit down … [situation 1]
There are also statements whose content is to emphasize the mutual involve- ment of the child and the teacher in the subject.
T: In my opinion, it will be very interesting because we have thought it over together.
C: Yes. But you will help me.
T: With great pleasure … [sit. 2]
The teacher is particularly active in statements demanding involvement.
This is expressed by a sequence of several questions asked one after another:
T: And who had such a monkey? Which girl?
C: I don’t know.
T: You don’t know which girl like you had such a monkey? She walked with her. Who was it?
C: [after a moment of silence] Pipi? [sit. 3]
or sayings such as “and say …,” “tell me about it,” “and what else …,” “and look,” “and what will you do when …”;
T: And tell me what you enjoyed in class today the most?
C: I liked … art, shop.
T: Why?
C: Because we made nice butterflies, I could help the teacher a lot. [sit. 4]
In the case of statements demanding involvement, the teacher’s statement constitutes the whole relationship, creating its course:
T: Then listen to me, is there anything else you want to say to the headmistress?
C: I have nothing more to say.
T: And you don’t want to say hello to her?
C: I want to, hello headmistress. [sit. 5]
Relational statements are also those that demonstrate the teacher’s attitude towards the independence of the child. Its acceptance is not very expressive and usually comes down to agreeing to the child’s proposed line of action or accepting the child’s attitude, pending approval of the teacher’s behavior:
