lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 1059e1067

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Building caring relationships between a teacher and students in a teacherpreparation program word-by-word, moment-by-moment

Minseong Kim a,*, Diane L. Schallert b,1

aDepartment of Education, Chosun University, 375 Seosuk-dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju 501-759, Republic of KoreabDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, D5800, Austin, TX 78712, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 21 January 2010Received in revised form28 April 2011Accepted 5 May 2011

Keywords:CaringTeacherestudent relationshipsTeacher educationPreservice teachers

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ82 62 230 7634; þ8262 232 8122.

E-mail addresses: minseong@chosun.ac.kr (M. Kim(D.L. Schallert).

1 Tel.: þ1 512 232 4835.

0742-051X/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.05.002

a b s t r a c t

Our purpose was to illustrate the process by which caring relationships between students and theirteacher educator developed in the context of preservice reading preparation that made use of onlinecommunication as one class activity. Describing the development of caring relationships between threestudents and their teacher, we showed that caring could not be considered a one-way characteristic ofwhat teachers do and are, but rather that it depended on students’ reciprocal responses. Findingsindicated that the trajectories of caring relationships developed differently, each influenced by differ-ences in entering expectations, critical events, and a negotiation of what the relationship meant.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Research on teaching has reflected changing views of what itmeans to teach effectively (Grossman &McDonald, 2008; Prillaman& Eaker, 1994). Early perspectives sought to identify the charac-teristics or behaviors consistently observed in teachers who hadstudents displaying comparatively good achievement, implyingthat effectiveness resided in the connection between such teachercharacteristics or behaviors and student outcomes. Later studiesfocused on identifying mediating variables, such as students’and teachers’ thought processes, to explain the mechanisms bywhich teaching behaviors and student achievement are connected(Clark & Peterson, 1986; Shulman, 1986). As Grossman andMcDonald (2008) noted, these approaches to research onteaching emphasized the intellectual demands of teaching, over-looking not only its situational and affective aspects integral to“teaching as practice” but also making little connection to how thepractice is learned during teacher education.

With a focus on how teaching-learning processes were enactedthrough the reciprocal exchanges, relationships, and shared expe-riences that preservice students and their teacher educator had

10 2600 6495 (cell); fax: þ82

), dschallert@mail.utexas.edu

All rights reserved.

with each other, our study can be seen as a partial response to thegaps in the literature identified by Grossman andMcDonald (2008).We were interested in understanding better how relationshipsbetween a teacher and his students developed moment-to-moment, and, because the students were preparing to beteachers, wewere concurrently studying the early stages of noviceslearning the practice of teaching from a master educator.

Such an approach to learning and teaching processes is clearlygrounded in a Vygotskian depiction of learning (Vygotsky, 1978). Inthis view, learning results when an individual appropriates andinternalizes from the sociocultural milieu those experiences thatare just on the leading edge of what the learner already knows andcan do, the learner’s zone of proximal development. The role of aneffective teacher is to be sensitive to what the learner is ready tointernalize, reciprocally responsive to signs from the learner ofwhat is needed in order for growth to happen. When researchershave called for a greater emphasis on the relational aspectsinvolved in the practice of teaching (e.g., Grossman & McDonald,2008; Noddings, 2001), it is this sort of mutual interconnectionbetween teacher and student to which they are referring.

However, despite its significance, there has been surprisinglylittle empirical research on the relational aspects of teaching and onhow these aspects are critical to learning the practice of teaching.Even studies focused on the teacher-learner relationship itself seemto reflect little of the interconnected development of the relation-ship between teacher and student. Instead, these have reliedmainly on self-report measures of either students’ perceptions oftheir teachers’ interpersonal behaviors (e.g., “If we have something

M. Kim, D.L. Schallert / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 1059e10671060

to say s/he will listen”; Fraser & Walberg, 2005; Wubbels &Brekelmans, 2005) or teachers’ perceptions of their relationshipswith students (e.g., “I would describe my relationship with thisstudent as positive”; Ang, 2005). Even in studies investigating theperceptions that both sides have of each other (Muller, 2001), theinterconnectedness of the teacherestudent relationship has beensimply assumed, with little direct focus on its development or onhow the relationship affects the process of teaching and learning.

2. Conceptual frameworks

Aiming to explicate relational aspects of teaching, we drew ontwo theoretical constructs, conceptions by Noddings (1984, 1992)of caring and by Bakhtin (1986) of dialogue.

Noddings (1984, 1992) introduced the concept of an ethic of carein order to elucidate the intertwined relationship between teacherand student. Noddings used the term caring to describe how theone-caring (the person who gives care) encounters another andhow the cared-for (the person who receives that care) responds.Two terms are critical in describing how the one-caring in a caringencounter meets the cared-for. The first is engrossment, a termreferring to how the one-caring is feeling with and receiving theother (Noddings, 1984). The one-caring does not meet the other byanalyzing or laying his or her own interpretation on the other’ssituation but by trying to remain open to the cared-for with fullattention to feel what he or she feels, to accept the other not as anobject but as another self. Such full reception of the other cangenerate strong responsibility, and in this way, engrossment initi-ates the caring encounter (Goldstein, 1999).

Whereas engrossment refers to the receptive attention that theone-caring gives to the cared-for, motivational displacement indi-cates that the one-caring must respond in some way to the cared-for, showing a “willingness to give primacy, even momentarily, tothe goals and needs of the cared-for” (Goldstein, 1999, p. 656).Receiving the other fully allows the one-caring to be moved by theother’s needs and feelings (Noddings, 2001). The motives and goalsof the other become the one-caring’s own. With such a motiva-tional shift, the one-caring is impelled to do something on behalf ofthe other, as if it were on his or her own behalf.

Another insight from Noddings’ (1984) theoretical descriptioncame from her emphasis on the need of the cared-for to give somesign to the one-caring that care has been received. As important asengrossment and motivational displacement in the one-caring, thecared-for’s reciprocity is considered critical to the caring relation-ship in that “whatever the one-caring does is validated and mademeaningful, or diminished and made meaningless, by the responseof the cared-for” (Goldstein, 1999, p. 658). Whether by expressingsincere appreciation, showing delight, or recognizing his or hergrowth, the acknowledgement of the cared-for of what the one-caring is doing is the sustaining force of the caring relationship.Applied to teaching, caring is not limited to the behaviors or atti-tude of the teacher, but necessarily depends on how studentsrespond to their teacher. Built from underlying processes ofengrossment, motivational displacement, and reciprocity, caring isa quality of the relationship that develops between a student anda teacher, not a characteristic or propensity of the teacher.

Empirical studies regarding the teacherestudent relationship,whether explicitly using caring as a conceptual framework or not,have mostly attended to expressions of engrossment and motiva-tional displacement, reflected in such teacher behaviors as payingattention, listening, and responding to students, treating studentsas individuals, and providing what the teacher perceives to beneeded by students (e.g., Larson, 2006; Schussler & Collins, 2006).In studies investigating the actual practice of caring in teaching incontexts beyond the United States (e.g., Canada, United Kingdom,

Switzerland), the focus has been on how caring in teaching relatedto the ways teachers know their students (Webb & Blond, 1995),their identity (Vogt, 2002), and the school culture (Acker, 1995),and on whether conceptions and expressions of caring reflecteda gendered way of interacting (Acker, 1995; Vogt, 2002). However,what has received little research attention is reciprocity in caringand the actual development of caring relationships in the context ofteaching and learning. Even in the field of teacher education whereNoddings’ construct of caring has been embraced, most studieshave been limited to asking participants to provide their views ofthe characteristics of caring teachers or to give their conceptions ofwhat caring means (Goldstein & Lake, 2000; Rogers, 1994;Weinstein, 1998). In response, preservice teachers typically havedescribed caring as a natural instinct and a personal trait, leavingout an appreciation of the teacher’s obligation and responsibilityinvolved in developing caring relationships with students(Goldstein & Lake, 2000; McLaughlin, 1991).

Goldstein and Freedman (2003) suggested that preserviceteachers’ ways of understanding teacher caring are influencedgreatly by their relationship with their teacher educators, men-toring teachers, or others involved in their teacher educationprogram. Given that preservice teachers may project the relation-ships they build with their teacher educators to their future inter-actions with their own students, examining directly thedevelopment of such teacherestudent relationships during teacherpreparation may have particular significance, especially for what itreveals about how preservice teachers may learn directly how to dotheir part as caring teachers in the future.

A second conceptual framework critical to our study wasBakhtin’s (1986) perspective on dialogue, with its emphasis on therelational aspects dialogue entails. Any utterance, whether oral orwritten, responds in someway to previous interactions and, in turn,calls forth a response from others. Any words uttered reflect anddepend on the relationship between the speaker and the listener.When Bakhtin’s ideas about dialogue are joined with the constructof caring, we can say that any behavior or words made by the one-caring respond not only to what has already been said or donebetween the one-caring and the cared-for but also to the antici-pated future responses from the cared-for.

In this way, dialogue connects us to each other and provides uswith the knowledge of each other that forms a foundation forresponse in caring (Noddings, 1992). In a comparative study acrossEngland, Ireland, and the United States, Collison, Killeavy, andStephenson (1998) reported that knowing students throughmultidirectional dialogue was the foundation for an ethic of care aspracticed by exemplary teachers. Furthermore, dialogue is a placewhere individuals can be aware of themselves through the eyes ofanother person (Clark & Holquist, 1984). As we shape our wordswithin the context of specific responses, the notion of who we arein relation to those responses simultaneously shapes knowledge ofself and others. In this sense, dialogue is a space for constructingwho we are in relation to another person.

Such a viewof dialogue relates to how the cared-for develops hisor her knowledge of self. From cumulative caring encounters, thecared-for comes to realize that he or she is welcomed and seen as animportant individual through the words of the one-caring. Thisrealization contributes to a sense of confirming and strengtheningwhat is best in himself or herself, an ethical ideal, in Noddings’ terms.Buber (1970, cited in Rossiter, 1999) used the term confirmation todescribe the willingness and capacity of one person to see anotheras her or his best possible self. Thus, being in a caring relationship isseen as the primary means by which one builds his or her knowl-edge of self, especially knowledge of the best self one can imagine.

The appreciation of the role of dialogue in one’s construction ofself-knowledge and in building relationships aligns well with the

M. Kim, D.L. Schallert / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 1059e1067 1061

recent proliferation of online activities in preservice teachereducation such as online discussion assignments or reflectivejournal postings (e.g., Assaf, 2005; Thomas, Clift, & Sugimoto,1996).Assaf (2005) characterized dialogue in computer-mediatedcommunication (CMC) as a place where students preparing tobecome Ke12 teachers negotiate their dynamic identities asteachers through narrative practices with others. Focusing on onepreservice teacher’s practices in CMC across three semesters andusing Bakhtin (1981) as a theoretical guide, Assaf identified howthe student teacher negotiated common values, beliefs, andknowledge related to becoming a teacher by using the words andthoughts of others to make sense of, or author herself as a teacher.In another study on the use of electronic exchanges in a teachereducation program, Thomas et al. (1996) reported that suchexchanges encouraged the development of trust among fellowstudents and with faculty.

Goldstein and Freedman (2003) cautioned that, despite thepotential of electronic dialogue journals to foster a caring rela-tionship, a teacher educator who is absent or inconsistent inresponding and embracing preservice teachers’ perspectives mayblock the development of a caring relationship. Thus, dialogicinteractions through CMC offer the potential, one that is not alwaysrealized, to contribute to the development of preservice teachers’self-image as a teacher, concurrently serving as a site for relation-ship building with their teacher educators.

In previous work (Kim, 2005), we had acknowledged the role ofonline interactions in fostering teacherestudent dialogue asa supplement to in-class activities. In this study, we turned toa more microanalytic study of three cases that had the potential toshow the variety of ways in which caring relationships betweenpreservice teachers and their teacher educator developed. Wehoped such an analysis would reveal some of the mediating factorsthat could explain differences in the relationships built betweenthe same teacher and different students.

3. Method

3.1. Setting

By providing details about the teacher preparation program inwhich the cases were situated, we hoped to allow for readers tojudge howwell their own research or practice could be informed byour results. The research involved a semester-long observation of25 students and their teacher educator in an undergraduateelementary (primary) teacher preparation program in the UnitedStates that was organized by assigning students to one of several“cohorts.” A cohort of students took all their courses togethertaught by a small group of faculty working together to coordinatethe students’ experiences. Students were assigned to cohorts partlyby their own request and partly by random assignment. Our datacollection focused on two required courses in the “reading” cohort,both taught by Dr. Jones (all names pseudonyms) and taken bystudents in the first of the program’s three semesters. The goals forthese two courses were to help the prospective teachers under-stand learners within culture and community, and to focus onyoung children’s literacy development. For such goals to be ach-ieved, each student was required to tutor an elementary-agedstudent twice per week and to participate in a community serviceproject involving the tutoring of adult learners for 3 h per week,and other literacy related projects (a book club, a home visit, etc.).

Additionally, for several years, the teacher had added electronicposting via an online environment (called TeachNet) to supplementin-class activities. On TeachNet, students posted public responses tothe course readings twice per week to which the teacher as well asother students could respond. Because Dr. Jones responded to

nearly every one of their postings, we saw these online interactionsas important as in-class interactions in relationship building.

3.2. Participants

Having collected data about all 25 of the students (1 male, 24female; 23 White, 1 Hispanic, 1 East Indian) and the teacher in thecohort, we focused for this report on three students who illustratedinterestingly different ways by which a relationship with a teachercan develop. We were informed methodologically by case study(Yin, 1989) and general qualitative inquiry approaches (Kamberelis& Dimitriadis, 2005). In rationalizing why we chose these threestudents for this microanalysis, our description of participantsrelies heavily on insights we had formed from interviews andobservation of the whole cohort.

The teacher. Dr. Jones was a professor of literacy, the leadinstructor of the program preparing future primary teachers ofliteracy. A recognized figure both on campus and in the field, hewasknown as an excellent teacher educator, praised by colleagues andformer students, and the recipient of accolades from professionalorganizations. In our observation, we saw Dr. Jones as an energetic,confident, conscientious instructor whose ready laugh and bluntcommunication style was appreciated by most but misunderstoodby some.

Michelle. Like most of the students in this cohort, Michelle wasa young (21 years old)Whitewoman. She had selected this “cohort”because she wanted to teach first grade for which she felt the needto know more about literacy. We chose Michelle as a focal studentbecause she showed, with minor variations, the most frequentpattern of relationship building with the teacher among thestudents, a generally smooth progression to a positive warmtrusting relationship with the teacher, with steady reliance onTeachNet postings as a form of connecting with him.

Nancy. Also White, female, and 21 years old, Nancy had reques-ted to be in the reading cohort at the recommendation of her advisorwho knew of her interest in becoming a teacher of English asa second language and in receiving the best preparation possible.Also, she had had friendly informal exchangeswithDr. Jones prior tostarting the program. We chose Nancy because she, unlike most ofthe other students, reported not placing much importance on theTeachNet communication with her teacher. We saw her as buildingher relationship with Dr. Jones mostly through face-to-face inter-actions, and we were interested in documenting how an activitythat was valued by the instructor but not the student would fare.

Goldy. Born in India, Goldy (age 20) differed in cultural back-ground from the rest of her classmates. She had arrived into thereading cohort by random assignment (there were always slotsavailable in every cohort for students who had indicated noparticular choice), and yet, she was impressed from the beginningby the challenging work Dr. Jones outlined. We chose her for closeanalysis because, even though she was very enthusiastic about theTeachNet activity and her postings were full of voice revealingstrong views about the readings, her relationship with Dr. Jonesseemed to us rocky and troubled. We wanted in this report toexplore what had happened between Goldy and Dr. Jones that hadled to a less-than-successful relationship.

3.3. Date sources

Data came from the following sources: printouts of all TeachNettexts (approximately 1400 postings); a background interview(lasting 20 min) as well as 4 h-long interviews (audiotaped andtranscribed) with each student and the teacher, scheduled acrossthe semester, with the purpose of gaining insights into the partic-ipants’ thoughts and reasons underlying their words in TeachNet

M. Kim, D.L. Schallert / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 1059e10671062

postings; classroom observations supplemented by audiotapes ofevery class session (about 30) and daily field notes; a reflectiveresearcher journal kept throughout data collection and analysis.Interviews were conducted in quiet semi-private spaces near theelementary school classroom where both courses were taught. Forthe interviews, the first author asked each student to comment firstonwhichever of Dr. Jones’messages she remembered best, and shethen asked about other specific messages. For Dr. Jones, she did thesame, asking about particular passages he or the students hadwritten in terms of how he had interpreted them and his purpose inresponding. Also, we asked the students and the teacher aboutanything observed in face-to-face classroom interactions that wethought might be important for relationship building. In particular,interview questions touched on how students’ and the teacher’behaviors or words were connected to what had already happenedand what they expected from each other, reflecting the influence ofBakhtin’s (1981, 1986) view of the nature of dialogue.

Note that we had explained the details of the study to classmembers at the beginning of the semester and distributed consentforms that specifically asked for permission to observe course-related interactions and to quote participants’ words verbatim inresearch publications. All students and the teacher signed theseconsent forms.

3.4. Data analysis

We began by reading the transcripts of the first interview witheach person, referring concurrently to all postings mentioned bythe interviewee. As patterns in students’ perceptions of theirteacher and in the teacher’s perceptions of students began toemerge, we identified and refined categories that seemed todescribe the quality of relationships between each student and Dr.Jones. At this stage, we identified three students who seemed to bedeveloping contrasting relationships with their teacher as indi-cated by their initial expectations of the teacher, their perceptionsof TeachNet as a place to know their teacher and learn courseconcepts, and Dr. Jones’ perceptions of each student. We thenconducted three more interviews with these students and theteacher. From classroom observations, we came to understandmore clearly how these students attended to and interpreted theirteacher’s words, and we used our emerging tentative conclusionsas the basis of interview questions. This way of connecting theteacher with each student helped us more fully describe howinteractions in online and face-to-face conversations were inter-connected to form each person’s (teacher and students) perceptionof their relationship.

Next, we read each student’s TeachNet postings with Dr. Jones’comments included, showing how he had responded to thestudent’s postings. This step of analysis disclosed some possibleplaces when Dr. Jones showed how he enacted engrossment andmotivational displacement, two main states of the one-caring ina caring encounter, and when students, consciously or uncon-sciously, revealed their reciprocity, showing appreciation of theirteacher’s care. The analysis of these reciprocal exchanges guideda description of the process by which Dr. Jones and students couldsee and author possible selves as confirmed by each other’s wordsin TeachNet and face-to-face dialogues. Through within-case andcross-case analysis of all data sources, we identified the variousways in which teacherestudent relationships could develop.

3.5. Assuring credibility of the data

To meet the standards of credibility required of qualitativeresearch, the first author observed all but one class meeting for theentire semester, and she read every online posting as they were

posted. In addition to this prolonged engagement and persistentobservation, we achieved triangulation by collecting multiple datasources, allowing for various perspectives on the same data and foran understanding of the data in their fuller context. Throughout thestudy, we engaged in peer debriefing by discussing the ongoinginvestigation, testing any interpretation of the data against otherdata sources, identifying emerging categories and themes, and re-examining conclusions when any mismatch occurred. Finally, weengaged in member checking with the teacher and students, dis-playing and explaining tentative conclusions we were making andasking for feedback to ensure an accurate representation of eachindividual’s experiences.

4. Findings

Across the three students, interactions between students and Dr.Jones, both face-to-face and online, represented dialogic encountersproviding opportunities for them to know each other. The reasonwe call these interactions dialogic is that the teacher’s and students’words not only elicited responses but also depended on previousinteractions.

From among the dialogic encounters that occurred in class,a subset could be categorized as caring encounters, that is,encounters in which the teacher’s caring and a student’s reciprocalresponse to this caring was displayed. Because each dialogicencounter may or may not develop into a caring encounter, thedistinction made here refers to the kinds of situational, personal,and relational aspects that can encourage or discourage a certainencounter from building into a caring relationship between studentand teacher. Our use of the term encounter rather than relationshipis meant to convey that relationships between individuals reflecta long-term process, the result of accumulated encountersmoment-by-moment, with each encounter influencing the wholerelationship positively or negatively.

Our analysis identified several factors that led the students andDr. Jones to enter into different kinds of dialogic and caringencounters. First were three contextual factors: the reasons thathad brought each student to this particular teacher preparationcohort, their perceptions of the cohort and their teacher, and theteacher’s expectations for each student formed by his experienceswith similar past students. Also critical to the development ofdifferent caring relationships with Dr. Jones was the degree towhich each student was engaged in online interactions with him.Then, influenced by the interplay between expected and experi-enced realities, the trust student and teacher could build in eachother became a catalyst for dialogic encounters to develop intocaring encounters. Finally, within the reciprocal influence of caringrelationships, students and the teacher came to see themselvesreflected in each other’s words, a process that led either to con-firming or discouraging a better self.

4.1. Michelle and Dr. Jones: development of a caring relationship

Like many students in her group, Michelle began the semesterwith high expectations of what she would learn from Dr. Jones.When interviewed, she stated that she expected to graduate fromthe cohort “completely prepared [compared to] people who do notspecialize in something.” These initial high expectations for thecohort experience only became stronger, as everything Dr. Jones didseemed to show his passion for what he was doing.

For Dr. Jones, his impression of Michelle until mid-semester wasthat she was quiet in class and had not revealed herself muchonline up until then, a quality he viewed as important to allowinghim to help her develop into an excellent teacher. However,drawing from his past experiences with similar students alongwith

M. Kim, D.L. Schallert / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 1059e1067 1063

his observation of Michelle’s tutoring practices, he continued tohave high expectations of her and to trust her as he recognized herdeveloping confidence and strengths.

She is having a great tutoring experience with just a wonderfulkid..It’s just been really, really very positive.She’s the oneI know the least.But again, I don’t worry because I’ve gotanother year with them. It often happens that there are somekids that sort of stay in the background during the first semesterand as they begin to get into a classroom situation, they comeout a little bit more. (4-15-04, 2nd interview)

He then went on to describe his worries about another student,about her strengths and what he saw as potential shortcomings,finishing his comments with “There’s a question mark there.There’s no question mark on Michelle. She’ll be great. She justneeds more space for her personality to come out a little bit.”

As Michelle and Dr. Jones built trust in each other without muchtension, their dialogue in TeachNet showed evidence that a recip-rocal caring relationship was steadily developing. When Dr. Jonesperceived Michelle as not revealing herself much in TeachNetpostings, he was patient with her but quick to celebrate any postingwith voice. For example, when she made a connection to a class shewas taking from another instructor (Donna), he sided with her,underlining and emphasizing her point. [Dr. Jones habituallyresponded to students simply by copying their posting andinserting comments directly between the lines of their originalmessage. In the examples that follow, Dr. Jones’ words appear inbold italic font inserted within and after each student posting.]

FROM: Paul Jones/3-23-04Michelle writes:.This article gave me a different perspective on attitudes ofparents towards their child’s education. Lastweek inDonna’s classwe read articles about this very subject and I chose a quote formygolden line that was very similar to this article. It was somethinglike all parents want success for their children. hold on to this.despite what you might hear, this is the assumption you mustmake. This line made me realize even more that even thoughsome parents may not show their involvement in school like theteacher would want, all parents care about their children.

In this posting, Dr. Jones noticed Michelle’s voice.

I watch for this because this is new.I mean, if you look backthrough her comments, this is the first time she’s taken a stance,I think, and this isn’t very strong but at least it’s a start. (4-15-04,2nd interview)

His recognition gave evidence of his engrossment and motiva-tional displacement. Michelle also revealed her reception of hiscaring: “His comment made my point more important.”

Michelle’s reciprocity in recognizing Dr. Jones’ caring wasshown in her subsequent posting describing her realization of thesignificance of certain class activities. In responding to an assignedarticle on family literacy, she wrote that she saw La Esperanza, hercohort’s community service project, in a new light. Dr. Jones did notfail to notice it.

FROM: Paul Jones/3-29-04Michelle writes:.I had so many connections to this piece. First of all, mycooperating teacher told me about a program.Although it’s notthe same thing as family literacy., it seems to have the samegoal.La Esperanza is another example. It is mostly adultliteracy but with the new class that our cohort is holding, thisshould shift it more towards family literacy. I am so excitedabout this!!

Michelle found his excitement about La Esperanza contagious:

I think it’s neat because he doesn’t have to be involved with LaEsperanza.It’s just his passion.I think it definitely rubs off onall of us. And it makes me more interested in what he has to say.(4-8-04, 2nd interview)

Dr. Jones’ words seemed to have the power of transferring hisexcitement to her, leading her to see herself in terms of the qualitiesshe admired in him.

For Michelle, the dialogue with Dr. Jones in TeachNet providedmany opportunities for her to sense his caring. Because she was notan outgoing person in class, she did not feel that he noticed her inclass. As she said during member checking, “If I wasn’t there [inTeachNet], I wouldn’t get any [of his attention].” Although sheperceived his general caring and passion for the cohort as a wholefrom in-class meetings, she felt special attention from him inTeachNet, with the online dialogue helping her construct a betterself. Tellingly, in another response, Michelle wrote about how sheoften took others’ opinions without questioning. And Dr. Jonesimmediately applauded her self-reflection:

FROM: Paul Jones/3-29-04Michelle writes:.This article was very interesting to me because I never reallythought about family literacy as a bad thing. I never actuallythought about the negatives of a program.But after readingthis article, it is nice to get a new perspective on this issue.Ishould not just accept the positive question everything. I lovethe notion of being critical but not cynical.ask questionsbecause we can learn. I should take off the blinders and learnabout the positives and negatives of literacy education.

In her second interview, she recognized and appreciated that hehad noticed her self-growth, “So the fact that he noticed, and he’s,like, ‘yeah, keep that up.’” Dr. Jones’ response to her, “Questioneverything.,” encouraged her to consider issues critically,fostering in her a better self, one who was aware of differentperspectives on an issue.

For Dr. Jones, Michelle was one of the students whose devel-opment brought him joy: “She [Michelle] is wonderful. She’sstrong. She’s thoughtful. She’s deep. She’s genuine. I mean, she’sa dream child” (6-17-04, 4th interview).

As he watched Michelle develop as a prospective teacher, hisexcitement and appreciation grew, strengthening the likelihood ofcaring through engrossment and motivational displacement. Forher part and as representative of most students in the cohort,Michelle developed a strong caring relationship with Dr. Jones,building her trust in him, both from face-to-face interactions andfrom the online dialogues. Such dialogic encounters encouragedher to engage in the process of constructing a better self, her ethicalideal, as a prospective teacher.

4.2. Nancy and Dr. Jones: a different path to care

Even before she began the teacher preparation program, Nancyhad formed some expectations of Dr. Jones through several chanceinteractions, perceiving him to be friendly and sincere as well asknowledgeable and passionate about his work as a teacher. Suchexpectations allowed her quickly to build trust in Dr. Jones, a trustthat never seemed to fluctuate. Rather, she continued always to likeand admire him as a person and teacher, being generous in herevery evaluation of him. She saw his sometimes blunt communi-cation style that occasionally “intimidated” other students assimply an expression of his “ambitious” expectations for hisstudents. For his part, Dr. Jones also had very positive impressions

M. Kim, D.L. Schallert / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 1059e10671064

of Nancy even before the semester began, partly because of whatprevious students had written him about Nancy as someone whowould be an asset to the cohort.

Nancy’s a hoot.She’s even more than what I’d hoped for interms of being lively, hardworking, generous, just part of whatyou want in a cohort. She’s everybody’s buddy. (4-15-04, 2ndinterview)

As Dr. Jones saw that Nancy lived up to his expectations, hebegan to trust her as someone who played an important role in thecohort. In reading her postings on TeachNet, he recognized herwords as expressing a genuine and outgoing attitude, as when heresponded to the following posting reflecting on Louise Rose-nblatt’s ideas:

FROM: Paul Jones/4-14-04Nancy writes:Okay, I’ll admit it. After reading the sentence, “The question,‘What for?’ is asked, consciously and unconsciously, by everyreader encountering a text,” I felt something very strange.I guess all this talk about a “relationship” between text andreader gave me the slight inclination that the text itself wasreplying to my earlier thoughts on it. A relationship!.Rose-nblatt then goes on to predict that those types of readers e thefully engaged, relational ones e will go on to emulate thatdiscipline in their regular routine. ok. you are a convert!.I suppose I questioned the “efferent bias” section of Rose-nblatt’s article. I realize that there will always be textbooks outthere that only demand one thing from the reader. However,even in reading it (a textbook) an aesthetic stance can form. sheagrees with this .Either way, this article gave incredibleinsight into my way of reading and processing.I’m holding upthe Number One card (that means I give it a one). Rosenblatt iswhere it’s at! PERFECT

Although Dr. Jones’ words were sparse, expressing praise withjust the one word perfect, he appreciated her whole response.

She was one of only two people, I think, who actually respondedto this reading. I just love the way, I love that paragraph.theidea that in reader response, we’re really talking about a rela-tionship of a person with the text or the author is a new wayof thinking for them, and she really put it together nicely,I thought. (4-27-04, 3rd interview)

Generally speaking, from all appearances, Nancy and Dr. Jonesseemed to have caring encounters in the online space. Nancyshowed reciprocity as the cared-for by being free to be herself inher postings, and Dr. Jones also seemed to read her postings withengrossment and motivational displacement. By “being herself” inher responses to the readings and by her growth in becominga teacher in terms of knowledge and experience, Nancy seemed toshow her appreciation of what had been established by Dr. Jones asclass activities. For his part, Dr. Jones seemed to enjoy reading herpostings: “Nancy. Always good.You just look forward to it. I mean,it’s one of those you look forward to opening because you’re goingto smile” (6-17-04, 4th interview). Because of their strong recip-rocal relationship, Dr. Jones also seemed free to say to Nancywhatever needed saying without worrying about a possible nega-tive impact: “With Nancy, I know I can go at it directly and say,‘change this, change that’” (4th interview). Her genuine and livelyresponses revealed in class meetings or on TeachNet made his“teaching joyful,” “a special delight,” supporting his engagementwith his teaching as the one-caring.

However, all was not smooth in the online dialogue, especiallyon the part of Nancy. Although she admired how Dr. Jonesresponded to every posting, Nancy did not deeply engage with his

words because she could never truly connect with the onlineassignment. In our interviews with her, she confessed that she “wasnot passionate” about TeachNet activities and that she did “not care[about Dr. Jones’ TeachNet comments] as much as” she did abouthis comments about her tutoring. As a result, she perceived herselfas not putting much time and effort on TeachNet postings. Whenasked to reflect on Dr. Jones’ responses to her postings, unlike mostother students, Nancy could not remember any and confessed thatshe usually read and quickly “forgot” Dr. Jones’ responses to her.

Her low investment in the TeachNet postings, and thus herminimal engagement with Dr. Jones’written responses, led her notto use his generally very positive responses to author a better self.For example, when asked what she had thought when she read theword PERFECT from Dr. Jones, Nancy stated that she thought itreflected his evaluation of the author of the reading, not a reactionto her own words. “Oh, and perfect. I think just the simple fact thathe agrees, and, he likes Rosenblatt, and so, like, he would havegiven her a 1” [the highest evaluation] (4-20-04, 3rd interview). Bycontrast, most students took such comments from their teacher asa positive evaluation of what they had written in a particularposting. Here and elsewhere, her low investment made her doubtthat her postings could be worthwhile, leading Nancy to under-value and even dismiss Dr. Jones’ confirming and validating words.She seemed aware of this part of herself as she frequentlymentioned it in her interviews, pleased with his positive commentsbut unable to accept them as really meant for her. In contrast, whenDr. Jones praised the cohort for their tutoring of young readers, shereadily identified herself among the students deserving praise,proud that he was “putting” her “in the group he was talkingabout.”

In sum, like most of the students in this cohort, Nancy valuedher personal connections with the teacher and her classmates,especially in actual face-to-face interactions. Yet, despite her hightrust in Dr. Jones, she never put much value in doing her TeachNetpostings for her own learning, or as a place where she could receivemore personal feedback from her teacher, which reduced theinfluence of her teacher’s online responses on the process of con-structing a better self. Instead, she authored herself as a learner ofteaching based on what she had learned from the assigned read-ings, the tutoring, and the face-to-face class sessions with Dr. Jones.

4.3. Goldy and Dr. Jones: a more troubled relationship

Unlike Nancy, Goldy was passionate about the TeachNet post-ings because she valued being asked to think about differentperspectives on teaching or literacy. Yet, ultimately, she felt herexpectations of Dr. Jones in terms of his openness to students’perspectives were not fulfilled in his online comments. Hermistrust in this characteristic of Dr. Jones influenced how sheentered into dialogic encounters with him and how she authoredherself through his comments.

Goldy was one of the few students who had found themselvesenrolled in the reading cohort by random assignment. However,her generally positive impressions of the cohort led her to decide tostay, stating on the background survey, “I realize that this cohort isa lot harder and more strenuous than the other cohorts, but I knowit will pay off in the long run.” Goldy’s initial perceptions of Dr.Jones seemed to meet her expectations. That is, she expected to getthe best education possible, which for her meant learning variousperspectives on teaching and literacy. Although she recognized Dr.Jones’ capability as a teacher, she saw immediately that theTeachNet exchanges might be risky, feeling vulnerable about howDr. Jones would respond if she took a strong negative stance towardan assigned reading, as she stated in the first interview.

M. Kim, D.L. Schallert / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 1059e1067 1065

No one is wrong but sometimes a different point of view cancause conflict. I could disagree with an article, and myresponses could reflect that. But when he reads my responses,maybe he agreed with the article, so it becomes very critical.(3-5-04, 1st interview)

Dr. Jones’ overall perception of Goldy was that she was“exceptional” in her TeachNet postings in terms of depth andthoughtfulness, postings he “looked forward to opening.” Becauseof her challengingway of responding to the readings, hewas able tosee her passion and investment in her online postings. Her strongcritical comments about a given reading seemed to tell Dr. Jonesthat she must feel safe to say whatever she thought in TeachNet. Ashe stated, “the more we can build trust, the more risk they’ll take intheir teaching and their learning, and the more they’ll be willing toconfront tough issues that will eventually shape their lives asteachers” (4-27-04, 3rd interview). Thus, for Dr. Jones as the one-caring, Goldy’s outspoken and passionate response in itselfseemed to show her reciprocity to his encouragement that studentsshould reveal themselves in their writing.

However, Dr. Jones also saw Goldy as being fragile with thefeedback he gave her, as taking his comments very deeply andsometimes interpreting them as criticism of her work. Thus, beingaware of this aspect of Goldy, he tried to be careful when heresponded to her postings, even though he often nevertheless hurther feelings. For him, Goldy’s fragility and his worry about itshowed that there was not yet a trusting relationship establishedbetween them. “There isn’t a level of understanding or trust yet ofher for me that she can open herself up yet. It’ll happen. It’s justgoing to take a little bit more time” (4-15-04, 2nd interview). Thus,Goldy and Dr. Jones seemed aware they were experiencing sometension in terms of how they interpreted each other’s words. Theirperceptions of each other influenced whether moment-by-moment dialogic encounters could develop into caring encounters.

As the semester progressed, their relationship reflected thesesometimes rocky encounters. Goldy felt validated and confirmed byDr. Jones whenever she received positive comments from him.Because she regularly provided thoughtful responses to an assignedreading, Dr. Jones often expressed high praise for her hard work:“Way to read deeply,” “What a response!!! Wow.better than thearticle.so many of your qualities are revealed through thisresponse.” These kinds of comments made her feel confident.However, as Goldy became more passionate in her TeachNetresponses, she noted that Dr. Jones sometimes had “trouble seeingthings in another way that’s different from his own” (4-15-04, 2ndinterview). This perception reached its peak in an incident thatbecame a key event in their relationship.

As was his custom, Dr. Jones would frequently bring to class oneof the students’ postings from the week, project it overhead, andask his teaching assistant to read it out loud. He did this as a way tocelebrate student work, to trigger good conversation about pointshe felt needed further discussion. This time, Goldy’s posting waschosen.

FROM: Paul Jones/3-29-04Goldy writes:I will be quite frank and start off by discussing my disappoint-ment with this article. I’m glad you took it on. I had to put thisarticle down, take a break, and return to it time and time again.It went into unnecessary detail hmmm.After reading twenty-one pages of text, I learned relatively little and did not feelassured in my conclusions. Although this article is not as bias oroverwhelming as some of our previous readings, only because ofthe author’s heavy use of examples, it felt incomplete. On page425, she writes, (she’s really a wonderful person.you wouldlike her a lot.but that’s probably not relevant.right?) “The

main draw-back of this study is the lack of a truly representativesample of the low-SES population in the United States.” Well, ifthat’s the main drawback, I do not feel comfortable siding withany information she presented as ‘research’. In fact, I would noteven call it research! I have always been taught that researchmust be representative of the population it is examining, inorder to be considered valid. but never perfect. always a lim-itation. Additionally, she tested something I perceive ascommon sense.(I mean, you would think she would know thatbefore getting into Harvard!) careful. “the most cited researchjournal in education”. do you really think it would get in thisjournal if it were flawed.? the fact is that there has beenplenty of opinion but no data on this..I am not confident she is well educated on the topic ofemergent literacy, or even, literacy development. Yikes.I amgoing to send this review to her. It seems to me that she wasbeating a dead horse.

As the teaching assistant read Goldy’s posting, Dr. Jones’ char-acteristic laugh could be heard softly punctuating the read-aloud.Goldy felt hurt by his laughter and disappointed in him asa teacher educator.

I didn’t appreciate how Paul laughed the whole time. It’s onething to disagree but if you’re going to laugh the whole time-.And that’s making me question him as a teacher.I got reallyupset when he was laughing. he was mocking me. He’s, Iknow he knows his stuff but he’s got so much pride that he can’tsee beyond his own bubble. It really hurt me that he laughed. (4-15-04, 2nd interview)

However, Dr. Jones had his own reasons for laughing. To him,Goldy’s strong stance against the author reminded him of howsimilar Goldy was to the article’s author, a long-time colleague andgood friend in the field: “In many ways Goldy reminds me of [thereading’s author]. They’re very similar in terms of how, there’s thispassionate way of how they view everything, and it was like an oddjuxtaposition of two personalities” (4-27-04, 3rd interview). Also,Dr. Jones wanted to deliver a message to encourage all students tosay whatever they felt in their postings.

I was surprised at howmany people had read this exchange, so Ijust tried to. encourage people to say what they feel. What’sreally good about her responses is that she always speaks fromthe heart. (4-27-04, 3rd interview)

Unfortunately, Dr. Jones’ intentions behind his laughter werenever understood by Goldy. Rather, these exchanges between themseemed to taint later interactions and their perceptions of eachother. For example, after this exchange, Dr. Jones would oftenmention any personal connections to authors of the readings in hiscomments.

It probably came out of the context of Goldy responding to thatone particular piece, and so from that point on, I think, it justtriggered a kind of joke. “Be nice here because I know thisperson and they’re a good person.” It’s not typical [of me]. (6-17-04, 4th interview)

Also, in his next posting, Dr. Jones’ response evidenced the impactof the exchanges with Goldy in what he said in his comments.

FROM: Paul Jones/4-07-04Goldy writes:Several people have informed me of the increasing length of myresponses to our readings. So, I decided to make this responseshort and sweet (just like the article!). This should give youa nice break.:) HA!!! and stay out of trouble as well? no fear.I don’t know this author. blast away.

M. Kim, D.L. Schallert / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 1059e10671066

Although some students, Michelle and Nancy included,expressed that they were impressed that their teacher would knowthe authors of their readings personally, for Goldy, his mention ofhis personal connection to authors confirmed her mistrust of him:

But when he writes, “stay out of trouble as well,” it shouldn’tseem to be considered trouble. It should be just considereda learning experience for both of us. But yet he says, “I don’tknow this author. Blast away.” But that’s being biased for hisfriend, and teachers shouldn’t be biased. They should beobjective. (4-15-04, 2nd interview)

Later in the semester, Goldy had become so aware of how Dr.Jones would respond to her critical postings that she often deletedwords she felt were too negative in stance. The TeachNet space wasno longer a safe place for her. Although she said that she was“starting to understand his communication style,” her doubts aboutDr. Jones’ openness to her TeachNet postings made her feelvulnerable about writing anything negative.

For Dr. Jones, by the end of the semester, his relationship withGoldy did not meet his expectations. Although he saw many goodqualities in her, “She’s delightful. She’s honest. She thinks. Shechallenges. Goldy’s wonderful,” his worries about her reaction tohis comments were not resolved: “I have to be really careful abouthow I respond to her” (6-17-04, 4th interview).

In sum, thereweremoments when Goldy and Dr. Jonesmet eachother as the cared-for and the one-caring, respectively. Goldy feltvalidated and confirmed by his positive comments and saw him asrecognizing her passion and effort. Dr. Jones appreciated herbravery in terms of expressing her feelings and thoughts freely inher postings. However, the process of authoring themselvesthrough each other’s words was not always positive for either ofthem. Goldy struggled with the idea that Dr. Jones might evaluateher negatively because of her critical postings. Her accumulatedperceptions of her teacher’s reactions to her were interwoven intoan image of herself that said, “I’m not his favorite” (5-11-04, 4thinterview). For his part, Dr. Jones was also aware that his typicalway of responding was not confirmed and validated by Goldy.Rather, he felt he had to take extra care whenever he gave herfeedback: “I have to be really, really careful.I’mnot as circumspectas I should be in responding to certain people.We’ve got to learnto respond to each other and that will take a little time” (6-17-04,4th interview).

5. Discussion

The findings from these case studies showed that the trajecto-ries by which caring relationships developed across time weredifferent, each influenced by complex associations among expec-tations and beliefs of the students and the teacher, and theirinterpretations of each other’s words. Rather than representing anattribute or personality trait of a teacher, caring was an enactmentof a relationship, embodying the relational nature of teaching andlearning.

Our findings also showed the significance of the role of trust asa mediating factor in the development of caring relationships. As inGoldy’s case, no matter that the teacher had good intentions abouteach student, unless the student could feel some sense of trust inthe teacher, the student could not see caring in the encounter. Ina Korean university setting, Lee and Schallert (2008) studied howteacherestudent relationships participate in students’ writingprocesses and confirmed the importance of trust in fosteringlearning. When they trusted each other as student and teacher, theteacher felt a stronger obligation to help a student’s writing, andthe student was more responsive to the teacher’s feedback. As ina study on Filipino college students’ reactions to their teachers’

caring (de Guzman et al., 2008), students’ involvement in learningreflects the quality of their relationships with their teacher.

The online environment needs to be seen for its potential inallowing for interactions in which participants can develop rela-tionships with others through written interactions. As shown here,students constructed personal meaning from their teacher’s wordsand sometimes took his messages deeply and personally, mullingover his perceptions of them and their relationship with him. Asa result, the online interactions influenced ways in which caringcould be enacted between students and their teacher. For somestudents such as Michelle, the TeachNet space was the primaryplace where they could receive caring from their teacher. Bycontrast, for some students such as Nancy or Goldy, online inter-actions were either insignificant in building a relationship withtheir teacher or troubling as a place fraught with misunder-standing, respectively. As Goldstein and Freedman (2003) warned,without some sense of positive perception of or trust in theirteacher, students may not profit from online interactions, whateverthe teacher intends.

The caring relationship built between teacher and each studentseemed to guide their understanding and constructions of them-selves. When students could perceive the teacher’s caring for them,they developed an image of themselves that was confirmed by theteacher, becoming more confident in themselves, and authoringthemselves as better students or prospective teachers. However,when they did not feel cared-for by the teacher, students hadtrouble seeing the better part of themselves that was fully acceptedby the teacher, struggling with their image through less-than-positive encounters with the teacher. In turn, for the teacher,students’ reciprocity allowed him to see the positive effect of hiscaring for most students. But sometimes, encounters with studentsmade him aware of parts of himself that were not admirable. Thus,their understanding of themselves depended on the quality of theirrelationships with each other, which, in turn, influenced theirengagement in teaching and learning.

These findings add to the literature on learning to teach and theprocess by which preservice teachers develop their identity asa teacher. As McLean (1999) stated, “learning to teach is aboutmaking deeply personal choices about who you will become asa teacher” (p. 60). For preservice teachers, learning about caring forstudents requires them to go beyond simply following previousbeliefs or personal tendencies. Rather, it inevitably involvesa process of constructing or authoring their identity as the teacherthey want to become, building their ethical ideal. Britzman (1991)argued that learning to teach is a process embedded in andfostered by social interactions with others through the use oflanguage. This suggests that the process of building preserviceteachers’ identity or their teaching ideal needs to be examined inthe context of teaching-learning relationships with their teachereducators and others involved in their teacher education program,as we have done in this study.

Applied to the field of teacher education, our findings suggesthow complex it is for teachers to enact caring with their students.Even with a teacher’s best intentions, unexpected situations andmisunderstandings could arise and block the development ofa caring relationship. However, teachers’ valuing and consciouscommitment to developing caring relationships with students canpush them to understand the struggles, desires, and needs ofstudents by trying to feel and think with them, even when theyknow there may be difficulties in their relationships (Noddings,1984). For a teacher, meeting a new group of students with theexpectation that caring relationships will develop provides anincentive to look for opportunities to get to know each individualstudent. As Swick (1999) stated, teachers committed to caring fortheir students reflect on their own strengths and limitations.

M. Kim, D.L. Schallert / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 1059e1067 1067

Connecting to what Grossman and McDonald (2008) suggestedfor future research direction in the field of teaching and teachereducation, this study helps identify how relationships betweenteacher and student arise and develop over time and how therelational aspects of teaching and learning can influence students’and their teacher’s engagement in teaching and learning processes.With its detailed look at the development of multiple relationshipsbetween a particular American educator and the students in onesemester of his particular program, the study makes a contributionto a broader understanding of the relational aspect of teaching, anappreciation for its complexity, and may, in turn, inform actualteacher preparation and teaching practice. Our study suggests thatresearch endeavors focused on the processes of teaching, learning,and learning to teach will be enriched by taking a relational, caringperspective.

References

Acker, S. (1995). Carry on caring: the work of women teachers. British Journal ofSociology of Education, 16(1), 21e36.

Ang, R. P. (2005). Development and validation of the teacherestudent relationshipinventory using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The Journal ofExperimental Education, 74, 55e73.

Assaf, L. C. (2005). Exploring identities in a reading specialization program. Journalof Literacy Research, 37, 201e236.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson, & M. Holquist, Trans.).Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986) (V. W. McGee, Trans.). In C. Emerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.),Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Britzman, D. P. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach.Albany: State University Press.

Buber, M. (1970). I and thou. NY: Scribner’s.Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). (pp. 255e296) NY: MacmillanPublishing Company.

Clark, K., & Holquist, M. (1984). Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge: Harvard University.Collison, V., Killeavy, M., & Stephenson, H. J. (1998). Exemplary teachers: Practicing an

ethic of care in England, Ireland, and the United States. Paper prepared for theAnnual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego,April 1998.

de Guzman, A. B., Uy, M. M., Siy, E. Y., Torres, R. K. C., Tancioco, J. B. F., &Hernandez, J. R. (2008). From teaching from the heart to teaching with a heart:segmenting Filipino college students’ views of their teachers’ caring behaviorand their orientations as cared-for individuals. Asia Pacific Education Review, 9,487e502.

Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (2005). Research on teacherestudent relationships andlearning environments: context, retrospect and prospect. International Journalof Educational Research, 43, 103e109.

Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: the role of caring relationships in the co-construction of mind. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 647e673.

Goldstein, L. S., & Freedman, D. (2003). Challenges enacting caring teacher educa-tion. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 441e454.

Goldstein, L. S., & Lake, V. E. (2000). “Love, love and more love for children”:exploring preservice teachers’ understandings of caring. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 16, 861e872.

Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: directions for research inteachingand teacher education.AmericanEducational Research Journal, 45,184e205.

Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2005). On qualitative inquiry: Approaches tolanguage and literacy research. NY: Teachers College.

Kim, M. (2005). Dialogical caring encounters between teacher and students: therole of computer-mediated communication in preparing preservice readingteachers. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 54, 227e239.

Larson, A. (2006). Student perception of caring teaching in physical education.Sport, Education and Society, 11, 337e352.

Lee, G., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). Constructing trust between teacher and studentsthrough feedback and revision cycles in an EFL writing classroom. WrittenCommunication, 25, 506e537.

McLaughlin, H. J. (1991). Reconciling care and control: authority in classroomrelationships. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 182e195.

McLean, S. V. (1999). Becoming a teacher: the person in the process. In R. P. Lipka, &T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), The role of self in teacher development (pp. 55e91).Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Muller, C. (2001). The role of caring in the teacherestudent relationship for at-riskstudents. Sociological Inquiry, 71, 241e255.

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach toeducation. NY: Teachers College Press.

Noddings, N. (2001). The caring teacher. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of researchon teaching (4th ed.). (pp. 99e105) NY: Macmillan.

Prillaman, A. R., & Eaker, D. J. (1994). The weave and the weaver: a tapestry begun.In A. R. Prillaman, D. J. Eaker, & D. M. Kendrick (Eds.), The tapestry of caring:Education as nurturance (pp. 1e11). New Jersey: Ablex.

Rogers, D. L. (1994). Conceptions of caring in a fourth-grade classroom. InA. R. Prillaman, D. J. Eaker, & D. M. Kendrick (Eds.), The tapestry of caring:Education as nurturance. New Jersey: Ablex.

Rossiter, M. (1999). Caring and the graduate student: a phenomenological study.Journal of Adult Development, 6, 205e216.

Schussler, D. L., & Collins, A. (2006). An empirical exploration of the who, what, andhow of school care. Teachers College Record, 108, 1460e1495.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching. InM. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). (pp. 3e36) NY:Macmillan Publishing Company.

Swick, K. J. (1999). Service learning helps future teachers strengthen caringperspectives. Clearing House, 73, 29e32.

Thomas, L., Clift, R. T., & Sugimoto, T. (1996). Telecommunication, student teaching,and methods instruction: an exploratory investigation. Journal of TeacherEducation, 47, 165e175.

Vogt, F. (2002). A caring teacher: explorations into primary school teachers’professional identity and ethic of care. Gender and Education, 14(3), 251e264.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Webb, K., & Blond, J. (1995). Teacher knowledge: the relationship between caringand knowing. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(6), 611e625.

Weinstein, C. S. (1998). “I want to be nice, but I have to be mean”: exploringprospective teachers’ conceptions of caring and order. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 14, 153e163.

Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacherestudentrelationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 6e24.

Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study analysis. CA: Sage Publications.