Early education teachers’ conceptualizations and strategies for managing closeness with the class in child care

Abstract

This study investigated teachers' experiences of closeness during interactions with the group of children in child care. Structured interviews were conducted with 24 female teachers who were teaching children between the ages of three and five (mean age = 3.9) regarding their perceptions of closeness with the group of children in the class. Qualitative analyses of the interviews revealed a group solidarity domain of teacher-group relationships composed of three dimensions which comprise emotional solidarity, consensual solidarity, and functional solidarity, with emotional solidarity most dominant in the teachers' perceptions. This group solidarity domain was interpreted as being consistent with qualities found in Grusec and Davidov's group participation domain. The findings that, teachers' closeness with the group of children in the class were dominated by the emotional dimension is similar to previous research results which report the predominance of personal and intimate interactions in relational closeness between teachers and individual children. Teachers described intentional strategies for managing close group relationships that made use of interactional histories between the teachers and children in the class. These discoveries provide a new perspective on teacher closeness with groups, an area of research not often investigated. It also provides insights into the importance teachers place on connecting emotionally with children when they are with the collective group in the classroom.

Caregivers’ emotional competence and behavioral responsiveness as correlates of early childcare workers’ relationships with children in their care

“…Childcare workers who report less control in their roles acknowledge lower closeness in their relationships with children (Whitaker et al., ). Qualitative research also has revealed a construct that approximates the group‐level closeness variable identified in quantitative studies (Quan‐McGimpsey, Marziliano, Hassen, Brown, & Kuczynski, ). In this sample, αs were .73 and .70 for closeness and conflict, respectively.…”

Emotional closeness and emotional distance among schoolteachers: the case of Arab teachers who teach in Jewish schools

“…In the same way as organizational culture and social arena influence emotional distance/closeness among employees, principals, teachers and students may feel emotional distance/closeness interchangeably. Thus, research showed that emotional closeness includes solidarity, mutuality and intimacy (Quan-McGimpsey et al, 2015). According to O'Connor (2008), emotional closeness is an integral aspect of teaching and, therefore, becomes a part of the teacher's professional identity.…”

“…In the same way as organizational culture and social arena influence emotional distance/closeness among employees, principals, teachers and students may feel emotional distance/closeness interchangeably. Thus, research showed that emotional closeness includes solidarity, mutuality and intimacy (Quan-McGimpsey et al. , 2015).…”

Improving Student’s Social solidarity Value Awareness through Learning Community-Based Mentoring

“…Thomas Torbjornsson and Lena Molin [15], about exploring solidarity attitudes among high school students in Sweden in 2015, involved twenty-two third-year students. The results of the research show that students do not recognize solidarity because the concept and case history of solidarity have never been raised in the class.…”