Relational competence in higher education – a systematic review

Abstract

The objective of this study was to identify, review, and synthesize existing research focusing on relational competence in the field of higher education (HE). The focus was irrespective of whether the studies focus on HE teachers or students. Thus, the present review includes studies focusing on HE teachers as well as studies that center on students in HE. The included articles were scrutinized regarding focus, methodological considerations and results, the goal being to understand the literature and identify possible research gaps. The articles were descriptively synthesized, broadly following the principles of a narrative synthesis. The results suggest that individuals’ understanding of relational competence can be enhanced through training. However, the included studies predominantly explored the relational competence of student teachers in preparation for their future employment, while comparatively limited attention was given to the relational competence of teachers employed in HE or students outside teacher education programs. Moreover, there seems to be a disparity in perspectives between HE teachers and students regarding their perceptions of the significance of HE teachers’ relational competence. While students tended to perceive HE teachers’ relational competence as crucial to their wellbeing and learning, the teachers themselves conversely tended to prioritize organizational factors, such as course structure, over the importance of their relational competence. The main conclusions highlight the need for further development of relational competence among HE teachers, along with increased research and training in this area. Additionally, the results suggest a need for expanded education focusing on relational phenomena in teacher programs to better prepare student teachers for their future employment.

Keywords:

• Higher education
• relational competence
• relational pedagogy
• systematic review
• teacher–student relationship

Reviewing Editor:

• Timo Ehmke, Department of Education, Leuphana University of Lüneburg: Leuphana Universitat Luneburg, Germany

Subjects:

• Teachers and Teacher Education
• Adult Education and Lifelong Learning
• Continuing Professional Development
• Higher Education

Introduction

Previous research in higher education (HE) studies points to the teacher–student relationship (TSR) as a pivotal factor for students’ satisfaction (Wong & Chapman, 2023; Jereb et al., 2018; Siming et al., 2015) and engagement (Burke et al., 2022; Heilporn et al., 2022; de Borba et al., 2020; Reyes-Fournier et al., 2020). According to Riddle and Hickey (2023), previous research emphasizes the inherent nature of teaching as a ‘relational act,’ and consider ‘relationality’ as a fundamental pedagogical impulse that significantly influences the core of teaching and learning (pp. 267–268). Further, several studies have shown positive correlations between high-quality TSRs and academic outcomes among students (e.g. Gunasekara et al., 2022; Kirk et al., 2016; Cornelius-White, 2007). The Swedish teacher training report Sustainable teacher training (SOU 2008:109) states that teaching is fundamentally a matter ‘of meetings between people’ (p. 205) and that nothing is really ‘more important than teachers’ being able to develop a close and warm relationship with their students’ (p. 216, author translation). At the same time, the report problematizes the question of how these relationships can be developed, which has also been described as a critical issue for education in general (Skibsted & Matthiesen, 2016). The question under consideration can be expanded to encompass additional aspects. It is undeniably imperative for teacher preparation programs to provide students with opportunities to engage in the construction of high-quality TSRs in order to equip them for their forthcoming professional roles. However, the concept also needs to be delved into from a broader perspective, encompassing both HE teachers and HE students in general, as students thrive in relationship-rich educational settings, irrespective of specialization (e.g. Felten & Lambert, 2020). Hence, an essential question is how HE teachers foster meaningful relationships with their students, and how both students and teachers understand and experience TSR.

During the past decades, a new concept of ‘relational competence’ has emerged and gained traction in both research and practice. Nordenbo et al. (2008) were among the first to identify this concept as a central part of the teaching assignment aimed at developing high-quality TSR. However, the field of relational competence research focuses not only on what the TSR means for the quality and results of education but also on how teachers go about developing these relationships (Skibsted & Matthiesen, 2016). This approach can be seen as an important addition to existing TSR research because it not only demonstrates the importance of the TSR and the specific ways in which it is significant but also highlights the process of building these relationships (Aspelin, 2022; Klinge, 2016). Therefore, these teaching competencies can be considered indispensable to enable HE students to successfully complete their educational journeys in a socially sustainable environment, aligning with the goals of Agenda 2030 (UNESCO, 2015). The primary objective of the present systematic review is to identify, review and synthesize existing research concerning relational competence in HE. This is done regardless of whether the studies focus on HE teachers or students in HE. The focus is not to cover all research in the overarching field of relational pedagogy but to explicitly center on studies that focus on the concept of relational competence. More specifically, the aim is to visualize existing research in the field of relational competence in HE. A snapshot view of the field can shed light on possible areas for future research. To do so, the following research questions were asked: What is the study focus of the included articles? What methodological approaches tend to permeate the research? What are the main results of the included articles?

Teacher–student relationship in higher education

Earlier research has pointed to the TSR as a primary prerequisite for student learning (e.g. Gunasekara et al., 2022; Kirk et al., 2016; Hurst et al., 2013; Wubbels et al., 2011). Nevertheless, relationship building is an area of the teaching assignment where teachers often feel insecure (Strachan, 2020). Although it should be seen as an integral aspect of teachers’ daily work, the process of creating and maintaining positive interpersonal relationships seems to be demanding for many teachers (Strachan, 2020). Skibstead and Matthiessen (2016) found that this is an area where both student teachers and practicing teachers often feel isolated, as there seems to be a shortage regarding discussions on how to develop these relationships in practice. Consequently, it can be assumed that the situation is similar among HE teachers.

Earlier research on relational pedagogies (e.g. Gravett et al., 2021; Macdonald et al., 2023) posited that meaningful relationships are important for fostering responsiveness and authenticity, ultimately leading to effective learning. Results from Hagenauer and Volet (2014) review on TSRs in HE showed that research on the TSR has mainly focused on its effect on academic outcome, or on students’ view, whereas research on teachers’ view was less common. Moreover, the authors point out that TSRs in HE differs from TSRs formed in lower grades because the former relationships are established between adults. This is in line with research from Dai and Matthews (2023) and Liang and Matthews (2021), who highlight HE teachers’ ability to see students as partners (SAP) as a key factor for high-quality relationships in HE. A characteristic of such relationships is an interpersonal approach where teachers and students make decisions together. According to Healey et al. (2014), these relationships are characterized by trust, respect, reciprocity, shared responsibility, authenticity and honesty, which is in line with results from Karpouza and Emvalotis (2019) identified TSR’s in HE as a gradual, dynamic and reciprocal process that is co-created because both the teacher and the student equally relate to each other (e.g. Hagenauer et al., 2023; Karpouza & Emvalotis, 2019).

The TSR has been found to be context dependent, thus, dependent on aspects such as country, subject area, university conditions and year (e.g. Hagenauer et al., 2023). For example, in one study, students expressed how the relationship with their teachers was of a different nature, because they were graduate students and their education had become more collaborative, and teachers said they regulated their behavior depending on the level of the student (Karpouza & Emvalotis, 2019). In addition, national culture has been shown to affect our view of what constitutes an appropriate TSR, for example, in relation to closeness (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014; Hagenauer et al., 2023). The TSR is also affected by personality aspects and social homophily (Karpouza & Emvalotis, 2019).

The TSR is a multidimensional construct that includes both an affective and a supportive dimension. The affective dimension involves caring, which in HE means something different than for schoolteachers, who have a moral obligation to care for and nurture their students (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014). In contrast, as adults, HE students are less dependent on their teachers, and they are expected to show a higher level of self-organization and independence. Thus, in HE, caring involves showing empathy and compassion rather than nurturing, but it is still an important aspect of relationship building (Strachan, 2020). The support dimension involves being encouraging, supportive and non-instrumental in student learning (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014).

On the teacher’s side, to build a high-quality TSR, it is important for students to perceive the teacher as honest, trustworthy, considerate and respectful (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014), but also passionate, knowledgeable, open, fair and accessible (Karpouza & Emvalotis, 2019). If teachers showed no interest or behaved inappropriately, such as becoming too close or too personal, these actions were considered obstacles to developing a positive TSR. Hagenauer and Volet (2014), instead of using the word accessible, suggested that approachability was important. This aspect should not be seen as a dimension of TSR, but rather as a precondition or antecedent of TSR.

Reciprocity is another dimension that has been found to be important. It implies that teachers should do their best to support their students, but students also need to do their part, that is, do what is required of them for a positive relationship to develop (Karpouza & Emvalotis, 2019; Hagenauer et al., 2023). In another study, Hagenauer et al. (2023) found that HE teachers differentiated between interpersonal and professional aspects and that they emphasized the professional aspects. The TSR was also characterized by multiple boundaries, meaning that teachers must support their students in their learning, at the same time as they foster students’ independence and self-regulated learning.

Relational competence

In recent decades, research on the TSR has resulted in a new field of research that aims to explore teachers’ ability to initiate, maintain and develop positive relationships with their students that promote learning. This ability is referred to as relational competence (Nordenbo et al., 2008). The exploration of teachers’ relational competence in research is primarily rooted in the theoretical framework of relational pedagogy, which views individuals as inherently relational beings (i.e. Gergen, 2009). Central to this viewpoint is the understanding that human existence is fundamentally interrelated through relationships (Buber, 1990; Bingham & Sidorkin, 2004; Biesta, 2004).

In Scandinavia, Nordenbo et al. (2008) were among the first to identify the relational competence as one of three primary teacher competences. The other competences were described as leadership and didactic competence. Thus, in addition to leading and regulating students’ learning in the teaching situation, to promote students’ learning teachers must also be able to develop high-quality TSRs. However, the understanding that a relational teaching approach is important is not new. Already in 1978 results from Holdaway in Graham et al. (1992) indicated that teachers’ experience of teaching was positively enhanced by having an ongoing interpersonal TSR. Similarly, Graham et al. (1992) referred to teachers’ interpersonal skills as emblematic of a relational teaching approach and saw these as a factor in promoting teachers’ job satisfaction. Indicative of the approach was, besides teaching competence, teachers’ aptitude for immediacy and humor.

In recent years, research in the field has emerged in which relational competence has been conceptualized in different ways. For example, Vidmar and Kerman (2016) identified three components of relational competence: individuality, responsibility and authenticity. Aspelin (2018) defined teachers’ relational competencies in terms of communication, encounters, relationships and feelings, including teachers’ ability to sense what they can or should do in concrete situations in interpersonal encounters with students (Aspelin, 2018). Despite the different interpretations of the concept, there is some consensus that interpersonal relationships constitute one of the cornerstones of teaching. Aspelin (2018) refers to the progressive educational power focusing students’ learning as distinctive for teachers’ relational competence. Similarly, Frelin (2010) has described it as ‘actions with the aim of establishing, maintaining and/or promoting relationships that are positive from an educational point of view, or with the aim of counteracting the opposite: relationships that oppose or undermine students’ conditions for acquiring education’ (p. 199). Characteristics of teachers’ relational competence are sensitiveness and responsiveness, that is the ability to sensitively perceive and respond to students’ signals and needs (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2003; Wiklund-Engblom, 2018). Wiklund-Engblom has also referred to teachers’ ability to perceive students’ verbal and nonverbal communication as a primary relational competence. Other relational competencies presented in previous research are teachers’ ability to communicate with empathy and make eye contact with students (Wubbels et al., 2006, 2011).

Other researchers have referred to emotional competence. Damiani and Paloma (2017) found teachers’ emotional relational competence to be a primary factor for the quality of the teaching and learning process. This competence is seen as essential to the development of high-quality TSRs characterized by mutual trust and recognition. One key feature of teachers’ emotional relational competence was seen as teachers’ ability to identify and feel their own emotions through narrative relational landscaping. Likewise, Schonert-Reichl et al. (2015) concluded that teachers’ socio-emotional competence was not only essential to developing the same competence in their students but was also a prerequisite for students’ ability to learn.

Materials and methods

Identification of evidence

The present review is based on a comprehensive search performed on 26 December 2022, together with a complementary search on 21 June 2023. Both searches were conducted in multiple databases to locate and synthesize appropriate research to substantiate the study (Eriksson et al., 2013). The primary search was made in two interdisciplinary databases: Supersök [Super search] and Academic Search Premier (ASP). It was then supplemented by searches in the Educational Resources Information Center Database (ERIC) and Education Research Complete (ERC). ERC is a full-text supplement to ERIC. However, as ERC tends to contain articles that are not always found in ERIC, both databases were used. Finally, a supplementary search was performed in Google Scholar.

The initial searches in the interdisciplinary databases Supersök and ASP are justified by the fact that they give the researcher the opportunity to easily identify articles from several different databases. ERIC and ERC are justified by the fact that they are databases aimed at research in educational science. The supplementary search in Google Scholar is justified by the fact that the database, like Supersök and ASP, is interdisciplinary and thus broad in scope. However, a search in Google Scholar requires manual filtering for scientific review and format of publication, which requires the researcher to carefully filter and assess the quality of the identified articles.

Search process

The search was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA) flow chart diagram (Page et al., 2021) (Figure 1). This was undertaken to ensure completeness and transparency in the process.

Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart¹ of search process.

The search process has partly consisted of thesaurus searches expanded with related keywords to broaden the search, and partly of free-text searches. In cases where truncations were deemed necessary to broaden the free-text search, these have been used. Boolean operations have been used partly to combine subject terms and free text searches, partly to combine block searches. Initially, a search for each block was carried out, after which these were combined in the final search using the ‘search history’ function. The search process is described in detail in Appendix I and is visualized in Table 1.

Table 1. Systematic search.

Database	Thesaurus	Explore	Free text search	Boolean operations
Supersök			‘teacher-student relationship*’ ‘student-teacher relationship*’ ‘relational competence’	(‘teacher-student relationship*’) OR (‘student-teacher relationship*’) (University* OR ‘higher education’ OR ‘Postsecondary education’ OR ‘tertiary school’ OR college OR ‘graduate school’) ((‘teacher-student relationship*’) OR (‘student-teacher relationship*’)) AND ((University* OR ‘higher education’ OR ‘Postsecondary education’ OR ‘tertiary school’ OR college OR ‘graduate school’)) AND ‘relational competence’
ASP	DE ‘TEACHER-student relationships’ DE ‘HIGHER education’	DE ‘POSTSECONDARY education’	‘student-teacher relationship*’ University* ‘tertiary school’ college ‘graduate school’ ‘relational competence’	(DE ‘TEACHER-student relationships’) OR (‘student-teacher relationship*’) (DE ‘HIGHER education’ OR DE ‘POSTSECONDARY education' OR University* OR ‘tertiary school’ OR college OR ‘graduate school’) (DE ‘HIGHER education’ OR DE ‘POSTSECONDARY education’ OR University* OR ‘tertiary school’ OR college OR ‘graduate school’) AND ((DE ‘TEACHER-student relationships’) OR (‘student-teacher relationship*’)) AND (‘relational competence’)
ERIC	DE ‘Teacher Student Relationship’ DE ‘Higher Education’	DE ‘Interpersonal Relationship’ DE ‘Postsecondary Education’ DE ‘Graduate Study’ DE ‘Graduate Students’ DE ‘Masters Programs’ DE ‘Postsecondary Education as a Field of Study’ DE ‘Universities’	‘student-teacher relationship*’ ‘relational Competence’	(DE ‘Teacher Student Relationship’ OR DE ‘Interpersonal Relationship’) OR (‘student-teacher relationship*’) DE ‘Higher Education’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education’ OR DE ‘Graduate Study’ OR DE ‘Graduate Students’ OR DE ‘Masters Programs’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education as a Field of Study’ OR DE ‘Universities’ (DE ‘Higher Education’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education’ OR DE ‘Graduate Study’ OR DE ‘Graduate Students’ OR DE ‘Masters Programs’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education as a Field of Study’ OR DE ‘Universities’) AND (((DE ‘Teacher Student Relationship’ OR DE ‘Interpersonal Relationship’) OR (‘student-teacher relationship*’)) AND (‘relational competence’))
ERC	DE ‘TEACHER-student relationships’ DE ‘Higher Education’	DE ‘INTERPERSONAL relations’ DE ‘Postsecondary Education DE ‘Graduate Study’ DE ‘Graduate Students’ DE ‘Masters Programs’ DE ‘Postsecondary Education as a Field of Study’ DE ‘Universities’	‘student-teacher relationship*’ ‘relational competence’	DE ‘TEACHER-student relationships’ OR DE ‘INTERPERSONAL relations’ OR ‘student-teacher relationship*’ DE ‘Higher Education’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education’ OR DE ‘Graduate Study’ OR DE ‘Graduate Students’ OR DE ‘Masters Programs’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education as a Field of Study’ OR DE ‘Universities’ (DE ‘TEACHER-student relationships’ OR DE ‘INTERPERSONAL relations’ OR ‘student-teacher relationship*’) AND (DE ‘Higher Education’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education’ OR DE ‘Graduate Study’ OR DE ‘Graduate Students’ OR DE ‘Masters Programs’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education as a Field of Study’ OR DE ‘Universities’) AND (‘relational competence’)
Google Scholar				‘relational competence’ AND (‘higher education’ OR ‘university*’ OR college OR ‘postsecondary education’ OR ‘tertiary school’) AND (‘teacher-student relationship*’)

To ensure that the retrieved articles were relevant in relation to the stated aim, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established. The central concept explored in this study was relational competence. We initiated the search with two clusters: one centered on TSRs and another specifically targeting HE (Table 1). The amalgamation of these two clusters generated a substantial number of articles (see Appendix 1). When incorporating the concept of relational competence, the study’s scope became more constrained as it required articles to explicitly utilize this concept for inclusion. Consequently, ‘relational competence’ itself was not listed as part of the inclusion or exclusion criteria but was, in fact, a prerequisite for inclusion. Also, as we aimed for a broad scope, no time limitations were used. Included articles were restricted to scholarly studies that had undergone peer review and focused on HE:

Inclusion criteria: (1) Peer reviewed; (2) Scholarly Articles.

Exclusion criteria: (1) Duplicates; (2) No higher education in primary focus.

Methods of synthesis

Data from the included articles were synthesized by broadly following the principles of narrative synthesis (Popay et al., 2006). The aim was to summarize and compare the results of the articles included and, thus, to identify implications for further research rather than doing a deeper analysis. According to Booth et al. (2016), a narrative synthesis is preferable if the review includes both quantitative and qualitative methods and, thus, does not allow for more specialized syntheses.

Analysis

An initial search in multiple databases was performed on 26 December 2022, and resulted in 23 items (Supersök, 16; ERIC, 4; ASP, 2; ERC, 1). The filtering for peer-reviewed items reduced the number to 20 (Supersök, 14; ERIC, 3; ASP, 2; ERC, 1). A further removal of duplicates within each search engine decreased the number to 18 (Supersök, 12; ERIC, 3; ASP, 2; ERC, 1). As duplicated records were removed across the search engines, the total number of items decreased to 12. Finally, the number of included records was reduced to six as articles lacking a clear focus on HE were excluded.

A complementary search was performed in Google Scholar, which identified 434 items (Figure 1). A manual sorting for items focusing on relational competence and HE led to a first scoop of 40 items. However, after a more in-depth reading, 16 articles were removed as they lacked a HE focus. Most of these articles were conceptual articles. A further three articles were removed because they did not explicitly mention relational competence even if this was a demanding term for the search. One article was removed because it was a book chapter that could not be considered a peer-reviewed scholarly article. Finally, seven articles were removed because they were duplicates. Thus, the Google Scholar search rendered 13 articles, and merging the searches meant that 19 items remained.

A complementary search was made in all included databases on 21 June 2023 (Figure 1). All searches were performed with the permanent link to the initial search to guarantee the same sample. While the searches in Supersök, ERIC, ASP and ERC were time limited between December 2022 and June 2023, it was not possible to effectuate the same limit in Google Scholar, which led to a sample of articles published from 2022 to 2023. These were then manually aggregated. Initially, 14 articles were identified (Supersök, 5; ERIC, 0; ASP, 1; ERC, 0; Google Scholar, 8). The exclusion of duplicates decreased the number to 12. Finally, articles that lacked a HE focus or did not have relational competence in primary focus were excluded. This resulted in a total of four remaining articles (Supersök, 1; ERIC, 0; ASP, 0, ERC, 0; Google Scholar, 3). This left a total sample of 23 articles.

Finally, a quality assessment (Appendix II) was performed using Croucher et al. (2003) template for quality assessment. Two quantitative articles were removed due to lack of clear study design and vague operationalization of concepts. Thus, the final sample for this study comprised 21 articles.

Results

The aim of this article was to visualize existing research regarding relational competence. The result section offers a snapshot view of the field and presents findings in three main sections according to the research questions: What is the study focus of the included articles? What methodological approaches tend to permeate the research? What are the main results of the included articles? Main results are visualized in Table 2 and Supplementary information can be found in Appendix III.

Table 2. Summary of main findings.

RQ	Main themes	Sub-themes	Authors	N
What is the study focus?	Students and relational competence	Enhancing student-teachers understanding of/development of relational competence	Aspelin et al. (2021); Aspelin and Jönsson (2019); Aspelin (2019); Borremans and Split (2022); Borremanns and Split (2023); Haagensen (2020); Holmstedt et al. (2018); Jensen et al. (2015); Koenen et al. (2021); Laursen and Nielsen (2016); Nielsen et al. (2022)	11
		Use of role play to develop relational competence in master students in health care	Gjestvang et al. (2021)	1
		Students’ perceptions of teachers’ relational competence	Peterson and Kim (2021)	1
	HE teacher and relational competence	Linguistic awareness and relational competence	Bergroth and Haagensen (2022), Segerby (2022)	2
		HE teacher personality and relational competence	Macovei et al. (2023)	1
		Development of HE teachers’ relational competence	Wahlgren et al. (2016)	1
		How faculty relational competence facilitate students learning	Chika-James (2020)	1
	Other	Both HE teacher and student perspective	Bell (2022); Okoye (2022)	2
		Policy	Aspelin and Östlund (2020)	1
What methodological approaches tend to permeate the research?	Qualitative method	Questionnaire with open-ended questions	Aspelin (2019); Aspelin and Jönsson (2019); Aspelin et al. (2019)	3
		Individual interviews and focus group interviews	Bell (2022); Okoye (2022); Nielsen et al. (2022); Haagensen (2020)	3
		Individual interviews	Bergenroth and Haagensen (2022); Laursen and Nielsen (2016)	3
		Student written reflections	Chika-James (2020); Gjestvang et al. (2021)	2
		Video-observations	Segerby (2022)	1
	Quantitative method	Questionnaire	Borremans and Split (2022); Macovei et al. (2023)	2
		Delphi method	Borremas and Split (2023)	1
	Mixed methods	Questionnaire and interviews	Peterson och Kim (2021); Wahlgren et al. (2016); Koenen et al. (2021)	3
		Quantitative and qualitative content analysis of student written reflections	Holmstedt et al (2018)	1
	Other	Conceptual	Jensen et al. (2015)	1
		Document study	Aspelin and Östlund (2020)	1
What results are to be found in the included articles?	Relational competence as a developmental skill		Aspelin (2019); Aspelin and Jönsson (2019); Aspelin et al. (2021); Aspelin and Östlund (2020); Borremans and Spilt (2022); Borremans and Split (2023); Gjestvang et al. (2021); Holmstedt et al. (2018); Koenen et al. (2021); Laursen and Nielsen (2016); Nielsen et al. (2022); Wahlgren et al. (2016)	12
	Relational competence and students learning		Bell (2022); Bergroth and Haagensen (2022); Haagensen (2020); Okoye (2022); Segerby (2022);	5
	Relational teacher characteristics		Peterson and Kim (2021); Chika-James (2020); Jensen et al. (2015); Macovei et al. (2023)	4

What is the study focus of the included articles?

The analysis revealed three main themes. The first theme comprised articles with a focus on students, presented under ‘Students and Relational Competence’. The second theme included articles that emphasized relational competence from the perspective of HE teachers, showcased under the subheading ‘HE teachers and Relational Competence’. The third theme encompassed articles that centered on both HE teachers and students, as well as those that did not fit into the previous themes, presented under the subheading ‘Other’.

Students and relational competence

The largest theme was student teachers’ relational competence, as 14 out of 21 included articles focused on this area. Aspelin et al. (2021), Holmstedt et al. (2018) and Aspelin and Jönsson (2019) aimed to enhance student teachers’ comprehension of relational competence and strategies for its improvement. Aspelin and Jönsson (2019) further aimed to develop a qualitative model for evaluating teachers’ relational competence, initially introduced in their study, and later utilized in Aspelin et al. (2021). In a related yet narrower scope, Aspelin (2019) focused solely on student teachers’ understanding of socio-emotional competence, which is considered an integral aspect of teachers’ relational competence, as outlined in Aspelin and Jönsson (2019).

Jensen et al. (2015) conducted a longitudinal study exploring how the concept of relational competence can be understood and taught in teacher education as part of student teachers’ future professional competence. Laursen and Nielsen’s (2016) collected data within the same project as Jensen et al. (2015). Their purpose was to explore student teachers’ experiences of relational challenges during their internship. Similarly, Haagensen (2020) and Koenen et al. (2021) both delved into student teachers’ relational competence during their internship. Haagensen (2020) explored which relational aspects student teachers associated with linguistic diversity while Koenen et al. (2021) investigated student teachers’ feelings and perceptions of their relationship with a self-chosen targeted child. Borremans and Spilt (2022) and Borremans and Split (2023) had slightly different focuses. Borremans and Split (2022) studied student teachers’ perceived confidence in building TSRs during different years of their teacher education, while Borremans and Split (2023) aimed at identifying competencies necessary for beginning teachers to master and, thus, necessary in teacher education. Finally, both Gjestvang et al. (2021) and Nielsen et al. (2022) had an innovative approach. Gjestvang et al. (2021) explored how Master students in Mental Health Care programs experienced role play as a method to strengthen their relational competence, while Nielsen et al. (2022) researched student teachers’ perceptions of how mindfulness courses affected their self-confidence and relational competence. Finally, Peterson and Kim (2021) explored students’ perceptions of desirable characteristics in HE teachers.

HE teachers and relational competence

Bergroth and Haagensen (2022) examined HE teachers’ perceptions of distance education during the pandemic. The study focused on linguistic awareness and relational competence. The linguistic and relational focus is similar to Segerby (2022). However, Segerby (2022) directed her focus toward linguistics in mathematics to identify one HE teacher’s relational skills during a mathematics lesson. Macovei et al. (2023) explored the extent to which personality, in relation to role ambiguity, and relational competence among faculty could predict their feelings of wellbeing. Wahlgren et al. (2016) aimed to develop new relational competences among a group of college teachers in the Danish adult education system. Finally, Chika-James (2020) studied how faculty members’ relational competence can facilitate service-learning among business students.

Other

Three articles had neither solely a student nor HE teacher focus. First, Okoye (2022) and Bell (2022) took both a faculty and a student perspective. Okoye (2022) focused on the challenges associated with pedagogical relations exacerbated by large-sized classes in HE in developing countries while Bell (2022) examined how the use of relational pedagogy among faculty increased students’ satisfaction. Aspelin and Östlund (2020) focused on policy and sought to provide answers to how relational competence is presented in Swedish curricula for special needs educator programs.

What methodological approaches tend to permeate the research?

In this section, methods and samples within the included studies are described.

Qualitative methods

Among the 21 included articles, 12 relied exclusively on qualitative data. Three articles (Aspelin, 2019; Aspelin & Jönsson, 2019; Aspelin et al., 2021) employed written interviews comprising questionnaires with open-ended questions to examine the understanding of relational competence among student teachers before and after an intervention based on video reflection. Aspelin (2019) conducted the study with a sample of 10 student teachers, while Aspelin and Jönsson (2019) had a sample size of six. Aspelin et al. (2021) had an expanded sample including 74 special needs education students.

A further three articles (Bell, 2022; Okoye, 2022; Nielsen et al., 2022) utilized a combination of individual interviews and focus group interviews for data collection. Like previous studies by Aspelin (2019), Aspelin and Jönsson (2019) and Aspelin et al. (2021), Okoye (2022) employed written interviews, while Bell (2022) and Nielsen et al. (2022) conducted oral interviews. Furthermore, Okoye (2022) had a large sample, consisting of 79 students and 37 faculty members, in comparison to eight HE teachers and 20 students in Bell’s study, and seven students in Nielsen et al.’s study.

Two articles, Bergroth and Haagensen (2022) and Laursen and Nielsen (2016), exclusively used oral interviews for data collection. Bergroth and Haagensen (2022) conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 HE teachers, while Laursen and Nielsen (2016) conducted in-depth interviews with 22 students. Of these, 12 students were part of the research project, while 10 students formed a reference group.

Haagensen’s (2020) sample consisted of group discussions among 46 student teachers regarding their observations during their internship. Segerby’s study (2022) was the only one to use observation as its sole method. Her sample consisted of a 3-h observation of an HE teacher’s interaction with her special needs educator students during an online mathematics lesson.

Gjestvang et al. (2021) and Chika-James (2020) employed more innovative methods compared to the studies mentioned above. Gjestvang et al. (2021) conducted a qualitative study with an exploratory, descriptive design that included lectures, role play, and reflections, in addition to the students’ written experiences of the course. The sample consisted of 44 students enrolled in a Master’s of Mental Health Care program. Chika-James (2020) conducted a qualitative case study, which involved research diary records of one HE teacher’s reflections on her interactions with 30 of her students engaged in service-learning. The study also included participant observation and document analysis of the students’ written reflections.

Quantitative methods

Three articles exclusively employed quantitative methods. Borremans and Spilt (2022) utilized a sample of 535 questionnaires obtained from student teachers enrolled in pre-primary and primary teacher education programs, while Macovei et al. (2023) collected responses from 105 HE teachers. Finally, Borremans and Spilt (2023) used the Delphi method and conducted a quantitative interrater agreement analysis constituted by responses from an expert panel consisting of five lecturers and four researchers in teacher education from three universities (Borremans & Spilt, 2023).

Mixed methods

Peterson and Kim (2021) as well as Wahlgren et al. (2016) and Koenen et al. (2021) used quantitative surveys in conjunction with qualitative interviews. Peterson and Kim (2021) gathered questionnaires from 121 students and conducted in-depth interviews with 40 students. Wahlgren et al. (2016) collected questionnaires from 197 teachers across five Colleges and conducted interviews with two participants from each college. Lastly, Koenen et al. (2021) employed a multiple single-case design, utilizing questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with six student teachers. In another study, Holmstedt et al. (2018) conducted a mixed-methods intervention study that integrated video-based reflection. The sample consisted of 17 student teachers who were divided into two groups. The data consisted of student teachers’ written analyses of teacher–student interactions in a video sequence. The responses were examined using both quantitative content and qualitative thematic analysis.

Other

Jensen et al. (2015) did not follow the typical empirical study format. However, because it pertained to the results of an ongoing research project in the Bachelor’s degree program for Teacher Education in Aarhus, Denmark, it was still considered important for this review and was therefore included. Aspelin and Östlund’s (2020) sample consisted of 142 syllabi from 11 Swedish universities. Finally, Aspelin and Jönsson’s (2019) article can be considered partly conceptual, as it not only presented a qualitative study, but also aimed to develop a model for analyzing teachers’ relational competence.

What results are to be found in the included articles?

The following section intends to visualize the main findings from the included articles. These findings are divided into the following three themes: ‘Relational competence as a developable skill’, ‘Relational Competence and Students’ Learning,’ and ‘Relational Teacher Characteristics’.

Relational competence as a developable skill

Results from several articles (Aspelin, 2019; Aspelin & Jönsson, 2019; Aspelin et al., 2021; Borremans & Spilt, 2022; Gjestvang et al., 2021; Holmstedt et al., 2018; Koenen et al., 2021; Nielsen et al., 2022; Wahlgren et al., 2016) have suggested that individuals’ understanding of relational competence can be improved through training. Results from Aspelin (2019) revealed an enhanced understanding of emotions as an aspect of interpersonal interaction among students who participated in an intervention study. Additionally, a noticeable improvement was observed in the students’ ability to express and interpret both teacher and student emotions in video sequences after the intervention. This result is in line with that of Holmstedt et al. (2018), who also noted an increased ability to discern, interpret and analyze teacher-student interactions, along with an improved capability to discuss relational phenomena with a specific focus on details and nuances in teacher-student interaction.

The above findings are in line with those of both Aspelin and Jönsson (2019) and Aspelin et al. (2021), illustrating a shift in focus from an intrapersonal to an interpersonal understanding of teachers’ relational competence. In Aspelin and Jönsson (2019), this shift was observed as an initial emphasis on teachers’ actions, which later transformed into an understanding of competence as something that is situated within the dynamic interaction between the teacher and the student. Similarly, Aspelin et al. (2021) observed a transition from an initial emphasis on teaching strategies and learning environments to an awareness of the dynamic interpersonal interaction between the teacher and the student as a crucial aspect when engaging with students with diverse needs.

Relational competence, as an interpersonal phenomenon, has been further elucidated in Gjestvang et al. (2021), Laursen and Nielsen (2016) and Nielsen et al. (2022). The results in Nielsen et al. (2022) revealed how mindfulness could be utilized in courses to enhance student teachers’ self-awareness and relational competence. Additionally, the findings in Gjestvang et al. (2021) demonstrated that role play could deepen students’ understanding of themselves and others, thereby increasing their comprehension of how both their verbal and non-verbal communication impact the individuals with whom they interact. These findings align with those of Laursen and Nielsen (2016), who showcased how student teachers engaged in a research project improved their ability to distance themselves and gained an external perspective when they analyzed themselves and their actions as teachers. As students became more self-aware, they were also able to adopt a more reflective approach, which is presumed to be advantageous in establishing relationships with future students.

Results from Borremans and Spilt (2022) aimed to shed light on student teachers’ preparedness for building dyadic TSRs. Their findings highlighted that student teachers in their third year of teacher education felt more competent and confident in developing dyadic TSRs compared to students in earlier years. However, the authors raised concerns about the lack of relational education in teacher education. This is in line with the study by Aspelin and Östlund (2020), which revealed the lack of concepts related to relational competence in policy documents for the special needs teacher education program in Sweden. The results indicate that only a limited number of learning objectives concerned relational phenomenon. When concepts related to relational competence were expressed in the learning objectives, these primarily focused on the special needs teacher’s role as a qualified interlocutor, thus as a supervisor for colleagues, rather than focusing on the TSR. Finally, in a later study, Borremans and Spilt (2023) also discussed teacher education programs’ curricula and identified 36 competencies that beginning teachers need to have and that are, thus, important to cover in teacher education programs.

Wahlgren et al. (2016) adopted a slightly different approach in their study compared to those mentioned above, as they focused on HE teachers instead of students. The results demonstrated that, after participating in a competence development program, teachers’ ability to comprehend social interactions in the classroom and manage conflicts between students improved. Additionally, their capacity to provide appreciative and subject-related feedback to students increased, along with their ability to engage in discussions with students about matters beyond the classroom, indicating a more comprehensive perception of their students. Consequently, the data revealed a significant improvement in participants’ relational actions by the end of the project, where teachers’ relational work was deemed as a prerequisite for effective classroom management.

Relational competence and students’ learning

Results from both Okoye (2022) and Bell (2022) indicate that teachers and students seem to have different approaches to the importance of teachers’ relational competence for students’ learning in HE. Admittedly, results from Okoye (2022) exposed teacher’s relational orientation as a prerequisite for both teaching and learning. However, while students perceived that teacher’s relational competence increased their self-assurance, performance, engagement and decreased the drop-out rate there was no consensus regarding teachers’ perceptions of the importance of a relational approach. This is in line with results from Bell (2022), who showed how a warm and respectful interaction between teachers and students was of fundamental importance to students’ satisfaction. Moreover, students especially appreciated teachers who were caring, sensitive and empathic, and who had an approachable attitude. The teachers in the study also suggested that relationships were important; however, they also emphasized organizational aspects, such as course organization.

Results from Segerby (2022), Bergroth and Haagensen (2022) and Haagensen (2020) have some similarities, as all three focused on linguistic aspects of relational competence. Segerby (2022) and Bergroth and Haagensen (2022) investigated these aspects in online learning, while Haagensen’s (2020) study took place in a face-to-face context during student teachers’ internship. Segerby’s (2022) results revealed that both verbal and non-verbal languages are decisive for teachers’ ability to build supportive TSRs in mathematics. According to Segerby (2022), a personal address and the ability to be personal without being private were other teacher characteristics that promoted student learning. Furthermore, the author concluded that online learning can both facilitate and impede teachers’ capacity to foster high-quality TSRs. Regarding facilitating aspects, it was found that teachers and students communicated both orally and in writing via the chat function. Another facilitating factor was the camera, which allowed the teacher to discern students’ emotions and attitudes. However, the camera was also found to be an impeding factor, as the non-verbal communication was lost if students turned their cameras off, thus disrupting the interaction and potentially leading to misconceptions and misunderstandings.

In line with Segerby, Bergroth and Haagensen (2022) argued that online learning placed distinct demands on teachers. They contended that, to ensure that students understand the teacher’s intention while lecturing on linguistic awareness, the teacher must verbally explain non-verbal language, as it is not always noticeable for students in the online context. Like Bergroth and Haagensen (2022), Haagensen (2020) investigated the relational aspects of linguistic awareness. The results highlighted the importance of teachers adopting a relational approach to enhance students’ well-being and learning. Among other things, the study emphasized the significance of teachers having a personal connection with the students. Further, teachers’ ability to create time for personal communication with students was also highlighted as an important aspect of teachers’ relational competence.

Relational teacher characteristics

Peterson and Kim (2021) emphasized the importance of teachers being approachable, as this characteristic tended to decrease student anxiety and improve their learning. Other desirable teacher characteristics identified were being caring, understanding, easy to talk to and reliable. These characteristics correspond with results from Chika-James (2020), who showed that care, trust, interpersonal communication, and an attentive presence are desirable teacher characteristics that improved student learning. Moreover, Jensen et al. (2015) revealed five primary teacher competencies: appreciation, perspective shift, empathy, attention and presence. Appreciation is visualized through teachers’ ability to project an open and genuine interest in students’ perspectives, experiences, thoughts and feelings in interactions with students. Perspective shift concerns teachers’ ability to view themselves and their actions from the students’ perspective and adjust their own behavior accordingly. Empathy refers to teachers’ ability to perceive and comprehend the emotions of others, and finally, attention and presence encompass being fully engaged in interactions with others and being mindful of oneself.

Not only did teachers’ relational competences seem to improve students’ well-being and learning but results from Macovei et al. (2023) revealed that personal traits like relational competence, conscientiousness, emotionality and extroversion are predictors of subjective well-being among teachers in HE. The result was further confirmed by Koenen et al. (2021) who showed that relational competencies can help teachers experience higher degrees of joy and closeness to their students.

Summary of results

In summary, the primary focus of the included articles centers on the exploration and enhancement of relational competence among students in HE. Among the 21 articles, 14 had a student-centric focus, with 12 specifically targeting the development of students’ relational competence. Significantly, 11 of these address students enrolled in teacher training programs while only one study focused students in other programs.

A common theme across all studies was the exploration of understanding, development and practical application of relational competence among student teachers while it was notably only five articles that focused on the relational competence of HE teachers. Furthermore, merely one of these specifically addressed the development of relational competence among HE teachers. Additionally, there was a discrepancy between students and HE teachers’ perceptions of the importance of HE teachers’ relational competence. Students viewed HE teachers relational competence as critical for their own wellbeing and learning, emphasizing teacher competencies, such as being caring, reliable, sensitive, empathetic and approachable as crucial. However, the perceptions among HE teachers seem to differ from those of the students, as the results vary from a view of a relational approach as crucial for both teaching and learning to valuing the importance of organizational skills, such as course organization more highly.

In the included articles, qualitative methodologies emerge as the most prevalent approach. Out of the 21 included studies, 16 exclusively or partly relied on qualitative data, with written and oral interviews being the most prominent methods for data gathering. The prevalence of qualitative methods underscores their importance in probing relational competence among both students and teachers within the HE context. Quantitative methods were less frequently employed, with only three studies exclusively using quantitative methodologies, and an additional three employing mixed-method designs.

Findings from several of the included studies revealed relational competence as a developable skill as the results indicated that training contributes to an enhanced theoretical as well as practical understanding of the concept. The studies highlighted improved recognition and interpretation of emotional interactions between teachers and students. Additionally, there was a shift from an intrapersonal to interpersonal understanding of teachers’ relational competence, emphasizing the dynamic interaction between teachers and students as pivotal.

Discussion

A key discovery in this review is a shift in focus from viewing TSR as a concept to recognizing it as a teachable skill. Specifically, this skill is identified as relational competence, marking an important transition toward the teachability of TSR. This can be considered an important finding, not least as the results imply that teachers can become aware of and improve their relational skills with quite limited training effort as visualized in several of the included studies (e.g. Aspelin, 2019; Aspelin et al., 2021; Holmstedt, 2018; Koenen et al., 2021; Wahlgren et al., 2016).

However, the dominant focus in this review aligns with existing research from Hagenauer and Volet (2014), indicating a trend toward researching student teachers’ relational competence with far less emphasis directed toward students in other majors than those in teacher education. Moreover, even though the increased amount of research focusing student teacher can be considered positive as such, there is still a lack of focus on relational aspects within teacher education programs, as visualized in Aspelin and Östlund (2020) and Borremans and Spilt (2022). This lack is problematic as it implies that the training of teacher students may not adequately address the importance of relational competence, potentially leaving an essential aspect of the teaching assignment underdeveloped. It may be one potential reason for why practicing teachers perceive relationship building as the most difficult part of the teacher assignment (Skibsted & Matthiessen, 2016). This finding, in turn, puts serious demands on the development of teacher education programs where increased effort should be given to the development of student teachers’ relational skills in order to prepare them for their future employment.

Another main finding was that most of the research included in this review was conducted within the past five years (18 out of 21 studies). One potential explanation for this might be a growing understanding of high-quality TSRs as crucial not only for students in lower grades but also for students in HE (e.g. Hagenauer & Volet, 2014). Earlier research in this area points to that TSR in HE is characterized by an interpersonal approach (Healey et al., 2014), where TSR is perceived as a dynamic, reciprocal process (Karpouza & Emvalotis, 2019) co-created by teachers and students equally (e.g. Hagenauer et al., 2023). In line with previous research (e.g. Karpouza & Emvalotis, 2019; Hagenauer et al., 2023), the results in this review reveal that from a student perspective, desirable teacher characteristics are that the teacher is approachable, caring, understanding, easy to talk to and reliable. Those characteristics are seen as critical factors for students’ well-being and learning.

Today’s working environment requires skilled workers, often with some sort of tertiary education. This makes it important for universities to not only attract students to HE studies but also to support them all the way to graduation. HE teachers’ relational competence can be considered a key aspect here. Given the content of the included articles, it appears imperative to emphasize the development of HE teachers’ relational competence skills. This can be considered concerning as relational competence can be seen as a primary skill not only in teacher education but also in all interpersonal professions. Despite this, only one of the included articles focused on this area. Moreover, it is noteworthy that many teachers in HE lack formal teacher training, and consequently, education regarding the significance of the impact of TSR on students’ learning. Thus, lack of understanding of TSR as a primary factor for students learning might be suggested a potential reason for the results found in Bell (2022) and Okoye (2022) showcasing that HE teachers not always perceive relationship building as a critical factor in their teaching practice. Thus, the exploration of how HE teachers understand relational competence and how they work toward building positive relationships with their students is crucial for creating a high-quality and welcoming learning environment. If this area is neglected, we may miss out on essential knowledge regarding how to prepare and educate HE teachers and enhance their understanding of relational competence to construct a socially sustainable HE system. This holds particular significance, not only as high-quality TSRs seem to serve as a preventive factor against student anxiety (Peterson & Kim, 2021) and attrition (Okoye, 2022) which can be considered important given the call for widening participation and Agenda 2030 goals for sustainability (UNESCO, 2015), but also as HE teachers’ relational competence seems to serve as a protecting factor for HE teachers feelings of well-being (Macovei et al., 2023) and joy (Koenen et al., 2021). Thus, the development of HE teachers’ relational competence can be considered a protective factor for both HE teachers and their students.

Finally, one interesting finding appeared while sorting the identified articles. Despite the exclusion of conceptual and methodological articles based on exclusion criterion 2, it was evident that earlier articles in the field of relational pedagogy and relational competence tended to have a conceptual and philosophical focus. Examples of such articles include Aspelin (2011, 2015) and Hinsdale (2016). In contrast, later work included articles aimed at developing methodological approaches, for example Aspelin (2022) and Ljungblad (2021, 2022). This shift signifies a transition in research approaches and a growing importance of empirical data collection and analysis techniques. The increasing prominence of empirical inquiry demonstrates a clear intention to strengthen the empirical foundation of research on relational competence. By employing rigorous methodologies, researchers strive to gather reliable and valid data, enabling them to gain evidence-based insights into teachers’ relational competence. This development has the potential to enhance the scientific rigor and practical relevance of research findings, thereby contributing to a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics of TSR in practice.

Conclusions, limitations and further research

One notable insight emerged from the present review: teachers’ relational work, whether termed ‘relational competence,’ ‘relationality,’ or ‘student as partners,’ exhibits significant similarities and overlaps. Universally, TSR was characterized as interpersonal (e.g. Liang and Matthews, 2021; Aspelin et al., 2021), and teaching was perceived as a ‘relational act’ (Riddle & Hickey, 2023, pp. 267–268) and conceptualized as situated in the interaction between the teacher and the student (Aspelin, 2018). The articles included in this review seem to represent a rapidly growing field and most of the included articles (18 out of 21) were published within the last five years. The results underscore a prevailing research emphasis on the relational competence of student teachers, with relatively less attention directed toward HE teachers or students in other educational programs. As mentioned earlier, this is concerning, especially as many HE teachers lack formal teacher education. Consequently, there is a risk that HE teachers overlook the importance of high-quality TSRs for students’ learning, which could be a potential risk factor for student attrition.

This review has several limitations. One of them is the sample size. Because only a limited number of studies were included, it is essential to exercise caution when drawing far-reaching conclusions. Nevertheless, the study does provide valuable insights that shed light on prevailing patterns within the field of relational competence research in HE. It also suggests directions for future research as well as for improvement of HE programs. One possible approach to address the limited number of articles included in this review could have been to examine the reference lists of the included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies. However, as this would not have been in line with the systematic search methodology employed, such a step was not undertaken.

Another limitation is that, despite conducting searches in multiple databases, this review does not cover all relational research in HE. The explicit focus on the concept of ‘relational competence’ led to the exclusion of other studies within the field of relational pedagogy that did not explicitly use this term. Consequently, this implies that relational studies that focus on other concepts such as ‘relationality’ (e.g. Riddle & Hickey, 2023) or ‘student as partners’ (e.g. Dai & Matthews, 2023) have not been included, which can be seen as a limitation.

Regarding future research, one striking insight was the scarcity of research focusing on HE teachers’ relational competence. This is a notable research gap that requires further investigation to better understand how relational competence can be understood and developed in HE. Also, most articles utilized qualitative methods for data collection. This finding underscores the usefulness of qualitative data in capturing the complex, elusive, and transient phenomenon characterizing relationships and relationship-building. Nevertheless, to achieve an increased comprehensive and evidence-based understanding of the subject, it is essential to complement this research with future quantitative studies.

One area for further investigation would be an in-depth exploration of HE teachers’ relational competence as manifested in practice in interaction with students in large classes. Furthermore, the concept of relational competence has similarities with other relational fields, such as ‘relationality’ and ‘student as partners.’ More research is thus needed to understand how these fields can be related to and enrich one another.

The identified lack of focus on relational competence of students in educational programs other than teacher education may suggest a research gap that requires further exploration, especially considering that relational competence can be deemed crucial in all interpersonal professions. Therefore, this is an area that can be considered in need of further investigation. Finally, despite an increased research focus on student teachers’ relational competence, results from included articles indicate a lack of emphasis on the development of student teachers’ relational skills in teacher education programs. This can also be seen as an area that needs further development to better prepare future teachers for their relational work in practice.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Author contributions

The study was designed by the two authors together. The first author was responsible for executing the systematic searches and writing most of the first draft. The analysis of the results was carried out by both authors also commented and contributed on previous versions of the manuscript and read and finalized the manuscript for publication.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Karen Williams at Pronuncia Consult for English language editing.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this article.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Additional information

Funding

The authors did not receive from any organization for the submitted work.

Notes on contributors

Linda Plantin Ewe

Linda Plantin Ewe is a researcher (Ph.D.) and Teacher Educator within the Special Needs Education Programs at Kristianstad University, Sweden.

Annika Fjelkner Pihl

Annika Fjelkner Pihl is a researcher (Ph.D.) and Educator within the Business Program and an Educational Developer at the Center for Higher Education Development at Kristianstad University, Sweden.

Notes

1 From: Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., et al. (2020). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.

Appendices Appendix I.

Search process

Supersök

As Supersök does not offer subject word searches, initial free text searches were made regarding the relationship between teacher and student. These were ‘teacher-student relationship*’ (73,104) and ‘student-teacher relationship*’ (49,818). These searches were then combined into a block search (‘teacher-student relationship*’) OR (‘student-teacher relationship*’) resulting in 150,323 identified articles. An additional block search was performed regarding research in higher education (university* OR ‘higher education’ OR ‘Postsecondary education’ OR ‘tertiary school’ OR college OR ‘graduate school’) which resulted in 74,724,837 identified articles. In addition, a search was performed regarding relational competence (‘relational competence’) which resulted in 541 identified articles. Finally, a block search was performed with AND to identify the articles that focused on relational competence in higher education ((‘teacher-student relationship*’) OR (‘student-teacher relationship*’)) AND ((university* OR ‘higher education’ OR ‘Postsecondary education’ OR ‘tertiary school’ OR college OR ‘graduate school’)) AND ‘relational competence’ whereby 16 articles were identified. After restriction to scientifically reviewed academic articles, the number of articles was reduced to 14 and after sorting out duplicates, 12 articles published between 2015 and 2022 remained.

Academic Search Premier

As ASP offers searches via subject terms, a search was made regarding the relationship between teachers and students DE ‘TEACHER-student relationships’ which resulted in 13,044 identified articles. In addition, a free text search ‘student-teacher relationship*’ was performed, which resulted in 832 articles. The search terms were then combined using a block search (DE ‘TEACHER-student relationships’) OR (‘student-teacher relationship*’) resulting in 13,355 identified articles. A further subject term search (higher education) was made to identify research within higher education. The search was expanded with the subject term postsecondary education (DE ‘HIGHER education’ OR DE ‘POSTSECONDARY education’) which generated 101,411 identified articles. In addition, the concepts universit*, ‘tertiary school’, college, ‘graduate school’ were added by free text search (DE ‘HIGHER education’ OR DE ‘POSTSECONDARY education’ OR universit* OR ‘tertiary school’ OR college OR ‘graduate school’) which generated 18,506,225 articles. In addition, a free text search (‘relational competence’) was carried out, which resulted in 93 identified articles. Finally, a block search was made with AND: (DE ‘HIGHER education’ OR DE ‘POSTSECONDARY education’ OR university* OR ‘tertiary school’ OR college OR ‘graduate school’) AND ((DE ‘TEACHER-student relationships’) OR (‘student -teacher relationship*’)) AND (‘relational competence’) whereby two peer-reviewed academic articles published between 2021 and 2022 were identified.

ERIC

In ERIC a keyword search (DE teacher–student relationships) was performed, which was expanded with the keyword interpersonal relationship which resulted in 58,860 articles. In addition, a free text search (‘student-teacher relationship*’) was performed, which resulted in 8835 identified articles. A block search (DE ‘Teacher Student Relationship’ OR DE ‘Interpersonal Relationship’) OR (‘student-teacher relationship*’) increased the number of identified articles to 66,636. Another keyword search was performed regarding higher education research, which was expanded with additional keyword terms (DE ‘Higher Education’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education’ OR DE ‘Graduate Study’ OR DE ‘Graduate Students’ OR DE ‘Masters Programs’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education as a Field of Study’ OR DE ‘Universities’) resulting in 543,539 identified articles. A free text search regarding relational competence generated 28 articles. A final block search (DE ‘Higher Education’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education’ OR DE ‘Graduate Study’ OR DE ‘Graduate Students’ OR DE ‘Masters Programs’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education as a Field of Study’ OR DE ‘Universities’) AND (((DE ‘Teacher Student Relationship’ OR DE ‘Interpersonal Relationship’) OR (‘student-teacher relationship*’)) AND (‘relational competence’)) generated four peer-reviewed academic articles. However, the number was reduced to three after a restriction to scientifically reviewed academic articles. The articles were published between 2015 and 2022.

Education Research Complete

In ERC, a keyword search regarding the relationship between teachers and students (DE ‘TEACHER-student relationships’) was expanded with the keyword DE ‘INTERPERSONAL relations’ and the free text search ‘student-teacher relationship*’ which generated 50,491 identified articles.

A further keyword search was conducted regarding research in higher education. The subject word ‘DE higher education’ was expanded with other subject words relevant to the subject (DE ‘Higher Education’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education’ OR DE ‘Graduate Study’ OR DE ‘Graduate Students’ OR DE ‘Masters Programs’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education as a Field of Study’ OR DE ‘Universities’) resulting in 136,358 identified articles. In addition, a free text search was conducted on the term ‘relational competence’, which generated 61 identified articles. A final block search (DE ‘TEACHER-student relationships’ OR DE ‘INTERPERSONAL relations’ OR ‘student-teacher relationship*’) AND (DE ‘Higher Education’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education’ OR DE ‘Graduate Study’ OR DE ‘Graduate Students’ OR DE ‘Masters Programs’ OR DE ‘Postsecondary Education as a Field of Study’ OR DE ‘Universities’) AND (‘relational competence’) generated a peer-reviewed academic article published in 2021.

Google Scholar

In Google Scholar, an initial search string (‘relational competence’ AND ‘higher education’ OR ‘university*’ OR college OR ‘postsecondary education’) AND (‘teacher-student relationship*’), generated 434 identified articles. All the 434 identified articles were sorted manually, removing duplicates. The manual work generated 40 scientifically reviewed academic articles focusing on relational competence in higher education. The time span was limited to articles published between 2012 and 2022.

Om 21 June 2023, complementary searches were made in all the search engines. This search resulted in additional 13 items found. Five of these were found in Supersök, seven in Google Scholar and one in ASP. No additional articles were found in ERIC or ERC.

Appendix II.

Quality assessment of included articles

Table

Quality assessment of the included articles (E: Essential; D: Desirable)	Quality appraisal criteria
	Question	Theoretical perspective	Study design	Context	Qualitative sampling	Quantitative sampling	Data collection	Data analysis	Reflexivity	Generalizability	Ethics
	Is the research question clear? (E)	Is the theoretical or ideological perspective of the author explicit, and has this influenced the study design, methods, or research findings? (D)	Is the study design appropriate to answer the question? (E)	Is the context or setting adequately described? (D)	Is the sample adequate to explore the range of subjects and settings, and has it been drawn from an appropriate population? (E)	Is the sample size adequate for the analysis used and has it been drawn from an appropriate population? (E)	Was the data collection adequately described and rigorously conducted to ensure confidence in the findings? (E)	Was the data analysis adequately described and rigorously conducted to ensure confidence in the findings? (E)	Are the findings substantiated by the data and has consideration been given to any limitations of the methods or that may have affected the results? (D)	Do any claims to generalizability follow logically, theoretically, and statistically from the data? (D)	Have ethical issues been addressed and confidentiality respected? (D)
Aspelin (2019)	x	x	x	x	x		x	x	x		x
Aspelin and Jönsson (2019)	x	x	x	x	x		x	x	x
Aspelin and Östlund (2020)	x	x	x	x	x		x	x
Aspelin et al. (2021)	x	x	x	x	x		x	x	x		x
Bell (2022)	x		x	x	x		x	x	x		x
Bergroth and Haagensen (2022)	x	x	x	x	x		x	x
Borremans and Spilt (2022)	x	x	x	x		x	x	x	x	x	x
Borremans and Spilt (2023)	x	x	x	x		x	x	x	x		x
Chika-James, T. A. (2020)	x	x	x	x	x		x	x	x
Gjestvang et al. (2021)	x		x	x	x		x	x	x		x
Haagensen (2017)	x	x	x	x	x		x	x
Holmstedt et al. (2018)	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		x
Jensen et al. (2015)	x	x	x	x	x			x (ongoing)
Koenen et al. (2021)	x		x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Laursen and Nielsen (2015)	x	x	x	x	x		x	x	x
Macovei et al. (2023)	x		x	x		x	x	x	x	x	x
Nielsen et al. (2022)	x	x	x	x	x		x	x
Okoye (2022)	x	x	x	x	x		x	x
Peterson and Kim (2021)	x	x	x	x	x		x	x	x		x
Segerby (2022)	x	x	x	x	x		x	x	x		x
Wahlgren et al. (2016)	x		x	x	x	x	x	x		x

Appendix III.

Included articles

Table

No	References	Country	Sample	Framework	Study focus	Method	Measures	Main findings relevant to relational competence in HE
1	Aspelin, J. (2019). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ socio-emotional competence. International journal of emotional education, 11(1), 153–168.	Sweden	10 Pre-service teachers	Scheff’s theory of Social Bonds	Adopt a relational framework to discuss and define socio-emotional competence and to outline signs of improvement in pre-service teachers’ socio-emotional competence.	Qualitative intervention study	Thematic analysis	The study highlights three aspects of teachers’ socio-emotional competence: 1. Teachers’ ability to act sensitively and responsively toward the student; 2. teachers’ ability to be directly present to the student and manage both the student’s and one’s own feelings; 3. teachers’ ability to confirm the student and support students’ emotional development. The result did reveal improvement in the teachers’ socio-emotional competence, such as an increased use of emotional words for specific emotions as well as an increased understanding of emotions as an aspect of interaction.
2	Aspelin, J., & Jonsson, A. (2019). Relational competence in teacher education. Concept analysis and report from a pilot study. Teacher development, 23(2), 264–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2019.1570323	Sweden	6 Preservice teachers	Scheff’s theory of Social Bonds	The focus is three-folded; 1. Contribute a conceptualization of the concept of relational competence. 2. contribute a method for analyzing teachers’ relational competence, 3. Use the method for analyzing pre-service teachers’ understanding of relational competence pre- and post- a teacher intervention.	Qualitative intervention study	Thematic analysis	The conceptualization of the concept of relational competence framed three sub-concepts: communicative, differentiation, and socio-emotional competence. The method used for analyzing relational competence did show a positive impact on pre-service teachers’ understanding of relational competence moving from an initial understanding of relational competence as a matter of teachers’ personal characteristics as well as their didactic choices to an understanding of the concept as interpersonal and situated in practice in interaction with the student.
3	Aspelin, J., & Östlund, D. (2020). Relationskompetens i specialpedagogiska utbildningar: Hur framställs ämnet i kursplaner för specialpedagog-och speciallärarprogram i Sverige? Educare-vetenskapliga skrifter, (2), 117–142.	Sweden	Curricula - 142 syllabuses from 11 universities including 857 learning goals	Relational pedagogy	Contribute knowledge of how relational competence is described in the curriculum for special education teacher training programs	Qualitative document study	Content analysis	The concepts essential for relational competence were inadequately represented in the learning objectives of special education programs in Sweden. When concepts related to this subject were present, they primarily appeared in learning objectives emphasizing the students’ future role as qualified interlocutors, thus directing the competence toward colleagues rather than students
4	Aspelin, J. Östlund, D., & Jönsson, A. (2021) Pre-Service Special Educators’ Understandings of Relational Competence. Frontiers in education, 6, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.678793	Sweden	74 Pre-service special needs educators at a Swedish University	Relational pedagogy	Investigate how pre-service special educators’ perceptions of teachers’ relational competence, as manifested in relations with students with behavioral difficulties, can be developed through video-based interventions	Qualitative intervention study	Thematic analysis	Two themes were identified in the results: There was a shift in participants’ perceptions of relational competence from focusing on teacher attitudes and teaching strategies to focusing on interpersonal relationships between teachers and students. The participants’ perceptions of relational competence in relation to students with behavioral difficulties shifted from a focus on the educational environment to a focus on the teacher-student relationship.
5	Bell, K. (2022). Increasing undergraduate student satisfaction in Higher Education: the importance of relational Pedagogy. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(4). 490–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1985980	United Kingdom	20 Undergraduate students (11 Female 9 Male) 8 Program leaders	Not obvious	Understanding which teaching and learning practices generate undergraduate student satisfaction in HE	Qualitative focus group interviews Individual interviews	Framework analysis	The study revealed new insights regarding the fundamental importance students place on warm and respectful interactions with staff in the context of trusting relationships. The students particularly emphasized teachers who were approachable, empathic, sensitive and caring. The teachers’ also thought relationships were important, but they put more emphasis on course organization.
6	Bergroth, M., & Haagensen, J. (2022). Språkmedvetet på skärmen? Lärares relationsarbete vid distansundervisning, Ainedidaktiikka 6(1), 5–22.	Finland	10 University Teacher Educators	Not obvious	Investigate how teachers’ language awareness interacts with teachers’ relational competence in distance education	Qualitative semi-structured interviews (Action research)	Discourse analysis and The RCM model	The results revealed that the participating teachers found it difficult to create and maintain high-quality relationships in the context of pure distance learning. They also found it challenging to act in a language conscious manner in distance education. Moreover, the results showed the importance of creating good relationships in face-to-face teaching before teaching on-line.
7	Borremans, L. F. N., & Spilt, J. L. (2023). Toward a curriculum targeting teachers’ relationship-building competence: Results of a Delphi study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 130, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104155	Belgium	One expert panel consisting of 4 researchers and 5 lecturers in teacher education	Attachment theory, self-determination theory, model of interpersonal teacher behavior	Investigate which relational competencies beginning teachers need to build relationships with individual students	The Delphi method involving quantitative ratings of relational competencies as well as qualitative written argumentations	Fleiss’ kappa was used as an overall indication of interrater agreement for each item. The written argumentations were then compiled for each item	The panel identified 36 ‘need to know’ competences, which were divided into five categories: the importance of TSR for students; key concepts to understand and describe TSRs, attitudes and reflective functioning, specific strategies to establish and maintain relationships, building relationships in the context of student diversity.
8	Borremans, L. F. N., & Spilt, J. L. (2022). Development of the Competence Measure of Individual Teacher-Student Relationships (COMMIT): Insight Into the Attitudes, Knowledge, and Self-Efficacy of Pre-service Teachers. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1–21. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education#editorial-board	Belgium	Pre-service teachers (n = 535) from three university colleges. Pre-primary pre-service teachers (69.0%) primary pre-service teachers (30.8%) from all three years of the teacher program 1st year cohort: (46.4%) 2nd year cohort (23.4%) 3rd year cohort (30.1%) Mean age of pre-service teachers was 21.9 years (SD = 4.4; range = 19–51)	Attachment theory, self-determination theory and theory of interpersonal teacher behavior	The study aimed, to deepen pre-service teachers’ competence in building dyadic teacher-student relationships. Second, it aimed at investigating pre-service teachers’ perceived competence across different years of their education.	Quantitative questionnaires	The Competence Measure of Individual Teacher-student relationships (COMMIT)	Results showed that pre-service teachers were positive about teacher-student relationships. They felt quite knowledgeable and self-efficacious, but not regarding all aspects relevant to dyadic relationship-building. Results further revealed that, in the final year of teacher training, pre-service teachers felt more competent than did students in earlier years.
9	Chika-James, T. A. (2020). Facilitating service-learning through competencies associated with relational pedagogy: a personal reflection. Higher Education Pedagogies, 5(1), 267–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2020.1820886	Canada	Personal reflections from an academic teacher together with written reflections from 30 bachelor students	Relational pedagogy	The study aimed at showing how four relational competencies associated with relational pedagogy, facilitated service-learning amongst undergraduate students	Qualitative case study	Document analysis	The author offers practical examples of how students’ learning was facilitated by the teacher’s use of the relational competencies care, interpersonal communication, attentive presence and trust, in conjunction with students’ service-learning.
10	Gjestvang, B., Kvigne, K. J., Hoel, E., & Kvaal, K. S. (2021). A training course on interpersonal relationships using role play in a Master of Mental Health Care programme–The students’ experiences. Nurse Education Today, 102, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104887	Norway	44 Students in the Master of Mental Health Care program	Not obvious	Investigate how Master’s students of Mental Health Care experience role play as a method to strengthen their relational competence	A qualitative study with an exploratory, descriptive design incorporating lectures, role plays and reflections together with students written experiences of the course	Content analysis	The study explored how students experienced learning relational competencies through role play. The results indicated that students developed a deeper understanding of self and others. They improved their understanding of the fact that different positions and situations provide comprehensive understanding, and finally they improved their understanding of engagement as a promoting factor in improving relational competence.
11	Haagensen, J. (2020). Lärarstuderandes förståelse av språklig mångfald som en del av den relationella kompetensen. VAKKI Publications, 12, 100–113.	Finland	46 Pre-service teachers	Not obvious (Action research)	Explore how teachers’ language awareness can be perceived as a part of their relational work	Qualitative observation where students’ observations were used as the basis for analysis	Content analysis	The results showed that the participating students succeeded in identifying different types of discourses that connect relationships, well-being, and language awareness. However, the overall results revealed the need for a clearer connection between teachers’ relational competence and language awareness to help teacher education better operationalize the concept as part of general teaching competence. The results further showed that students have succeeded in identifying different types of discourses that connect relationships, well-being and language awareness.
12	Holmstedt, P., Jönsson, A., & Aspelin (2018). Learning to see new things: using criteria to support pre-service teachers’ discernment in the context of teachers’ relational work. Frontiers in Education, 3(54), 1–14. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education#editorial-board	Sweden	17 Pre-service teachers in a special education program	Scheff’s theory of Social Bonds	Exploring pre-service teachers understanding of relational competence using digital video and explicit criteria.	A mixed method intervention	Qualitative content analysis and quantitative thematic analysis	After the intervention, respondents referred more clearly to important dimensions of the teacher-student relationship as they had access to specific criteria. The participants had a change in focus from organization to interaction. They gained knowledge and understanding of how to use concepts of relational pedagogy to analyze teacher–student interactions.
13	Jensen, E., Skibsted, E. B., & Christensen, M. V. (2015). Educating teachers focusing on the development of reflective and relational competences. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 14, 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-015-9185-0	Denmark	A conceptual article describing an ongoing research project	Not obvious	A description of the point of departure and tentative findings of a 4-year project in the bachelor’s degree program in Aarhus	A description of the action research project (Qualitative – video recordings/longitudinal study Interviews Linguistic ethnography)	Created an own model of sub-elements of relational competence	Preliminary findings indicate that 1) development and training of attentive presence and empathy increase students’ relational competence. 2) Development takes time; during the first year, the focus for students is on classroom management and content. 3) In the second year, students start to make more concrete use of their relational skills with pupils and among themselves.
14	Koenen, A-K., Borremans, L. F. N., De Vroey, A., Kelchtermans, G., & Spilt, J. L. (2021). Frontiers in Education, 6, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.769573	Belgium	Six student teachers in their final internship	Not obvious	Explore the impact of LLInC on relationships between teachers’ students and children on the teacher students’ last internship.	A quantitative intervention together with a multiple single case design incorporating six cases with multiple measurement occasions (pre- and post- intervention)	Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS)	The results revealed that the intervention had an effect on all teacher-student relationships. The effect was either solely positive or included both positive and negative effects. For all teachers, except one, a positive effect was found regarding feelings of joy and perceptions of closeness. Preventive effects, such as stopping downward trends, were more often observed for competence-based and relationship-based emotions and perceptions like perceptions of competence, commitment, or closeness than for basic emotions like joy, anger and worry.
15	Laursen, P. F., & Nielsen, A. M. (2016). Teachers’ Relational Competencies: the Contribution from Teacher Education. Solsko Polje, 27(1–2), s. 139–161. http://www.pei.si	Denmark	12 student teachers in a four-year teacher education program (project group). Ten student teachers constituted the control group.	Mindfulness approach	To investigate the students’ preliminary experience with relational challenges in teaching practice and whether there were differences in the project group and the control group	In-depth qualitative interviews	Thematic analysis	The results explored students’ perceptions of being present and being able to let go of their emotions. The intervention did not enhance student teachers’ ability to develop their relational competence as compared to the control group.
16	Macovei, C. M., Bumbuc. S., & Martinescu-Bădălan, F. (2023). Personality traits, role ambiguity, and relational competence as predictors for teacher subjective wellbeing. Frontiers in Psychology 13, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1106892	Romania	105 University teachers (assistant professors, associate professors, and university professors) from different Romanian Universities	Not obvious	Examine to what extent teacher personality traits, role ambiguity, and relational competence predict teacher subjective wellbeing.	A quantitative design using electronic questionnaires	Teacher Subjective Wellbeing Questionnaire, HEXACO-60 personality inventory, Teacher Stress Inventory, and Teacher’s Relational Competence Scale	The results showed that personality traits, emotionality, extraversion and conscientiousness were significant predictors of teachers’ well-being.
17	Nielsen, B.L., Vilain, H., & Gøtzsche, K. (2022). Lærerstuderendes erfaringer fra forløb med mindfulness koblet professionsdidaktisk til selvberoenhed og relationskompetence. Studier i læreruddannelse og profession, 7(1), 97–119.	Denmark	7 students	A relational framework	Examine pre-service teachers’ perceptions of how mindfulness courses affected their self-confidence and relational competence.	A qualitative design using individual semi-structured interviews together with a final group interview	Thematic analysis	The results revealed students’ perceptions of increased self-awareness and relational competence. A contributing factor to this was perceived as the opportunity to immersive themselves in the topic as a group. The students highlighted both the time they had with each other and the community they experience, but also how it is stimulated by the teachers and the teaching approach.
18	Okoye, F. (2022). Pedagogical Relations in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Developing Nations: The Class-Size Challenges. GNOSI: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Theory and Praxis, 5(2). 70-83.	South Africa	Interviews with 79 students and 37 faculty members from seven faculties at the Bloemfontein Campus, QwaQwa Campus	Social Constructivist Theory	To explore how lecturers use relational pedagogies and how students perceive how their relationships with their lecturers enhance teaching and learning. In addition, it studied how the teaching philosophies in HEIs could be enhanced to create pedagogical relations in higher education	Qualitative individual semi-structured interviews together with focus group discussions.	Thematic analysis	The results reveal that a relational teaching approach is essential to successful teaching and learning. The students emphasized that having a good student-lecturer relationship is a key factor not only for their learning, but also for their self-confidence. The results further indicate that effective student-lecturer communication is to be seen as a key factor for strong student-lecturer relationships. Characteristic criteria for such relationships were seen as solid communication and mutual respect. Most of the lecturers correspondingly emphasized the importance of developing a warm and caring relationship with their students that is characterized by trust and commitment to promoting students’ learning process. However, the large class sizes, with up to 1000 students, were seen as a barrier to these relationships being developed from both lecturers’ and students’ perspectives.
19	Peterson, A., & Kim, K. M. (2021). Accounting Instruction: Relational Competence and the Impact it has on Learning. International Journal of Education Research 16(1), 1–19.	USA	121 students from two Universities one private and one state Private University (n = 39) State University (n = 82)	Not obvious	Investigate how teachers’ relational competence impacts student’s learning	Quantitative questionnaires with all students. In depth interviews with 40 students	An adapted survey instrument based on the attributes of relational competence and effective instruction developed by other researchers. The questionnaire was developed using the two primary attributes of relational competence and teaching style.	32 out of 40 students considered three teacher competencies to be most necessary for their learning. These competencies were: subject expertise, teaching style and relational competence. When asked how the teacher’s relational competence affected their learning experience, the students answered, among other things, that it decreased feelings of anxiety and increased feelings of comfort, thus impacting their learning positively. Students also reported finding it easier to understand information if they felt they had a connection with their teacher. Also, students felt that teachers who showed they cared about their students affected students’ learning positively.
20	Segerby, C. (2022). Exploring How a University Mathematics Teacher’s Digital Relational Competence Can Be Manifested: A Micro-Analytical Study. Education Sciences, 12(4), 257. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040257	Sweden	One academic teacher	A relational framework based on, e.g. Aspelin (2018)	Examining a university mathematics teacher’s digital relational competence	Qualitative observation	Linguistic analysis Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) together with a relational micro-analysis of Zoom seminar	Open questions and use of personal pronouns contributed to visualizing the relationship between the teacher and students. Open questions were important in encouraging students to reflect. Regarding experience, revealing personal information was important to building a relationship. Use of students’ names was a way of being personal, as was use of chat. Feelings could be shown if camera was on. Using nonverbal cues, such as pointing to the screen, was a way of engaging students.
21	Wahlgren, B., Mariager-Anderson, K., & Hovmand Sørensen, S. (2016). Expanding the traditional role of the adult education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.09.005	Denmark	197 adult education teachers from five colleges	Not obvious	Examining the development of Teachers’ relational competences and actions before and after they had participated in various teacher training actions	A mixed-methods design. Quantitative surveys and qualitative semi-structured interviews	Rasch analysis of the quantitative surveys and thematic content analysis of the semi-structured interviews	The core participants perceived that the intervention did develop relational competencies. Coping with conflicts between students (58%) Giving subjective, related appreciative feedback (58%) Talking to students abouts their personal situation outside the classroom (50 %) Understanding the social interaction in the classroom (67%) Teachers’ relational actions The core participants felt they took more actions when they discovered a student who was not thriving (67%) They spoke more often to students about their well-being (56%) They felt they spoke more often to students about their life outside the classroom (50%) The interviews revealed a development from awareness of relational competence to knowledge of relational competence and further to integrating the knowledge into new actions in the teacher role.