A place to belong: student–adult relationship-building activities in a transitional school year program

ABSTRACT

Despite the importance of student–adult relationship to students’ experiences of school belonging, little is known about the activities that create and sustain these relationships. In the present article, we examine the interpersonal and institutional relationship-building activities described by students and adults following a transitional school year in Norway. The transitional school year is a program provided for students at risk of early school leaving. We conducted reflexive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews involving 17 students and 5 employees. The most prominent topic was activities that involved being seen, heard, and responded to. Additionally, students and adults took part in both institutional and interpersonal relationship-building activities. Implications for practice are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• School belonging
• alternative schooling
• student–adult relationships
• activities

Introduction

The need and right of students to belong in school has gained great traction in education (Slaten et al., 2016) and is said to play an important role in students’ lives (Korpershoek et al., 2020). Though school belonging is a complex construct (Allen et al., 2018), an oft-cited definition is provided by Goodenow and Grady (1993, pp. 60–61): “students’ sense of being accepted, valued, included and encouraged by others  …  in the academic classroom setting and of feeling oneself to be an important part of the life and activity of the class”. School belonging is positively associated with student motivation, social and emotional functioning, and academic outcomes (see, e.g., Slaten et al., 2016), and is an important resource for enhancing students’ wellbeing (Arslan et al., 2020). A low sense of school belonging is also a significant predictor of students experiencing NEET (Not in Employment, Education or Training) status (Parker et al., 2022).

Allen et al. (2018) found that student–teacher relationships are one of the strongest factors associated with belonging in school, and a key factor in intervention when aiming to increase it. Though an abundance of research points to the importance of student–teacher relationships (Spilt & Koomen, 2022), Korpershoek et al. (2020) and Holen et al. (2018) argue that research on interventions rarely addresses activities that improve student–teacher relationships and/or students’ sense of school belonging. Additionally, Tillery et al. (2013) suggest that there is a need for increased understanding of teachers’ influence on adolescents’ sense of school belonging. Student–teacher relationships are therefore a key aspect to be included in research aiming to enhance our understanding of students’ experiences of school belonging (Korpershoek et al., 2020).

Despite the importance of school belonging across several variables, recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data (2018) indicate that students’ sense of belonging across member countries is deteriorating. This might be especially true for students attending alternative types of school as they are often targeted as being at risk and less is known about school belonging and factors associated with it in these settings (Barrett, 2021). In this article the alternative schooling arena discussed is a transitional school year in Norway. The transitional school year is a one-year program provided in an existing upper secondary school. The program is described in detail later.

A previous study, utilizing the same sample as the current article, indicated that students who participated in the transitional school year program reported a heightened sense of reengagement with their education, and felt more prepared for mainstream upper secondary school (Laundal & Solberg, 2022). However, to the best of our knowledge, only a limited number of studies have undertaken a comprehensive analysis of similar alternative programs. Research on alternative schooling is generally limited, and broadening our knowledge of students’ perspectives on this issue is warranted (Barrett, 2021). This need for greater knowledge combined with the call for research on student–teacher relationships as a key factor associated with belonging led to the following research question: What characterizes student–adult relationship-building activities during the transitional school year? This research question was operationalized in the following sub-question: What student–adult relationship-building activities are described as contributing to students’ sense of belonging while attending the transitional school year program?

We aim to provide researchers and practitioners with descriptions from the field of practice and enhance our understanding of how relationship-building activities and their characteristics can inspire others in their endeavor to create belonging in schools. We use the term adult, as in significant adult, as the employees involved with students in the transitional school year fulfil different roles, e.g. teacher, coordinator of services, and counsellors. “Significant other” is a well-known term in education, referring to those people who have a positive influence on students.

School belonging as a relational concept

Theoretically, belonging has its roots in the field of psychology, starting with the seminal work of Maslow (1943) on motivation and the hierarchy of needs. According to Maslow’s theory, five fundamental needs drive human behavior: physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. Other seminal work on belonging (Slaten et al., 2016) includes that of Baumeister and Leary (1995). They proposed the belongingness hypothesis, suggesting that “human behavior has a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships” (p. 497). The authors further describe two features of belonging; (1) a need for frequent social interactions with one or many individuals in which both parties are concerned for each other’s wellbeing; and (2) these relationships are perceived as stable. Thus, belonging is more than a human need for affiliation; relationships are regular, stable, mutual, positive, and long term, with the same people. As such, belonging is a relational concept, contingent on the individuals’ subjective experiences of the relationships.

School belonging has been defined more specifically in the educational literature (Slaten et al., 2016). In the introduction, we presented the impactful and widely used definition of Goodenow and Grady (1993), with its focus on people feeling accepted, valued, respected, and supported within the school environment. Barrett (2021, p. 36) helpfully reflects on their definition, proposing that it “illustrates that one of the most powerful factors in whether students experience a sense of belonging is contingent on what their relationships look like with adults in the school building”. In the present article, considering our focus on student–adult relationship-building activities, this is a key aspect. However, before we approach the previous literature on student–adult relationships, we discuss the importance of belonging in alternative schooling arenas.

Why belonging is important in alternative schools and alternative school arenas

The target group of an alternative school arena will vary greatly and reasons for attending such a program are related to a number of factors: biological (e.g., gender), psychological (e.g., mental health problems), social (e.g., financial or language difficulties), academic (e.g., academic failure), and school history (e.g., suspensions or dropping out) (Fortems et al., 2023). As such, the needs of students attending alternative schooling arenas are complex and multifaceted. Fortems et al. (2023) highlight the need for focusing attention on mental health, as well as the strengths of students attending alternative schools (Fortems et al., 2023). They conclude that these students are at risk of disengagement from mainstream schooling due to, for example, negative school experiences or poor teacher–student relationships, substantiating our contention that increased attention must be paid to school belonging and relationship-building activities for these students.

The complex nature of alternative schools is also evident in how one defines alternative schooling or alternative schools (Mills & McGregor, 2017). In brief, alternative spaces may challenge how and what curriculum is implemented: how the school day is organized; the type of students enrolled; the nature of the school environment; and the engagement of non-educational staff in the daily life of the school (ibid.). Finding a common definition that embraces alternative schooling or schools is challenging; however, one commonality is that education is provided in a different way to that provided in mainstream schooling (ibid.). Mills and McGregor (p. 2) refer to alternative schools as those that “in some way or other subvert/challenge/undermine  …  the ‘grammar of schooling’: that is, the taken-for-granted regulations, rules, and assumptions about how classrooms and schools are structured and operate”. We find this definition useful, as the program discussed in the present article provides a flexible framework in terms of curriculum, aims, and attendance, and that to a greater extent can cater to the needs of students experiencing marginalization in mainstream schooling.

An abundance of research points to students’ positive descriptions of their experiences in alternative schooling; of being seen and recognized as having the capacity to grow (Vadeboncoeur & Vellos, 2016); of experiencing increased attention from and caring relationships with staff (McGregor et al., 2015); and of receiving personalized academic and socioemotional support (Amitay & Rahav, 2018; Sundelin et al., 2023). Thus, alternative programs or schools may offer youths a space to belong and to experience closer adult and peer connections compared to mainstream schools. Nevertheless, as Mills and McGregor (2017) usefully point out, the quality of alternative schooling is not necessarily a given, and there are also concerns that mainstream schools may use alternative schools as opportunities to exclude students who disengage or do not fit within mainstream schooling. Notwithstanding the complex nature of defining both the alternative schooling population and the education they receive, it is particularly important to address school belonging with non-mainstream students or those who struggle or are being marginalized (Allen et al., 2018; Barrett, 2021, p. 47). However, the concept of school belonging has been given less attention in the alternative schooling arena. Here, we approach this gap in research by examining student–adult relationship-building activities as one of the key factors that may contribute to students’ sense of school belonging.

School belonging and teacher–student relationships in alternative arenas

Allen et al. (2018) found that several factors are significantly related to school belonging; however, teacher support appeared to demonstrate the strongest association. Barrett (2021) reminds us that interactions between students and adults are the generators of belonging. In her doctoral dissertation on the belonging of high school students in alternative schooling, Barrett (p. 197) argues that, “students’ experiences of belonging can be generated in and through interactions that occur between students and the educational structures that surround them”. Through her analysis she accounts for the dynamic and malleable ways in which teacher–student interactions are key to students’ sense of belonging. Schmid et al. (2021) similarly argue that teachers’ positive expectations and their active support strongly contribute to students’ sense of belonging at school and are closely related to students’ relationships in the classroom. In a similar vein to Barrett (2021), Schmid et al. find that school organization and internal practices are significant in terms of students’ sense of belonging.

From these perspectives, interactions are of both an interpersonal and institutional character (Barrett, 2021). Interpersonal interactions involve teachers providing students with unconditional forms of care, whereby they build alliances and provide help, as well as recognize when a student is struggling, and consequentially provide support. However, interactions are also a result of institutional structures, such as flexibility and tangible support and resources within the school environment (ibid.). This distinction is important because activities to foster positive interactions are analyzed on different levels, leaving potential for an enhanced understanding of activities that may foster student–adult relationships.

It is important, therefore, to describe structures that can facilitate teacher–student relationships, considering both the relational phenomenon that is belonging and the institutional affordances that may enable it. Darling-Hammond et al’s. (2020) synthesis clearly provides grounds for this assertion, as they argue for safe and personalized school and classroom environments, in which teachers can respond to students’ needs, interests, and growth. Sundelin et al. (2023) also point to students’ appreciation of small-group instruction and highly adapted and flexible learning environments as key to their ability to flourish in alternative settings.

On the interpersonal level, there are several examples of activities that specifically foster student–teacher relationships. For example, Cooper and Miness’ (2014) empirical recommendation is that teachers make both personal and academic gestures to students one-on-one. They also recommend that the environment allows for personalized interactions to occur between teachers and students. Another study similarly illustrates how interactions of both an interpersonal and institutional nature are important to students in alternative schooling; for example, in describing their school students used terms such as “caring, small, community, family, respectful, equal, supportive, non-judgmental, [and] mutual responsibility” (McGregor & Mills, 2012, p. 857). In Saunders and Saunders’ (2001) study comparing students’ perceptions of previous mainstream school experiences and experiences in alternative school settings, the authors found that students reported significantly more positive interactions with teachers and staff in the latter compared to the former. Student responses indicated that, to a much greater extent, they felt understood, treated fairly, cared about, and supported in alternative schooling by teachers and staff. Slaten et al. (2015) echo the importance of relationships in alternative settings in their study. Interviewing 11 high school students in an alternative setting, they found that they described feeling accepted and valued in their interactions with school personnel. This assertion is supported by O’Gorman et al. (2016), who in their systematic review of mixed-method studies on retention in alternative arenas, found that alternative settings were experienced by students as safe sanctuaries.

While all these studies contribute in valuable ways to our understanding of both belonging as a key outcome of students attending alternative schooling and the importance of caring and genuine interactions between adults and students in alternative settings, less is known about the specific activities and actions that contribute to such outcomes, at the institutional and interpersonal interaction levels. Furthermore, the voices of teachers and school leaders are often absent in the literature on belonging (Allen et al., 2021). Using a multi-informant interview study, we therefore wanted to explore how students and significant adults described the relationship-building activities that contributed to student belonging within the context of the transitional school year.

Method

In our previous article on students’ experiences of the transitional school year (Laundal & Solberg, 2022), we explored and described how students experienced being more prepared for upper secondary school following attendance of such a program; personally, socially, and academically. In the present article, we draw on the same sample of students but zoom in on the descriptions provided by students and adults regarding student–adult relationship-building activities. We also expand on the sample, including the voices of the adults engaging with the students.

Sample, sample characteristics and context

While recruitment to the transitional school year program was mainly conducted at the lower secondary school, some students had attended upper secondary school but left, and were recruited on the basis of their NEET status. The students in the transitional program were invited to join based on certain criteria (e.g., absenteeism, low grades), and subsequently attended an interview with the counsellors from the program to express their motivation for attending the transitional school year.

In our study, a purposive sample (Patton, 2002) of 17 16-year-old youths (female = 6, male = 11), from a large city in Norway, were invited to describe their experiences of attending the transitional school year program (see also Laundal & Solberg, 2022). By purposive, we mean that the participants were selected based on their experiences of participating in the transitional school year program. A key selection criterion in our study was students’ actual attendance throughout the program, so that they had experiences of relationship-building activities to share. Despite heterogeneous descriptions of previous school experiences and social challenges, such as mental health or family related issues, a commonality in their descriptions was accounts of negative academic achievement and/or high absenteeism in lower secondary school.

The sample of adult participants, who were the only adults connected to the program in some capacity, consisted of five people fulfilling different roles and assuming a range of responsibilities in relation to the transitional school year program. Two participants were classroom teachers; one was a coordinator responsible for recruiting participants and planning for the future with each student; one was a coordinator responsible for coordinating all services (e.g., leisure activities, child protective services, police, pedagogical psychological services, etc.); and one was the head of the program.

Data

The second author conducted data collection through semi-structured individual interviews (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015) with 17 student participants during 2019–2020. Eight students were interviewed twice, one year apart (see Table 1 for an overview). The interviewer, a formally trained counselor with extensive experience of working with at-risk youth, focused on several topics, e.g., students’ reasons for joining the program, their experiences of academic, social, and personal aspects of the program, and how prepared they felt for upper secondary school. The questions were open-ended to provide the participants with opportunities to expand on topics that were central to their own experiences, including, but not limited to, relationships and activities. All interviews took place at the school, with the second interviews conducted over the phone due to Covid–19 restrictions (see also Laundal & Solberg, 2022). In total, approximately 590 minutes of audio-recordings were obtained, varying in length from six to 64 minutes. The second author transcribed each interview verbatim, translating relevant portions into English for use in this article.

Table 1. Participants and duration of interviews.

Participant	Interview 1	Interview 2
Student 1	01:04:55	00:09:00
Student 2	00:34:46
Student 3	00:21:26
Student 4	00:36:49
Student 5	00:33:14	00:14:01
Student 6	00:22:40	00:13:21
Student 7	00:21:30	00:09:42
Student 8	00:23:44
Student 9	00:36:59	00:11:33
Student 10	00:27:59
Student 11	00:24:00	00:08:19
Student 12	00:20:21
Student 13	00:26:13
Student 14	00:35:51
Student 15	00:16:33	00:05:51
Student 16	00:42:35	00:09:24
Student 17	00:20:47

Teacher interviews were conducted within the same timeframe as student interviews, using a semi-structured interview guide. In the interview, the second author sought to gain an understanding of how the teachers adapted their practice in the new program and how they approached and related to students. Combined, this resulted in 231 minutes of audio-recorded material, ranging from 44–49 minutes’ duration. To safeguard participant confidentiality, quotations are attributed using numbers for student participants and “adults” for the other participants.

Analysis

We employed reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) to approach the material, utilizing its flexible, theoretically abductive approach (Braun et al., 2019). Early exploration of the literature on belonging guided our focus on the crucial differentiation between interpersonal and institutional interactions (Barrett, 2021). This distinction served as a sensitizing concept (Patton, 2002) and theoretical anchor (Braun et al., 2019) in our analysis. The subsequent section details our analytical and reflexive process, resulting in one overarching main theme and two theoretically driven sub-themes, each with three sub-topics.

Although we were very familiar with the extensive data accrued from our previous analysis of students’ experiences of preparedness after attending the transitional school year program (Laundal & Solberg, 2022), we again examined each text as a whole to gain a sense of participants’ descriptions of student–adult relationship-building activities – both institutionally and interpersonally. After this renewed phase of familiarization (Braun et al., 2019), we conducted a more comprehensive and systematic exploration of the data by generating codes. This process facilitated the organization and integration of data across the different participants. Examples of such codes were “student-led activities”, “clearly communicated expectations”, and “teachers being close”.

We then formulated, assessed, and ultimately labeled themes in order to construct a cohesive narrative of the data relating to descriptions provided by students and adults regarding student–adult relationship-building activities. The two main themes, derived from theory, revolved around the concepts of interpersonal and institutional interactions during relationship-building activities. Although interconnected, we saw clear distinctions in how adults and students described activities that were more closely aligned with one or the other. The previously created codes helped to clarify the content or sub-topics of these two themes. For instance, codes such as “mapping interests”, “clarifying rules and expectations”, and “future choices” contributed to the formation of the sub-topic “Regular talks and dialogues” as a key aspect related to the sub-theme, “interpersonal activities”. We also developed the overarching theme titled: “They care about you: being seen, heard, and responded to”. This theme was prominent in the participants’ narratives and provided the overarching idea concerning institutional and interpersonal activities.

Ethical considerations

The research received approval from the Norwegian Centre for Research Data, and all participants were given detailed written consent forms to complete (see also Laundal & Solberg, 2022). Given the novelty of the transitional school year program and the limited number of participants, both students and adults, we refrain from providing in-depth details about them or the school to safeguard their confidentiality.

Findings

In this section, we report the findings from the analysis related to the research question: What student­–adult relationship-building activities do students and adults describe as contributing to students’ sense of belonging while attending the transitional school year program? These themes are addressed in the discussion on what characterizes student–adult relationship-building activities in the transitional school year program.

The transitional school year is carefully crafted for students who are at risk of early school leaving and may require additional preparation before commencing upper secondary school (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2021). The program discussed in the present article is situated within a large vocational school and is facilitated by a dedicated team of educators working with a select group of at-risk students. Its core objective is to assist these students in forming a meaningful connection with the educational environment, both academically and socially, and to promote personal growth within a school context (see also Laundal & Solberg, 2022). The transitional program offers a flexible and individually tailored learning and practice environment within the school setting. It integrates work-based learning experiences to enable students to gain insights into the responsibilities and expectations of adulthood (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2021). The following section is organized according to the main theme and sub-themes.

“They care about you”: being seen, heard and responded to

As the title of the main theme implies, students described teachers who care. They were being seen, heard, and responded to. This powerful message is simple, yet complex in nature. As the authors of the present article were describing the activities that teachers and students use to create and sustain relationships, it became obvious that the activities could be somewhat difficult to grasp but the experiences were clear: when students talked about the positive aspects of the transitional school year program, they referred to the adults present. The word “caring” or phrase “being cared about” were used frequently by student participants; indeed, several stated that “they [the teachers] care so much”. Student 7 used the term “someone who actually cared”, perhaps reflecting the important distinction between affiliation and actual belonging. Student 11 even said that the teachers in the transitional school year program contributed to their “lik[ing] to learn school stuff again” as a result of the experience of being cared about.

Teachers’ impressions of seeing, hearing, and responding to students were also recorded: “I spend an incredible amount of time talking with the students during the school day” (Teacher 1). Teacher 2 also stressed the importance of dialogue as a powerful tool enabling teachers to create and sustain students’ sense of being seen, heard, and responded to. Teacher 3 offered explicit examples of inviting students to describe what they see as a good teacher, and what they need from teachers. Teachers also invited students to voice their opinions on the teachers’ own relational practice as a potential tool to create and sustain relationships. These are all indicators of teachers reducing student’s sense of invisibility to create the foundation of belonging in the transitional school year program. Student 16 helpfully summarized what it was about the transitional school year program that made them want to stay in school: “good teachers”. In the following, we therefore present the sub-themes that illustrate the interpersonal and institutional relationship-building activities that served as indicators of these “good teachers”.

“Better opportunities”: institutional activities for relationship building

The institutional activities are divided into three topics, as described by students and adults: (1) a smaller number of students and greater number of adults; (2) the availability of time and space on the part of adults; (3) the surrounding structures that enhance teachers’ ability to be sensitive to students’ previous experiences and current needs. Although these topics are interwoven and connected, they are presented separately to provide a clearer illustration of the institutional activities described by students and adults.

Almost every participant touched upon the topic of the smaller number of students and greater number of adults as an institutional element that allowed for relationships to be built and sustained. Teacher 2 noted: “I am used to having between 25 and 30 students  …  [but] here [in the transitional school year context] I have a much greater opportunity to see the student and adapt [my teaching to aid in their] academic development.” Students were also occupied with the benefits provided by a smaller learning environment. According to Student 2:

Our classroom environment is perfect … . The class is smaller too. And you know, when the class is larger you make noise, see?  …  But here, we have an environment where everyone is involved and can join the conversations or listen to what the teacher says. Everyone is in. The teachers are in contact with everyone, see?

It is evident that the smaller learning environment is a structural element that contributes to building relationships between students and adults. This topic relates closely to the next, namely, teachers’ availability to students both in time and space.

Teacher 1 explained: “The students are really satisfied with their teachers, because they are so close and see every single student. It is impossible to hide, and everyone gets the opportunity to show themselves.” This closeness was voiced by many participants, in different ways: “the teacher has more time for me” (Student 10); “teachers are so close to you, right” (Student 10); “they spend so much time on you” (Student 11)”; and “there is always someone here to help you” (Student 15). For the students, this closeness with adults in school appeared to be a new experience.

As we argued in our previous article, this closeness provided teachers with the opportunity to be sensitive to both the students’ previous experiences and current needs, whether academic, personal and/or social: “they adapt the way you need it” (Student 7). To quote from our previous article, Student 14 explained the difference between the transitional school year and mainstream schooling, substantiating the idea of adult sensitivity: “A lot more directed towards the person compared to high school. High school is very much general subjects. General stuff you have to go through, through general goals, and no specialization towards a person directly” (Laundal & Solberg, 2022, p. 10). This specialization and sensitivity seemed to expand beyond academic adaptations. It also involved adult sensitivity toward each student and their previous experiences as students, as well as their interests.

“I am here for you”: interpersonal relationship-building activities

Adults and students provided several examples of interpersonal relationship-building activities. Interestingly, these figured to a greater extent in the students’ descriptions. Adults, in contrast, seemed more occupied with the institutional interactions and structures that facilitated students relationships. We present them according to three sub-topics: (1) taking part in activities that are of interest to students; (2) engaging in regular dialogue with students; and (3) supporting and coordinating students’ lives.

The activities adults and students talked about reflected a range of activities meant to build relationships between them. These could range from playing basketball during the school day, to having lunch together every day, to picking students up from home before school. Student 10 stated: “They combine the sickest stuff to kind of … get you to go to school.” Students 1 and 9 described activities such as going for walks, lunches and excursions outside of school. As such, they were describing teachers going above and beyond to motivate students to attend school. Adults’ descriptions of interpersonal activities were equally enthusiastic, such as:

[I]f you notice that there is a day when “today is not the day”, [you know] how to just say: “You know what? Then we’ll take the basketball with us, and then we’ll go out.” We have the opportunity to just break up without anyone necessarily questioning it. (Adult 1)

It appeared that students and adults focused on the same activities; however, adults recognized the institutional affordances provided in the program to a greater extent.

The next prominent topic in the interviews was the interpersonal activity of regular conversations. Unsurprisingly, conversations were mentioned by all, and appeared to be the foundation of relationship-building activities for both adults and students. More interesting, however, was the content of these conversations as relationship-building activities. Talks were characterized by a multitude of topics as well as a display of interpersonal skills. The topics included academic and social goals, conversations about rules and expectations, past life, future choices, and school choices. Thus, the conversations expanded beyond current academic achievement and covered the past and present, hopes and dreams, a finding resonating with our previous article in which we explored these students’ experiences of preparedness, both here and now and for the future, after attending the transitional program (Laundal & Solberg, 2022).

Furthermore, adults and students talked about the opportunity to ask questions and systematically map interests. Student 6 stated: “then we sat down and drew a map  …  about dreams I have, what I want to become”. Conversation thus provided opportunities to demonstrate support and care, one-on-one, and entailed adults being proactive, as described by Student 15: “They ask if I need help without me asking for it. They come around and ask if you need help.” Student 10 stated: “They are trying to kind of prepare us for next year but also just to let us know that they are here for us. I have talked a lot with all the teachers.” Student 6’s statement summed up the situation: “We talk a lot.”

Finally, both students and adults described activities that went beyond the day-to-day academic and socioemotional activities. They described the topic of coordinating life together. This could include adults helping students obtain work placements or summer jobs or leisure activities, or adults taking part in meetings with external or family-related agencies such as child protection services. Student 4 explained how an adult had not only helped her obtain work but simultaneously provided her with what we interpret as care: “She [the adult] has helped me to get a job, but … How do I say it? She has worked hard.” Student 16 described how adults coordinated aspects of their life both inside and outside school. Adults also acknowledged this need for coordination: “I have to take on a much bigger role because it is immensely tiring for the youths to have so many people to deal with.” However, this coordination demanded that all adults were involved, despite their different roles. One of the adults explained that, at first, they had tried to shield classroom teachers from the social aspects of the transitional school year program, so that they could focus on pedagogical activities. What the adults came to see was that little coherence existed between social and academic measures, which led them to create a system whereby all adults involved were equipped to partake in all areas of a student’s life. They thus made sure to communicate all aspects of student progress so that they could all provide follow up.

In summarizing the findings, we see evidence of both interpersonal and institutional relationship-building activities during the transitional school year. The overarching narrative is students’ sense of being seen, heard, and responded to. Both institutional and interpersonal activities form building blocks in this regard. The smaller number of students and larger number of adults mean that the latter have the time and space needed to fully engage with the former. Structural adjustments also enhance teachers’ ability to be sensitive to students’ previous experiences and current needs. The participants further described engaging in activities that are of interest to students, having regular conversations with them, and helping them coordinate different elements of their lives.

Discussion

Our intention was to examine what characterizes the relationship-building activities between adults and students in the transitional school year program by describing the interpersonal and institutional elements of such evident in the data. Our objective was to add to the literature on belonging, and the apparent lack of research on activities contributing to the significant relationships that can exist between adults and students. The findings are by no means instrumental descriptions of activities. Rather, they describe deeply human interactions based on kindness, intentionality, and humanity, as outlined in Barrett’s (2021, p. 201) study. The activities, we argue, are building blocks for both interpersonal and institutional connections. In the following we discuss what characterizes these activities.

Regularity and consistency

The activities that potentially contribute to belonging seemed to be characterized by regularity and consistency. They were described as re-occurring and not one-off activities; rather, they took place over a prolonged period. These descriptions align with the seminal work of Baumeister and Leary (1995), which argues that frequent and stable interactions are the key to belonging. Saunders and Saunders (2001) have also indicated that students in alternative schooling experience better relationships with teachers compared to those in mainstream schooling. We suggest that the regularity and consistency evident in the activities in which adults and students partake, over time, can contribute to this experience. As the institutional themes indicate, adults and students experienced having more time and space for each other. There was also evidence of consistency and regularity in interpersonal activities, for example during regular conversations. Barrett (2021), however, recognizes the intertwined connections between institutional and interpersonal levels of interaction. As such, regularity and consistency embrace both interpersonal and institutional interactions. Still, consistency does not mean inflexibility. We also argue that adults and students took part in different activities, suggesting a flexibility in interactions.

Combining activities: flexibility in interactions

The findings revealed that adults were flexible in terms of both creating and taking part in relationship-building activities. They utilized institutional interactions to enhance interpersonal interactions, and switched between activities according to what students might need (e.g., playing basketball and installing a computer lab instead of academic work). As such, the activities were characterized by flexibility. This flexibility is perhaps related to the findings of both Amitay and Rahav (2018) and Sundelin et al. (2023), indicating that greater personalized academic and socioemotional support is available for students in alternative settings. Flexible solutions were also important to students, as demonstrated by narratives in a recently published study on youths’ problematic transitions (Sundelin et al., 2023).

However, this flexibility also demands attention to the close connection between interpersonal and institutional interactions (Barrett, 2021); that is, teachers not only recognize the importance of their interpersonal relationship-building activities with students but also the structures that enable them (Cooper & Miness, 2014; Darling-Hammond et al., 2020).

Patience and persistence in adult–student relationship-building activities

Patience and persistence are key to relationship-building activities engaged in by adults and students during the transitional school year. The student narratives indicated that adults did not give up on them, demonstrated by picking them up at home or providing activities that matched their interests or needs. Barrett (2021) similarly described teachers building alliances, a process that demands time and trust. We also know that a sense of belonging involves creating lasting relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Persistence and patience also indicate the ability of adults to see and respond to their students, echoing the findings of Vadeboncoeur and Vellos (2016).

We also argue that persistent and patient activities influence the intertwined dynamics that exist between institutional and interpersonal interactions. As such, we expand on the interplay between smaller learning environments and structures that may facilitate adult–student relationship-building (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). We argue that adults do these activities because they can and are allowed to, while also recognizing the affordances of the transitional school year and make them visible in their interpersonal interactions with students.

Transcending activities and care

Adult and student narratives indicate that relationship-building activities are characterized by care, in that they seem to transcend academic and social support, unlike students’ experience of mainstream schooling (Laundal & Solberg, 2022; Saunders & Saunders, 2001). Previous research describes alternative schooling venues as sanctuaries (O’Gorman et al., 2016), where students feel more valued and accepted (McGregor & Mills, 2012; Saunders & Saunders, 2001; Slaten et al., 2015); they are places for growth (Vadeboncoeur & Vellos, 2016), offering academic and socioemotional support (Sundelin et al., 2023). Our own research supports the notion of alternative practices allowing adults to go above and beyond, or as Barrett (2021, p. 189) describes it, that “stop at nothing”. The care provided by alternative schooling may take many forms, we suggest, such as activities taking into account students’ interests, but also adults picking them up from home and organizing leisure activities and jobs for them. Adults take active responsibility for student progress (Barrett, 2021): social, academic, and personal (Laundal & Solberg, 2022). Adults and students create more than an affiliation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995); they create and sustain mutual care for each other. This closeness is key to students’ re-engagement with schooling (Laundal & Solberg, 2022; Schmid et al., 2021; Vadeboncoeur et al., 2021). Consequently, we suggest that the activities offered transcend the here and now by changing students’ narratives regarding what schooling is, can or should be (Vadeboncoeur et al., 2021).

Limitations of the study and future research

We recognize that there are limitations to the study. First, the descriptions provided here are related to the transitional school year context and are not necessarily generalizable to other alternative contexts or systems. Studies of a comparative nature could be of interest in future research. We do, however, hope that the activities described here are recognizable to practitioners and researchers in the Scandinavian context and beyond, and within the field of alternative education and outside.

Second, the relatively limited number of participants provides only a partial picture. The combination of adult and student voices is, however, a strength of this study, extending our understanding of relationship-building activities to create a sense of belonging. Nonetheless, large-scale, multi-informant studies on relationship-building activities are needed. Moreover, the participating students were motivated to attend the transitional school year program, while the perspectives of those who were registered as participants, but did not attend, are not represented in the study. We therefore encourage research on relationship-building activities to foster belonging taking into account the voices of students in alternative settings who are not participating in school.

Third, we recognize that observations may have yielded a more valid and complimentary picture of the situation, as the self-reported nature of the data might portray intentions rather than practice. Again, this possibility may have been countered by recording the voices of both adults and students. Future research could combine methods to broaden our understanding of the relationship-building activities described here.

Implications and conclusions

Belonging is key to inclusion and relationships are at its heart. Belonging has gained great traction in the educational system and its significance continues to grow. In this study we have provided examples of important relationship-building activities involving significant adults and students in the transitional school year program. The activities described were both interpersonal and institutional in nature. The institutional affordances included fewer students and more adults participating in the program, adults having the time and space to be more available to students, and how these surrounding structures seemed to enhance teachers’ ability to be sensitive to students’ previous experiences and current needs. The interpersonal elements of the program included providing activities that are of interest to students, engaging in regular conversations, and helping students coordinate various aspects of their lives.

Perhaps most important were the overarching narratives in which students described being cared for and about; being seen, heard, and responded to. The activities were, therefore, characterized by adult and student closeness, together with regularity and consistency. Institutional and interpersonal interactions worked together, allowing for flexibility. Also, patience and persistence seem key to enhancing our understanding of the relationship-building activities to promote a sense of belonging. Finally, the relationship-building activities were characterized by measures transcending the academic aspects of education.

Students’ sense of school belonging is declining across the OECD countries (OECD, 2018). Our study indicates that adults in the transitional school year program go to great lengths to engage students in interpersonal activities. We suggest that adults do so not only because they can but also because the structures offered by the transitional school year program enable them to do so. A small and personalized environment simultaneously creates a sense of security and reduced vulnerability, which enables teachers and students to engage in interpersonal interactions and relationship-building activities.

Continuing to facilitate and sustain students’ sense of belonging is an endless task for researchers and practitioners in education, particularly in terms of potentially vulnerable and marginalized students. As Student 5 noted: “We provide each other with hope.” With this powerful statement we encourage practitioners and schools to continuously engage in relationship-building activities to foster students’ sense of belonging. These activities are important building blocks for creating sustained relationships, and are at the heart of an inclusive school.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.