In the blink of an eye: understanding teachers’ relational competence from a micro-sociological perspective

ABSTRACT

A substantial body of international research argues that the teacher-student relationship is crucial for students’ academic and social-emotional learning. However, microanalytic studies of teachers’ relational competence are rare. This article aims to contribute such a study by exploring teachers’ relational competence, drawing on Erving Goffman’s concept of face-work and focussing on how a particular teacher-student relationship is constructed in an ongoing processes of interaction. The paper presents in-depth analyses of teacher-student interaction using a video-recording of a classroom episode. In the episode, the student loses face as a result of a complex series of events. The teacher, through rapid action, helps the student repair face and manages to (re-)establish a respectful interaction ritual. Overall, the teacher’s relational competence is manifested by advanced and complex face-work. Our analyses indicate that relational competence is essentially a micro-social artistry – a lightning-quick ability to interact with students in the ‘here and now’. The article also discusses the pedagogical implications of these findings, for example, that it is crucial to include face-work in teacher education and training.

KEYWORDS:

• Relational competence
• teacher-Student relationship
• micro-Sociological analysis
• face-Work

1. Introduction

Numerous empirical studies have found positive and supportive relationships between teachers and students crucial to students’ academic and socio-emotional development (Hughes 2012; Roorda et al. 2017). Teachers’ ability to build such relationships is an important research topic within the field of teachers’ relational competence. For example, Sabol and Pianta (2012) have pointed to the cruciality of interpersonal skills for teachers and other adults in their relations with children:

Fundamental to any adult-child interaction is the ability of an adult to accurately read a child’s social and emotional cues, respond to a child’s signals appropriately, and offer emotional support or limits when needed. Therefore, at the most basic level, the quality of these relationships is contingent on adults’ individual characteristics and interpersonal skills. (222)

Scandinavian research on this topic has mainly relied on qualitative methods, such as interviews and observations, and in international research, large-scale survey-studies have frequently been employed (Skibsted and Matthiesen 2016; Wubbels and Brekelmans 2005). Micro-sociological analysis of interaction, however, is a seldom-adopted approach, which is surprising, given the assumption that relationships are built through interaction. The present article contributes to the field through a thorough interpretation of teachers’ relational competence as constructed in teacher-student interaction.

Thus, the purpose of this article is to discuss teachers’ relational competence within a micro-sociological framework. Specifically, we explore their relational competence through Erving Goffman’s concept of ‘face-work’; further, we rely on his theoretical framework and Thomas J. Scheff’s methodological framework in support of our work here. We focus on how a teacher-student relationship is constructed in the ongoing processes of interaction during a video recorded lesson. We then discuss the pedagogical implications of the presented micro-sociological analyses.

Goffman is considered a master at detecting, portraying, and defining social encounters, and, accordingly, his theoretical framework is suitable for use in the present study. Scheff’s methodological framework, which in important respects builds on Goffman’s theories, was selected for its focus on analysis of interpersonal relationships in face-to-face encounters. The selected micro-sociological approach is similar to conversation analysis (CA) in its aim for meticulous, detailed analyses of interaction in authentic settings and documentation of video and/or audio recordings. However, as Scheff (1990) observes, while CA research focuses on external behaviour and investigates how conversations are organized, micro-sociological approaches involve theoretically informed interpretations of individuals’ search for meaning in ongoing interaction and the implications for the qualities of ‘social bonds’. Hagenauer and Volet (2014) note that CA does not usually examine the qualities of the teacher-student relationship. Although the level of detail varies in the micro-sociological tradition (see e.g. Bellocchi 2019; Beaulieu and Boylan 2016; Aspelin 2022), transcriptions should include enough information to enable in-depth and trustworthy understanding of interpersonal relationships. In the present article some CA conventions are applied in part, to help substantiate interpretations.

First, research on teachers’ relational competence is outlined, followed by presentation of a relational perspective on education and teaching and additional relevant studies. This is not a review article, so the bibliography is by no means complete. Next, the theoretical framework is defined, focussing on Goffman’s concept of face-work, followed by introduction of the methodological framework, drawing chiefly on Scheff’s (1990, 1997) work. Our results are presented as micro-sociological analyses of four excerpts which focus on verbal and nonverbal interaction between a teacher and a student in an episode where an ‘incident’ (Goffman [1967] 1982) occurs. Our findings are then compiled, and implications for research and pedagogical practice are discussed.

2. Literature review

2.1. Teachers’ relational competence

In Scandinavia, ‘relational competence’ refers to describe teachers’ ability to build positive and supportive relationships (Aspelin and Jonsson 2019; Aspelin 2017; Nielsen and Laursen 2016; Skibsted and Matthiesen 2016). In a comprehensive review conducted by The Danish Clearinghouse for Educational Research in 2008, relational competence, alongside didactic competence and leadership competence, were introduced as concepts central to teacher professionalism (Nordenbo et al. 2008). Teachers’ relational competence is their ability to support, activate, motivate, and develop relationships with students based on respect, tolerance, empathy, and similar values (Nordenbo et al. 2008). Since the 2008 review, multiple Scandinavian studies have explored relational competence with both teachers and preservice teachers (e.g. Gidlund 2020; Klinge 2016; Skibsted and Matthiesen 2016). An extensive research and development project was conducted in Denmark from 2012 to 2016 on enhancing preservice teachers’ relational competence. As reported in Matthiesen and Gottlieb’s (Matthiesen and Gottlieb 2016) critical discussion, the project focusses more on the participants’ self-understanding than their relationships with pupils. Matthiesen (2016) argues that the general relational competence discourse is based on teachers controlling the environment in subject-object relationships. This risks reducing the complexity of education and turning professional practice into technique. Matthiesen’s critique is in line with theoretical studies arguing that dominant notions of ‘competence’ (Biesta 2012) and ‘relational competence’ (Jordan 2004) are characterized by the idea of individuals managing and controlling their surroundings based on predetermined goals.

The field of relational competence seems in need of more research exploring competence as a relational phenomenon. To that end, the present study contributes four micro-sociological analyses of teachers’ relational competence as manifested in interaction. To meet the need for more conceptual studies in the field (Aspelin and Jonsson 2019; Jensen, Skibsted, and Christensen 2015; Nordenbo et al. 2008), we further contribute by conceptualizing relational competence according to Goffman’s theoretical framework and offering of a nuanced, situated, and contextualized understanding of the phenomenon under study.

2.2. A relational perspective on education and teaching

No education without relation, the telling title of an international anthology on relational pedagogy (Bingham and Sidorkin 2004), encapsulates the fundamental role of relationships in education. Relational pedagogy is based on the notion that humans are relational beings and that education is essentially a relational process. Biesta (2004) argues that education primarily takes place ‘in the gap between the teacher and the learner’ (13) and that any theory of education should also be a theory of pedagogical interaction. The concept of ‘between’ is central in this discourse. According to Biesta (2004), relational pedagogy’s special task is highlighting risks and opportunities at stake in that gap between teacher and student. Since we cannot be sure what will happen ‘in between’, relationships are unpredictable, uncontrollable, and risky but also hold opportunities: it is only in that ‘in between’ place that students and teachers (can) break out into the world and emerge as unique subjects (Biesta 2009).

In The rediscovery of teaching (Biesta 2017), Biesta develops a perspective on teaching that is an alternative to both student-focused conceptions which underemphasize teachers’ authority and teacher-focused conceptions which underemphasize students’ subjectivity. A notion of subjectivity concerning ‘how I am’—how I act in the here and now – rather than ‘who I am’—my traits and capacities – is the basis of Biesta’s conception.

Biesta has also discussed the role of education in modern marketized society. For example, in The beautiful risk of education (Biesta 2014), he critically examines instrumental perspectives and stresses that education should be oriented towards students’ freedom and independence. He positions relational pedagogy against a one-sided discourse where education becomes simply a means for achieving predetermined goals and where methods and techniques become simply tools for achieving goals with maximum efficiency. According to Biesta (2006), such a discourse poses a threat to the student as a unique subject.

As such, from the relational perspective adopted here, teachers engage in interpersonal relationships not only – and perhaps not primarily – to achieve pre-set goals but also to acknowledge the diversity of classroom life and enhance students’ subjectivity. This article’s emphasis on teachers’ relational competence highlights the particularities of teaching, the concrete phenomena that exist between teachers and students who meet in the here and now.

2.3. Other relevant studies

The four studies described below investigate problems similar to those presented here and offer important findings on rapport-building and affiliation which may be useful towards further research.

Nguyen (2007) uses concepts such as ‘politeness’ and ‘face’ to analyse an ESOL teacher’s building of rapport, defined there as a positive social relationship characterized by mutual trust and emotional affinity. She presents examples of politeness strategies that can mitigate face-threatening acts, emphasizing that intra-personal relations are intertwined with all the other relationships in the classroom and that effective relationship building is implicitly blended into instruction. Park (2016) also explores teachers’ rapport-building techniques and shows that teachers can present themselves as conversation partners capable of balancing task-oriented talk and informal talk.

In Amador and Adams’ (Amador and Adams 2013) exploration of how affiliative behaviour promotes language learning, the classroom is described as an arena where students are emotionally vulnerable and where socially protective measures must be taken. Along those lines, Shvidko (2018, 2020), in analysing one-to-one feedback situations at writing conferences, suggests that teachers use different types of affiliative behaviour (e.g. roleplay and footings) to enhance relationships in the long run.

These four studies all connect theoretically to Goffman’s concept of face in conversational analysis-inspired microanalysis. We see proximity between concepts such as rapport building and affiliation with our broader concept of teachers’ relational competences, and so we return to these studies in the ‘Recommendations for further research’ section below.

3. Analytical framework

3.1. The dramaturgical perspective

To obtain nuanced understandings of the participating teacher’s relational competence, as manifested in the ongoing flow of his interaction with students, we apply Goffman’s theoretical framework in the micro-sociological analyses presented here. His dramaturgical perspective is iconic in the social sciences, and he elaborates on it in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959) and Interaction Ritual (1967). ‘Face-to-face interaction’: ‘the reciprocal influence of individuals upon one another’s actions when in one another’s immediate physical presence’ is his main object (1959, 26). From a dramaturgical viewpoint, a school lesson includes a series of ‘performances’; individuals are social actors who perform in ‘teams’. We should not say that teachers and students simply react to external or internal stimuli. Rather, they consciously or unconsciously manage impressions and adjust actions to an ongoing process of social behaviour. Teachers are aware of their stages (i.e. classrooms, schools), roles (teacher), and audience (students, individually or in groups).

3.2. Face-Work

Goffman ([1967] 1982) describes individuals’ ‘status’ in face-to-face-interaction as dependent on ‘interaction rituals’. Through interaction rituals, individuals continuously show how much respect they have for themselves and others. ‘Face’ refers to ‘the positive social value a person effectively claims for [themself] by the line others assume [they have] taken during a particular contact’ (5). A ‘line’ is ‘a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts by which [one] expresses [one’s] view of the situation and through this [one’s] evaluation of the participants, especially [oneself]’ (5). ‘Face’ is the image of self that an individual constructs together with others. It does not belong to the individual; ‘it is only on loan to [the individual] from society; it will be withdrawn unless [the individual] conducts [themself] in a way that is worthy of it’ (10). Participants’ interaction rituals are interwoven, and every person’s behaviour affects every person’s face. To maintain face, sophisticated rituals are needed, and participants must handle them sensibly. Goffman speaks of a normal state in interaction, wherein individuals accept and maintain one another’s face. However, acceptance is always temporary; it can be jeopardized by different kinds of actions: ‘An unguarded glance, a momentary change in tone of voice, an ecological position taken or not taken can drench a talk with judgemental significance’ (33).

Goffman speaks of a ‘state of talk’ in which interactors ‘have declared themselves officially open to one another for purposes of spoken communication and guarantee together to maintain a flow of words’ (34). Moreover, he distinguishes between different meanings of ‘face’. To ‘maintain face’ means that a person’s face is supported by the flow of events, a process accompanied by feelings of confidence and assurance. If others do not confirm the social worth an individual claims for themself, the individual may ‘lose face’, a process involving feelings of embarrassment and shame. If the individual loses face, they can try to ‘save face’—that is, repair face or act as if face is still intact. Similarly, when one person loses face, another person can try to save face on their behalf. Goffman refines his terminology to clarify that ‘face-work’ signifies ‘the actions taken by a person to make whatever [they are] doing consistent with face’ (12). During encounters, individuals actively engage in supporting the social values being projected. An important aspect of face-work is ‘repairing face’ when an ‘incident’ occurs that threatens face. Face-work also includes ‘poise’, control of embarrassment when face is threatened, and ‘tact’, the capacity to save face on behalf of others when their face is threatened.

4. Methods

4.1. Video observation

This micro-sociological study focuses on details of social interaction (Scheff 1990, 1997). It includes in-depth analyses of interaction and interpersonal relationships in a video-recorded lesson. Video data provides for accurate and subtle descriptions, analyses, and theoretical interpretations of interaction; it limits risks associated with researchers’ preconceptions about phenomena under investigation. However, video recordings never fully capture reality, and important information can be lost. The camera captures a selective point of view, and factors such as camera direction, zoom, and audio sources can limit data collection. Further, while video recordings as representations of ongoing events are certainly primary data, they are nonetheless reconstructions of things that have already occurred (Blikstad-Balas 2017; Derry et al. 2010; Jordan and Henderson 1995; Knoblauch and Schnettler 2012; Nassauer and Legewie 2021).

4.2. Sample

The study was conducted at an old Swedish municipal elementary school in a high socio-economic status area. Approximately 200 pupils from preschool to Year 3 attend. Data were collected in November 2018 during a Year 2 lesson. One teacher with many years of experience in the profession and twenty-two nine to ten years old students in his class participated. In the recorded lesson, the teacher introduced programming, a topic on the Year 2 syllabus in mathematics. A teacher assistant and student assistant were also present in the classroom and may have indirectly contributed to the teaching process. However, the analyses focus only on direct interaction between the teacher and students. The lesson lasted about eighty minutes, and the selected episode took place over approximately one point five minutes. It was selected because it is the longest episode of interaction between the teacher and a particular student in which an ‘incident’ (Goffman [1967] 1982) occurred. Interaction between the student John (a pseudonym) and the teacher was abundant; accordingly, we found it analytically valuable to concentrate the investigation in this direction. Further, many of the patterns we observed in the teacher’s interaction vis-à-vis the class as a whole were manifested in the teacher’s relations with John.

4.3. Procedure

Initial contact was made with the teacher, who obtained permission from school management for researchers to film a lesson. One of the researchers visited the class a week before filming, explained the project, and answered the students’ questions. Parental consent forms were distributed, and the teacher collected the completed forms. All parents provided consent.

Two cameras were positioned in the classroom: one at the back to the left and one at the front to the left. The teacher was equipped with a mosquito microphone. Two more microphones were placed in the classroom to record general sound. The completed recordings were combined using Transana qualitative analysis software, revealing the classroom from two different angles. The combined films were analysed with a focus on teacher-student interaction and the teacher’s relational competence.

The study was conducted following the Ethical Guidelines for the Humanities and Social Sciences set out by the Swedish Research Council; participants were informed of the purpose and procedure, all empirical data were handled confidentially, and risks of personal identification were minimized. In processing the material, all information that could identify the school, teacher, or students was hidden. Ethical discussions were held about whether it was appropriate to focus on John. We determined that there was nothing in his behaviour to single him out in any remarkably negative way. There were other clearly interesting episodes relevant to the teacher’s relational competence that were not chosen because the participating students were potentially identifiable from the content.

4.4. Analysis

The selected micro-sociological approach has roots in Goffman’s (Goffman [1967] 1982) idea that the proper study of interaction is ‘Not, then, men and their moments. Rather moments and their men’ (3). Goffman suggests the study of interaction processes in authentic, everyday contexts with focus on how people behave when they meet face to face. He defines his research area as ‘face-to-face interaction in natural settings’ and close, systematic examination of small behaviours such as ‘glances, gestures, positionings, and verbal statements’ (1).

Scheff’s (1990, 1997) micro-sociological approach was inspired by Goffman’s; however, it more systematically connects interaction to interpersonal relationships. From Scheff’s perspective, the researcher switches between observing interaction and reflecting on the relational meanings between discourse – the transcript of the documented communication – and the context in which it is embedded. Scheff argues that interpreting social interaction is not a matter of objectivity. Yet, the more cues there are pointing in a certain direction, the more plausible the interpretations become. The researcher, according to Scheff (1997), optimally climbs up and down a ‘part/whole ladder’ to investigate relationships between different levels, from microscopic details of an interaction to its relational, social, and cultural contexts. However, for pragmatic reasons, the researcher must usually concentrate on certain aspects. Here we focus on direct interaction in a brief classroom episode. To strengthen inter-rater reliability, both researchers completed the two steps described below and engaged in discussions about the results.

In the first step, all filmed material was roughly transcribed and coded to obtain an overall picture of the amount and type of teacher-student interactions. We distinguished between relational practices used in interactions between the teacher and the class and those between the teacher and individual students. Next, we analysed the teacher’s relational competence in the lesson as a whole. In a comprehensive review of the lesson, we found 240 sequences that included face-to-face interaction between the teacher and the students. In a continuing review, we identified seventy-four different practices wherein the teacher initiated and or maintained interpersonal contact with students. We divided these practices into four themes: supporting and confirming individual students in front of the whole class, initiating exclusive contact with individual students (off the public stage), making respectful physical contact with individual students, and verbally toning down his superior position and strengthening students’ positions.

In the second step, we analysed how the teacher’s relational competence was manifested in interaction with John during the lesson as a whole. All interaction between the teacher and John was observed, transcribed, and interpreted. We found over fifty contacts and attempts to contact between the teacher and John. In sixteen such cases, one or the other party sought contact without receiving a response. In most of the attempts, it was John seeking contact, especially by raising his hand and invoking the teacher’s attention.

These initial, rough analyses revealed the lesson’s extremely interactive character. They also indicated that the teacher actively attempted to maintain interaction rituals wherein the participants showed one another respect. We found several examples of the teacher disarming situations which could have escalated into mishaps between John and his classmates. These observations directed our interest to ‘incidents’ (Goffman [1967] 1982), situations wherein the interaction ritual was jeopardized, and face was threatened. We surmised that a micro-sociological study of an ‘incident’ in a particular episode could enable a more concrete and clear understanding of the teacher’s relational competence.

Accordingly, in the third step we selected the episode for micro-sociological analysis. To develop a nuanced, situated, and contextualized understanding of what takes place in social encounters, the micro-sociological analyst should usually concentrate on a single or a few episodes (Scheff 1990; Aspelin 2022). A detailed, thorough transcription and interpretation of the verbal and nonverbal interactions between teacher and student during the selected episode is presented below.

5. Results

The lesson begins with an open discussion of programming and students’ encounters with programming in their day-to-day life.

The teacher presents a Bee-Bot (BB), a programmable floor robot with a bee-like appearance (Figure 1). Buttons on top of the BB are pressed repeatedly to program it to move forward, backward, right, and left a given number of times; for each button press, the BB advances six inches. One first programs the sequence of moves and then pushes the start button. Gameboards with painted squares, a starting point, and a goal are used in the lesson. Some squares are blocked off with images of monsters. After an introduction, the teacher divides the students into groups and assigns them the task of programming a BB to move from the start to the goal while avoiding the monsters on the gameboard.

Figure 1. Bee-Bot programmable floor robot from TSS group.

The episode we analyse is between 17:59 and 19:40 on the recording and is presented in detail below, sequence by sequence, in four excerpts. Inspired by Jordan and Henderson (1995), we organize the analyses as follows: in the first column we show the turn, in the second the recording, and in the third the participants and the transcript of their verbal expressions. Jeffersonian transcript conventions are used. Square brackets indicate overlapping speech, and ‘()’ indicates small pauses. The fourth column describes participants’ nonverbal expressions. Each excerpt is followed by interpretations of the interaction, turn by turn, which is supported by Goffman’s theory of face-work. These interpretations are presented in italics. The course of events that took place between Excerpts 1 and 2 is only summarized.

Excerpt 1: the interaction ritual

Please see Table 1 for the transcript.

Table 1. Excerpt 1: the interaction ritual.

Turn	Time	Participants and verbal expressions	Nonverbal expressions
(1)	0:17:59.9	Teacher – Okay, perfect, great. [NOOW]	The teacher has just programmed the BB following John’s instructions and lets it go. The task is the easiest level of programming, and the BB moves according to plan. The teacher extends his arms outward when he says ‘perfect’, then reaches forward, grabs the BB, and kneels down.
(2)	0:18:03.2	John – I know [another one].	At first John is leaning forward over his chair, with the chair seat in front of him. Then he bends back and raises his hand. He holds his hand up when he speaks. He looks at the teacher and the teacher looks at him. Most of the other students are looking at the board on the floor.
Classroom scene
(3)	0:18:03.2	Teacher - [Yeah, wait]. Do you mean that it could take [another way?]	The teacher looks down at the floor when he says, ‘Yeah wait’; then he looks up at John. John still has his hand up.
(4)	0:18:07.3	John - [<Yes>]	John still has his hand up. He speaks rapidly, and his voice is steady. The teacher still looks at him.
(5)	0:18:08.0	Teacher – How then, John?	The teacher still looks at John. John still has his hand up.

5.2. Interpretation

According to Goffman’s theoretical framework, the beginning of the episode indicates a normal state of interaction: with the verbal expression ‘perfect’ (Turn 1), the teacher affirms that all is in order. In Turn 2, John contacts the teacher and suggests a solution to the programming task. The teacher looks at him, and a ‘state of talk’ is established. The rapid turn-taking and overlapping speech between Turns 2 and 3 and 3 and 4 support the impression of a connection between the teacher and John. Analytically, John’s confident initiative in the public sphere, together with the teacher’s following positive response, can be interpreted as ‘maintenance of face’; that is, John’s image of self is supported. The teacher verbally confirms John’s initiative and opens up for more conversation (Turn 3). The framework suggests that both actors ‘maintain face’, supported by mutual interaction. Also, the connection between the teacher and John is maintained in Turn 4: the teacher continues to support John’s initiative, and John acts with confidence, as indicated by his steady voice. In Turn 5, the teacher shows interest in John’s input, for example, when he calls him by name: ‘How then, John?’. This respectful utterance could be interpreted as yet another confirmation of John’s ‘face’.

5.3. Summary of events between Excerpt 1 and Excerpt 2

Between 18:09 and 18:50, John instructs the teacher in programming the BB. Several times, other students question John’s instructions, but neither the teacher nor John seem to notice it. John gives instructions, which the teacher follows. At 18:41 there is a five-second pause with almost total silence in the classroom. At this moment, all students are looking at the board. Then, just before the teacher starts talking again, one student looks at John. The teacher looks at the BB and, following John’s instructions, presses the front button seven times. Here, a short pause from the face-work takes place, because an object, the BB, is in focus.

Excerpt 2: the incident

Please see Table 2 for the transcript.

Table 2. Excerpt 2: the incident.

Turn	Time	Participants and verbal expressions	Nonverbal expressions
(1)	0:18:50.5	Teacher – Now we check	The teacher starts the BB. John stretches and leans forward. Some students at his side also lean forward, focusing on the board.
Classroom scene 2			The BB starts to move. The teacher scratches his cheek. Some students laugh. All the students except one look at the BB – that one student looks at John and laughs. The BB first takes a step forward, turns around four times, and finally returns to the starting point. Throughout the BB’s trip, John leans forward in his chair with a neutral face-expression.
(2)	0:18:58.3	John – WHAT?	Several students laugh out loud at the BB’s failed trip. The student who laughs the most looks at John. John also laughs. The teacher continues to scratch his cheek, his gaze directed at the BB. He then looks up at John and smiles with his mouth closed.

5.5. Interpretation

As indicated in Turn 1, John and the other students are in a state of excited anticipation; they lean forward, focussing on the board. Between 18:50 and 18:58, it becomes apparent that the BB is incorrectly programmed. The students’ laughter implies a temporary threat to the interaction ritual, especially to John’s face, since he is the programmer. An ‘incident’ is approaching, but this is not yet visible in John’s countenance. In Turn 2, the incident becomes fact. John’s face is ‘lost’, indicated by his surprised ‘WHAT? and his classmates’ laughter. According to the theoretical framework, John’s laughter can be interpreted as ‘poise’, a way for him to manage feelings of ‘embarrassment’ accompanying his ‘lost’ face.

5.6. Excerpt 3: beginning to repair face

Please see Table 3 for the transcript.

Table 3. Excerpt 3: Beginning to repair face.

Turn	Time	Participants and verbal expressions	Nonverbal expressions
(1)	0:19:03.5	Teacher – It was like a disco ehh disco Bee-Bot, wa⇧sn’t it, John?	The teacher’s gaze shifts between John and the BB. Several students laugh out loud. Some turn from the BB towards John. John moves back and forth in his chair. He smiles, and the smile widens when the teacher says ‘disco … ’.
(2)	0:19:06.7	Teacher – It was good!	The teacher looks down at the BB. John’s lips stiffen.
(3)	0:19:08.5	Teacher – Now, keep in mind that if we laugh, we laugh in the right manner, OKAY!	The teacher directs this to a group sitting at his right side. His right hand accompanies the verbal utterance. John’s lips are clenched.
(4)	0:19:11.9	Student X - [Yes]	Student X is one of the students who laughed. John turns his head down but glances at the BB.
(5)	0:19:12.4	Teacher - [So]	The teacher looks down at the BB, which is now moving outside the board. John still looks down at the floor. Several students laugh. John also starts to laugh. Simultaneously, he turns his face up to the teacher and leans forward.

5.7. Interpretation

In Turn 1, the teacher’s humorous utterance – comparing the BB’s movements to disco – mitigates the threat to John’s ‘face’. However, several students still laugh out loud at the incorrectly programmed BB and turn towards John, implying a continuing threat to his ‘face’. Thus, John’s ‘face’ was still at risk of being ‘lost’. However, the teacher initiated a face-saving manoeuvre. The teacher’s verbal utterance in Turn 2 is symbolic, implying that there was an incident, but that the class can now return to the normal ‘interaction ritual’. By saying ‘It was good!’ with emphasis on the word ‘good’, the teacher conveys that John’s attempt was commendable, that he did nothing wrong. Still, according to the theoretical framework, John’s stiffened lips indicate that his ‘face’ is still ‘lost’. In Turn 3, the teacher aims to ensure that John’s classmates’ do not repeat the threats to John’s face. However, John’s clenched lips indicate that threats to his face remain. In Turn 4, John turns his face downward, which can be interpreted as ‘poise’; he controls his feelings of ‘embarrassment’, suggesting that his face is still ‘lost’. In Turn 5, John continues showing signs of a ‘lost face’, such as by turning away from the other interactors. Still, his laugh builds on the teacher’s ‘tactful’ and humorous framework and could be a way to ease the threat.

5.8. Excerpt 4: saving face

Please see Table 4 for the transcript.

Table 4. Excerpt 4: Saving face.

Turn	Time	Participants and verbal expressions	Nonverbal expressions
(1)	0:19:18.3	Teacher – Quite right, John, (.) because it’s like this, (.) I have actually, when, a long time ago when computers were a little older, I actually went on	The teacher looks at John during most of this turn. He opens his arms in the beginning of the turn, folding his hands when he says ‘when … ’. John looks at the teacher throughout the turn. He is smiling and moves his head slightly. He leans back when the teacher says, ‘because it’s like this.
(2)	0:19:24.7	A programming course (.)	When the teacher says, ‘programming course’, John’s smile disappears.
(3)	0:19:26.2	And you wouldn’t believe how many mistakes I made there!	When the teacher says, ‘And you wouldn’t believe how many mistakes … ’ John closes his mouth, brings his hands together and starts moving his fingers towards each other.
(4)	0:19:28.6	Teacher - My God. Ah, yes, they, it was, eh unbelievably [much wrong]	The teacher turns back to John. John continues to look at the teacher, initially with closed lips, but then – when the teacher says ‘My God’—his mouth opens in a big smile. Simultaneously, John separates his hands and puts them down on his chair.
(5)	0:19:33.0	John - [it was disgusting.]	John’s lips form a big smile, he overlaps the teachers talk, and he laughs when he speaks. He has raised his head and looks at the teacher. The teacher looks at John.
(6)	0:19:33.8	Teacher – Yes, because it is very difficult to programme, I (.) have to admit it, because you constantly have to go back and see where the problem is.	The teacher turns his gaze to his right. At first John continues to smile, but when the teacher says: ‘it is very difficult … ’, he turns to the floor, and his smile disappears. He then looks down during the rest of the turn.
(7)	0:19:40.3	Teacher – But, now you’re going to work a little on your own …	The teacher bends over and grabs the BB. First, John’s eyes are directed downward, but he looks up at the teacher again when he says ‘now … ’.

5.9. Interpretation

In Turns 1 through 3, the teacher begins performing a sophisticated manoeuvre to help John repair ‘face’. The class realizes an incident has occurred. The teacher understands that John is in a difficult, embarrassing situation. John’s nonverbal behaviour indicates that he has ‘lost face’. By opening his arms in John’s direction – a welcoming gesture – and talking about his own mistakes, the teacher helps John save ‘face’.

‘Quite right, John’, the introductory phrase in Turn 1, supports John’s face. In calling John by name, the teacher further confirms John’s attempt at programming; the three small pauses in this turn convey that the teacher takes John’s position seriously. John looks at the teacher throughout the turn, suggesting that he is directly involved in a ‘state of talk’ with him. John’s lips change from a smile to a neutral expression, and he moves his body and fingers, indicating his ambivalence regarding the social value that he is experiencing. However, in Turn 2, when the teacher continues to dramatize his own mistakes, John’s ‘face’ seems to be genuinely saved, which is visible in his big smile and in his placement of his hands on his chair. In Turn 4, the teacher emphasizes ‘My God’ and ‘unbelievably’, implying that his own mistake was remarkable, at least in contrast to John’s (cf. the teacher’s talk in Excerpt 3). John’s active involvement is indicated by the overlapping speech between Turns 4 and 5, where he fills in the teacher’s speech.

The teacher was successful in his ‘face-saving’ actions, and cooperation is resumed in the class. John has raised his head, and he looks at the teacher and laughs when he speaks, which indicates that he is experiencing positive social value which is being confirmed by the interaction. The teacher’s words ‘very difficult’ and ‘problem’ in Turn 6 might remind John of the incident – his smile disappears, and he looks down at the floor. However, in Turn 7, he looks up at the teacher again. Together with the signs from Turns 4 and 5, this suggests that John can now ‘maintain face’ in the continuing course of events.

5.10. Conclusion of the micro-sociological analyses

The central episode lasts for approximately one point five minutes. As a result of the teacher’s actions, the negative effects of the ‘incident’ ebb. John reconnects to the ‘interaction ritual’ and, together with the teacher and his classmates, constructs an image of himself to receive positive social value. According to the micro-sociological analyses, the teacher’s relational competence is manifested through the advanced ‘face-saving’ manoeuvre he performs in Excerpt 4. John’s ‘face’ is threatened when his programming instructions turn out to be incorrect. His classmates hint that he’s making a mistake, and when his error is revealed, they laugh at him, and he ‘loses face’. When the situation escalates to an ‘incident’, the teacher commences a series of ‘repairing’, ‘face-saving’ acts: joking about the ‘incident’, reminding the class of the importance of treating one another respectfully, using welcoming body-language in his interaction with John, and talking about his own mistakes. The teacher’s relational competence is particularly manifested through ‘tact’: he helps John ‘save’ face when it is ‘threatened’ or ‘lost’ and contributes to re-establishing an ‘interaction ritual’, making it fairly easy for John to ‘maintain face’.

6. Discussion

Below, the findings are compiled, and implications are discussed.

6.1. Teachers’ relational competence

A substantial body of research has revealed that the teacher-student relationship is essential in teaching and that teachers’ relational competence is a fundamental component of their professionalism. However, studies that investigate in fine detail how these phenomena are actually constructed are rare. This article contributes to the field by exploring, conceptualizing, and gaining in-depth understanding of teachers’ relational competence as an interactive phenomenon constructed in interaction between teacher and student(s). This was accomplished through microscopic, meticulous analyses of teacher-student interactions in the video-documented lesson. This method revealed that both the teacher and the student(s) are highly – and sometimes excruciatingly – sensitive to verbal and nonverbal signals and to the degree of respect or disrespect they perceive; their interpersonal status is almost continuously in flux.

Conceptually, relational competence generally refers to a teacher’s ability to build positive and supportive relationships with students and others. The present micro-sociological study shows that this ability is relationally constructed and consists of a numerous microscopic interactions. Relational competence is not an individual phenomenon that teachers control ‘from within’ nor something static they carry from one lesson to another (cf. Biesta 2012; Jordan 2004; Matthiesen 2016). In the analyses, we detail how the teacher, through various rapid verbal and nonverbal acts, conducts advanced face-work with students and tactfully promotes respectful interaction rituals. Drawing on Goffman’s theoretical framework (Goffman [1967] 1982), we propose that maintaining ‘face’ is a fundamental part of classroom interaction.

Our findings suggest that relational competence includes the teacher’s ability to maintain respectful interaction rituals in which participants’ positive social values are confirmed. It also involves preventing and counteracting incidents to manage threats to face. Not least, it includes tact, which involves helping students save, repair, and recover face as needed.

6.2. Pedagogical implications

From an instrumental viewpoint, education is viewed as a means of achieving pre-set goals (Biesta 2014). However, teaching is not fully understandable when the positions of the teacher and the students are focussed upon separately but rather only when relational processes are acknowledged and positioned as the focal point. Through application of a micro-sociological approach, the present article contributes to relational pedagogy with in-depth knowledge of teaching as an interactive and relational phenomenon. It also demonstrates that teaching is a risky and unpredictable activity, a practice-in-motion rather than a static procedure. When teachers and students interact, vulnerable social bonds are jeopardized. This study confirms Biesta’s notions that teaching essentially takes place in the gap between teacher and student; encounters between teacher and student – such as between the teacher and John – are always unpredictable and involve risks and opportunities (Biesta 2004, 2014). In teaching-learning, ‘face’ is constantly at risk for teachers’ and students’, implying that relational competence is a fundamental part of teaching and of teacher professionalism.

6.3. Implications for classroom instructors

These micro-sociological analyses imply that enhancing students’ face-work capacity is an important element in classroom instruction. In the episode analysed, John loses face when he fails to accurately program the BB, which the other students notice and ridicule. The teacher observes the incident, quickly helps John repair face, and recreates a classroom climate in which students feel respected. Had the teacher not acted thusly, John would likely have been left with feelings of embarrassment which would have negatively impacted his performance. The study thus highlights the importance of teachers developing a lightning-quick ability to sensitively acknowledge and respond to students’ subtle and not so subtle signals that someone is being excluded from the classroom community. We suggest that this ability is a key component of any skilled classroom instructor’s teaching repertoire. Given this, we propose that it is vital to include face-work in teacher education and training.

Goffman ([1967] 1982) argues that actors rely on being socially skilled. Normally, the teacher is expected to be the most socialized actor and the one most skilled at handling ritual interactions with care. From this perspective, relational competence involves teachers managing their students’ face and their own. As Goffman proposes, “by repeatedly and automatically asking [oneself] the question, ‘If I do or do not act in this way, will I or others lose face?’, [one] decides at each moment, consciously or unconsciously, how to behave” (36). Inevitably, relational competence involves a large ‘gamble’ (Goffman [1950] 1990, 236). The concept of face-work helps us understand how we, as teachers, orient ourselves in this process and how we can involve students in interactions that enhance the quality of relationships and by extension students’ learning.

7. Conclusion

Our findings suggest that face can be lost in the blink of an eye and that teachers need lightning-fast responses to orient and adapt to the demands of unique situations. In this article, one teacher’s relational competence, manifested in a concrete and vulnerable social situation, is revealed under the microscope of our analyses as a fluid phenomenon directly related to ongoing flows of interaction between teacher and students. Our application of Goffman’s conception demonstrates that it is a plausible theoretical framework in this context. Face-work is an important part of teachers’ relational competence and of classroom interaction in general. In such interaction, teachers shift, often rapidly, among observational, interpretational, and student face-saving responses.

Our analyses indicate that relational competence is much less about avoiding risk than about facilitating a respectful state of tension between teacher and students. However relationally confident a teacher may appear, their performance is always dependent on what takes place in interaction with students. A teacher who manifests relational competence encounters students in the ‘here and now’ and adequately ‘reads’ and responds to students’ verbal and nonverbal expressions. Relational competence is thus a key ingredient in the micro-social artistry that the proficient teacher performs.

7.1. Recommendations for further research

Studies within the field of teacher-student relationships and teachers’ relational competence primarily employ methods such as interviewing, observation, and surveying. Micro-sociological studies are rare. As demonstrated here, studies of this sort offer visualization and clarification of how the teacher-student relationship is built sequence by sequence in interaction, in particular contexts. Further research focussing on the microworld of the classroom in additional contexts is needed in order to test and build on the present findings. In such projects, micro-analyses from nearby fields could be useful. Further, the field needs more research exploring connections between teachers’ relational competence and students’ learning (cf. Amador and Adams 2013), inter-personal and intra-personal aspects and the school class as a whole (cf. Nguyen 2007), relationship building in particular situations and over extended periods (cf. Shvidko 2018, 2020), and relational competence as an integrated part of the teacher’s palette and different relational techniques teachers use (cf. Park 2016).

Ethical statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the ethical guidelines for the Humanities and Social Sciences set out by the Swedish Research Council. According to Swedish legislation, research on human subjects needs approval from an ethical committee only when personal and sensitive information is handled, when physical interventions are made, or when the participants may be harmed. Accordingly, approval from an ethical committee was not required by the university where the research was conducted. All subjects were informed of the purpose of the research, that their participation was voluntary, and that they could interrupt their participation at any time. Written consent was obtained from all participants in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Kristianstad university, Sweden.