1
TRI scoring manual
Teacher Relationship Interview
Qualitative Coding Manual
General Code Points for Each Scale
The following guidelines apply to all of the Qualitative TRI scales, with the exception of the final scale, the Coherence Scale, which is on a 5-point scale:
Coders should make overall qualitative judgments based on all the information in the interview. Certain dimensions might have stronger emphasis on responses to certain questions, but even in those cases, coders should consider the interview as a whole. All of the codes relate to the teacher’s relationship with one specific student.
6, 7 = High End —The teacher articulates the construct in a clear way and gives fresh examples of the construct that seem natural and to come to life in the interview. Clear evidence of the construct is provided. Details or elaboration are provided to support the presence of the construct.
3, 4, 5 = Mid Range – There is mixed presentation of the construct. The teacher provides some evidence of the presence of the construct, but the explanations and support are less rich and less clear. The teacher might also provide examples that occlude the construct or provide inconsistent information regarding the dimension.
1, 2 = Low End —There is very little or no evidence of the construct.
Sensitivity of Discipline
This scale measures the teacher’s approach to behavior management in the classroom with the particular student. Higher scores indicate more sensitive and proactive modes of management with the student. Lower scores reflect less preventative and more reactive responses by the teacher, whereby the student seems to trigger the teacher’s response.
7
6 = These teachers tend to report having rules and expectations for their students’ classroom demeanor and they seem to clearly and consistently communicate their expectations to the students. The rules are generally geared to encourage students to take full advantage of learning opportunities rather than attempts to simply control students’ behaviors. These teachers may report using proactive responses to prevent undesirable situations with the student, such as praising the student’s positive behavior or reminding the student of rules to proactively respond to a situation that might result in an infraction of the rules. These teachers have a sense of fairness of discipline in the classroom and appear to be able to make exceptions to the rules based on the circumstances and the individual characteristics of the student. They also try to help the student learn from conflicts and assist the student in taking an active lead in solving their own dilemmas. In response to the “misbehavior” question, these teachers often report talking with the student about the misbehavior to explain the consequence, inquire about the child’s intent and the circumstances, and/or to explain more appropriate strategies for approaching the situation. Often, they report providing reasons for the rules and expectations to the students. These teachers do not report yelling at their students.
5 = Teachers included at this level might discuss incidents of misbehavior with their students and provide more appropriate behavioral alternatives, but they do not demonstrate much praise or actions to prevent misbehavior. These teachers have less of a controlling feel to them, than teachers who score lower on this scale.
4 =These teachers have a sense for the need for rules in the classroom, but when compliance issues are mentioned, it is not clear that rules were clearly stated and consistently enforced. These teachers have more of a reactionary feel to them and tend only to tell the student when he or she misbehaves, without providing reasons for the rules or alternative actions that the student should have taken. In response to the “misbehavior” question, these teachers might report telling the student that they were wrong, but do not provide room for discussion or processing with the student. These teachers might also acknowledge that the student misbehaves, but they do not describe their actions to correct this problem. In addition, these teachers tend to take more of the lead in solving children’s problems, rather than helping children learn to solve their own problems. These teachers have more of a controlling feel to them.
3 = Teachers in this category may include those who are more “fly by the seat of the pants” types, whereby they seem to devise rules as they go along and it is not clear that the expectations are communicated clearly to the students.
2 = Behavior management issues and lack of more effective strategies contribute to interruption of activities and there is a loss of valuable learning time. These teachers appear overly focused on compliance and may provide very elaborate explanations of the classroom rules in the interview or they might not mention having rules at all. Whether or not these teachers appear overly focused on compliance or extremely lenient in their management, there is no or very little evidence of the teachers predictably and clearly enforcing rules. These teachers do not tend to report using preventative management methods, such as praise to reinforce specific behaviors. These teachers tend not to provide sympathy for children with regard to their misbehaviors or lack of progress, only focusing on the classroom expectations without consideration for contributing factors, such as the student’s relationship with the teacher, or the student’s background, potential disabilities, and family situation. These teachers might provide several examples of less sensitive behavior management without providing support for sensitive behavior management.
1 = At the very low end, these teachers report resorting to less sensitive modes of discipline, including making a more public example of the students misbehaviors or yelling at the student.
Secure Base
This scale measures the teacher’s ability to express, either through statements of their beliefs and/or through behavioral examples, the understanding that her emotional support is linked to the student’s social, emotional, and cognitive competence. At a high level, the teacher clearly understands and acknowledges her role as a secure base for the student, allowing the student to actively explore and learn while they serve as a source of comfort, reassurance, and encouragement. Particularly salient are instances in which the teacher describes the importance of the teacher-student relationship to the student’s development (academic, emotional, or social).
7
6 = Teachers describe themselves or the relationship with the student in a way that reflects a definitive secure base. Teachers describe that they provide consistent emotional security and clearly connect the importance of the student’s sense of security to their ability to grow socially, emotionally, and cognitively. These teachers may provide a clear example of themselves successfully serving as a secure base for the student. Teachers may describe episodes in which the student was comforted by the relationship between them, their views of the importance of student’s relationships with teachers, or instances when they supported the student’s growth by providing a sense of support, stability, and confidence in the student. These teachers often report performing behaviors that comforts the student. These teachers express a belief that feelings are free to be discussed and dealt with in the relationship with the student. Teachers who score on the high end often handle the “misbehavior” question by discussing the incident with the student. For the “upset” question, these teachers generally report a time when the student was upset and approached the teacher, and the teacher performed some action to try to help the child cope with his or her emotions. In addition, often these teachers report their relationships with their student as “warm” or “close;” however, it is not necessary for one of the adjectives to be a positive one in order to score at the high end on this scale.
5
4 =These teachers are less certain about the concept of secure base or how to act as a secure base for the student. The teacher’s understanding of the importance of trust in the relationship with the student is less clear. They communicate a vague sense of the notion of secure base and the idea that the student’s relationship with the student affects the student’s development, but the concept is not rooted in the teacher’s personal experiences working with the particular student. These teachers may talk abstractly about the concept of the teacher as a secure base and may state the belief that building trust with a student is meaningful to the students’ ability to learn and take advantage of the school environment; however, these teachers do not provide examples of times when they attempted to serve as a secure base for the particular student. Alternatively, these teachers might report marginal attempts to link the concept of secure base to their behaviors with the student, but they do not link their behaviors to the development of students’ competencies. These teachers might also provide vaguer examples of serving as a secure base. They might report inconsistently allowing the student to express his or her emotions or they might make references to creating a safe classroom environment, but do not link this belief to children’s social, emotional, or cognitive development. These teachers may report maintaining physical proximity or closeness to the target child, or may speak more generally about the classroom environment. The teachers may describe occasions when the child came approached the teacher for support, but the teachers do not link that contact to the successful comforting of the student.
3 = Teachers scoring at the lower end of the mid range tend to be acting more out of duty rather than based on their belief of the importance of trust or security for the student. Thus, these teachers may report some instances of behaving in a supportive manner to the children, but these actions appear linked to their role as a teacher, rather than their understanding of the concept of secure base or the importance of trust in the relationship with the student.
2 =Very little evidence of the concept of secure base, neither through expression of beliefs nor through discussion of interactions with the student. These teachers might also report a lack of sensitivity in meeting the emotional needs of the child.
1 =No evidence of secure base. No examples of attempts to comfort the student are included in the interview. There might also be a consistent dismissal or avoidance of the child’s need for emotional support in the classroom. They might include descriptions of themselves consistentlyrebuffing the student’s attempts to make contact.
Perspective-Taking
This scale measures the quality of the teacher’s awareness of a student’s internal states, and her ability to put herself in the position/mindset of the student. The teacher’s response indicates that she views the student with independent states, thoughts, and feelings that are tenable and believable, and not misattributions. If teachers describe the idea of taking the student's perspective, without more detail, they tend to score in the mid-range. To score on the high end, the teacher must provide consistentexamples indicating awareness of the student’s perspective, including a description of the student’s state and the reason for that state. Much of the feel for the teacher’s score of this scale will be derived from the questions that ask her how the student felt in different situations.
7
6 =Teachers put themselves in the position/mindset of the student and are not just labeling the student’s feelings/thoughts. These teachers attempt to understand the student from the student’s perspective and offer reasons for the student’s experience, possibly from the student's perspective. These teachers move past the more superficial labeling of the student’s states and appear to understand how the student views the world, given what they know about the student’s unique qualities and experiences. The teachers view the student with independent thoughts and feelings and provide reasons behind the student’s states. The teachers indicate this awareness by describing a situation when they accurately judged the student’s state. These teachers are more likely to show an appreciation for the student’s point of view in the “misbehavior” and “upset” question. In addition, these teachers often explain the student’s perspective with regard to the example described in the “social challenges” question.
5
4 =Theseteachers might report a student’s state, but they are less clear about the causes or reasons for the student’s state. On some occasions the teacher might report reasons for the student’s state, but generally these teachers describe the student’s state without explanation as to how he or she came to the conclusion of the student’s thoughts or feelings. These teachers do not tend to elaborate regarding the student’s internal state, but they are able to label the student’s perspectives. These teachers might also provide examples of hypothetical perspective taking, (e.g., "if she wanted to go to the playground and I said no, she'd be pretty mad").
3
2 =These teachers provide little evidence for perspective-taking throughout the interview.
1 =No evidence of perspective-taking. These teachers appear unaware that students have independent emotions or beliefs.
Neutralizing Negative Affect
The overriding theme of this scale is the teacher’s attempts to distance herself from the NEGATIVE affective component of the question. The code is akin to the avoidant or dismissing strategy in discussions of attachment, in which negative emotion in the context of a discussion/interaction is dismissed, neutralized, or avoided. If the end result of the response does not seem to neutralize negative affect or somehow avoid the question, neutralize should not be scored at the high end. Teachers who delay responding to the question, but then talk at length about something else or discuss other feelings are not neutralizing. The scale is designed to reflect the degree to which teachers "back away from" discussion of negative emotion in the interview, and may take many forms—including not responding to a question about feelings ("I don't know"), or more sophisticated forms in which the teacher responds with great detail for events, but does not provide any information about their feelings. Teachers who refuse to respond to questions without providing believable support for their lack of ability to provide an example or response are more likely to be scored on the high end of the scale. Teachers who neutralize tend to be less willing to respond to questions that probe for more difficult situations or negative emotions.
7 =Strong attempts to neutralize affect are apparent throughout the interview.
6 =Other teachers scoring at the high end are consistently reluctant to engage in affective discussion, dismissing affect or ignoring affective components of the question and denying their feelings. These teachers feel uncollaborative to the interviewer. They appear to be trying to impress the interviewer with an image of a “perfect” or overly positive relationship with the student. These teachers acknowledge little, if any, negative affect throughout the interview, and if they do acknowledge negative affect, they tend to retract their statements. They might provide positive adjectives in response to the initial questions asking the teacher to choose adjectives that describe their relationships; however, the teachers do not provide examples in the interview to support those positive adjectives. These teachers may also consistently fail to respond to probes about negative emotional states. For example, these teachers often respond neutrally or overly positively to the “how did you feel” questions and they often say “fine” in response to questions that are probe for emotions of teachers during more difficult interactions with the student. Teachers should be scored at the high end if they consistentlytransform the negative affective component of the question into something neutral or positive. Although these teachers report their relationships as very positive or without negative aspects, they lack examples to support their impressions or their examples are contradictory to their descriptions of themselves, their student, or their relationship with the student. These teachers often describe instances in absolute manners that neutralize more difficult emotions, using phrases such as “always” or “never.” These teachers often deny being disappointed or upset in response to the “misbehavior” question and they might deny having any doubts regarding meeting the student’s needs in response to the “doubts” question.
5
4 =These teachers acknowledge negative affect, but they might turn away from it, such that they might begin answering the questions with negative affect, but then veer away from the emotions. These responses may acknowledge negative affect but in a veiled or incomplete manner by admitting the possibility of negative affect, but then turning away from it. These teachers might provide some credible support for their descriptions and judgments, but they also have some contradictory statements. They might discuss negative affect, but deflect it by often using “you” statements. Examples may include: