From 2004 until 2019, the number of educators in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, reporting psychological fatigue and stress has consistently increased; simultaneously, their job satisfaction has steadily decreased (Bourdeaud’hui et al., 2019). In Flanders and beyond, approximately one in six teachers reports significant stress and burnout symptoms, surpassing other professions (Bourdeaud’hui et al., 2019; OECD, 2021). These elevated levels of stress and burnout symptoms constitute a primary factor driving educators to leave the teaching profession (Liu and Meyer, 2005; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2011; OECD, 2021; Mombaers et al., 2023). The majority of primary school teachers who have left the profession cite occupational stress as a contributing factor (de Jonge and de Muijnck, 2002).

One important factor contributing to teachers’ experience of stress, declined job satisfaction, and attrition, is their relationships with students (Aboagye et al., 2020). Conflictual teacher-student relationships can be emotionally demanding and result in burnout symptoms such as emotional exhaustion (Alamos et al., 2022; Haldimann et al., 2023). Conversely, close relationships foster a sense of self-efficacy, personal accomplishment and contribute to teachers’ job motivation (Zee et al., 2017; Corbin et al., 2019; Haldimann et al., 2023).

In addition to teachers’ well-being, the affective quality of dyadic teacher-student relationships can significantly impact student development and well-being. Students who maintain close relationships with their teacher are more likely to be engaged in school, achieve better, and build positive peer relationships (Nguyen et al., 2020; Ansari et al., 2020a; Engels et al., 2021; Endedijk et al., 2022; ten Bokkel et al., 2022). Conversely, students facing conflict in their relationship with the teacher are at risk for peer victimization, delinquency and externalizing problems (Bosman et al., 2018; Ansari et al., 2020a; Kim, 2021; Obsuth et al., 2021; Roorda and Koomen, 2021; ten Bokkel et al., 2022). Improving dyadic teacher-student relationship quality might thus positively impact both teacher and student well-being.

As teachers often report challenges in establishing high-quality dyadic teacher-student relationships (Jensen et al., 2015; Aspelin et al., 2020; Borremans et al., under review), it is important to note that several intervention studies have demonstrated the potential for enhancing relationship quality (for reviews, see Kincade et al., 2020; Poling et al., 2022). The most noteworthy interventions targeting dyadic teacher-student relationships (Spilt et al., 2022) are Banking Time (and adapted versions; Driscoll and Pianta, 2010; Vancraeyveldt et al., 2015), the Establish-Maintain-Restore (EMR-method Cook et al., 2018; Duong et al., 2019), and LLInC (Leerkracht Leerling Interactie Coaching in Dutch or Teacher Student Interaction Coaching; Spilt et al., 2012; Bosman et al., 2021; Koenen et al., 2021). A common elements analysis revealed several practices, both direct and indirect, that contribute to the effectiveness of these interventions (Kincade et al., 2020). For instance, the teacher regularly spending one-on-one time with a student and choosing child-led activities can foster closer and less conflictual relationships.

Whereas curative interventions hold promise for enhancing dyadic teacher-student relationship quality in case problems have arisen, preventive measures could potentially have an even greater impact. Equipping teachers with the essential skills to foster high-quality relationships proactively, before issues arise, could help mitigate the detrimental effects of conflictual relationships on the well-being of both teachers and students. Importantly, Bosman et al. (2021) found support for transfer effects across students when implementing a dyadic relationship-focused reflection program targeting one specific student. These transfer effects support the idea of an overarching relationship-building competence of teachers, which has been shown to contribute to high-quality teacher-student relationships (Borremans and Spilt, under review). Teachers’ relationship-building competence refers to their ability to establish and maintain close dyadic relationships and to restore conflictual relationships as well as to effectively cope with the (emotional) consequences of these relationships (Cook et al., 2018; McGrath and Van Bergen, 2019; de Ruiter et al., 2021; Borremans and Spilt, 2022; Borremans and Spilt, under review). We propose to proactively strengthen teachers’ relationship-building competence during initial teacher education, to reduce the occurrence of conflictual relationships when novice teachers enter the profession.

First, to establish high-quality relationships with students, teachers must invest time and effort. Several affect-motivational dispositions contribute to teachers’ continuous effort to establish qualitative relationships with students. For instance, both attachment theory and self-determination theory highlight the importance of the universal need to belong, which motivates each person to establish relationships with others (Spilt et al., 2011; Klassen et al., 2012). Importantly, day-to-day interactions between the teacher and the student are considered to be at the foundation of the teacher-student relationship. In order to engage in meaningful interactions, the teacher requires a basic attitude of empathy, respect, and non-prejudice (Driscoll et al., 2011; Cook et al., 2018; Aspelin and Jonsson, 2019; McGrath and Van Bergen, 2019; Kincade et al., 2020). More specific attitudes are at play as well. For instance, teachers who believe that they themselves can do something to change the quality of their relationships might be more motivated to invest time and effort compared to teachers who attribute negative relationship quality mainly to stable student characteristics (Yoon, 2002; Spilt et al., 2012; McGrath and Van Bergen, 2019; Bosman et al., 2021; Koenen et al., 2021). Likewise, teachers who are convinced of the importance of teacher-student relationships for their own and the student’s well-being (e.g., McGrath and Van Bergen, 2015) could be more inclined to persist in their attempts to build high-quality relationships. Teachers’ attitude toward teacher-student relationships has indeed been shown to predict closeness in their relationships with students (Borremans and Spilt, under review). Furthermore, teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on practices that support relationship-building might influence how likely they are to (successfully) implement these practices and consequently improve relationship quality (Zee and Koomen, 2016). Moreover, teachers’ self-efficacy in building closeness (e.g., knowing how to calm a student when they are upset) was found to predict more closeness and less conflict and teachers’ self-efficacy in coping with conflict (e.g., keeping your energy even when repeatedly confronted by disruptive behavior) was shown to predict less conflict (Borremans and Spilt, under review). Finally, teachers’ self-efficacy in reflective functioning (e.g., reflecting on the perspective of the student) might help teachers to recognize dependency in what might at first sight seem disruptive behavior (Borremans and Spilt, under review) and allow them to respond appropriately to the needs of the student.

Second, teachers require sufficient professional knowledge on teacher-student relationships and coping to inform their perceptions, interpretations, and decisions made in the classroom. We opted to focus on attachment theory and self-determination theory, as these frameworks are predominantly used in research on dyadic teacher-student relationships (Roorda et al., 2017; Spilt et al., 2022) and were prioritized above for instance interpersonal theory in preparatory research (Borremans and Spilt, 2023). Although the learning trajectory does not aim to provide teachers with a thorough knowledge of theories, we argue that a basic understanding of relevant concepts can help teachers to understand, discuss, and reflect on their relational experiences in the classroom (Pianta, 1999a; Aspelin et al., 2021; Koenen et al., 2022; Borremans and Spilt, 2023; Borremans et al., under review).

Attachment theory conceptualizes the quality of teacher-student relationships based on three dimensions: closeness, conflict, and dependency (Pianta, 2001). Closeness reflects the degree of openness and affection and conflict reflects the presence of resistance and discord in the relationship. Dependency reflects the extent of excessive dependent behavior of the student toward the teacher (Verschueren et al., 2012). In an effective relationship, characterized by high levels of closeness and low levels of conflict and dependency, the teacher functions as a “secure base” and “safe haven” for the student, which supports the student’s autonomous exploration and cognitive, social, and emotional development (Pianta, 2001; Verschueren et al., 2012). Next, self-determination theory states that every person has three fundamental, psychological needs: the need for autonomy, relatedness, and competence. All three needs must be fulfilled in order to be motivated and engaged (Deci et al., 1991; Ryan and Deci, 2000). When one of these needs is frustrated (e.g., no possibility to interact with others and fulfill the need for relatedness), students’ motivation and engagement in class might decrease (Opdenakker, 2014). The teacher can offer autonomy support, involvement, and structure to fulfill the basic needs of the students. This need fulfillment could in turn result in higher motivation, engagement, and achievement in class (Stroet et al., 2013; Reeve and Cheon, 2021). Teachers’ knowledge of these concepts can aid them in interpreting student behavior in the classroom and inform their decision-making when reacting to this behavior.

The theories discussed above mainly focus on the relational needs of the student. However, the teacher also has a fundamental need to belong and the relational or emotional needs of the teacher should thus be addressed as well (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Spilt et al., 2011; Koomen, 2022). Fulfillment of teachers’ need for relatedness with students has been shown to uniquely contribute to their wellbeing (Klassen et al., 2012). Moreover, teaching is an inherently emotional task and teachers’ emotional experiences with students have been shown to greatly contribute to their well-being (Keller et al., 2014; Becker et al., 2015; Taxer et al., 2019). We therefore argue that teachers’ knowledge of adaptive coping strategies (e.g., problem solving, reflecting upon ones emotions) contributes to their competence in building high-quality relationships with students. Maladaptive coping strategies (e.g., avoidance) not only place teachers at greater risk of experiencing burnout symptoms, such as emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, but also diminishes their prospects of establishing high-quality relationships with students (Hastings and Brown, 2002; Beltman et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2019; de Ruiter et al., 2021). Knowledge of adaptive coping strategies, such as positive reappraisal, is a first step in successfully coping with negative emotional experiences in the classroom in general and in interactions with students in particular (Hastings and Brown, 2002; Beltman et al., 2011; Chang, 2013; Gustems-Carnicer et al., 2019).

Third, teachers require a sufficient situation-specific skills to flexibly use effective practices supporting teacher-student relationships. Attachment theory highlights teachers’ reflective functioning, their ability to reflect upon their own and the student’s cognitions and emotions, as well as teachers’ sensitivity, their ability to take the student’s perspective and respond adequately to the student’s needs, as important levers in establishing close relationships (Pianta, 1999b; Sabol and Pianta, 2012; Spilt et al., 2012; McGrath and Van Bergen, 2019; Bosman et al., 2021; Spilt and Koomen, 2022). Self-determination theory states that teachers can support students in fulfilling their needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence, by offering autonomy support, involvement, and structure, respectively (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Opdenakker, 2014). Additional relevant situation-specific skills for establishing high-quality teacher-student relationships can be derived from effective interventions (often based on attachment or self-determination theory, Driscoll and Pianta, 2010; Vancraeyveldt et al., 2015; Cook et al., 2018; Kincade et al., 2020; Poling et al., 2022). The common elements analysis by Kincade et al. (2020) emphasizes the importance of pro-active and direct practices such as spending one-on-one time with students, coaching emotions, and positive greetings and farewells.

Additionally, applying adaptive coping strategies in the classroom can support teachers in coping with conflicts with students and pursuing high-quality relationship. Being able to cope with negative emotions and conflicts in interactions with students allows teachers to remain sensitive to the students’ needs (Koenen et al., 2019b; Ansari et al., 2020b). During a conflict, teachers first need to cope with their own emotions before they are able to reconcile with the student and tend to the student’s needs. Adaptive coping strategies that have been shown to increase (pre-service) teachers’ resilience include positive reappraisal, seeking guidance and support, and problem-solving (Beltman et al., 2011; Gustems-Carnicer et al., 2019).

Finally, following the competence model of Blömeke and Kaiser (2017), teachers’ affect-motivation, professional knowledge, and situation-specific skills give rise to observable behavior, that is qualitative interactions with students. Such interactions in turn support the development of high-quality affective relationships. Feedback and reflection on teachers’ own behavior in interactions with specific students can further enhance teachers’ affect-motivation, professional knowledge, and situation-specific skills and improve future interactions.

Within Flanders, efforts to investigate teachers’ relationship-building competence in teacher education have only recently started. Research suggests four limitations in the way that relationship-building competence is targeted in current teacher education curricula in Flanders.

First, teacher-student relationships are included in initial teacher education, yet addressed to a lesser extent compared to other domains of teaching such as didactical skills (Borremans et al., under review; Weltens, 2022). More importantly, more attention is being paid to classroom-level relationships than to dyadic teacher-student relationships (Van der biesen, 2022; Weltens, 2022; Borremans et al., under review). Considering the teacher’s role as a group educator, paying attention to the classroom-level is inherently warranted. Moreover, classroom-level relationships can indeed be of significance for students’ development as well as for the development of high-quality dyadic teacher-student relationships (Buyse et al., 2008; Moen et al., 2019; Walker and Graham, 2021). However, the influence of dyadic teacher-student relationships on students’ development can be differentiated from the effects of classroom-level relationships and low-quality dyadic teacher-student relationships can undermine the advantages of high-quality classroom environments (Buyse et al., 2009; Crosnoe et al., 2010; Rucinski et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2020). Similarly, classroom-level emotional support cannot serve as a remedy for low-quality dyadic teacher-student relationships (Rucinski et al., 2018). Within teacher education, the importance of dyadic teacher-student relationships should not be overlooked (Koomen, 2022).

Second, (dyadic) teacher-student relationships seem to be addressed rather implicitly and diffuse throughout the program (Van der biesen, 2022; Weltens, 2022; Borremans et al., under review). Teacher educators, pre-service teachers, and internship mentors agree that (dyadic) teacher-student relationships are important, yet only limited targeted courses, classes or assignments are included to convey this importance (Van der biesen, 2022; Weltens, 2022; Borremans et al., under review).

Third, teacher-student relationships are currently addressed mainly when pre-service teachers initiate the conversation, often triggered by conflictual relationships during the internship (Borremans et al., under review). However, an absence of conflict does not automatically correspond to a high level of closeness in the teacher-student relationship (Koomen et al., 2012). A more proactive approach, strengthening pre-service teachers before problems arise, might be valuable in establishing high-quality relationships and preventing negative classroom experiences.

Fourth, when teacher-student relationships are addressed, not all dimensions of competence are targeted. Current teacher education curricula in Flanders seem to mainly focus on applying relationship-building skills (Van der biesen, 2022; Weltens, 2022; Borremans et al., under review). Even so, pre-service teachers in their final year do report more knowledge compared to pre-service teachers in their first year of teacher education (Borremans and Spilt, 2022). Their growth in attitude and self-efficacy, however, appears to be rather limited (Borremans and Spilt, 2022).

While these results need to be replicated (for instance, in a longitudinal design), this research indicates that there is room for improvement within Flemish teacher education to target teachers’ relationship-building competence. There is a need for more explicit and structural attention to dyadic teacher-student relationships, targeting pre-service teachers’ knowledge, affect-motivation, as well as situation-specific skills.

To address these concerns and opportunities, we aimed to develop a learning trajectory targeting teachers’ dyadic relationship-building competence, to be implemented in pre-primary and primary initial teacher education in the Flemish context. Initial teacher education serves as an optimal starting point to help beginning teachers develop the necessary attitudes, knowledge and skills to build high-quality relationships with their students. Recognizing the fundamental role of teacher-student relationships in education, we chose to develop a comprehensive, three-year, learning trajectory. This trajectory allows for ongoing exploration and reflection on the topic, progressively deepening the level of understanding and self-reflection with each subsequent year of initial teacher education.

The learning trajectory was developed to align with the Flemish context of teacher education. In Flanders, initial teacher education is offered at the professional bachelor level, spanning three years. The program consists of both theoretical courses and internships. Internships become more prominent and extensive with each subsequent year of the program. Separate programs cater to different compulsory education levels (pre-primary, primary and secondary education). The learning trajectory was developed to correspond to three years of education, with specific materials tailored to different levels (particularly pre-primary and primary education). Pre-primary and primary teacher education curricula typically include courses on subject contents, didactics, and psycho-pedagogical topics (including for instance developmental psychology and classroom management). As discussed above, dyadic teacher-student relationships are currently only scarcely addressed (Van der biesen, 2022; Weltens, 2022; Borremans et al., under review).

The learning trajectory was developed by researchers at a university in close collaboration with teacher educators from five partner university colleges (out of 11 university colleges offering teacher education in Flanders). Researchers contributed with their advanced knowledge of the scientific literature on relationship-building, while teacher educators provided valuable insights into how this knowledge can be translated to learning activities and materials, tailored to pre-service teachers.

In a previous study within the overarching research project (Borremans and Spilt, 2023), learning objectives were carefully identified. First, a list of competencies, derived from diverse theoretical frameworks and interventions targeting teacher–student relationships was compiled. Next, using the Delphi method, an expert panel consisting of nine researchers and teacher educators selected competencies deemed essential for inclusion in initial teacher education. Appendix A presents the 36 competencies that were selected as “need to know”, as well as an overview of the frameworks from which each competence was derived and example references. We structured the selected competencies into five themes: the importance of teacher-student relationships for students (four competencies), key concepts to understand and describe relationships (seven competencies), attitudes and reflective functioning (six competencies), specific strategies to establish and maintain relationships (17 competencies), and building relationships in the context of student diversity (two competencies). Additionally, the expert panel rated the desired level of mastery of the selected competencies at the end of initial teacher education (see Appendix A, target mastery level year 3). Based on the Delphi study, we outlined specific competencies to be addressed in each year of the teacher education program. This strategic plan (Appendix A) supports the progressive development of essential attitudes, skills, and knowledge, by setting a target mastery level for each year of teacher education, ultimately leading to the desired level of mastery by the end of the three-year program.

Based on the strategic plan, specific learning goals for each of the selected ‘need to know’ competencies were formulated. For all goals, learning activities and materials were developed, targeting both pre-service teachers (e.g., accessible texts, assignments) and teacher educators (e.g., academic texts, suggestions for learning activities, audio and video case materials, ready-to-use PowerPoint presentations). In Appendix B an example of this translation from competence description to specific materials is presented. Importantly, teacher educators can choose for instance different learning activities, or use additional case materials, at their own discretion. Learning goal descriptions and associated activities and materials were presented to teacher educators from partner university colleges for feedback. Several adaptations were made pre-implementation to address concerns or incorporate suggestions. An overview of learning activities and materials is provided in Appendix C. Completing all learning activities would take approximately 14 h for pre-service teachers (including preparation time and time spent in class, excluding observation time; 6.5 in year 1, 4 h in year 2, and 4 h in year 3).

We planned a longitudinal, multi-cohort study employing a quasi-experimental design. Data collection is currently ongoing in two cohorts of pre-service teachers (cohort 1 and cohort 2) at three university college campuses (labeled A, B and C). This design resulted in six groups (see Figure 1) with one group serving as the intervention group (group A2). At each campus, both the pre-primary and primary teacher education programs participate in the project. Data collection started in September 2021 in the first cohort, expected to graduate in June 2024. Data collection started in September 2022 in the second cohort, expected to graduate in June 2025. Around 300 pre-service teachers per cohort were reached in the first year of teacher education. However, drop-out is expected throughout the longitudinal study. No elements of the learning trajectory will be implemented in the 2021–2024 cohort. Campus A’s primary teacher education program volunteered to act as intervention condition and agreed to implement the three-year learning trajectory in the second cohort (group A2, 2022–2025). The other groups serve as control groups.

We will be able to compare groups both within-cohort but between campuses (A2 compared to B2 and C2; different curriculum, same cohort), and between-cohorts yet within campuses (A2 compared to A1; same curriculum, different cohorts). In this way, we address both cohort effects and curriculum effects.

Pre-service teachers report on their relationship-building competence through an online questionnaire at the start and end of each academic year. The COMpetence Measure of Individual Teacher–student relationships (COMMIT; Borremans and Spilt, 2022) was developed within the overarching research project to assess teachers’ relationship-building competence dispositions. Associations with emotional intelligence, teacher beliefs, job motivation, burnout symptoms, (student-specific) teacher self-efficacy beliefs and teacher–student relationship quality supported construct validity of the questionnaire both in a pre-service (Borremans and Spilt, 2022) and in-service sample (Borremans and Spilt, under review). Furthermore, teachers’ relationship-building competence dispositions were shown to predict relationship quality (Borremans and Spilt, under review). Teachers’ attitude, knowledge of teacher–student relationships, and self-efficacy in building closeness, coping with conflict, and reflective functioning were found to be especially important in establishing close and less conflictual relationships, in particular with disruptive students (Borremans and Spilt, under review).

Additionally, pre-service are asked to provide some demographic information and to complete questionnaires targeting teacher self-efficacy beliefs (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Robinson, 2020; cf. Zee et al., 2016).

Finally, at the end of their teacher education program, pre-service teachers’ situation-specific skills will be assessed. Situation-specific skills are predominantly assessed using case materials (Weyers et al., 2023). While most test instruments are video-based, vignettes or paper cases have been used as well. In line with these practices, pre-service teachers will read a case description and answer three accompanying, open questions (see Appendix D). The case description outlines a particular student’s behavior at school and the challenges the student is facing (e.g., frequently distracted, problems connecting with peers) as well as indicators of a conflictual relationship with the teacher. The first question assesses whether pre-service teachers spontaneously identify issues related to the teacher–student relationship. The second question assesses pre-service teachers’ ability to identify and apply relevant theoretical constructs as they analyze the case description. The third question assesses pre-service teachers’ ability to select relevant classroom practices to enhance relationship quality. Additionally, two yes-no questions assess whether the case description was believable.

Each year post-implementation, focus group interviews are planned. Teacher educators and pre-service teachers will be invited to provide feedback on the materials in separate groups. This feedback will be used to adapt the activities and materials to ease implementation in existing teacher education programs. Additionally, the focus groups will provide us with information on implementation quality (e.g., fidelity, dosage, user adoptation; Durlak and DuPre, 2008; Meyers et al., 2012).