Abstract
The quality of teacher–student relationships is critical for students with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), who often struggle with social interaction and emotional regulation. However, research on how students with NDDs perceive their teachers’ relational competence remains scarce, particularly that regarding female students. To address this gap, this qualitative study examines teachers’ relational competence from the perspectives of adolescent girls with NDDs (n = 6) and their teachers (n = 5) in special education schools. Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews identified two key dimensions of relational competence: the Understanding Teacher, who validates students’ individual needs and balances encouragement with emotional support; and the Personal Teacher, who fosters supportive relationships through personal, sensitive, and informal interactions. These findings reinforce and expand prior research by highlighting relational competence as a protective factor that enhances participation, well-being, and learning among students with NDDs. This study also identifies educational challenges for girls with NDDs, including a tendency to use masking strategies, which suggests a greater need for personalized teacher support. This study holds implications for pedagogical practice.
Plain Language Summary
Positive and supportive relationships between teachers and students are very important for students with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) as these students often have difficulties with social interactions. However, there is little research on how students with NDDs experience their teachers’ capability to build strong relationships, especially when it comes to female students. This study uses interviews to explore what six teenage girls with NDDs and five of their teachers have to say about teachers’ relational competence in special education schools. The findings show two important qualities of a good teacher: The Understanding Teacher—This teacher respects each student’s unique needs and gives both encouragement and emotional support. The Personal Teacher—This teacher builds strong relationships by being personal, caring, and informal in conversations. These results confirm earlier research and add new insights. A teacher’s capability to connect with students with NDDs can help the students feel safe, participate more in school, and improve their well-being and learning. The study also discusses specific challenges for girls with NDDs, such as using “masking” strategies to hide their difficulties. In view of this, these students need extra personalized support from teachers. The study also discusses how teachers can improve their relational competence to better support these students.
Keywords
Introduction
The quality of teacher–student relationships (TSRs) is critical for at-risk students, including those with disabilities (Feldman et al., 2019; Lopez & Corcoran, 2014; Roorda et al., 2011). However, TSRs tend to be more problematic for these students, particularly for those with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) (Eisenhower et al., 2015; Losh et al, 2022). NDDs represent a diverse range of conditions characterized by significant impairments in social, academic, personal, and occupational functioning (American Psychological Association [APA], 2013). NDDs typically emerge during childhood and adolescence. Indeed, the two most common NDD diagnoses are attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). A key characteristic of NDDs is difficulty with social interaction (APA, 2013). Teachers often report challenges in teaching students with NDDs (Rogers et al., 2015), and there is a significant lack of knowledge and skills in managing these relationships effectively (Lynch & Davison, 2024). At the same time, students with NDDs frequently report feeling unseen, unheard, and unable to build positive relationships with their teachers (Riksförbundet Attention, 2024).
Although relational competence is essential for all teachers (Nordenbo et al., 2008), it is particularly important for those working with students who experience communicative and emotional difficulties (Ewe, 2022), which are common among students with NDDs (Blacher et al., 2014). Positive and supportive TSRs can serve as protective factors, helping students cope with distressing or negative experiences while promoting their participation (Sabol & Pianta, 2012).
However, empirical research on how students with NDDs perceive TSRs remains limited, marking a significant gap in the literature. In one of the few studies to address this topic, Losh et al. (2022) conducted a quantitative analysis of 136 autistic students between the ages of five and nine and their teachers. Their findings demonstrated a clear discrepancy between how students and teachers perceived TSRs. There also appears to be a gendered dimension to discrepant perceptions of TSRs among teachers and students with NDDs, with research indicating that TSRs are particularly problematic for girls with NDDs (Rogers et al., 2015; Zañartu & Pérez-Salas, 2023). Given this background, it is essential to investigate which relational capabilities are perceived as central to fostering positive and supportive TSRs for girls with NDDs.
Addressing these gaps in the literature, this study examines how adolescent girls with NDDs enrolled in special education schools, along with their teachers, experience and perceive teachers’ relational competence. Specifically, drawing on semi-structured interviews with students and teachers, this qualitative study analyzes participant narratives to explore perceptions of relational competence and how it operates as a protective and enabling factor that supports students’ participation in teaching. In doing so, this study addresses the following research questions (RQ1–RQ3):
(1) How do teachers perceive their relational competence in working with girls with NDDs?
(2) How do female students with NDDs perceive their teachers’ relational competence?
(3) Which aspects of teachers’ relational competence are most important for fostering positive and supportive TSRs between teachers and female students with NDDs?
This study has both theoretical and practical implications. In respect to the former, this study contributes to two key research areas: the education of students with NDDs and teachers’ relational competence. By focusing on girls with NDDs—a group often overlooked in TSR research—this study contributes new insights into the gendered and neurodivergent dimensions of teachers’ relational competence. This study’s findings inform both relational pedagogy theory and teachers’ professionalism in teaching regarding students with NDDs. In this respect, educators can use the findings of this study to improve their relational competence in working with students with NDDs.
Literature Review
TSRs and NDDs
A significant portion of literature on TSRs focuses on relationships between teachers and neurotypical students (Allen et al., 2013; Ansari et al., 2020), that is, students without an NDD diagnosis. In fact, there is a marked lack of research on TSRs involving students with NDDs (Blacher et al., 2014). This gap is noteworthy, as research has shown that the quality of TSRs is particularly important for students who experience difficulties with social interaction (Iznardo et al., 2023). For instance, research indicates that both ASD and ADHD are associated with diminished TSR quality. Individuals diagnosed with ASD typically exhibit deficits in social interaction and communication across multiple contexts. ASD individuals generally experience difficulties with social reciprocity and nonverbal communication, as well as a tendency toward restrictive and repetitive behaviors and interests. These individuals are usually highly detail-oriented and often struggle to transition between activities (APA, 2013; World Health Organization, 2023). Meanwhile, ADHD is characterized by persistent developmental difficulties associated with hyperactivity, impulsivity, and/or inattention, which significantly interfere with daily functioning (APA, 2013). The socio-emotional challenges faced by students with ASD and/or ADHD are key contributors to TSR difficulties (Nucifora & Walker, 2021). However, Iznardo et al. (2023) found that close TSRs can have a positive impact on student resilience, including those with learning disabilities and ADHD.
TSRs between teachers and students with NDDs are known to be challenging for both parties. A recent report produced in Sweden indicates that students with NDDs often feel that adults in school settings do not believe in, support, or provide them with opportunities to build strong relationships (Riksförbundet Attention, 2024). Meanwhile, teachers frequently perceive relationships with students with NDDs as more challenging than those with neurotypical students, citing higher levels of conflict, reduced emotional closeness, and less collaboration (Eisenhower et al., 2015). In the Swedish context, both students and their parents have noted that school support often fails to address students’ specific needs (Autism Sweden (Autism Sverige), 2022; Riksförbundet Attention, 2024). Supporting these claims, the Swedish Schools Inspectorate (Skolinspektionen) (2023) evaluated efforts to create accessible learning environments for students with NDDs and found deficiencies in 22 out of 30 investigated schools. Notably, the eight schools rated as high quality identified strong TSRs as a key success factor.
Previous research has highlighted gender-based differences in how NDDs manifest. For instance, boys with NDDs are more likely to exhibit externalizing behaviors, whereas girls with similar challenges tend to mask their difficulties to meet societal and academic expectations (Eccleston et al., 2019; Žic Ralić et al., 2018). This disparity influences teachers’ perceptions, as they are more likely to accept the behaviors of boys compared to those of girls (Lawrence et al., 2017). Consequently, girls with NDDs report the highest levels of perceived teacher rejection among all student groups ([authors]; Rogers et al., 2015). Teacher rejection, in turn, increases the likelihood of peer rejection, exacerbating students’ challenges (Diamantopoulou et al., 2007; Murray & Greenberg, 2006).
Effective TSRs require teachers to possess both knowledge of student disabilities and strong interpersonal skills (Sabol & Pianta, 2012). In Scandinavia, such skills are commonly referred to as “relational competence.”
Teachers’ Relational Competence
Relational competence is a fundamental aspect of teacher professionalism (Nordenbo et al., 2008), particularly in interactions with students with NDDs ([authors]). Jordan (2004) defines relational competence as the professional capacity to positively influence another person’s (e.g., patient, client, or student) behavior, self-confidence, and self-esteem. In educational contexts, relational competence refers to a teacher’s ability to engage with students and parents with openness and respect, demonstrate empathy, and take responsibility in their role as educators (Jensen et al., 2015).
Several research projects have explored teachers’ relational competence in Scandinavia (e.g., Klinge, 2016; Skibsted & Matthiesen, 2016). At [anonymized for review] University, studies have explored the relational competence of preservice teachers and special educators ([authors]), as well as that of teachers working with students with NDDs (e.g., [authors]). Research has also found that special educators consider their relationships with students facing challenges as central to their work, viewing relational competence as vital in their profession ([authors]).
A key insight from these studies is that teachers’ relational competence is a situated skill. It reflects their ability to respond effectively to unexpected events in interpersonal encounters, functioning as a form of micro-social artistry. In other words, relational competence is not a standardized technique that can be applied uniformly across different contexts or individuals. Research indicates that relational competence can be developed through small-scale interventions in teacher education (e.g., [authors]) and teacher training (e.g., [authors]).
Theoretical Foundations of Relational Competence
Globally, educational science has placed increasing emphasis on the importance of social interaction between teachers and students, as well as among students themselves, and how learning unfolds within this framework (Håkansson & Sundberg, 2022, p. 74). One research tradition contributing to this perspective is relational pedagogy ([authors]; Hickey & Riddle, 2023; Sidorkin, 2022). In this tradition, relationships are fundamental to both education and human development (Buber, [1947] 2000). Teaching does not occur “inside” or “outside” teachers and students but in the space between them (Biesta, 2017). According to Biesta (2009), “good education” is characterized by interactions that build caring, trusting, and challenging TSRs. This perspective suggests that relational competence is not an individual trait possessed by teachers but a dynamic, moment-to-moment connection between teachers and students in ongoing interactions.
Martin Buber, a key theorist in relational pedagogy, distinguished between “acceptance” and “confirmation” (Anderson & Cissna, 1997; cf. Buber, [1947] 2000). Where acceptance refers to a teacher validating a student as they are at that moment, confirmation involves both accepting the student and guiding them toward their potential, that is, recognizing who they could become.
To provide analytical precision in examining teachers’ relational competence, the Relational Competence Model (RCM) ([authors]) defines relational competence through three sub-competencies: communicative, differentiation, and socio-emotional competence. First, communicative competence refers to a teacher’s ability to establish a high degree of attunement in verbal and nonverbal interactions with students. Second, differentiation competence is the ability to regulate the balance between closeness and distance in relation to students. Finally, socio-emotional competence is a teacher’s ability to navigate and manage the emotional dynamics of interactions, including the emotions of both teachers and students.
Methods
Study Design
This study is part of the research project entitled, “Girls with NDD in School: How Do Teachers Build Relationships That Promote Students’ Interactive Abilities?”, a 2-year initiative examining how teachers’ relational competence manifests in interactions with adolescent girls with NDDs who exhibit introverted traits and have a history of problematic school absenteeism. This research project is motivated by evidence that these students tend to mask their needs (Eccleston et al., 2019), increasing the risk of their not receiving adequate relational and academic support.
The project employs a participatory approach (Sanders & Stappers, 2008) combined with an ethnographically inspired methodology involving observations of teachers and students over the course of an academic year. Research results are being collated and will be published separately. This study focuses on findings from semi-structured interviews with female students with autism and comorbid autism and ADHD (hereinafter, NDDs), as well as their teachers. A qualitative design was adopted to explore participants’ perceptions of teachers’ relational competence (cf. Bryman, 2018).
Data Collection and Participants
Data were collected from the study site—a Swedish special school catering to students requiring additional support—in spring 2024. The school possesses small class sizes, a high staff-to-student ratio, and specialized expertise. It comprises five units and serves 65 students aged 6 to 16 years, including 10 girls.
The purpose of the study was explained at a parents meeting hosted by the school, and the guardians of all female students were invited to provide informed consent. Girls over 15 years of age also provided written consent. Teachers of participating students were informed about the study’s purpose and design and signed consent forms.
The final sample comprised six girls (Table 1) and five teachers (Table 2) from two units. Although the sample size is small, data provided in-depth insights into how students with autism and/or ADHD and their teachers perceive TSRs, an underexplored area of research (Blacher et al., 2014; [authors]).
Student Demographics.
Teacher Demographics.
Data Analysis
The first author conducted and audio-recorded all interviews. Interview data were subsequently analyzed based on Braun and Clarke’s (2022) thematic analysis framework, a valuable approach for identifying and interpreting patterns of meaning within qualitative data. Thematic analysis adhered to the following steps: (1) transcription and familiarization with the interview data; (2) coding relevant features across the dataset; (3) organizing codes into initial themes; (4) formulation and cross-checking of themes against the dataset; (5) refinement of themes; and (6) selection of representative extracts, which were then translated into English. Both authors conducted thematic analysis to strengthen inter-rater reliability. Initially, each author carried out the analytic steps independently, whereafter they compared and discussed their interpretations in detail until consensus was reached. The final themes and illustrative extracts were then collaboratively refined and jointly written into the Results section.
Finally, study participants reviewed the results and conclusions to ensure that the interpretation of their statements was accurate, validating the alignment between this study’s results and participants’ experiences and enhancing the reliability and credibility of this study. This review process saw minor adjustments made to the results, while the conclusions remained unchanged.
Ethical Considerations
This study adhered to ethical guidelines for research in the humanities and social sciences (ALLEA, 2023; Swedish Research Council, 2024). The study design—including consent forms, missives, and information sheets—received approval from the Swedish Ethics Review Authority on June 1, 2023 (Registration Number XXX).
Participants were informed about the study’s purpose, design, and procedures. Participants were given assurances of confidentiality and apprised of the measures that would be taken to minimize the risk of identification. No sensitive personal data were processed. The study emphasized positive examples of TSRs and teachers’ relational competence, aiming to benefit both participants and the learning environment.
Results
This section presents the results of the thematic analysis and addresses the research questions. Thematic analysis produced two main themes: the Understanding Teacher (containing two sub-themes) and the Personal Teacher. Analysis revealed significant alignment between the perceptions of teachers and students; therefore, the perceptions of both parties are presented under each theme. Themes and sub-themes are supported with illustrative quotes capturing the varying perspectives of teachers and students, in that order. Quotes have been translated into English; minor linguistic adjustments have been made to enhance readability without altering meaning.
Theme 1: The Understanding Teacher
In this study, participants perceived teachers’ relational competence through the lens of the Understanding Teacher, which emerged as the most prominent theme in both teacher and student interviews. This theme reflects teachers’ efforts to validate and uplift students. This theme comprised two sub-themes: “validating the student” and “uplifting the student.”
Sub-Theme 1: Validating the Student
Teachers emphasized the importance of understanding each student’s individual situation, including their NDD diagnoses, behavioral challenges, self-esteem, self-image, and overall well-being. As Teacher 1 noted, “I strongly believe in showing understanding for different concerns.” Similarly, Teacher 4 asserted, “It’s often like this: ‘I feel bad, don’t you understand?’‘No, because I can’t read your mind. You have to tell me’.”
Teachers described their approach using words such as “seeing,”“listening to,” and “caring for” students. They also stressed the importance of making students feel “valuable” and “welcomed.” For instance, Teacher 2 said, “I always want students to feel that ‘you are valuable, and I believe in you’.” Likewise, Teacher 3 noted, “I try to meet the student on her own terms.”
Teachers also discussed their strategies for de-escalating emotional situations and protecting students’ self-esteem. Teacher 5 sought to defuse situations by coming down to the student’s level and seeking common ground. As Teacher 5 explained: “I squat down because things tend to escalate quickly. I explain, ‘We understand that you feel bad—what’s going on?’ It’s rare that they won’t tell me—if not immediately, then after they’ve calmed down.” Other teachers emphasized the need to avoid publicly criticizing students to protect their self-esteem. For instance, Teacher 1 explained, “I always strive to avoid judging students in front of others so they don’t feel like failures,” while Teacher 2 cautioned that “There should be no pressure. If they feel that ‘everyone is waiting for me to answer,’ they won’t try again.” Similarly, Teacher 4 said, “If a student makes a mistake in class, you should never humiliate them. Take them aside—if they don’t want to talk, let it go. I acknowledge when mistakes happen, but I don’t push or punish them.”
The teachers primarily associated relational competence with interpersonal communication. For example, Teacher 1 described an agreement with a student who used subtle, nonverbal signals to indicate understanding: “Wiggle your head or smile or something like that. And it shows in the eye contact when she hasn’t understood.” Teacher 2 shared a story of a student who was “extremely insecure” and “did not want to be seen at all.” Through repeated interactions, Teacher 2 gradually came to understand her needs and helped her feel included. Over time, the student became more comfortable and moved closer to the teacher’s desk. The teacher recalled asking her: “How did you feel when you sat like that?” To which the student responded that “It felt good” and as if “it was just her and me in the room.” In this respect, Teacher 3 emphasized the importance of adapting their communication to the student’s level: “I don’t want to speak my own language, but … her language, so she understands what I mean.”
Students’ experiences confirmed teachers’ perceptions. Interestingly, the word “understanding” was uttered in every student interview regarding teachers’ relational competence. While students acknowledged the importance of teachers possessing knowledge about disabilities, they placed greater emphasis on teachers understanding their particular individual needs.
Indeed, Student 2 argued that a teacher’s ability to understand students is more important than their teaching skills, noting that doing so was necessary “So that they can kind of understand how I am.” Student 1 described how her teachers recognized when external stimuli became overwhelming and allowed her to work in a quieter space: “If, for example, I need to step out into the hallway because it’s really noisy… then I can go out there,” she explained, “I feel that they understand what I need and that they explain what I’m supposed to do well.” To this, Student 1 added that the teachers at her current school understood her autism and ADHD better than those at her previous school.
Student 4 shared that the teachers at her previous school did not fully understand her challenges: “The relationship at [the previous school] was good—I mean … regarding schoolwork—but everything else, like when you feel ill and don’t want to be there, I don’t think they understood that [how I was feeling].” She described experiencing anxiety both when attending school and when being unable to attend school. While she wanted to be like everyone else, she felt incapable of succeeding. She emphasized that this was not the case at her current school, as the teachers listened to and understood her needs, giving her a sense of security: “But now they do [understand]. They do understand when I’m not feeling well and try to help [me] … It allows me to be myself much more. I can say that I’m feeling unwell, and I know they will listen.” Student 4 highlighted a particular teacher she perceived as especially understanding: “I know that I can talk to her and that she will understand me.” However, she also admitted to masking her emotions, making it difficult for teachers to recognize her mental state.
Other students expressed similar sentiments. For instance, Student 5 recalled feeling misunderstood at her previous school: “My teachers were good at my previous school. However, it felt like they did not understand me or my diagnosis. But they do here.” Student 6 described how her current teachers actively checked in on students, noticed when they were struggling, and adjust their interactions accordingly: “Like, if I have a bad day, then they … well, give me some space or support me, or something like that.” Like the other students, Student 3 stressed the importance of caring teachers who take the time to understand each student as an individual: “They [the teachers] know me much better than any teacher has done before… They can see how I am feeling. They read my body language, they know who I am as a person, and they know how to meet everyone [referring to peers].”
Several students noted that teachers used nonverbal gestures and eye contact to make them feel acknowledged without singling them out. As Student 2 said, “They see it without me telling them.” Similarly, Student 6 explained, “The teachers understand you. When you look at them, they notice it right away when something is wrong.”
Sub-Theme 2: Uplifting the Student
Participants’ perceptions of relational competence extended beyond the present moment to include the student’s potential. A recurring theme in the teacher interviews was their desire to “uplift” students. For example, Teacher 1 asserted that, “I usually try to meet them where they are, highlight their strengths, and build from there, to ‘lift them up’.” Similarly, Teacher 2 noted that they sought to encourage students by expressing their high expectations: “I want them to feel that I believe they can do better—give me something so I can lift you up.” Teacher 3 emphasized the importance of validation, explain that consistently acknowledging students helped lift them up.
The teachers used different strategies and expressions to convey this ambition. For instance, Teacher 1 described it as challenging students to push them out of their comfort zones, while Teacher 2 stated that “They know I believe in them and that they can improve.” Teacher 4 spoke about helping students’ progress, even if they do not pass their courses: “You don’t always succeed in getting them to meet the grade requirements, but you see some kind of development.” Teacher 5 used schoolwork as a way to redirect students away from negative emotional states, explaining that “I try to get them to focus on something else.” In this respect, Teacher 3 shared an example of a student who moved away from conformism to embrace self-advocacy: “It was difficult at first. I kept wondering, ‘How can I reach her?’ But over time, it changed … Listening was key. Before, she was a people pleaser—she said yes to everything. Now, we’ve built trust, and she feels comfortable speaking up and asking for help.” Meanwhile, Teacher 1 highlighted the importance of turning challenges into opportunities: “I meet them where they are, find something positive, and ask: ‘How can we turn this around’.” Similarly, Teacher 2 acknowledged that change takes time. “We can’t transform them in one school year,” Teacher 2 explained, “But if we keep at it, over time, it becomes part of their personality. Then we can take the next step.”
The teachers frequently referred to small but meaningful interactions during which they validated students and encouraged growth. For example, Teacher 2 noted that, “If a student responds with just one word, I take it and weave it into the conversation so they feel it matters. Use all means to lift them up.” Teacher 4 focused on building connections with students, emphasizing that “it’s about finding that small part that you can bond with and using it to help them push through.” Teacher 5 described an approach that balances validation with guidance: “Her whole life, she has had to assert herself. But she doesn’t need to with us—we like her for who she is, not just what she does. You have to keep showing students: ‘We like you, even if we don’t always like your actions’.”
Although the students did not use the term “uplifting” to describe their teachers’ attitudes, the concept was evident in their experiences—particularly their descriptions of how their teachers recognized both their academic and social potential and fostered a sense of inclusion. In this respect, Student 2 explained how her teachers supported her in social interactions and “make sure that I am included.” Meanwhile, Student 4 highlighted how her teachers actively encouraged her to form peer relationships. “They keep the conversation going so you start talking with your peers,” she explained, “They make sure everyone is involved, that everyone talks to each other, and that no one is excluded.” Student 4 also valued the ability to be honest with teachers, seeing it as a factor that enhanced her learning: “It makes me much more secure in my learning. It helps me focus in class, and now I really want to learn—I strive to learn as much as possible.” Student 3 similarly expressed her appreciation for her teachers’ support and dedication, noting that “They truly try—with all their effort—to help me to reach my full potential, and I really appreciate that.”
Other students similarly emphasized the perceivable impact of their teachers’ support on their learning and personal outcomes. Student 6 described how teachers scaffolded her learning by encouraging personal decision-making: “They support me… They explain the pros and cons, but in the end, I have to make the decision myself.” Meanwhile, for Student 1, the teachers’ understanding of her needs significantly improved her learning. She explained that, “The light is too bright, and I need my noise-canceling headphones to block out sound. I work much better when I sit alone.” Given her sensory sensitivity, the school provided her with a separate room where she can work while wearing headphones. She viewed this provision as essential for maintaining focus and completing tasks.
Theme 2: The Personal Teacher
Participants also described teachers’ relational competence in terms of the Personal Teacher. While this theme was central to both teachers and students, it was less prominent in the semi-structured interviews compared to the previous theme.
All of the teachers emphasized the importance of “sharing oneself openly” (Swedish: “att bjuda på sig själv”) when describing their relational competence. They did not want to be seen solely as teachers but as whole individuals. As Teacher 1 surmised, “It’s important that I am myself, that I share myself openly.” Meanwhile, Teacher 2 explained, “I want to share myself openly… talk a little about what I’ve been doing and what they have been doing, make connections, so they feel we’re not just teachers.” Similarly, Teacher 3 said, “I think I’m pretty good at sharing myself openly, rather than just saying, ‘Now I’m the teacher, and that’s it’,” while Teacher 5 asserted that “I shared myself openly; they saw that you don’t always have to be perfect.”
Teachers adopted a personal approach grounded in humor. Teacher 1 described using humor as a distraction when students risk losing face, explaining that “If something goes wrong, I quickly make a joke to shift the focus completely.” Teacher 4 emphasized that “Humor is very important,” while Teacher 5 noted that “We have a special jargon, and we love to joke with each other.”
All of the teachers stressed the importance of informal interactions with students. As Teacher 1 explained, “I try to work broadly—not just focusing on ‘what does pedagogy say?’ or ‘what does the subject say?’ If we get stuck there, it becomes very difficult. The relationship suffers, and I become just a teacher who constantly complains.” Teacher 3 noted that students often come to school carrying personal worries. Recognizing this, Teacher 3 explained that he tries to transition into lessons gently, adjusting to the student’s emotional state. “You have this ‘thermometer’,” he noted, “you can read their mood and see that today might not be the right time for this. Then maybe math isn’t the priority. And it’s not about giving a formal speech like ‘How do you feel?’ but rather talking about other things.”
The teachers also avoid appearing overly authoritative and tried not to be physically imposing, even adopting positions where they did not loom over or “look down” on students. For Teacher 3, “Success is sitting down with students and speaking their language.” Similarly, Teacher 2 noted that, “If I don’t use the whiteboard, I sit down. Even though I’m the leader, we are simply ‘we’.” As Teacher 4 explained, “I don’t stand over them but sit next to their desks. If a student is upset, I always go to her, look up, and ask—rather than looking down.”
The teachers also emphasized the importance of personal contact outside the classroom, noting that “I always make sure that no one feels alone … that way, I gain their trust” (Teacher 1) and “I try to sit with the students during break time” (Teacher 2). In this regard, Teacher 3 explained, “It can be something simple as a student suddenly needing to leave early and take the bus, which makes them feel very insecure.” Teacher 4 said, “I think it’s really important to participate in sports days and similar events because there’s always someone who shines in those settings but may not shine in the classroom.” Meanwhile, Teacher 5 described a situation where she used social media to connect with a student: “She refused to go into the dining room to eat … So I said, ‘Let me show you a funny video.’‘Yeah, okay.’ She watched, laughed until she almost cried, and then looked at me and said, ‘I think I’ll go eat.’… Sometimes, it doesn’t take much.”
Students confirmed teachers’ perceptions of the importance of openness, humor, and interest beyond the classroom. Notably, students acknowledged the importance of teachers’ humor and self-deprecation. For instance, Student 5 explained that when she feels unwell, her teacher’s humor helps her shift away from negative emotions: “She [the teacher] cheers me up—sometimes with a joke. And then she stays by my side, reminding me that I’m not alone.” Student 4 described how an informal, humor-filled relationship with her teachers has made it easier for her to attend school. She even found herself missing school during winter break: “I never thought I would feel that way—that I would actually miss school.”
When discussing the importance of an informal and personal connection with their teachers, students often compared their current teachers to previous teachers—dismissing the latter as “just teachers.” While these teachers were effective instructors, they struggled to establish personal relationships with the students. Student 3 emphasized the value of being able to talk to teachers about topics beyond the curriculum: “It actually matters a lot. When teachers are ‘just teachers’, it becomes difficult to talk to them about certain things… It can make conversations feel stiff. I just don’t like that.”
Students also highlighted the importance of teachers demonstrating interest in them as individuals beyond academic subjects. Student 2 believed that informal conversations helped the teacher understand her as a person, strengthening their relationship. Student 3 attributed the close relationships at her school to the small number of teachers and students: “[The teachers] know my life, but not in a weird way.” She described how informal and personal interactions with her teachers improved her sense of well-being and made her feel safe and heard: “I think it’s good, it’s nice to … I don’t know how to explain it, but it just feels nice.” Emphasizing the value of teachers’ personal engagement both within and outside the classroom, Student 4 noted, “The teachers don’t just talk about schoolwork; they also share things about themselves. It makes everything much more fun. And during breaks, they don’t talk about schoolwork at all.” Student 5 described how shared interests with a teacher (“we both like certain things, like books and stuff”) served to foster a sense of connection. Like Student 3, Student 5 also noted that her relationship with the teachers made her feel safer, asserting that, “Maybe I kind of feel safer going into lessons. And then safer coming to school.” Student 6 similarly highlighted the importance of personal relationships with teachers, describing them as “friendly,”“close,” and “familiar.” According to Student 6, “Teacher 5 is always there for me … I see them as family. You feel really close, like you truly know each other.”
Concluding Analysis: Key Aspects of Teachers’ Relational Competence
Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews confirmed that a positive and supportive TSR lies at the heart of education for girls with NDDs. Both teachers and students in the current school context perceived strong relationships as the foundation of successful educational experiences. TSRs are regarded as essential not only for ensuring school attendance but also for fostering engagement in schoolwork, facilitating learning, and supporting personal development. Achieving such relationships requires teachers to be relationally competent—a concept that, from the participants’ perspective, extends beyond technical skill to encompass an understanding and personal attitude. A relationally competent teacher demonstrates genuine interest in students as individuals and provides the guidance needed to help them navigate a sustainable educational path.
In this study, thematic analysis revealed a remarkable convergence between teachers’ and students’ perspectives on this issue. The Understanding Teacher emerged as the most prominent theme. Indeed, both teachers and students emphasized the importance of teacher validation, which involves acknowledging and addressing students’ psychological, social, and emotional needs. Participants consistently stressed the importance of understanding students’ diagnoses, behavioral difficulties, and personal experiences.
Teachers described actions such as recognizing students’ nonverbal signals, engaging with students on their terms, and avoiding public criticism. They argued that an understanding approach promotes acceptance and prevents feelings of failure. Meanwhile, students frequently mentioned teachers who understood their disabilities and individual needs. They described how teacher validation made them feel valued and understood, helped reduce their anxiety, and encouraged them to express themselves.
Both groups emphasized the role of nonverbal communication in daily interactions. Teachers spoke about adapting their communication styles to meet students’ needs, while students voiced their appreciation for teachers who proactively, sensitively, and carefully adjusted their behavior to align with students’ responses.
Teachers also discussed the concept of “uplifting” students—a general approach of balancing validation with encouragement and gently pushing students beyond their comfort zones. They used terms such as “expectations,”“challenges,” and “turning around” difficult situations. Although this progressive aspect of TSR was most prominent in teacher interviews, students also described how teachers’ understanding approach helped promote their development.
Thematic analysis revealed the second, albeit less prominent, theme of the Personal Teacher, highlighting the significance of teachers building personal, informal, and emotionally close bonds with students. In this respect, teachers emphasized the importance of “sharing oneself openly” through humor and informal interactions, noting that such behavior made them more approachable. They also stressed the need for a symmetrical TSR, avoiding a top-down dynamic where they would “look down on” students. Students echoed these sentiments, describing a positive and supportive TSR as “friendly,”“close,” and “familiar.” The students valued teachers who shared aspects of their personal lives and used humor, claiming that this made them more relatable and encouraged communication. Students also described how these teachers helped them find constructive ways to manage negative emotions.
Both teachers and students saw informal interactions outside the classroom as crucial to strengthening their TSRs. Teachers emphasized the importance of participating in extracurricular activities. Students recognized the value of these efforts and frequently contrasted “personal” teachers with those they perceived as “just teachers,” that is, educators who were effective instructors but lacked personal engagement. Ultimately, students want teachers to take an interest in them as individuals, rather than seeing them solely as students.
These findings suggest that teachers’ relational competence in this context consists of two fundamental, interconnected aspects: “understanding students as individuals” and “building personal and empowering relationships.” In this study, both teachers and students perceived relational competence as emerging through interpersonal encounters, aligning with the general definition of relational competence as an interactive and situated phenomenon (e.g., Jensen et al., 2015). Their perceptions also aligned with the relational view of teaching, which contends that education essentially occurs between teachers and students (Biesta, 2017). Teachers and students discussed TSRs and relational competence extensively and in nuanced ways, highlighting their impact on students’ behavior and development. Drawing on Buber’s concepts (Anderson & Cissna, 1997), this study contends that both parties essentially emphasized the need for acceptance, whereby teachers validate students’ actual selves—that is, who they are at this moment. Understood as such, “acceptance” emerges as the most prominent theme in the findings. While teachers placed greater emphasis on the progressive elements of TSRs than students did, both groups recognized that teachers should “confirm the students.” Simply put, teachers should validate students’ potential selves, acknowledging who they might become.
Discussion
This study examined how teachers’ relational competence manifests and functions as a protective factor in the school experiences of girls with NDDs. Specifically, drawing on the thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with teachers and students with NDDs enrolled in a special school in Sweden, this qualitative study investigated how teachers and female students with NDDs perceive teachers’ relational competence and which aspects of relational competence are critical for fostering positive and supportive TSRs. This section discusses the theoretical contributions and practical implications of this study.
This study has implications for existing TSR research and relational pedagogy frameworks. Notably, research on TSRs involving students with NDDs is scarce ([authors]; Blacher et al., 2014). Furthermore, as Losh et al. (2022) have pointed out, research examining how autistic students perceive their TSRs is nearly nonexistent. Indeed, a survey of the existing literature revealed no prior studies specifically addressing teachers’ relational competence in relation to girls with NDDs. Therefore, this study contributes to research on teachers’ relational competence and research on the education of students with NDDs, with a particular focus on girls with autism or comorbid autism and ADHD who exhibit introverted traits.
The findings of this study align with prior research highlighting the importance of relational competence in educational settings ([authors]) and its specific relevance for students with NDDs ([authors]). Thematic analysis revealed two primary dimensions of teachers’ relational competence: the Understanding Teacher and the Personal Teacher. Both dimensions are essential from both teacher and student perspectives. This study not only confirms the conclusions of prior research on students with NDDs (e.g., [authors]) but also extend research on TSRs to include an often neglected student population.
Relational competence is a fundamental aspect of teacher professionalism (Nordenbo et al., 2008), and strong TSRs serve as a critical protective factor, particularly for at-risk students (e.g., Roorda et al., 2011). The findings of this study corroborate those of previous research, demonstrating that teachers’ relational competence is essential for fostering a learning environment where students feel acknowledged and valued. The emphasis on teachers’ understanding of students’ individual needs and personalized approaches aligns with findings from advocacy organizations (Autism Sweden (Autism Sverige), 2022; Riksförbundet Attention, 2024) as well as previous research (e.g., Sabol & Pianta, 2012).
Students in this study frequently reported that teacher validation alleviated their anxiety and fostered trust. These findings are consistent with those of previous research demonstrating that high-quality TSRs mitigate socio-emotional challenges linked to NDDs (Iznardo et al., 2023). This study’s findings thus confirm prior work showing that supportive TSRs function as a protective factor for students with NDDs. At the same time, this study contributes to the literature by providing rich, experience-based insight into how these relational dynamics are perceived and articulated by both teachers and students. Where earlier studies have tended to emphasize teachers’ perspectives, this study foregrounds female students’ lived experiences, giving space to a less frequently heard voice in the literature on TSRs and NDD.
In contrast to the findings of Losh et al. (2022), who reported a marked discrepancy between the perceptions of autistic students and their teachers regarding their relationships, this study revealed a notable convergence. In this study, both teachers and students emphasized similar relational dimensions—including mutual understanding, validation, and personal engagement—as central to high-quality TSRs. This alignment suggests that perceptual gaps between students and teachers may diminish when teachers enact relational competence through attuned communication and emotional sensitivity.
This study also adds nuance to current understandings of teachers’ relational competence, TSRs, and the education of students with NDDs by addressing the gendered dimensions of these relationships. According to Eccleston et al. (2019), girls with NDDs who exhibit introverted traits often mask their needs, increasing the risk of missing crucial relational and academic support. The findings of this study align with this observation and provide novel insights into how such masking is experienced by both students and teachers in everyday school interactions, and how this practice can influence the possibilities for mutual understanding.
Based on these findings, this study argues that it is particularly important for teachers working with girls with NDDs to sensitively perceive and respond to students’“hidden” needs. In this study, this attentiveness was expressed through teachers carefully adapting their actions to students’ behaviors in ongoing verbal and nonverbal communication. Teacher interviews revealed a nuanced and refined approach to communication, characterized by careful listening and thoughtful responses, with a particular emphasis on nonverbal cues as essential for helping students feel heard, acknowledged, and accepted as individuals. Student interviews echoed these sentiments, with students identifying such attentive communication as key to fostering their engagement and participation both inside and outside the classroom. This sensitivity in communication aligns with the concept of communicative competence ([authors]).
Nucifora and Walker (2021) identified socio-emotional challenges as a key factor contributing to the decline in TSRs among students with NDDs. Their conclusion is supported by the findings of this study, which revealed that students experienced heightened student anxiety and were reluctant to engage with school when they felt that teachers did not understand their emotional well-being. This study found that students view teachers’ ability to acknowledge their emotional reactions and help them navigate away from negative emotions as critical to their willingness to attend school and actively participate in class.
These findings correspond with the concept of teachers’ socio-emotional competence ([authors]). Student interviews suggested that this competence not only fosters a sense of acceptance but also alleviates anxiety, thereby creating a secure environment where students feel safe and confident to fully engage in their learning journey. Previous research has emphasized the importance of teachers’ socio-emotional sensitivity in supporting students with NDDs. While Lawrence et al. (2017) found that teachers often perceive and respond differently to the behaviors of boys and girls, with a tendency to be more accepting of boys’ actions, the teachers in this study were able to recognize and respond sensitively to the needs of girls with NDDs through subtle and relationally attuned practices.
A common characteristic of high-quality Swedish schools that provide accessible learning environments for students with NDDs is a consistent, deliberate effort to strengthen TSRs (Swedish Schools Inspectorate [Skolinspektionen], 2023). Moreover, in the Riksförbundet Attention (2024) survey, 69 percent of respondents identified positive TSRs as the most critical factor in enabling student learning. The findings of this study underscore the importance of fostering personal and caring TSRs, particularly when working with girls with NDDs who exhibit introverted traits. Both teachers and students emphasized the value of teachers moving beyond the role of “just teachers.” Students appreciated teachers who exhibited a high level of presence in communication, a genuine interest in them as individuals, and engagement in meaningful conversations beyond academic subjects. These qualities were perceived as pivotal in creating an environment where students felt understood and valued, ultimately enhancing their engagement and learning.
From an RCM perspective ([authors]), these personal connections can be understood in terms of differentiation competence—where teachers carefully balance the extremes of too much distance and too much closeness in TSRs. In this study, the descriptions of both teachers and students suggest a need for a level of closeness that transcends traditional TSRs. However, without careful reflection, this approach risks leading to under-differentiated relationships, where the focus on learning diminishes. Teacher interviews revealed a delicate balance between closeness and distance in TSRs. On the one hand, teachers perceived personal closeness as vital for accepting students’ identities as “who they are.” On the other hand, they affirmed students socially and academically, fostering growth based on “who they can become” (Buber, [1947] 2000). Student narratives partly corroborated these findings, although they tended to emphasize personal closeness as pivotal to TSRs, using descriptors such as “friendly,”“close,” and “familiar.”
The findings of this study raise the question of whether teachers who exhibit understanding and validating behavior and forge close and personal TSRs are more important for the success of NDD students, particularly girls, than they are for the success of neurotypical students. While this question should be addressed through future research, the results of this study indicate that teaching students with NDDs who exhibit introverted traits places distinct and significant demands on teachers’ relational competence. This finding should be considered when structuring schools and classrooms to ensure that teachers have the necessary supports and conditions to meet the relational needs of all students, regardless of whether they have a disability.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this study highlight the crucial role of TSRs in supporting students with NDDs who exhibit introverted traits. The perceptions of the teachers and students interviewed for this study indicate a significant connection between students’ well-being and progress on the one hand, and teachers adopting an understanding and personal approach on the other. These insights have practical implications. Notably, professional development programs should prioritize training in individualized communication strategies and emotional sensitivity to better support this student group. Such programs should equip teachers with the tools necessary to address the often subtle and “hidden” needs of these students. By fostering teachers’ relational competence, schools can create a more supportive and inclusive learning environment. However, this conclusion also presents a challenge given that it may be difficult for teachers to provide adequate relational support to all students in large and diverse classrooms. This challenge should be considered when designing school and classroom structures, with care taken to ensure that teachers have the conditions required to meet the relational needs of all students, particularly those requiring additional support.
Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
The importance of the findings and insights of this study notwithstanding, several limitations need to be addressed. First, this study relied on qualitative data gathered through semi-structured interviews. While this method offers valuable, in-depth insights, it is also susceptible to subjective bias, as interpretations from both students and teachers may vary. However, the findings of this study align with previous research and conclusions from advocacy organizations, mitigating the risk of bias to some extent.
Second, this study has a small sample size, restricting its ability to make broader claims about how teachers’ relational competence might manifest in relation to girls with NDDs. Further research is necessary to substantiate the findings of this study. As a qualitative study, the findings cannot be validated or generalized statistically. Further studies with expanded sample sizes and/or schools of different types and support resources may prove beneficial for establishing generalizability. Nonetheless, given that this student group is often overlooked in both practice and research, the conclusions presented here make a critical contribution to the literature. These perspectives offer insights into how schools can address challenges such as problematic school attendance and foster a greater sense of acceptance and belonging among students with NDDs.
Finally, future studies can build on the findings of this study by including comparative designs that involve both neurodivergent and neurotypical students. Such research would help clarify similarities and differences in how TSRs are experienced and provide a broader basis for developing inclusive pedagogical practices.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank SAGE Author Services for English language editing.
Ethical Considerations
The study was approved by the Swedish Ethics Review Authority on June 1, 2023 (Registration Number 2023-02490-01).
Consent to Participate
Informed consent to participate was obtained from all of the participants in the study. For participants under the age of 15, informed consent was obtained from legal guardians, and verbal assent was obtained from the students.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by Kristianstad University Research Platform “Learning in Collaboration” [Fplis] [Dnr. 2023-02490-01].
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data supporting the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions.