Student-faculty, student-staff, and student-student relationships contribute significantly to student learning, motivation, identity development, well-being, graduation rates, and post-graduation career and civic outcomes in higher education (Mayhew et al. 2016; Felten and Lambert 2020). The effects of student-faculty interactions are particularly important for high-quality learning experiences (Astin 1997), and these effects are magnified for first-generation undergraduates and students of color (Kezar and Maxey 2014). 

Although decades of research documents the importance of educational relationships, and the difficulty of doing this work at scale is well-known (e.g., Felten 2024), research on barriers to relational pedagogy in higher education tends to focus on structural analysis of institutions (e.g., Børte, Nesje, and Lillejord 2023). 

In this blog post, the first in a pair, we will share findings from a new analysis of faculty perceptions of barriers to relationship-rich education in their own contexts. 

Our Data 

Between early 2021 and mid-2024, Peter asked nearly 1,800 higher education faculty about their experiences forming educational relationships. Most of these faculty teach at universities or community colleges in the United States, although roughly a quarter are at institutions outside of the US; we do not have demographic, disciplinary, or contract-level (e.g., full-time or part-time) data on these faculty. During more than 20 workshops on relationship-rich education, he used Mentimeter online polling to have faculty list up to three barriers they experienced in their teaching, including both student-faculty and student-student connections (the question varied slightly, but typically was something like this: “What are barriers to creating relationships with and among your students in your teaching?”). All submissions were anonymous, and faculty usually responded with single words—which were used to create a word cloud during each workshop. Overall, this activity generated a total of 2,746 responses from 1,765 faculty.   

Faculty Perceptions of Barriers 

We used grounded theory to develop the coding scheme for this analysis. After talking with Peter about his general observations about responses over time, Kassidy read (and re-read) all of the responses, categorizing each. While there were some anticipated categories, others emerged as she sifted through the data. Peter double-checked Kassidy’s coding, and we talked through items that did not fit clearly into any existing code.  

Although faculty reported a variety of barriers, including COVID-19 early in the data, three primary categories accounted for more than 70% of the total responses: time, institutional factors, and well-being. Because responses tended to be single words or short phrases, we cannot know precisely what individuals meant by a response, although Peter debriefed the activity in each workshop, so he has heard scores of faculty comment on each of these three categories. 

1. Time  

Experienced educators will not be surprised to find that time was by far the most common barrier to relational teaching identified in the data. Of the 1,765 individual participants who answered this question, and the 2,746 total entries, 820 responses listed time as one of their (up to three) barriers to cultivating educational relationships. In other words, “time” was identified as a barrier by 46% of participants, and “time” accounted for 30% of the total responses. When commenting on this barrier in workshop discussions, faculty often talked about professional and personal pressures on their time—teaching and grading along with research and service responsibilities, and also personal obligations. Some faculty also mentioned students having limited time, particularly outside of class, to devote to educational activities. 

2. Institutional Factors, Including Class Size  

The second most common barrier we identified is a cluster of institutional factors, or things outside of the educator’s control that affect the system within which they operate. Twenty-three percent of total responses fit into this category, and 35% of individual participants listed institutional structures as a barrier. Class size was the most commonly mentioned structural barrier, accounting for almost 40% of the responses in this category. Other examples of this category include time of day that their class is scheduled (e.g., 7 a.m.), a faculty member’s overall teaching load, a lack of institutional support for effective pedagogies, or an online asynchronous class format. In debriefing discussions, faculty often expressed frustration at these barriers which they could not control but which significantly constrained their ability to build relationships with and among students. 

3. Well-being 

Responses related to student or faculty well-being were the third most common category. Overall, 29% of participants referenced some aspect of well-being as a barrier, accounting for 18% of the total responses. Examples include “lacking confidence,” “fear of rejection,” “anxiety,” and “burnout.” Because responses were single words or short phrases, we cannot discern whose “stress” was being mentioned in a submission, although Peter’s workshop discussions suggest widespread concern about the well-being of both faculty and students. Faculty also often mentioned that concerns about their own well-being limited their ability to form relationships with their students. This aligns with Sabrina Thurman’s April 2024 blog post that explores how “embracing some personal vulnerability was crucial for building meaningful interpersonal connections,” (Thurman 2024).   

What’s Next? 

A short blog post cannot unpack these three categories or offer solutions to overcoming complex barriers. However, understanding faculty perceptions is a first step towards working to recognize and ameliorate these barriers to relationship-rich education. 

Our data set also includes faculty responses regarding “what works” in their classrooms to build relationships with and among their students. These answers are more detailed than the single-word barriers, providing guidance on faculty perceptions of how to effectively build educational relationships. A separate blog post is coming soon in which we will explore that data.  

---

References 

Astin, Alexander W. 1997. What Matters in College? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Børte, Kristin, Katrine Nesje, and Sølvi Lillejord. 2023. “Barriers to Student Active Learning in Higher Education.” Teaching in Higher Education 28 (3): 597-615. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1839746. 

Felten, Peter, and Leo M. Lambert. 2020. Relationship-Rich Education: How Human Connections Drive Success in College. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Felten, Peter. 2024. “Relationship-Rich Education at Scale, aka the Too Many Bodies Problem.” Center for Engaged Learning (blog), Elon University. April 16. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/relationship-rich-education-at-scale-aka-the-too-many-bodies-problem. 

Kezar, Adrianna, and Dan Maxey. 2014. “Faculty Matter: So Why Doesn’t Everyone Think So.” Thought & Action 2014: 29-44. 

Mayhew, Matthew J., Alyssa N. Rockenbach, Nicholas A. Bowman, Tricia A.D. Seifert, and Gregory C. Wolniak. 2016. How College Affects Students: 21st Century Evidence That Higher Education Works. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Thurman, Sabrina. 2024. “Cultivating Vulnerability in Mentoring Relationships.” Center for Engaged Learning (blog), Elon University. April 30. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/cultivating-vulnerability-in-mentoring-relationships. 

About the Authors 

Kassidy Puckett is a student in the Masters of Higher Education program completing her graduate apprenticeship with undergraduate admissions. She is also a class of 2024 alumna who studied secondary history education through the Elon Teaching Fellows Program.  

Peter Felten is Executive Director of the Center for Engaged Learning, Professor of History, and Assistant Provost for Teaching and Learning at Elon University. 

How to Cite this Post 

Puckett, Kassidy and Peter Felten. “What Are Barriers to Relationship-Rich Education? Faculty Perspectives.” Center for Engaged Learning (blog), Elon University. November 5. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/what-are-barriers-to-relationship-rich-education/.