For her senior thesis, newly graduated Education Studies concentrator Vivian Miller focused not on whether student-teacher relationships matter, but on how teachers actually build them. Advised by Professor Indira Gil, Miller’s research, Beyond the Classroom Door, focused specifically on STEM classrooms. These classrooms come with the largely unchallenged assumption that rigorous content instruction leaves little room for relational work.

The idea for the project began with a summer teaching experience. In 2024, Miller worked at Breakthrough Greater Boston, teaching ninth-grade math alongside three co-teachers who each had completely different approaches to connecting with students. "What captured my interest was that, despite how different our relationship-building methods were, all four of us were broadly successful at connecting with our students," she reflected. That observation, that there are many paths to the same relational destination, became the animating question of her thesis.

To investigate, Miller conducted thirteen in-depth, semi-structured interviews with middle and high school STEM teachers at urban public schools in the Providence and Boston metropolitan areas. Her analysis draws on a theoretical distinction between two types of care. The first is developed from Nel Noddings' foundational ethic of caring: virtuous care, which refers to broad, classroom-wide strategies for building a trusting environment. The second is relational care, which describes individualized, one-on-one practices that foster personal connection with specific students. Prior scholarship had largely treated these as separate, parallel tracks.

Miller's findings complicate that picture. She showed that virtuous and relational care are deeply interconnected, sometimes functioning simultaneously. As one teacher in her study put it, "I'm a very firm believer that it's really important to build relationships, but sometimes the only relationship that a student wants is for you to be their teacher. They don't need anything else, and that's fine." That insight displays how students exercise agency over the kind of relationship they want with a teacher. Virtuous care – being consistent, fair, and invested – can itself constitute a meaningful relationship, even if a deeper one-on-one connection never develops.

Miller’s research also expands the field's understanding of where relationship-building happens. Prior scholarship had focused almost exclusively on in-class interactions, but the teachers Miller interviewed consistently described forming meaningful connections through hallway encounters, extracurricular involvement, lunch conversations, and informal school spaces; what she categorizes as proximity, reputation, and family partnership. One teacher described the ripple effect of relationships formed with students who weren't on her roster. These may be students who wandered into her classroom because of a friend, or a chance meeting during hall duty. These informal connections, she found, carry real weight in shaping classroom dynamics.

Perhaps most surprising is what Miller found about the nature of curriculum itself. In STEM classrooms, where instruction is typically assumed to be content-driven and impersonal, teachers described intentional pedagogical choices. Pacing, seating arrangements, lab design, and opportunities for intellectual exploration can serve as meaningful relational signals. The implicit message of thoughtful instructional design, she argues, is trust.

Miller shares that her thesis taught her the complexity of relationships inside STEM classrooms, specifically with relational work and student-teacher relationships. “As a post-grad,” she says, “I look forward to applying my research findings in both traditional schooling settings but also in other mentor-mentee relationships outside the typical classroom.”