Phase analysis showed Ethan leading the interaction with sameness in Communion and oppositeness in Agency, while Sam led in Communion but followed in Agency¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2020: local conditions change quickly

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Ethan's phase values (.02 Communion, .46 Agency) implied sameness in Communion, oppositeness in Agency, and teacher leadership; Sam's (.44 Communion, -.44 Agency) implied oppositeness in both dimensions, leading in Communion and following in Agency. → Pennings 2017

Evidence¶

Pennings 2017¶

Pennings, H. J. M. (2017). Using a Complexity Approach to Study the Interpersonal Dynamics in Teacher-Student Interactions: A Case Study of Two Teachers. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 14(2). https://complicityjournal.org doi:10.29173/cmplct29338

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Cross-spectral phase analysis of the two classrooms' cycles; average weighted phase interpreted as a lead-lag relationship expressed as the fraction of a full cycle.

"For Ethan's classroom, phase for Communion was .02 and for Agency phase was .46. This implies sameness in Communion and oppositeness in Agency, and, that Ethan is leading in the interaction."

Pennings 2017 (2)¶

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Same phase analysis for Sam's classroom: oppositeness in both dimensions; the article adds that Sam leading in Communion "underpins the idea that Sam is the catalyst of negative interactions".

"For Sam's classroom, phase for Communion was .44 and for Agency phase was -.44. This implies oppositeness in both dimensions"

Discussion¶

Teacher-student cyclical entrainment was considerably higher in the desirable-style teacher's classroom than in the struggling-style teacher's classroom — related
The teacher with the more desirable interpersonal style showed overall coordination consistent with the complementarity principle, while the less desirable teacher's coordination did not — related
Quadratic and cubic trends significantly improved the linear model of teacher and student behavior, showing the importance of studying nonlinearity — related
Viewing agency/communion as a polarity risks underestimating agency in the lives of women — related
The hypothesis that both teachers can refrain from complementarity when facing hostile student behavior could not be confirmed — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`phase-lead-lag-differs-between-teachers`
`title`	`Phase analysis showed Ethan leading the interaction with sameness in Communion and oppositeness in Agency, while Sam led in Communion but followed in Agency`
`description`	`Phase analysis showed Ethan leading the interaction with sameness in Communion and oppositeness in Agency, while Sam led in Communion but followed in Agency`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2017`
`recheck_by`	`2020`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-09-26`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `pennings-2017`, `pennings-2017-2`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.