Classroom behavior: Are we in the same class?

E. Jane Irons
Nancy Leffel Carlson
Edythe Kirk
Brenda Nichols
Faith Wallace
Lamar University

Introduction

    Disruptive classroom behaviors discomfit faculty, staff and administrators at both secondary and post-secondary levels. Hernandez and Fister (2001) suggested that higher education faculty often expect that by the time students reach college they know how to behave in a classroom; however, these authors wrote “disruptive, disrespectful, and disorderly students have begun to stymie many faculty members and administrators in community colleges and universities” (p. 49).
     Frequently, college faculty experience students who are chronically late, who talk to friends during class, who sleep or eat in class, and engage in arguments with the instructor or other students (Amada, 1997). Hernandez and Fister described disruptive behaviors as intentional defiant, annoying, and disrespectful. For example, a student who antagonistically questions the expertise and authority of the instructor, or a student who talks incessantly in class, even after having been called down, could be considered disruptive. Hernandez and Fister suggested that rebellious and escalating disruptions need to be addressed through disciplinary action. This pilot study investigated both graduate and undergraduate students’ perspectives concerning what constituted classroom misbehavior (disruptions). University students were asked to identify student classroom behavior concerns and to specify their recommendations for decreasing disruptive classroom behavior.

Literature Review

Classroom Disruptions and Interventions
     In both secondary and post-secondary settings faculty contend with five broad categories of student misbehavior. Charles (2000, p. 3) listed major student classroom misbehavior in descending order as follows: 1) aggression in the forms of physical and verbal attacks toward faculty, other students, or property; 2) Immorality including cheating, lying, stealing, or plagiarism; 3) Defiance of authority when students refuse to comply with faculty requests; 4) class disruptions such as talking, walking into the classroom late, walking in and out of the classroom, clowning around, or tossing or passing things around the classroom; and 5) goofing off by fooling around, getting out of seat, dawdling, day dreaming, or refusal to do assignments or participate. Public schools continue in the national spotlight with the public expressing concerns about the lack of classroom discipline and management (Rose, Gallup, & Elam, 1997; Rose & Gallup, 2001; Rose & Gallup, 2005). Concurrently, authors continue to provide research-based recommendations to assist teachers with managing inappropriate classroom behaviors. Schloss, Smith and Schloss (2001) outlined specific steps to facilitate successful teacher-student interactions. Particularly relevant for addressing student classroom behavior, Schloss and others advised faculty to directly address inappropriate behavior with students by calling their names and citing the inappropriate behavior. These authors suggested that ignoring inappropriate behavior was unacceptable. Friend and Bursuch (2002) and Fraser (1987) advised faculty to establish classroom procedures, rules and expectations and then follow them consistently. These authors reiterated the importance of clear, concise oral and written communication so that students could understand what was expected of them. Cangelosi (2004) suggested that some faculty may have classroom rules that were unnecessarily restrictive making enforcement problematic. For example, some faculty banned hats and chewing gum in their classrooms.
IHE faculty expectations for classroom discipline
     Ginley and Giraud (2006) stated that there was reason to believe that institutions of higher education faculty expectations of their students’ behavior, intellectual, and emotional characteristics were taken for granted. Using a qualitative focus group approach, these authors examined the perceptions of higher education faculty to identify faculty behavioral expectations of their students. In the Ginley and Giraud study, faculty participants were asked to describe the classroom behaviors they expected their students to demonstrate. Faculty expectations were grouped into three areas: personal, emotional, and intellectual behavior.
     In the personal area, students were expected to be punctual, respect the instructor and peers, actively listen and participate in discussions and activities (Ginley and Giraud). These authors also noted that faculty participants expected cell phones and lap top computers to be turned off because the clicking of the keyboard, mouse or touchpad was distracting to the instructor and other students, even when the students were using the computer to take notes.
     Concerning emotional behavior, Ginley and Giraud noted that faculty expected students to take responsibility for dealing with their own frustrations. In this study instructors expected students to communicate with them when they had issues that impacted learning. Students were expected to know and follow the chain of command found in student handbooks. The instructors in this study indicated that they expected students to understand that the world did not revolve solely around them (Ginley and Giraud).
     In the intellectual area, Ginley and Giraud found that faculty expected students to posses basic math skills and problem solve as well as have reading comprehension to the level they could analyze 100 pages per class per week. These authors found that students were expected to expend considerable personal efforts in their learning, come to class prepared, and take full responsibility for their own learning. Ginley and Giraud found that instructors expected students to use them as facilitators and resources, particularly if students were experiencing difficulty. In addition, students were expected to be academically honest by doing their own work and giving credit to others when borrowing work (Ginley and Giraud).
Academic Dishonesty
     Academic dishonesty is a concern for educators whether they teach in high school, two-year or four-year institutions. Etter, Cramer, and Finn (2006) suggest that access to the Internet has lowered barriers to cheating. Academic dishonesty has been made easier with technology where pre-written term papers are available on the internet (Simon, Carr, McCullough, Morgan, Oleson, & Rissell, 2004). Internet sites have made plagiarism easier with cutting and pasting written sections or even entire works (Gibbons, Mize, & Rogers, 2002; Saterlee, 2002). Internet-savvy high school students have admitted knowing students who plagiarized interned sources or used other technology to cheat (Levin & Arafeh, 2002). Sohn (2001) noted that students freely admitted handing in work written by others. In a web survey conducted by McCabe (2005) four out of five students admitting cheating on written assignments acknowledged utilizing internet sources.
     At the post-secondary level, academic dishonesty appeared to be the misbehavior most often addressed. Carter and Punyanunt-Carter (2006) conducted research on cheating in college classes. Students were asked to rate scenarios of faculty behavior when cheating occurred. These researchers found that students considered faculty behavior unacceptable when faculty did nothing about obvious cheating in their classes. The students in the Carter study rated a faculty behavior scenario most acceptable when faculty confronted a student found cheating. Other students accepted faculty behavior scenarios that included faculty assigning a failing grade for an exam to a student found cheating. Another faculty intervention found acceptable by students was allowing a student found cheating to retake a different and more difficult exam. The most severe treatments for cheating in the Carter study were failing the course and being sent before a college student discipline committee.
Prevalence of Cheating
Some authors have expressed opinions about college student conduct. Gulli, Kohler and Patriquin (2007) voiced outrage that over half of the graduates from Canadian universities admitted cheating on written work, while about 18% admitted cheating on examinations. These authors blamed universities for not taking aggressive steps to ensure the integrity and quality of their graduates. Dannells (1997) suggested that student discipline was once central to college missions but student discipline now has a periphery position with most faculty only marginally involved in student conduct issues, for example, being asked to serve on a student grievance committee. Dannells further suggested that campus administrators may not be overly concerned about their responsibilities with respect to students conduct. This author blamed the legacy of the student rights movement and judicial scrutiny of disciplinary decisions for the lack of real behavior guidance for today’s university students. Given the current concern about student cheating, Dannells suggested clarifying institutional values, codes of conduct and academic integrity policies. Amada (1995) recommended that all instructors specify expected classroom behavior because there may be a discrepancy between what students and faculty see as acceptable. Amada recommends that behavioral standards and consequences for violating them be placed in course syllabi. Amada also emphasized the importance of faculty maintaining good documentation of student disruptive behavior because of the grievance potential. Hoekema (1994) recommended a framework and conceptual model for consideration of codes of conduct based on three moral and ethical principles: fostering community, upholding freedom and preventing harm.
Impact of Television
     Astin (1998) argued that television has impacted adolescents by not portraying realistic life realities. Astin further asserted that students have adopted materialistic and fantastic images of the world with television impacting their discipline and behavior. Zaslow (2007, July 5) suggested that the well known television icon, Mr. Rogers, could be responsible for some of the current entitlement attitudes of today’s students. This author suggested that Mr. Rogers built self-esteem by installing the idea of being special which reinforced perceptions of entitlement. Academic entitlement is defined as the tendency for university students to possess an expectation of academic success without taking personal responsibility for achieving that success. Zaslow gave the example of students asking for extra points to ensure a grade of A because of entitlement and explained that Asian-born students accepted whatever grade they were given and viewed B’s and C’s as indicators that they must put forth more effort. Zaslow suggested that parents deprive their children of becoming “adults” because everything today is so child-centered. Parents fail to discuss their own interests or abilities and focus entirely upon the children’s wants reinforcing feelings of entitlement (Zaslow).
Need for Research
     This literature review has covered higher education faculty expectations of student classroom behavior. Inappropriate student behaviors in the form of aggressive disruptions, cheating, and plagiarism have been covered. The impact of television and student perceived entitlements have been discussed. There appears to be a need to investigate student perceptions of appropriate and inappropriate classroom behavior.

Purpose of the Study

     The purpose of this study was threefold: 1) to develop and pilot a survey instrument; 2) to identify any differences in student perceptions of appropriate classroom behavior; and 3) to obtain student recommendations for improving classroom behavior.

Method

The Respondents
     The sample was one of convenience. Graduate and undergraduate students at a university located in southeast Texas were asked to participate in the study by completing the survey instrument. Eighty-eight students responded. The majority were Caucasian (64%) females (79%). Upper-class juniors (15%); seniors (44%); and graduates at the doctoral level (39%) responded. The major academic fields of the respondents were educational leadership (34%) and psychology (31%). Seven percent responded from the nursing field and six percent from the business field.
The Instrument
     A survey instrument was developed comprised of three sections. First, a demographics section was designed to identify respondent characteristics. Second, two major scales were designed. The behavior scale included items from each of Charles’ (2000) five identified student misbehavior categories: aggression, immorality, defiance of authority, class disruptions, and goofing off. The second scale was based upon Carter and Punyanunt-Carter’s findings concerning consequences for cheating. Finally, the third section consisted of open-ended questions regarding current trends and issues resulting from college student’s classroom behavior.
     The classroom behavior scale contained 43 items. A five-point Likert-type scale with one (1) being significantly inappropriate behavior to five (5) being highly appropriate behavior was used. The average inter-item correlation equaled .18. Cronbach’s coefficient (internal consistency reliability) was .97 indicating a very high level of item homogeneity.
     The consequences for cheating scale contained only six items. The analysis was based on 87 complete data sets yielding a scale mean of 17.4. The average inter-item correlation was .03. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was .11 yielding a very low level of item homogeneity. Both the low number of items and the subjective and emotional contend of these items could account for these results. For example, the professor tearing up a cheating student’s paper in front of the class and telling the student that he has failed the examination and the professor ignoring obvious cheating during an examination are very different faculty behaviors. A factor analysis of the classroom behavior items verified a five factor solution corresponding to Charles’ (2000) categories of student misbehavior. Factor 1, aggressive antisocial and immoral behavior, accounted for 45% of the total variance. Factor 2, defiance of authority, accounted for 11% of the variance. Factors 3 and 4 were classified as classroom disruptions such as passing notes and being tardy to class and accounted for 10% of the total variance. Factor 5, goofing off, accounted for eight percent of the total variance.
Data Analysis and Analysis of Findings
     Inferential statistics were used to analyze the four quantitative research questions. The statement of each question forms the framework for discussion of the findings.

1. Are there gender differences in university students’ perceptions of inappropriate classroom behavior?
   The results for university students’ perceptions of inappropriate behavior, based on gender, follow:
              Males (N = 25) mean = 79.3
              Females (N = 62) mean = 71.7
              t(85) for independent samples = 1.19, p = .24
   These results suggest that males and females do not differ significantly in their perceptions of inappropriate classroom behavior.
2. Are there differences between education and psychology students’ perceptions of inappropriate classroom behavior?
   The results for education and psychology students’ perceptions of inappropriate classroom behavior follow:
              Education (N = 30) mean = 73.1
              Psychology (N = 27) mean = 75.6
              t(55) for independent samples = .37, p = .71
   These results suggest that education majors and psychology majors do not differ significantly in their perceptions of inappropriate classroom behavior.
3. Do males and females differ in their perceptions of consequences for cheating?
   The results on consequence for cheating findings follow:
              Males (N = 25) mean = 18.2
              Females (N = 62) mean 17.2
              t(85) for independent samples = 1.55, p = .12
   These results suggest that males and females do not differ significantly in their perceptions about consequences for cheating.
4. Do education and psychology majors’ perceptions of consequences for cheating differ?
   The results for education and psychology students perceptions of consequences for cheating follow:
              Education majors (N = 30) mean = 17.5
              Psychology majors (N = 27) mean 16.7
              t(55) for independent samples = .99, p = .32
   These results suggest that education and psychology majors do not differ significantly in their perceptions about consequences for cheating.

Qualitative Responses
     Student comments centered around two major categories: concerns about student misbehavior and recommendations for improving student classroom behavior. Qualitative reduction techniques were used to condense the responses into six categories found in Table 1. The student respondents made eight recommendations for improving classroom behavior found in Table 2.

Limitations

     The limitations of this study follow. Glatthorn and Joyner (2005, p. 168) define limitations as “the boundaries of the study and ways in which findings may be generalized.” The limitations of this study include the following:

1. The study was a pilot for the purpose of instrument development.
2. The sample was one of convenience and limited in the number of respondents.
3. The respondents were from one university in one geographical area of southeast Texas.
4. The study was delimited to adult university students.
5. The study is subject to the specific limitations of survey research; specifically, data was collected at one point in time and relies on the personal perception and biases of the respondents.

Summary and Conclusions

     The preliminary findings of this pilot study support the research of Carter and Punyanunt-Carter (2006) concerning student reactions to cheating indicate student participants did not condone cheating and some expressed their displeasure that faculty did nothing to stop cheating. There were no significant gender differences or differences between education and psychology majors concerning inappropriate classroom behavior and perceived consequences for cheating. Students appeared to be in agreement that talking, tardiness and going in and out of the class constituted disruptive behavior. The student participants disliked fellow students coming to class unprepared and not participation in activities, yet obtaining satisfactory grades.
     Student respondents recommended that faculty address student behavior directly by communicating clear expectations both orally and in writing and by being consistent. These student recommendations support suggestions made by Amada (1995) who recommended clarifying behavioral expectation in course syllabi.
     This pilot study has provided information to modify the survey instrument and include both college/university and high school faculty and their administrators. In addition, community college students as well as university students will be asked to volunteer to complete the survey and provide additional input.
     Disruptive students are the focus of attention at secondary and post-secondary levels; but it must be recognized that they are only a part of the system that is affected by their disruptive behaviors. It is important to recognize that an entire system must collaborate to develop and implement a process to deal with disruptive students. Further research may have implications for counselors, administrators, faculty, and students as well as professional development.

References

Amada, G. (1995). The disruptive college student: Some thoughts and considerations. Journal of College Student Health, 43,
       232-236.
Amada, G. (1997). The disruptive college student: Recent trends and practical advice. Journal of College Student
       Psychotherapy, 11, 57-67.
Astin, A. (1998). The changing American college student: Thirty-year trends, 1966-1996. The Review of Higher Education, 21,
       115-135.
Cangelosi, J. S. (2004). Classroom management strategies (5th ed). Danvers, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
Carter, S. L., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2006, September). Acceptability of treatments for cheating in the college classroom.
       Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(3).
Charles, C. M. (2002). Building classroom discipline (7th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Dannells, M. (1997). From discipline to development: Rethinking student conduct in higher education (Report No. BBB32577).
       Washington, DC: George Washington University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED408919).
Etter, S., Cramer, J., & Finn, S. (2006, Winter). Origins of academic dishonesty: Ethical orientations and personality factors
       associated with attitude about cheating with information technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
       39(2), 133-155.
Fraser, B. J. (1987). Use of classroom environment assessments in school psychology. School Psychology International,
       8, 5-19.
Friend, M., & Bursuch, W. D. (2002). Including students with special needs. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gibbons, A., Mize, C., & Rogers, K. (2002, June). That’s my story and I’m sticking to it: Promoting academic integrity in the
       online environment. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 477016). Retrieved August 31, 2007, from ERIC
       database.
Ginley, K. J., & Giraud, G. (2006, October) Identifying instructor ‘expectations: A focus group experience. Paper presented
       at the Midwest Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Columbus, OH.
Glatthorn, A., & Joyner, R. (2005). Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
       Press.
Gulli, C., Kohler, N. & Patriquin, M. (2007, February 7).The great university cheating scandal. Macleans.ca. Toronto: ON: Rogers
       Media, Publishing Ltd. Retrieved from
       http://www.camclean.ca/education/universities/article.jsp?id=0&content=20070212_140680_140680
Hernandez, T., & Fister, D. (2001). Dealing with disruptive and emotional college students: A systems model. Journal of College
       Counseling, 4(1), 49-62.
Hoekema, D. (1994). Campus rules and moral community: In place of In Loco Parentis. Latham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Levin, D., & Arafeh, S. (2002). The digital disconnect: The widening gap between internet-savvy students and their schools.
       Washington DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from
       http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Schools_Internet_Report.pdf
McCabe, D. (2005, January). It takes a village: Academic dishonesty. Liberal Education, 91(3), 26.
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2001, September). The 33rd annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public’s attitude toward the
       public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 41-58.
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2005, September). The 37th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public’s attitudes toward
       the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(1), 41-57.
Rose, L. C., Gallup, A. M., & Elam, S. M. (1997, September). The 29th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public’s
       attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1), 41-56.
Saterlee, A. (2002, July). Academic dishonesty among students: Consequences and interventions. (ERIC Document Reproduction
       Service No. ED 469468) Retrieved August 31, 2007, from ERIC database.
Schloss, P. J., Smith, M. A., & Schloss, C. N. (2001). Instructional methods for secondary students with learning and behavior
       problems (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Simon, C., Carr, J., McCullough, S., Morgan, T., Oleson, T., & Rissell, J. (2004), February). Gender, student perceptions,
       institutional comments and academic dishonesty: Who reports in academic dishonesty cases? Assessment & Evaluation
       in Higher Education, 29(1), 75.
Sohn, E. (2001, May 21). The young and virtueless. U. S. News & World Report 130(20), 51. Retrieved from Academic Search
       Complete database.
Zaslow, J. (2007, July 5). Blame it on Mr. Rogers: Why young adults feel so entitled. The Wall Street Journal, p. B5.

Table 1
Student Concerns

1. Cheating was a concern; students specifically voiced concerns about faculty who did nothing about cheating.
2. Excessive talking and off topic talking in class were particularly troubling to many students.
3. Disregard for class attendance and disruptive tardiness bothered many students.
4. Continuously getting up and leaving the classroom bothered a number of students
5. Cell phones ringing and students talking on cell phones in class bothered students.
6. Disregard for the instructor by talking during a lecture, coming to class unprepared and not participation in class activities concerned a number of student respondents.

Table 2
Student Recommendations

1. Students must be required to turn off cell phones in the classroom. If a cell phone rings the student must be required to leave class for that period.
2. Faculty needs to set clear behavior expectations in writing and then follow them consistently.
3. One student suggested that small classes placed more responsibility upon the individual (one cannot blend in and get away with certain things in a small group).
4. Institute a student/faculty behavior review committee to handle student misbehavior infractions.
5. When students leave the class they cannot re-enter until the class is completed.
6. Close the classroom door and do not reopen it after class starts.
7. Provide workshops for extra credit on conflict resolution between students and instructors.
8. If a student cheats they should get an F for the class.