An exploratory study of disruptive behaviour and ... · Web viewAccording to Boice (1996) and Morrissette (2001) this reaction by teaching staff is not uncommon, as acknowledging

Paper presented to the BERA Annual Conference 2009

An exploratory study of disruptive behaviour and incivility in higher education

classrooms.

Paula Rivas

Edge Hill University, St Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference,

University of Manchester, 2-5 September 2009

Abstract

Within the United Kingdom there has been a recent increase in media

attention that focuses on the deterioration of classroom behaviour in

compulsory secondary school education. Surprisingly the same level of

interest has yet to infiltrate the literature on classroom conduct in higher

education and there is a dearth of research in this field. This study

surveyed three hundred and fifty undergraduate nursing students and fifty

seven teaching staff at a University in the North West of England. Results

of the survey confirmed that students and teachers were experiencing high

levels of disruptive classroom behaviour the most frequent being: chatting

in class, entering class late, students regularly going to the toilet and

students preparing to leave early. Issues were also raised in the survey in

relation to classroom dynamics in higher education. The study highlights

the need for further investigation into the causes and management of

classroom incivility in UK higher education classrooms.

Key words: student; behaviour; incivility; higher education; disruptive

classroom behaviour.

Email: [email protected]

1

mailto:[email protected]


Introduction

Definition of classroom incivility

The word civil has ancient Latin roots in the word ‘civitas’ meaning community or

city and although authors define and describe civility, there is no consistent

definition (Clark & Carnosso 2008). Clark (2008b) suggests that this lack of

universal definition is due to the interpretation of individual perceptions with each

person making meaning of an encounter based on his or her own attitudes, beliefs

and life experiences. Contemporary authors consider civility to be an admirable

attribute (Forni 2002). According to Sistare (2004) civility requires tolerance,

listening and discussing different viewpoints without personal attacks. Similarly,

Guinness (2008) defines civility as respect for differences and treating one another

with dignity. Whilst being civil is to be polite, respectful and decent, conversely,

incivility is defined as ‘speech or action that is that is discourteous, rude or

impolite’ (Clark 2008b;4). Hernandez & Fister (2001) define uncivil behaviours as

being intentionally rebellious, defiant, disrespectful or antagonistic in nature. When

describing incivility in the workplace. Uncivil behaviours are characterized as rude

and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others (Anderson and Pearson

1999) and as causing an atmosphere of disrespect, conflict and stress (Clark 2008b).

Feldmann (2001:137) defines Classroom incivility as ‘any action that interferes

with a harmonious and cooperative learning atmosphere in the classroom’.

Furthermore Nilson and Jackson (2004) extend this definition to incorporate

unacceptable student behaviour that may occur both inside and outside of the class.

Feldman (2001) introduces the term academic incivility into the literature as rude,

discourteous behaviour that disrupts the learning environment. Morrissete (2001)

implies that student incivility is intentional behaviour that proceeds to disrupt and

impede the teaching and learning processes of others. For the purpose of this study

the words disruptive behaviour are deemed to be synonymous with the term

incivility.

2


Frequency of classroom incivility

Within the United Kingdom there has been a recent increase in media attention on

the deterioration of classroom behaviour in compulsory secondary school education

(DFES 2005; OFSTED 2005; ATL 2009). Similarly, media reports suggest that

students and teachers nationally are experiencing high levels of disruptive

classroom behaviours within higher education Clements 2004; Meike 2006; White

2009). Whilst there is a national focus on student conduct in general throughout the

HEI sector, highlighted by the launch of the National Student Conduct Survey

(2007), there is no published empirical work specifically related to disruptive

classroom behaviour in British Higher Education. Within the United States the

literature has identified an increase in the number of disruptive behaviours or

‘incivilities’ (a term used in the literature from the USA) that take place by students

in higher education undergraduate programmes. Incivility in higher education

classrooms is described as an emergent problem with reports in the literature of the

increase in the incidence of problematic student behaviour (Young 2003; Luparell

2003; Thomas 2003; Clark & Springer 2007; and Clark 2008c. Lashley and

DeMenses (2001) found that respondents had observed an increase in student

incivility compared with five years before the study. Hanson (2001) explored the

phenomenon of classroom incivility from the perspective of teachers and reported

that during the course of their career, the majority of teachers had experienced

classroom incivility in some form. Recent studies have specifically identified an

increase in student incivility in nursing programmes both within the academic

setting (Kalanko et al 2006; White 2009) and clinical placements (Lashley &

DeMenses 2001).

This study

This study consisted of an exploratory survey to address the lack of empirical

research on the incidence and impact of disruptive classroom behaviour in higher

education classrooms within the United Kingdom. Specifically, the research

questions addressed within the study were related to the prevalence of classroom

3


behaviours that are deemed to be disruptive and the extent of disruption to learning

and teaching of specific disruptive classroom behaviours.

4


Method

Design

A survey approach was utilized within this study. Data was gathered through the

utilization of questionnaires. Focus groups were utilized following the completion

of the first draft of the questionnaires to identify any errors or additions and to

clarify the terminology used as research literature emphasize the importance of

producing questions that respondents can understand (Czaja & Blair 1996). Focus

groups that are used for this purpose, that is to generate contextual data to inform a

survey, are often described as pre-pilot focus groups (Bloor et al 2001). Two

questionnaires were designed for staff and students. The initial draft was based on a

questionnaires utilized in two unpublished surveys from Indiana University (1998)

and The University of Arizona (2003). The questionnaires consisted of mostly

closed-ended questions that related to the frequency of specific disruptive

behaviours and perceptions of the impact on teaching and learning with some

interspersed follow-up, open-ended questions. The use of open-ended questions also

allowed the identification of behaviour and responses that had not been addressed in

closed-ended questions within the questionnaire. The questionnaires asked students

and staff to rate their experiences of the frequency of specific disruptive classroom

behaviours using a 3-point scale (1=never, 2=often, 3=frequently) and also the

extent to which these behaviours impacted on their teaching and learning using a 4-

point scale (1=not disruptive, 2=slightly disruptive, 3=moderately disruptive,

4=very disruptive). Demographic data that included gender and age was also

requested.

Participants

Participants consisted of 350 undergraduate male and female, traditional and non-

traditional pre-registration nursing students and 57 male and female teaching staff.

The student sample consisted of cohorts in their first year of study where class sizes

are at a maximum and may consist of between 50 and 250 students at one time. It is

suggested that these large groups of students can prove more difficult to exert

5


control over and often cause most problems in relation to classroom behaviour

(Carbone 1999, Fry et al, 2003). The staff sample comprised of pre-registration

nurse teachers, both male and female, that teach students in their first year.

Results

Student survey

The frequency of disruptive behaviour as reported by students

Students had experienced all of the behaviours that were listed in the survey at

some point during the first year of their course (Table 1). The most frequently

experienced ‘disruptive’ behaviours included chatting in class (98.8%), entering

class late (98.3%), drinking in class, (97.2%), going to the toilet (97.0%) and

preparing to leave early (92.8%). Several students had also experienced behaviours

that could be perceived as being intimidating and endangering personal safety.

These included the use of offensive language (41.0%), verbal abuse (17.5%) and

physical threats (2.4%). (Table 1)

Table I Frequency of disruptive classroom behaviour experienced by students

Behaviour Frequency

Chatting in class 98.8%

Entering late 98.3%

Drinking in class 97.2%

Going to the toilet 97.0%

Preparing to leave early 92.8%

Mobile phone ringing in class 91.7%

Texting in class 90.5%

Eating in class 86.1%

Dominating the discussion 84.3%

Entering loudly 84.0%

6


Chewing gum in class 83.9%

Leaving early 81.8%

Acting bored/ apathetic 81.0%

Skipping classes 77.8%

Leaving class to answer phone 71.2%

Not being prepared for sessions 67.2%

Sleeping in class 56.6%

Reading magazines/ newspapers 56.3%

Use of offensive language 41.0%

Talking on phone in class 39.4%

Playing games on mobile phones 38.2%

Listening to iPods/MP3 players 33.8%

Inappropriate attire 27.7%

Writing assignments for other modules 23.7%

Poor personal hygiene 22.3%

Verbal abuse of other students 17.5%

Physical intimacy 6.1%

Threatening other students 2.4%

In response to the question “Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on

disruptive classroom behaviour”,’ several students commented on the frequency of

disruptive behaviour and their selected remarks serve to emphasize the extent of the

problem

“I think that disruptive behaviour is becoming worse as the course

continues”. (Student 81)

“The continuing chatting has to be addressed. The sooner that disruptive

behaviour is sorted out the better”. (Student 140)

7


“I think disruptive behaviour should be taken more seriously and more should

be done to stop it because it isn't fair on students who are not being disruptive

as it is stopping the learning. This isn't fair and the people being disruptive are

getting away with it”. (Student 130)

“Talking, mobile phones, late arrivals seem to be getting worse and appear to

be ignored by most tutors”. (Student 87)

Students were asked to identify and describe any disruptive behaviour that has not

been mentioned Students identified several disruptive classroom behaviours that

had not been included. These behaviours fall into three categories: student initiated

behaviour, teachers displaying ineffective classroom control and teachers as

inadequate role models. (Table 2)

Table 2. Other disruptive behaviours identified by students.

Student initiated

Students shouting out in class

Asking questions that have already been answered

Pushing/kicking the chair in front

Discussing issues not relevant to the topic

Passing notes

Classroom domination by mature students

Interrupting the teacher

Teachers’ classroom control

Lecturers being drawn off track

Unable to hear the teacher or take part in the discussion

Lecturers struggling to use technical equipment

Teachers as role models

Lecturers turning up late

8


Lecturers being unprepared

Lecturers going off the topic

Too many powerpoint lectures

The level of disruption on learning as perceived by students

All of the behaviours listed in the questionnaire were perceived to be slightly,

moderately or very disruptive to their learning. Behaviours that had the highest

frequency of being moderately or very disruptive to students were chatting in class

(96.0%), students entering late (92.9%), mobile phones ringing in class (91.5%),

preparing to leave early (89.3%), going to the toilet (87.0%) and students

dominating the discussion (81.8%) (Table 3).

Table 3 Frequency of behaviours that students both experienced and perceived

to be disruptive to learning.

Behaviour Frequency

Chatting in class 96.0 %

Students entering late 92.9 %

Mobile phone ringing in class 91.5 %

Preparing to leave early 89.3 %

Going to the toilet 87.0 %

Dominating the discussion 81.8 %

Leaving early 75.6 %

Entering loudly 73.7 %

Use of offensive language 71.4 %

Texting in class 68.6 %

Acting bored/ apathetic 67.1 %

Leaving class to answer phone 61.5 %

Eating in class 56.8 %

Not being prepared for sessions 55.9 %

9


Skipping classes 50.1 %

Drinking in class 47.3 %

Reading magazines/ newspapers 39.7 %

Talking on phone in class 38.2 %

Chewing gum in class 34.9 %

Playing games on mobile phones 34.9 %

Sleeping in class 27.7 %

Listening to iPods/MP3 players 26.3 %

Poor personal hygiene 22.8 %

Inappropriate attire 21.2 %

Verbal abuse of other students 18.8 %

Writing assignments for other modules 18.2 %

Physical intimacy 5.9 %

Threatening other students 2.7 %

When asked for additional comments, students expressed the extent to which their

peers’ disruptive behaviour had a negative effect on their learning.

“I am a mature student who has given up a lot to do this course. Disruptive

classroom behaviour has a serious effect on my learning and has at times

made me question if I can continue on my course” (Student 103)

“Disruptive behaviour makes it difficult to concentrate-please do

something”(Student 187)

“Need to be more strict with disruptive behaviour, it’s stopping our

learning” (Student 183)

10


“Chatting in class is like birds tweeting in the garden. You’re trying to

concentrate when the lecturer is struggling to be heard and all you hear is

‘my boyfriend this etc”(Student 127)

“It can be very off putting and hard to concentrate especially when this is

an important year”(Student 9)

Demographic factors

The majority of students fall into the age 23 and under category (51.4%) Within this

group reported certain behaviours were perceived as being only slightly disruptive,

for example chewing gum in class (70.5%), texting in class (37.3%), mobile phones

ringing in class (4.8%) and threatening other students (66.4%). They did not report

high percentages within their age category for any of the listed behaviours in

relation to finding them very disruptive. The statistics above were reflected in some

of the comments of these students.

‘Behaviour such as listening to iPods or texting is not disruptive to me as

long as other students do not interfere with the lecture’. (Student 147, age

19)

‘In current society mobile phones are a part of every day life in the world of

work, home community. Change with the times mobile phones are not

disruptive!!! Be grateful, in America and other countries students are

checked for lethal weapons’.(Student 131, age 21)

‘People leaving to go to the toilet or use the phone is not disruptive to me

and I feel that it should be accepted as long as it is done discretely’.

(Student 166, age 19)

11


‘With regards to skipping classes I believe that we are a group of adults

who if they decide to skip class it is up to them’ (Student 91, age 23)

Additional responses highlighted further issues in relation to tensions across the age

range of the sample group.

‘I am 41 years old and don’t need idiots to slow my learning. We were all

kids before but we have to draw the line somewhere’ (Student 110, age 41)

‘I feel that the age difference between students is quite obvious’ (Student -

44, age 35)

‘Can I say that it is not always younger students who are disruptive but

older ones as well which can be frustrating at times’ (Student 138, age 39)

‘There is no excuse for back-chatting, acting clever in class. Especially

when mature students do it they should know better’ (Student 139, age 19)

‘There seems to be some conflict between the older and younger students. As

a younger student who has recently left school I am able to work well with

background noise and can cope with disruptive behaviour. I appreciate that

mature students have not been in this environment for some time however

they often single out younger ones. It is often more disruptive when they ask

irrelevant questions or share their experiences’. (Student 139, age 19)

‘Older students constantly make irrelevant statements, thus deviating from

the lecture format’ (Student 155, age 24)

12


One area where this tension is apparent is in relation to students dominating the

discussion. The data identified that also that 88.1% of students under the age of 23

reported that students dominating the discussion was disruptive to their learning.

Staff survey

The frequency of disruptive behaviour as reported by staff

Staff had experienced all of the disruptive behaviours listed in the questionnaire at

some point in their teaching careers (Table 4). The most frequently observed

behaviours included students entering late (100%), students chewing gum in class

(100%), mobile phones ringing in class (100%), chatting in class (100%) and

students acting bored/apathetic (100%). Staff reported that they had also

experienced, to a greater extent than students, behaviours that could be perceived to

be threatening or intimidating. These included verbal abuse of other students

(28.6% ), use of offensive language (26.5% ) and threatening other students (5.7%)

Table 4 Frequency of disruptive classroom behaviours experienced by staff

Behaviour Frequency

Entering late 100 %

Chewing gum in class 100 %

Mobile phone ringing in class 100 %

Chatting in class 100 %

Acting bored/ apathetic 100 %





Dominating the discussion 91.4 %


13



















In response to the question “Please share any additional comments or thoughts that

you have on disruptive behaviour in class” staff made comments in relation to the

frequency of disruptive behaviour that conflict with the results of the data.

‘Not an issue as respect is a two-way process’(Staff 3)

‘Not currently a major problem as we spend significant time at the onset of

the module reminding students of unacceptable behaviour’ (Staff 34)

‘Disruptive behaviour is experienced more by students than staff’ (Staff 30)

There was only one comment that reinforced the data findings

14


‘Disruptive behaviour used to be rare but now it is common’(Staff 8)

The level of disruption on teaching and learning as perceived by students

All of the behaviours that were listed in the questionnaire were found to be

disruptive to teaching by staff to varying extents ranging form slightly to very

disruptive (Table 5). Behaviours that had the highest frequencies of being disruptive

to teaching included chatting in class (97.1%), mobile phones ringing in class

(94.3% ), students entering late (91.4%), texting in class (90.9%) and students not

being prepared for sessions (90.3%).

Table 5 Frequency of behaviours that staff both experienced and perceived to be

disruptive.

Behaviour Frequency

Chatting in class 97.1 %

Mobile phone ringing in class 94.3 %

Entering late 91.4 %




Acting bored/ apathetic 82.4 %

Students dominating the discussion 81.8 %










15










Chewing gum in class 24.2 %



In response to the question “please share any additional comments or thoughts that

you have on disruptive behaviour in class” staff made no comments that related to

the extent or effects of disruptive behaviour on their teaching despite the data

identifying high levels of disruption.

Discussion

The data from this UK survey provides evidence similar to that from the USA

(Hanson 2001; Clarke & Springer 2007) that students and staff are experiencing

high levels of disruptive behaviour in higher education classrooms. The types of

disruptive behaviours that students and staff are experiencing most frequently are

also similar to those that have been identified as most prevalent within US

classrooms. These behaviours include persistent chatting, arriving late, preparing to

leave early students participating in non-class relevant activities, use of mobile

phones, domination of discussion, using computers for unrelated class purposes,

cheating, skipping class and acting bored or apathetic (Boice 1996; Parr & Valerius

1999; Hanson 2000; Clark 2008c; Clark & Springer 2007).

16


The types of behaviours that were perceived to be disruptive to teaching and

learning varied only slightly between staff and students with entering late, chatting,

going to the toilet and mobile phones ringing being reported as being most

disruptive. Similarly, Clarke and Springer (2007) identified that the majority of

students and teachers reported similar levels of student incivilities and both

perceived them to be equally problematic. On the contrary, Hanson (2000) found

discrepancies in the frequency and perceived disruptive nature of uncivil student

behaviours as reported by students and teachers. She found that students perceived

that they engage in incivilities less frequently than teachers reported that they

displayed these behaviours. This study also identified that teachers perceived

student incivilities to be more disruptive than students perceptions. This is an

important issue as Caboni et al (2004) highlights that if teachers perceive a set of

behaviours as being inappropriate but students do not, this may become problematic

for both parties. Nilson and Jackson (2004) believe that most students are bothered

by the same behaviours that annoy teachers; a commonality that is important when

considering dealing with classroom disruption.

Worryingly within the finding of this study were the reports of students and staff

experiencing behaviour in class that could be perceived as intimidating and

endangering personal safety. More severe forms of classroom incivility are

increasingly being cited. These include verbal and physical attacks as well as more

intimidating behaviour (Kuhlenschmidt and Layne 1999) in addition to yelling at

teachers and objectionable physical contact of students with instructors (Lashley &

DeMenses 2001). Recent research in the UK (White 2009) identified intimidation

and abuse faced by lecturers at the hands of their students. Academics stated that

swearing and verbal attacks were increasing in frequency. Luparell’s (2003) study

of critical incidents of incivility by nursing students in the USA reported detailed

encounters as described by thirty six teachers that ranged from mildly to severely

aggressive. Although no staff member within her study identified physical contact,

they expressed that these events had a profound and prolonged effect including

feelings of threats to personal wellbeing.

17


It was highlighted from students’ comments within this study that teachers may also

be responsible for exhibiting unacceptable and uncivil classroom behaviours such

as turning up late, being unprepared, going of the topic and using teaching methods

that failed to engage students. They also blamed teachers for augmenting students’

disruptive behaviour by failing to adequately ‘control’ the classroom environment,

being easily drawn off track, struggling to use equipment and being inaudible.

Although addressing the issue of student incivility is imperative, it is important that

attention is also given to contributions that teachers may be making to incivility in

the classroom environment. Braxton and Bayer (2004) recognise this interactional

effect between students and staff in the classroom stating that incivilities are not

unidirectional, nor do they occur in a vacuum, that teachers and students are

interlocking phenomena. A study of classroom incivilities by Boice (1996) first

highlighted in the literature the role that the teacher plays in initiating disruptive

student behaviours in higher education classrooms, however an unknown rate of

such teaching incivilities leads to the perception that these improprieties are a rare

event (Braxton & Mann 2004). Bayer (2004) suggests that disrespectful behaviour

by teaching staff is even more pronounced than most would recognize.

As previously stated, within this study, the types of student behaviours that were

perceived to be disruptive to teaching and learning varied only slightly between

staff and students with entering late, chatting, going to the toilet and mobile phones

ringing being reported as being most disruptive. Incivility in higher education

authors report the impact that student and teacher inappropriate behaviours have on

the teaching and learning process. The effects of students’ classroom incivility have

been described as restricting the teaching and learning capabilities of institutions

(Feldmann 2001), inhibiting and undermining learning and academic enquiry

(Sorcinelli 1994; Carbone 1999; Bray & Del Favero 2004; Clark 2008c) affecting

other students’ learning opportunities (Morissette 2001; Braxton & Bayer 2004) and

impacting on the learning environment (Amada 1997; Seidman 2005). Boice (1996)

observed that continued persistence of classroom incivility resulted in the

18


divestment of both teacher and students, with students becoming less involved in

the classroom experience. This manifested itself in students arriving late, leaving

early, chatting off topic and making sarcastic comments. Similarly, Anderson

(1999) identified the cumulative effect of passive incivility in classes as taking its

toll on students leaving them with less energy to facilitate their cognitive growth

and positive learning outcomes

Within the survey students in particular provided comments that gave a real insight

into the extent of the problem of classroom disruption and importantly the effect

that it has on their learning. Their remarks serve to emphasise the extent and serious

nature of the problem. Research by Hirschy and Braxton (2004) focused on the

effects of students classroom incivilities on students’ academic and intellectual

development and on their commitment to their university. The study indicated that

classroom incivilities can harm the classroom environment and thus have

deleterious consequences on students. Furthermore, they found that the effects of

incivilities extend beyond the confines of the classroom and can damage the

students’ efforts to succeed at their institutions. In addition they suggest that high

incidents of disruption and inattention in the classroom such as those highlighted in

this research can impinge on students’ perceptions of their own academic and

intellectual development negatively. The authors reported that students who

frequently observe classroom incivilities may spend less energy thinking critically

during the class and be less engaged with the course material afterward. They stated

that students who become frustrated with a chaotic classroom environment may feel

isolated and sense that their beliefs and values do not fit in with those of other

students. These views might lead to a decline in commitment to their university and

have a negative indirect impact on student retention. This is a view that is

corroborated by Polinsky (2003) who identified a poor learning environment as a

key reason for students leaving higher education early.

Staff reports of their experiences of disruptive behaviour in this study have

provided conflicting evidence. Although data demonstrated that teachers had

19


experienced high levels of classroom disruption, their additional comments

indicated that challenging behaviour was not an issue. According to Boice (1996)

and Morrissette (2001) this reaction by teaching staff is not uncommon, as

acknowledging disruptive classroom behaviour is embarrassing, even taboo. Fear of

the consequences of disciplining students may also influence teaching staff to

remain silent regarding behaviour in the classroom (Amada 1999). Moreover,

teachers may be reluctant to share details with their colleagues about disruption and

how they reacted to students (Hernandez & Fister, 2001). Sorcinelli (1994)

intimates that teachers may feel that they are to blame, that the behaviour points to

some deficiency in their teaching.

All of the behaviours that were listed in the survey were found to be disruptive to

teaching by staff to varying extents. The consequences of classroom incivility in

higher education have however in the main focused on the student experience.

There is lack of primary research that explores the impact of student incivility on

teachers. Boice (1996) observed that the continued persistence of classroom

incivility resulted in teachers becoming less enthused about their students and their

course furthermore, Morrissette (2001) states that uncivil student behaviour can

lead to teacher stress, discontent and eventual burnout. Braxton and Bayer (2004)

describe the effect that deviant student behaviour can have on teachers’ classroom

performance as detracting their activity away from education and learning to

discipline and classroom management. Correspondingly, Appleby (1990) believes

that teachers who realize that they are likely to face inappropriate behaviour during

lectures may begin to devote time and energy to developing coping strategies rather

that focusing on teaching and that in addition teachers who dread having to deal

with student misbehaviours in class can become demoralized and disillusioned with

the overall teaching process. Interviews with undergraduate nursing teachers by

Luparell (2003) were conducted to ascertain the short and long term effects that

critical incidents of uncivil encounters against staff had on them. In this study the

encounters ranged in severity from mild to highly aggressive. The short- and long-

20


term ramifications of the uncivil encounters described by the participants in this

study included issues involving time, money, productivity, and wellbeing.

While tradition holds students mostly responsible for disruptive classroom

behaviour it was highlighted from students additional comments within the study

that teachers may also be responsible themselves for exhibiting unacceptable

classroom behaviours such as turning up late, being unprepared, going off the topic

and using teaching methods that failed to engage students. They also blamed

teachers for augmenting students’ disruptive behaviour by failing to adequately

‘control’ the classroom environment, being easily drawn off track, struggling to use

equipment and being inaudible. Braxton and Bayer (2004) recognise this

interactional effect between students and staff in the classroom stating that

incivilities are not unidirectional, nor do they occur in a vacuum, that teachers and

students are interlocking phenomena. The effect of teachers’ problematic behaviour

on students is not widely rehearsed within the literature although more recent

studies have begun to explore this aspect of incivility. Thomas (2003) examined the

effect of uncivil teacher behaviour on nursing students and reported that students

felt vexed about perceived teacher unfairness, rigidity, and harsh criticism. Similar

student experiences were described by Clark (2008b) in her phenomenological

study to describe nursing students’ uncivil encounters with teachers and their

emotional responses these events. Three themes emerged from this study in relation

to emotional responses as students described feeling traumatized, powerless and

angry. Participants described feeling traumatized by uncivil encounters with

teachers.

It appears from the data in this study that traditional students, aged under 25yrs

(Howard & Baird, 2000) demonstrate higher tolerance of certain disruptive

behaviours such as texting, listening to iPods, use of mobile phones and going to

the toilet. It could be suggested that this is related to the high levels of disruptive

behaviour that has been identified within compulsory secondary education

(OFSTED, 2005) that may build a level of tolerance in recent school leavers. The

21


study also identified issues related to tensions across the age sample of the students

in particular traditional students reported that mature or non-traditional students

aged 25 and over (Howard & Baird, 2000) dominated discussion within the

classroom. It was highlighted that over 80% of students under the age of 23 years

identified students dominating the discussion as disruptive behaviour. Their

comments serve to imply that some of tensions across the age sample are related to

this issue. Domination of classroom discussion has also been identified as a form of

classroom civility by both students and teachers in other studies (Parr and Valerius

1999; Hanson 2000; Clark & Springer 2007). Karp and Yoels (1998) believe that

some incidents of incivility are due to student annoyance at their peers who have a

pattern of continually answering class questions. Moreover, they suggest that as

other students become less involved, the less they learn and as they become more

anonymous they are more likely to become involved in uncivil behaviour.

Teachers’ awareness of these tensions have important implications as authors

(Anderson 1999) have recognized that diversity in the classroom can become a

source of conflict if allowed to become a divisive factor. According to Howard and

Baird (2000) within the typical classroom, participation in discussion will be

consolidated in the hands of a few, with the majority of students being passive

observers or only occasional participants. Nunn (1996) identifies that interaction is

dominated by 8% of students and a study by Howard and Baird (2000) found that a

much higher percentage of non-traditional students participated in discussion than

traditional students. Their research proposed that the degree of concern shown by

non participants suggested that they perceived the classroom as a potentially hostile,

threatening environment that led to them feeling insecure. Boice (1996) reported

that a few intimidating students can discourage open displays of interest in other

class members. Howard and Baird (2000) reported that non-participants were

concerned that talkative classmates who sought to inject their own experiences and

insights into the discussion took too much time away from the ‘true expert’ in the

classroom--the teacher, findings that correspond with the comments made by

students in this survey. They also found that non-participants were more likely to

become annoyed with classmates ‘who talk too much’ (Howard & Baird 2000:715).

22


Conclusion

The initial purpose of this research study was to quantify the frequency and level of

disruptive classroom behaviour in higher education classrooms in the UK and to

explore the extent of the problem. The study identified high levels of classroom

disruption that involves similar behaviours to those that have been identified in the

USA. Both staff and students associated these behaviours with disruption to

teaching and learning processes. Data analysis and a review of the literature on

disruptive classroom behaviour have also raised many issues related to the study

and identified areas for both future practice and research. The findings of this study

and the review of the literature on classroom misconduct in higher education is of

sufficient importance to require research on a national basis within the UK and has

highlighted the need for further research in several related areas including student

perspectives on disruptive behaviour, factors that predispose to classroom incivility

teachers’ classroom improprieties and classroom tensions between traditional and

non-traditonal students.

Bibliography

23


Amada G. (1999) Coping with the disruptive college student. Administration

Publications. Ashville NC College.

Anderson J (1999) Faculty Responsibility for Promoting Conflict-Free College

Classrooms. New Directions in Teaching and Learning .99 Fall 69-76.

Anderson L. & Pearson C. (1999) Tit for tat?: The spiralling effect of incivility in

the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24 (3), 452-19.

Appleby D. (1990) .Faculty perceptions of irritating behaviours in the college

classroom. Journal of staff, program and organization development, 8 , 41-5.

Association of Teachers and Lecturers (2009) Violent pupils and parents make

teachers lives a misery. Association of Teachers and Lecturers Annual Conference

Press Release 6-9 April 2009.

Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, & Robson K (2001) Focus Groups in Social

Research. London. Sage.

Boice B. (1996) Classroom Incivilities. Research in Higher Education, 37 (4), 453-

33.

Bray N and Favero M (2004) Sociological Explanations for Faculty and Student

Classroom Incivilities. New Directions in Teaching and Learning 99 Fall 9-19.

Braxton J & Bayer A (2004) Introduction: Faculty and Student Classroom

Improprieties. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 99 (3), 3-7.

Braxton J & Mann M (2004) Incidence and Student Response to Faculty Teaching

Norm Violations. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 99 (3), 35-40

Caboni T. Hirschy A. & Best J. (2004) Student Norms of Classroom Decorum. New

Directions in Teaching and Learning. 99 (3), 59-7.

24


Carbone E. (1999) Students behaving badly in large classes. New Directions in

Teaching and Learning. 77 (1), 35-7.

Clark C. (2008a) The dance of incivility in nursing education as described by

nursing faculty and students. Advances in nursing science, 31 (4), 37-17.

Clark C. (2008b) Student voices on faculty incivility in nursing education: A

conceptual model. Nursing Education perspectives, 29 (5), 284-5.

Clark C. (2008c) Faculty and Student assessment of and Experience with Incivility

in Nursing Education. Jounal of Nursing Education.47 (10), 458-7.

Clark (2008d) Student perspectives on faculty Incivility in Nursing Education: An

application of the concept of rankism. Nursing Outlook. 56 (1), 4-4.

Clark C. & Springer P. (2007) Incivility in Nursing Education: A Descriptive Study

of Definitions and Prevalence. Journal of Nursing Education.46 (1), 7-7.

Clark C. & Carnosso (2008) Civility: A Concept Analysis. Journal of Theory

Construction & Testing.12 (1), 11-15.

Clements A. (2004) 'The lecture louts v the academic's faithful' The Times Higher

Educational Supplement. 16th July 2004.

Cornwell T. (1998) 'Lecturers laying down the law' The Times Higher Educational

Supplement. 3rd April 1998.

Cutner A. & Brook I. (1997) 'High noon in the lecture hall' The Times Higher

Educational Supplement. 16th May 1997.

Czaja R & Blair J (1996) Designing Surveys: A Guide to Decisions and Procedures.

London. Sage Publications.

Department for Education and Skills (2005) Learning behaviour: The report of the

practitioners group on school behaviour and discipline, Nottingham: DFES.

25


Feldman, L. (2001) .Classroom civility is another of our instructor responsibilities.

College Teaching, 49, 137-3.

Forni P. (2002) Choosing civility: The twenty-five rules of considerate conduct. St.

Martins Press. New York.

Fry H. S. Ketteridge & S. Marshall (2003) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning

in Higher Education Taylor Francis. London.

Guinness O. (2008) The case for civility and why our future depends on it. Harper

Collins. New York.

Hanson M. (2001) Classroom Incivility: Management Practices in Large Lecture

Courses. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (2618).

Hernandez, T. & Fister D. (2001) Dealing with Disruptive and Emotional College

Students: A Systems Model. Journal of College Counseling, 4, 49-13.

Hirschy A. & Braxton J. (2004) Effects of classroom incivilities on students. New

Directions in Teaching and Learning.99 (Fall) 67-9.

Howard J & Baird R (2000) The Consolidation of Responsibility and Students'

Definitions of Situation in the Mixed-Age College Classroom. The Journal of

Higher Education. 71 (6) 700-721.

Seidman A. (2005) The learning killer: disruptive student behaviour in the

classroom. Reading Improvement 42 (1) 40-46.

Indiana University (1998) A Survey on Academic Incivility at Indiana University.

http://www.indiana.edu/~csr/Civility%20Survey.pdf. [accessed 13th September

2009].

26

http://www.indiana.edu/~csr/Civility%20Survey.pdf


Kalanko K, Clark C, Heinrich K & Olive D (2006) Academic dishonesty, bullying,

incivility and violence: difficult challenges facing nurse educators. Nursing

Education Perspectives. 27 (1), 34-43

Karp D. & Yeols W. (1998) The college classroom: Some observations on the

meaning of student participation. In: Karp, D. & Yeols, W. Teaching and Learning

in the Classroom. Simon and Schuster Custom Publishing. Needham Heights MA.

309-11.

Kearney, P. Plax T.G. Hays E.R. & Ivey M.J. (1991) College Teacher

Misbehaviors: What Students Don't Like About What Teachers Say and Do.

Communication Quarterly, 39 (4), 309-324.

Kuhlenschmidt S.L. & Layne L.E. (1999) Strategies for Dealing with Difficult

Behavior. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (77), 45- 47.

Lashley F. & De Meneses M. (2001) Student Civility in Nursing Programs: A

National Survey. Journal of Professional Nursing 17 (2), 81-5.

Luparell S. (2003) Critical incidents of incivility by nursing students: How uncivil

encounters with students affect nursing faculty .Unpublished PhD Lincoln.

Nebraska.

Luparell S. (2004) Faculty encounters with uncivil nursing students: An overview.

Journal of Professional Nursing, 20 (1), 59-8.

Luparell S. (2007) The Effects of Student Incivility on Nursing Faculty. Jounal of

Nursing Education. 46 (1), 15-4.

Miekle J. (2006) 'Students told to turn up or face expulsion' 11th September 2006.

The Guardian.

Morrissette P. (2001) .Reducing Incivility in the University/College Classroom.

International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning .5 (4).

27


National Student Conduct Survey (2007) Universities Human Resources.

http://www.uhr.ac.uk [Accessed 13th September 2009]

Nilson L & Jackson N (2004) Combating Classroom Misconduct (Incivility)with

Bills of Rights. The 4th Conference of the International Consortium for Educational

Development. Ottawa. Canada.

Nunn C. (1996) Discussion in the College Classroom: Triangulating Observational

and Survey Results. Journal of Higher Education.67 (3) pp.243-23.

Office for Standards in Education (2005) The annual report of her HMs Chief

Inspector of schools. London: Ofsted Publications.

Parr M.G. & Valerius L. (1999) Professors' perceptions of student behaviors.

College Student Journal.33 (3) pg.414.

Polinsky, T. (2003) Understanding student retention through a look at student goals,

intentions and behavior. Journal of \college Student Retention.44 (4) pg.361-15.

Sistare C. (2004) Civility and its discontents: Essays on civic virtue, tolerance and

cultural fragmentation. University Press of Kansas. Lawrence.

Sorcinelli M. (1994) handbook of College Teaching Greenwood Press. Westport

Conn.

Thomas S. (2003) Handling anger in the teacher-student relationship. Nurse

Education Perspectives, 24 (1), 17-7.

University of Arizona (2003) Disruptive Behaviour Surveys.

http://dos.web.arizona.edu/sbguidelines.html [ accessed 13th September 2009]

White S (2009) Lecturers talk of students’ ‘shocking’ abuse. The Times Higher

Education. V1901. 10-11.

28

http://dos.web.arizona.edu/sbguidelines.html

http://www.uhr.ac.uk/


Young J (2003) Sssshhh. We’re Taking Notes here. Chronicle of Higher Education.

V49 (48)

This document was added to the Education-line collection on 15 September 2009

29

Documents

An exploratory study of disruptive behaviour and ... · Web viewAccording to Boice (1996) and Morrissette (2001) this reaction by teaching staff is not uncommon, as acknowledging