Incivility in College Student - Research Paper Example

Table of Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………2 Literature Review……………………………………………………………2 Incivility Definition…………………………………………………….2 Causes of Incivility……………………………………………………..5 A Review of Best Practices…………………………………………………..6 Practical Aspects of the Problem…………………………………………..9 Implications for Leaders in Higher Education……………………………10 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………11 Incivility in the Student Body Introduction The world is increasingly become more uncivil. According to Swinney (2010), the problem is long-standing, and has been identified as a major social problem. The problem of incivility is a major one in the classrooms. Incivility is defined, loosely, as any behavior that effects the harmony and the cooperation of the classroom – examples of this might be lateness, texting, talking out of turn, berating the instructor or classmates, talking to other students while the teacher is talking, etc. (Boysen, 2010). This is a major problem , or potentially is a major problem, because all of these disruptions affect others ability to learn. Moreover, incivility also is detrimental to professors and other instructors – some instructors and professors indicate that incivility has caused them to reconsider their profession; others are merely disheartened and discouraged (Bjorklund & Rehling, 2011). Therefore, there must be a best practices standard that should be put into place that would help alleviate this problem. This essay will focus upon classroom incivility- the causes, the definition, and possible solutions. Literature Review Incivility Definitions Boysen (2012) defines incivility as “any action that interferes with a harmonious and cooperative learning environment” (p. 276). The most common types of incivility are discourteousness and disruptive behavior. Among these behaviors are emotional outbursts, being late, talking to other students while the teacher is trying to lecture, and engaging in activities which are non-academic. These are behaviors which are frequent enough to disrupt the teaching and the learning. However, as Cortina et al. (2011) note, uncivil behavior is merely rude – there is not generally an intention to harm, although there are clearly exceptions, as outlined below. Bjorkland & Rehling (2010) indicate that incivility may be in the eye of the beholder. This means that some behaviors are problematic for some teachers, and not for others. Some behaviors are problematic for some students, and not to others. Teachers may see a sleeping student as being uncivil, but students may not see the same. One teacher might not think twice about a student quietly eating lunch or drinking coffee in a classroom, and another teacher may see this as being extremely rude. Knepp (2012) groups incivil behavior into two major categories – “less serious” and “more serious.” Some of the less serious behaviors are those which are relatively innocuous – sleeping in class, texting in class, not attending class, acting bored or disinterested, loudly groaning and/or sighing, dominating classroom discussions, and challenging the instructor’s knowledge and credibility. “More serious” offenses are those which involve some type of violence and/or intimidation. These include stalking (in person or electronically), intimidation, unjustified complaints to a professor’s superiors, unwarranted negative feedback on an instructor’s teaching evaluation, cheating, and personal comments or verbal attacks against the faculty or classmates (p. 34). The “most serious” actions, according to Knepp (2012) are threats of violence against the teacher or the classmates. Price (2011) provides specific examples of incivility. She states that one teacher, who was hosting a visiting professor, who came to lecture the class on diversity, experienced a student accusing the professor of being “full of shit,” then tearing up his notes and storming out of the class. Another teacher told how she was providing constructive criticism to another student. The student refused the criticism, and demanded that she change his grade. When the professor refused, the student posted a hostile review about the professor on ratemyprofessor.com, in which he referred to the professor as a “fatass.” A third teacher states that a student, in the narrative section of an evaluation posted “OMG! WTF!” That said, incivility goes both ways. Teachers may also act in a way that is uncivil to students, according to Knepp (2012). One of the ways that teachers may act incivil is to teach the class through fast-moving lecture, which does not involve students. Another way is that teachers may act aloof or distant, or convey, directly or indirectly, to students that they are a burden. Surprising students with unannounced exam questions or assessments is another way that student state that instructors act uncivilly. Arriving late, or cancelling class, without explanation is another uncivil act. And permitting students to belittle or ridicule one another is also considered uncivil (Knepp, 2012, pp. 34-35). Causes of Incivility Price states that the cause of such incivility is most likely the fact that our colleges are more diverse than they have ever been. Whereas, in previous generations, college was not for everybody, and only the students who were academically prepared could attend college, this is not the case anymore – more students are entering college completely unprepared, and there are different levels of students than there used to be, and many of these students may come from backgrounds that encourage incivility. Moreover, there are other phenomena that encourage incivility – helicopter parents, who coddle their kids and make demands upon teachers to change their childs’ grades; multimedia exposure, which has the result of limiting attention spans; a low tolerance for delay, which is the by-product of our technological age, which gives information to students at the click of a mouse; and a decline in the adherence to social rules (p. 11). Knepp (2012) concurs with this analysis. He states that permissive parents, instant gratification, and permissive school environments all contribute to incivility. There are other reasons as well. Teachers state that the students of today seem to possess a sense of entitlement – students want to get by with minimal effort, and be entertained in class. Students may also feel that the instructors should give them good grades simply for showing up to class. There are also problems which are brought on when students are juggling multiple roles – holding down full-time or part-time jobs while taking a full courseload would cause stress and pressure, and might contribute to factors which cause incivility – fatigue, illness, stress, and emotional challenges (p. 36). Professor or instructor factors also increase incivility, although this is not always the fault of the instructor. Knepp (2012) states that professors who do not fit the “professor stereotype” of an older white male with a deep voice, may encounter more incivility. Therefore, young, minority, female and low-status (adjuncts, lecturers or Graduate Assistants) instructors may experience more incivility than older white males. Less experienced professors will experience more incivility than more experienced ones. Women experience more incivility than men. Minorities experience more incivility than whites. Etc. That said, while an instructor cannot change their innate characteristics, they might change their behavior, and Knepp (2012) states that professor and instructor behavior may also cause incivility. This means that some instructors unrealistically expect their students to always be engaged, and, when they are not, the professor might act uncivilly to the students, which only fuels the fire of incivility. Also, teachers may not look their students in the eye or ask the class questions, and this also increases incivility. A Review of Best Practices One way to combat incivility, according to Boysen (2012) is through proper classroom management. Teachers’ responses to classroom disruptions are crucial to ensuring that the problem stays contained. Boysen (2012) cites a helpful study regarding teachers’ responses to incivility, although this study focused more on prejudice, racism and bias – the use of racial slurs and the like, which go past mere incivility. This study is therefore problematic in application incivility – students have different perceptions of outright prejudice and bias, in comparison to less than civil acts, such as checking text messages while the teacher lectures. Moreover, there is much more harm in bias and racism than there is in mere rudeness. Insults, such as racial slurs, are harmful, but rudeness, such as a student wearing headphones, instead of listening to the teacher, are not. Therefore, Boysen (2012) advocates for teachers treating incivility differently than they would bias or racism. Boysen’s study focused upon students’ perception of teachers efforts to contain incivility. Perhaps not surprisingly, the students in this survey, who are Harvard Students, stated that one of the ways that teachers should combat incivility would be with confrontation with the uncivil student. Teachers may be hesitant to try this tactic, because of the fear of antagonizing the student in class, but this study shows that, if a teacher does confront the student, the teacher would have the classroom students’ support. And, if direct confrontation in front of the other students would cause more disruption than the actual incivility, Boysen (2012) advocates that the teacher privately confront the student. The direct confrontation, which is preferred by the students in this survey, is in contrast with the students’ preferred method of dealing with bias and racism, which is direct discussion. Price (2011) has outlined several steps that teachers may take in fighting or preventing incivility. One of these steps is prevention, although she does not go into detail about how the teachers should prevent these behaviors. Another step is what she refers to as “verbal judo” (p. 12). What this means is that the teacher needs to use body language, words and tone to de-escalate conflict with belligerent students. This step is in conflict with the advice rendered above, as Price states that teachers should not always be confrontational, especially when the infraction is not intentional, but, rather, clueless. Teachers shouldn’t display strong emotions with students or be defensive or reactionary, according to Price (2011). The reason for this, Price (2011) maintains, is that, if teachers are defensive and reactionary, then they will produce distance between themselves and their students. Producing distance begets more uncivil behavior, thus is counterproductive. If the teacher does not engage in defensive behaviors, however, then the teacher may produce more closeness with the students, which means more rapport and engagement, and less incivility. Price (2011) states that the professors who are most obsessed with power and control are the very ones that have the most problems with incivility. This is not coincidental. Price (2011) goes on to outline other steps. One step is that the teacher should communicate, clearly, classroom policies and assignments, and give the students the rationales for these. Moreover, the teacher also needs to let the students know that there are administrative consequences for breaking these rules, and the consequences need to be enforced consistently. What this means, for instance, is that teachers must provide a detailed grading rubric, so that students can’t challenge grades. Another step outlined by Price (2011), is that the teachers should design their courses with the prevention of incivility in mind. What this means, in a nutshell, is that teachers need to engage their students. Students will text in classes that feature primarily lecture, and less in classes that feature more engaging methods of learning –such as group work, discussion, cases, and using video and multi-media (pp. 13-14). Rowland et al. (2008) examines incivility prevention in terms of sociological explanations for classroom incivility, which would provide clues for how to handle these uncivil acts. For instance, the sociological concepts of deterrence and rational choice models states that undesirable behavior may be controlled by a system of costs and rewards. If a student perceives that the costs of engaging in an uncivil behavior is outweighed by the rewards of same, then that student may decide that engaging in this behavior simply isn’t worth it. Social exchange, bond and learning theories would posit that students will be more likely to act out if their rude behaviors are likely to be accepted by their peers. They are less likely to act out if there is a mutually rewarding relationship and bond between them and the instructor. Conflict and labeling theories would posit that behaviors are not inherently inappropriate, and that what is inappropriate varies from one culture to the next. According to this theory, the reduction of the power discrepancy between instructor and student would lessen incivility (Rowland, et al., 2008). Practical Aspects of the Problem The practical aspects of the problem are that it affects both students and faculty. Students may have issues with learning in an environment where there is constant disruption. Students may have this issue because they may have a problem concentrating on the material, may have problems with hearing the teacher, or may have problems because these other students make them angry. This is true if the problem is minor, such as texting in class, talking in class, etc. The problem may also be major, which means threats, and this would have obvious implications, because it affects the safety of the students. For instructors, the issue is one of morale. Faculty members may experience burnout because they can’t control their class. They may be demoralized. They might give up the profession altogether. Therefore, incivility might affect the quality of the teaching. If a professor or instructor is experiencing burnout, then that instructor may not be effective. This would mean that the students will experience a less than stellar instruction from this individual. Overall, then, incivility affects students in two ways – first, the student may be distracted or not be able to hear the instructor. Two, the students might be affected because the teacher in ineffective because of the incivility. The upshot, then, of this issue is that the student gets less than a quality education, and, with the high rate of tuition, this is something that the students cannot afford. It is unfair to these students who want to learn, come prepared to learn, and are paying good money for the privilege of learning, to have their learning compromised because some of the students in the class cannot control themselves. Implications for Leaders in Higher Education The implications for leaders in higher education would be, if incivility is allowed to blossom unchecked, students everywhere will be less educated. What this means is that teachers will have more of a problem trying to reach students, and, if the incivility is something that was experienced in the high school or middle school level, the students will come to college less prepared to learn. Incivility becomes like a vicious circle for educators – incivility causes disruption, which causes students to learn less. If students learn less, then they might become frustrated at higher level courses, which might, in turn, cause them to act out because they are frustrated. Therefore, incivility is a problem that needs to be tended to at its root. Other implications for higher education leaders is that they should use their leadership to implement best practices. Some of the ideas for best practices are outlined above. In a nutshell, though, the best practices are that teachers should make their material engaging – which means that they should not rely too overtly on lecture, but, rather, should conduct discussions, put students in group, and use different media to teach their students. They also need to have strictly outlined policies and procedures, and enforce them consistently. Teachers should also be trained on how to deal with the perpetrators – apparently, emotional confrontations and other instances of instructor incivility simply begets more classroom incivility, so this is not a good way of dealing with the problem. There are better ways, and teachers should be trained on how to do this. Therefore, the main implications for higher educational leaders is that they should put together a training program that specifically addresses this problem, and this training program will provide concrete ways of dealing with the problem. And teachers across the country should be required to take this course as part of their continuing education. Conclusion Classroom incivility is a problem, but there is a solution. The problem with incivility is that it causes so much disruption and chaos for students, and causes the instructors to become demoralized, which will affect their teaching ability and energy level. The solution is that teachers need to look at their own behavior, classroom policies, and teaching style, and understand that these are aspects that need to be changed. Teachers need to engage their students, so that the students are not bored. They need to let the students know about the classroom policies on the first day, and, when the students do not observe policies, there needs to be a standard punishment, and this punishment must be carried out consistently. Teachers need to make sure that they, themselves, are not confrontational and emotional, but, rather, are able to address the issues calmly and are able to use proper body language to get their point across. In short, there are things that teachers can do to minimize incivility and disruption, and, if teachers can do this, they have won half the battle with their students. Bibliography Bjorklund, W. & Rehling, D. (2010) Student perceptions of classroom incivility. College Teaching, 58: 15-18. Bjorklund, W. & Rehling, D. (2011) Journal of the Center for Excellent in Teaching and Learning, 6: 28-37. Boysen, R. (2012) Teacher responses to classroom incivility: Student perceptions of effectiveness. Teaching of Psychology, 39(4): 276-295. Cortina, L., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E., Huerta, M. & Magley, V. (2011) Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of Management, 1 Sept.: 1-15. Knepp, K. (2012) Understanding student and faculty incivility in higher education. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 12(1): 32-45. Price, C. (2011) Incivility, inattention, and multitasking! Oh my! Creating effective learning environments for millennial learners. In Holmes, J., Baker, S. & Stowell, J. (2011) Essays from E-xcellence in Teaching Volume X. New York: Society for the Teaching of Psychology. Rowland, M., Srisukho, K. (2008) Dental students’ and faculty members’ perceptions of incivility in the classroom. Journal of Dental Education: 119-126. Swinney, L., Elder, B. & Seaton, L. (2010) Incivility in the accounting classroom. American Journal of Business Education, 3(5): 1-13. Read More