turn in after 5 hours
ibrahim93
ed343191.pdf
ED 343 191 CS 507 779
AUTROR Kearney, Patricia; And Others TITLE What Students Don't Like about What Teachers Say and
Do. PUB DATE Nov 91 NOTE 44p.; Revised version of a paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (77th, Atlanta, GA, October 31 -Nomemster 3, 1991).
PUB TIPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Behavior Problems; *Classroom Communication;
*Classroom Environment; Classroom Research; Factor Analysis; Higher Education; *Student Eialuation of Teacher Performance; Student Reaction; *Teacher Behavior; Teacher Characteristics; *Teacher Student Relationship; Undergraduate Students
IDENTIFIERS *Communication Behavior: Communication Patterns
ABSTRACT To change the way classroom discipline and student
discipline are examined, a two-study investigation, rather than focustLg on student noncompliance and other types of student misbehaviors, examined teachers themselves as potential sources of instructional and/or motivational problems in the college classroom. The first study was designed to elicit inductively college student reports of teacher misbehaviors. Participants were 254 undergraduates at a large Western university who were enrolled in two sections of a course on interpersonal communication. Responses to an open-ended questionnaire indicated 28 different categories of teacher misbehaviors. The second study was structured to validate the obtained categories of teacher misbehavior types and to deternine whether or not a conceptually meaningful factor structure underlies the categories. Even though most students (subjects were 261 undergraduates enrolled in introductory communication classes at a large Western university) reported that the teachers referenced for this study infrequently engaged in each misbehavtor type, a representative number of other teachers did. Importantly, the full range of frequencies was obtained across all 28 categories. Results were further collaborated with qualitative data. Factor analyses and factor matching procedures revealed that the teacher misbehavior categories could be both meaningfully and reliably reduced to three factors: teacher incompetence, offensiveness, and indolence. Recommendations include that teachers examine the list of 28 behavior categories in light of their own classroom behaviors. (Four tables of data and 24 references are included.) (SG)
*M********************************************************************* * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document. ***********************************************************************
"FERMISSMN TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
1.2)11Aile
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).-
U.& ØIEMIIIWIT OF ESUCITION Me fit Educeaorel teasesett and tagrameaset EDUCATIONALAIMPOORMATtOte
0 The docatase ass low repooduced se teamed tam las sewn or ageassetton orynatteg
0 Mews changes %see teen mad* to taterove reptedectoon Seats
Poets of woo or wantons stated la this deco- meet do not enemata, rep/mem °noel OM Position Or mac,
Teacher Misbehavior
UMW STIMENTS
DON'T LIKE ABOUT MAT WADERS SAY AIM DO
*Patricia Kearney Timothy G. Plax
Ellis R. Hays Marilyn J. Ivey
Running Head: TEACHER MISBEHAVIOR
*Patricia Kearney (Ed.D., West Virginia University, 1979), Timothy G. Plax (Ph.D., University of Southern California, 1974) and Ellis R. Hays (Ph.D., Purdue University, 1967) are Professors and Marilyn J. Ivey (B.A., California State University, Long Beach, 1999) is a graduate student in the Department of Spiffech Communication at California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90940-2407 (714-897-5262).
This research was funded, in part, by a Research Assigned Time grant from California State University, Long Beach.
An initial analysis of the data reported in Study 1 should also appear in the M.A. thesis of Marilyn J. Ivey under the direction of Timothy G. Plax.
An earlier version of this paper was presented on the Top 3 research report panel of the Instructional and Developmental Division of the Spewch Communication Association, Atlanta, 1991.
2 BEST COPYAMIE
Teacher Misbehavior a
. WHAT STUDENTS
DON'T LIKE MOOT WHAT TEACHERS SAY AND 00
Abstract
This investigation represents a substantial change in the
way vaL examine classroom discipline and student resistance.
Rather than focusing on student non-compliance and other types of
student misbehaviors, we examined teachers themselves as
pote tial sources of instructional and/or motivational problems
in the college classroom. Study I was designed to elicit
inductively, college student reports of teacher misbehaviors.
Results indicated 28 different categories of teacher
misbehavinrs. Study 2 was structured to (1) validate the
obtained categories of teacher misbehirvior types and (2) to
determine whether or not a conceptually meaningful, factor
structure underlies the categories. Even though most students
reported that the teachers referenced in study 2 infrequently
engaged in each misbehavior type, a represents ive number of
other teachers did: Importantly, the full range of frequencies
was obtained across all 28 categories. Results were further
corroborated with qualitative data. Factor analyses and factor
matching procedures revealed that the teacher misbehavior
categories could be both meaningfully and reliably reduced to 3
factorst Teacher Incompetence, Offensiveness and Indolence.
Implications for managing student resistance in the classroom are
discussed.
4 4
Teacher Misbehavior 3
WHAT SIMMS
DOMPT LIKE ABOUT WHAT TEACHERSLOAV AMD DO
A large body of literature examines students as instigators
of a variety of problems for the classroom teacher (see, for
instance, Doyle's 1986 review). Students are frequently accused
of talking out-of-turn, disrupting teacher talk, not paying
attention and a whole host of other classroom misbehaviors. As a
result, a great deal of attention has been focused on the causes
of student disruptions and the intervention strategies that
teachers can employ to handle these misbehaviors. Unfortunately,
the research and advice offered in this tradition '2ften overlooks
teachers themselves as a potential source of problems in the
classroom. Not surprisingly, this oversight might be anticipated
from researchers who happen to be teachers as well. In this
study, we depart from that tradition by assuming that (I)
teachers themselves may "misbehave" and (2) these misbehaviors
can become potential sources
resistance.
Conceptually,
of student dissatisfaction and
student misbehaviors are defined as those
student behaviors that interfere with learning (c.f., Kearney,
Plax, Richmond, & McCroskey, 1984). Similarly, we define teacher
misbehaviors as those teacher behaviors that interfere with
instruction and thus, learning. Repeatedly letting students out
of class early, failing to keep office hours, returning papers
late, providing nonspecific evaluations on homework assignments,
making the test too hard (or too easy), or delivering humorless,
4
LI
Teacher Misbehavior 4
monotonous lectures all interfere with our ability to teach
effectively and thus, can all be classified as teacher
misbehaviors (Plax IL Kearney, 199(70). In this paper) we argue
that these and other teacher misbehaviors can influence the way
students think and act.
A large body of literature substantiates a relationship
between what teachers say and do with students' behaviors.
In the tradition of the process/product paradigm, research-
based conclusions about those specific teacher behaviors that
influence student achievement, feedback, time speAt on-task,
classroom order, student affect, good work habits, social skills,
independence and other outcome variables are reviewed elsewhere
(Brophy ti Good, 1986; Sage I Needels, 1989; Good Is Brophy, 1986;
Rosenshine Si Stevens, 1986). More recently, research on
students' thought processes emphas.zes the critical role that
students' perceptions of what teachers say and do play in
influencing students' motivation, achievement, attitudes and
related student reactions. In other words, what teachers do
influence students' thinking. That thinking, in turn, mediates
student behavior (Wittrock, 1986). Following from this
mediational perspective then, we might expect teacher
misbehaviors to indirectly affect student* behavior by
influencing how students think about and act towards the teacher,
school and themselves.
Because we know that what teachers say and do can
significantly affect halt students think and behave, we might
Teacher Misbehavior 5
expect teacher misbehaviors to act as potential antecedents to a
number of undesirable student consequet.t1;. In other words,
teacher misbehaviors may be a primary, albeit indirect,
determinant of student disruptions. This report describes two
studies identifying ways that tlachers themselves may contribute
to the occurrence of problems in the classroom. Study 1 was
structured to elicit inductively- college student reports of
teacher misbehaviors. Study 2 was designed to validate the
obtained categories of teacher misbehavior types and to determine
whether or not a conceptually meaningful factor structure
underlies the categories. The research and thinking on classroom
management and student resistance provide the rationale for this
investigation.
Classmaa Management
Within the classroom management perspective the primary
responsibility for classroom control and student engagement lies
not with the student, but with the teacher. Instead of
highlighting student misbehavior problems, this alternative
advocates a preventative stance toward discipline. The appeal of
classroom management has its -oots in a line of research which
demonstrates that the sifulle best predictor of learning is simply
"academic engagement time" (Woolfolk & McCune-Nicolich, 1994;
Woolfolk, 1987). No matter what instrucUonal strategies or
methods are used, the teacher who keeps hr.:T./his students actively
involved in the learning process is more likely to be effective
(Woolfolk & McCune-Nicolich, 1984, p. 442).
a
Teacher Misbehavior
This fundamental principle has led a number of researchers
to identify those teacher behaviors which influence students'
time spent on task (Emmer, Evertson, Sanford, Clements, &
Worsham, 1984; Evertson, Emmer, Clements, Sanford, 8 Worsham,
1984). Based on classroom observations of elementary and
secondary instruction, Emmer et al. (1984) and Evertson et al.
(1984) differentiate effective from ineffective classroom
managers. These researchers report that good managers regularly
rely on positive questioning techniques and motivational messages
(cues and prompts), attend more often to positive than negative
student behaviors, provide students with good role models, give
frequent and specific feedback, hold students accountable, and
plan su,:cess-oriented learning experiences. The end result is
that effective classroom managers increase studem.s' time spent
on task (Brophy & Evertson, 1976; Cantrell, Stenner, &
Katzenmeyer, 1977; Emmer et al., 1984; Evertson et al., 1984).
Consistent with the classroom management perspective,
instructional communication researchers argue that managing
students successfully also requires that we "pErrreget" our
students that learning is important, enjoyable and beneficial to
their overall well-being (c.f., Kearney, 1987; Plax fis Kearney,
1990). In response to the need to identify those communication
strategies which contribute to teacher influence in the
classroom, an initial series of seven "studies was designed that
isolated and validated 22 separate behavior alteration techn.ques
and representative, sample messages for classroom use (c.f.,
7
Teacher Oftebehavtar 7
Kearney, Plax, Richmond, & McCroskey, 1984, 1905). The results
of these and subsequent investigations in the same program of
research (c.f., Kearney, Plax, Smith, & Sorensen, 19618; Kearney,
Plax, Sorensen, & Smith, 1988) indicate that both teachers and
students readily agree on the preferred use of prosocial or
reward-oriented, as opposed to antisocial or punishment-based,
influence techniques. That is, teachers perceived them to be
useful in managing students' behavior and, in turn, students
reported that they enjoy the class and learn more content when
their teachers rely on prosocial means of influence.
With rare exception the classroom management behaviors and
strategies reported in the educational and communication
literature are success-oriented or prosocial. The converse or
absence of those behaviors would seem to contribute negatively to
students' involvement with learning. An overview of recent
research on student resistance supports and extends that
position.
Student Resistance
Rather than attend solely to what teachers strategically
communicate in their efforts to manage or influence students,
Burroughs, Kearney and Plax (1989) acknowledged the role of the
student in the teacher/student exchange. Experienced teachers
recognize that students often fail to concede the teacher's right
to assume a power role. Moreover, a number of students may be
reluctant or openly defiant, to assume their expected role of
conciliation, cooperation and submission. In an effort to
Teacher Mambehavior
isolate those strategies college students might use to resist
teachers' influence or compliance-gaining attempts, Burroughs et
al. (1989) asked students to construct messages they would use ti
resist their teachers in the classroom. Nineteen separate
categories of techniques and messages wure identified in that
research.
In a follow-up study, Kearney, Plax and Burroughs (in press)
validated the 19 categories and explicated two theoretically
meaningful dimensions underlying the resistance categories:
Teacher-Owned and Student-Owned. In explanation, problem-
ownership refers to the degree to which the problem apparently
originates with the student or the teacher. Kearney et al. (in
press) reasoned that students blame two primary sources for their
own resistance decisions: Either the teacher "owns" the problem
or the student does. Confirming that explanation, the techniques
that comprise the Teacher-Owned dimension imply that the teacher
is somehow behaving inappropriately or inconsistently with
student expectations of what instructors should or should not do.
Drawiny from the sample messages that represent Teacher-
Ownership, students were more likely to resist by accusing the
teacher of being "unenthused, boring, unprepared and doesn't seem
to care." In other words, we might conclude that the teachers
referenced by students in that study had "misbehaved."
In contrast, strategies reflected in the second dimension
suggest that students themselves actually Rma the reasons for
their resistance. Students who selected Student-Owned techniques
Teacher Misbehavior 9
were likely to justify their resistance by making excuses,
claiming to have other priorities, or asserting the right to make
their own decisions. Specifically, students might say, "I have
homework so I can't prepare well for this claws" or "Right or
wrong, that's the way I am." These statements and others suggest
that students hold themselves, not the teacher, responsible for
their resistance decisions.
In that same study Kearney, Plax and Burroughs (in press)
found that college students' selections of either Teacher-Owned
or Student-Owned resistance were influenced by teacher nonverbal
immediacy. When presented with scenarios depicting a warm,
approachable, friendly teacher (immediate), students were more
likely to select Student-Owned strategies in their resistance
alitempts. Conversely, when presented with descriptio,Is of a
cold, aloof, distant teacher (nonimmediate), students selected
Teacher-Owned techniques.
Apparently, judgments of teacher im-tediacy direct students'
subsequent attributions of problem ownership. In turn, these
attributions govern students' selections of either Teacher-Owned
or Student-Owned resistance techniques. Within the context; of
this investigation, it is reasonable to assume that while
immed:ate teacher behaviors are appropriate and preferred for the
classroom, nonimmediate behaviors would correspond more closely
with those teacher misOehaviors that students' perceive as
interfering with instruction. Whether or not nonimmediacy can be
equated directly with student reports of teacher misbehaviors
0
114
Teacher Misbehavior MD
remains an empirical question. We do know, however, that
students explain or justify their own resistance, at least in
part, by what their own teachers do or say (Kearney et al., in
press).
In an effort to more fully understand why students resist
teachers, this two-study investigation shifted the focus from
student-centered reasons to conceiving teachers themselves as
potential antecedents to student problems in the classroom. In
other words, we were interested in identifying teacher behaviors
that students' report being detrimental to instruction and thus,
demotivating to them. Pertinert to this change in focus, the
first study asked:
R01: What do college teachers say and do that students
perceive as "misbehaviors?"
Recognizing that teacher misbehaviors are likely zo vary
widely in frequency of occurrence and type depending on the
particular teacher, the second study was designed to validate
across a diversity of university teachers, the categories of
misbehavior identified in Study 1. Moreover, we assumed that
further examination of these data would help to determine whether
or not the misbehavior categories isolated in Study I could be
reduced to a set of conceptually meaningful underlying
dimensions. For these reasons, research questions in Study 2
asked:
RO2: How frequently do students report their college
teachers engaging in each misbehavior type?
44
Teacher Misbehlxvlor 11
R123: What meaningful factor structure underlies the teacher
misbehavior categories?
Study 1
This study was designed to derive empirically both a broad-
based and representative classification of teacher classroom
behaviors that college students report as misbehaviors. In order
to derive such an inductive scheme, the research design was
structured to generate as many student descriptions of teacher
misbehaviors as possible. These data were used to answer
Research Question 1: "What do college teachers say and do that
students perc,,ive as 'misbehaviors?'"
METHODS
Subiectl. Participants were 254 (110 males, 144 females)
undergraduate students enrolled in two large sertions of
interpersonal communication at a large Western University.
Approximately 36% of the sample were freqhmar, 25% were
sophomores, 25% were juniors, and 14% were seniors. The mean age
for this sample was 24. This course fulfilled general education
requirements across the university and therefore, students
reprasented a diversity of major fields.
Etalitshitak. In order to identify the wide variety of
teacher misbehaviors that can occur in college classrooms, an
open-ended questionnaire was distributed to the student
participants. Instructions on the questionnaire asked
participants "to think back over their college career and to
recall specific instances where teachers had said or done
12 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Toschar Misbehavior 12
something that had irritated: demotivated or substantially
distracted them in an aversive way during a course." Students
were then asked to provide brief written descriptions of as many
teacher misbehaviors as they could and to be as specific in their
depictions as possible. In order to stimulate students' rec.:al
of the illustrations, examples of teacher misbehaviors were
included in the questionnaire (i.e, "Not showing up for class,"
"Making fun of a student," "Using sarcasm to get even with a
student," or "Teaching the wrong thing"). Space was provided
following the examples for students to write out their
descriptions of the various teacher misbehaviors. A total of
1762 brief teacher misbehavior descriptions was generated across
the sample. The average number of misbehaviors described per
student participant was 6.9.
Results. All 1762 descTiptions generated by the students
were included in the unitizing, coding, defining and labeling of
the teacher misbehavior categories. These activities were
completed in seven stages. In stage one, the raw data were
unitized into separate and discrete misbehaviors. A
unitizer/coder read a sample of the raw units in order to become
familiar with the data. Im stage two, this same individual read
each and every descriptive unit and placed them into categories
containing both conceptually and/or operationally similar words
and phrases. Units which were the easiest to categorize were
sorted first; more difficult units were initially set aside and
then sorted into categories at a later time.
Teacher Misbehavior 13
In phase three the same coder reread all of the teacher
misbehavior units in each of the categories to check for
consistency and to make sure that all the units were sorted into
their appropriate categories. Tentative labels were given to
each separate classification of units and preliminary category
definitions were formulated. In phase four, the coder again
reread the descriptions in each category and based on the
tentative labels and definitions made any necessary adjustments
and revisions in the composition of any of the misbehavior
categories. In phase five the coder refined and made revisions
in the category labels and definitions.
Phases six and seven involved two additional coders. In
phase six, the second and third coders were familiarized with the
data. In phase seven, both coders re-categorized sample units
from each of the categories in an effort to ensure category
appropriateness and to determine the degree of coder agreement.
Percent of unit-by-unit agreement between the original coder and
the two additional coders ranged from 68% to 100% depending on
the particular category. Intercoder agreement among all three
coders, assessed by unit-by-unit agreement, was .91.
Because of the relatively close agreement acr'oss the three
coders only light adjustr-ents needed to be made in finalizing
the categories. The resulting inductive classification of
teacher misbehaviors was organized into 28 categories. Table 1
presents the categories with sample teacher misbehavior
descriptions obtained with this procedure. This table also
14
Tescher Misbehavior 14
presents the rankings of these 28 categories including
frequencies and category percentages against the total number of
descriptions analyzed in this study. The following section
describes conceptually the 28 teacher misbehavior categories.
insert Table 1 about here
Ilachat GA112011E1M1* Four categories, absent,
tardy, keeos students overtime, and early dismissal, categories
address the issue of teacher punctuality and absenteeism.
Teachers in these categories are depicted as insensitive either
to the time demands placed on students or to students' desire to
have their time in the classroom be a complete and constructive
experience. The 5 categories of strays from *0-diegt,
confusina/unc leer lac ture_s, unornared/d sori2ani zed , slev ifstes
from svillikatm, and ,late returnina work emphasize teacher
organization and structure. These categories portray teachers as
who lack focus and pay little or no attention to the
instructional process. Pprcasm and ou/dpwns, ver0411v_pbusive,
imitaremagia_ang_arkurAtx_raita, and namAALINmalamtni are 4
categories that capture teachers' contempt of students. These
teachers are characterized as individuals who publicly degrade
students, appear unreasonable and highly structured, and are
chauvinistic in the classroom. Vnresoonsive to students'
Questions, apathetic to studentligand j.naccessible to students
outside of class are 3 categories that speak to teacher
indifference. Instructors described in these categories are
15
it
Teacher Misbehavior 15
unapproachable and impervious to questions, showing little
concern for students.
The 2 categories of unfair tesI*no and unfair .1rodinq
capture teachers who employ unjust methods of evaluation.
Teachers represented in these categories are ambiguous testers
and inconsistent, temperamental graders. The Oprino lectures
category characterizes those teachers who are unenthusiastic,
overly repetitive and much too serious du.ring their classroom
presentations. Information overload depicts teachers who are
either overly demanding of sttudents or noticeably unreasonable in
their instructional demands. Information underload characterizes
those teachers who are too easy; those from whom students feel
they have learned very little or absolutely nothing. The 2
categories of negative perlionalitv, and neaative physical
appearance illustrate teachers who possess negative personal
attributes. Teachers described in these categories tend to be
moody and self-centered and often dress or act inappropriately in
class. The doel not know subiect matter category illustrates
those instructors who are obviously either unqualified to tear_h
the subject matter or simply do not know the course content.
Shows favoritism or oretudice characterizes those teachers who
show preferences to particular students and who reinforce the
concept of stereotypes in the classroom. Formion or reuional
ficcentfh &naooropriate_ vo I tap and toad orammar4ppellino are 3
categories which capture teachers' misuse of language. Such
teachers are described as unintelligible and/or hard to hear
16
Teacher Misbehavior lb
during lectures and often display poor language skills.
Study 2
This study was designed to validate the categories of
teacher misbehavior types obtained in Study 1 and to determine
whether or not a conceptually meaningful 'factor structure
.nderlies the original 28 categories. Quantitative data
collected in tt's second study were employed to answer Research
Questions 2 And 3: "How frequently do students report their
college teacher engaging in each misbrhavior type?" and "What
meaningful factor structure underlies the teacher misbehavior
categories?" Qualitative data were also collected which assisted
in our validation and .nterpretation of findings.
IIETIODS
PartIcipants were 261 (150 females, 111 males)
undergraduate students enrolled in introductory communication
classes satisfying general education electives at a large Western
university. Approximately 26% of the sample were freshman, 31%
sophomores, 28% juniors and 15% seniors. The mean age of the
students in this sample was 25.
Research Design. Whereas in Study 1 a research design was
employed to maximize students' generation of teacher descriptions
across teachers more generally, in this study the design was
structured for each student to focus on a particular college
teacher. While the former results reflect an accumulation of
both numerous and disparate teacher misbrihavior types, the design
1 7
Teacher Misbehavior 17
for Study 2 essentially minimizes the reported diversity and
frequency of teacher misbehaviors. That is, as a collective
group, teachers may engage in a variety of different misbehavior
types; however, we would not expect any individual teacher to
exhibit all 28 types. By anchoring each student's perceptions to
her/his respective teacher then, the design of this validational
study allows for a rigorous assessment of the original 28
categories of misbehaviors.
Procedures. Students were given questionnaires which
explained that the instrument included "descriptions of things
teachers have been observed doing or saying in some classes"
which "college students have previously identified as teacher
'misbehaviors.'" They were also told that this study assessed
"how often teachers engage in one or more of those behavior types
or a behavior similar to those included in the descriptions."
Students were instructed to complete the research instrument with
reference to "on1v the teacher you have in the course you are
taking that meets just before this class." This anchoring
technique devuloped originally by Flax, Kearney, Richmond, and
McCroskey (1986), maximized the variability in subject matter
fields represented and allowed for a broad sample of instructors
at the ,iniversity. In this way, data relating to over 250
different classes/teachers were obtained.
After indicating their gender, age and year in school,
students were provided with sets of multiple teacher misbehaviors
representing each co" the 28 categories derived in Study 1 (see
s
Teacher Misbehavior 10
Table 1 for these descriptions). Category labels were not
included on the questionnaire. Students were asked to indicate
on a 0-4 scale "how frequently your teacher in that class
exhibits the same or similar behaviors" with 0 Never and 4 m
Very Often.
Rweiutts. As expected, descriptive statistics revealed that
even though most of the teachers sampled in this study never (0)
or rarely (1) engaged in the sample misbehavior (M A.1), a
number of others did. Importantly, the full range of student
responses (0 to 4) was obtained across all 28 categories.
Frequency percentages of those scoring 2 or higher ranged from
3.4% to 29.1% per category. Although some categories are more
representative than others, these data provide evidence for the
perceived occurrence of all ee misbehavior types. Table 2
provides the means, standard devitations and frequency percentages
for those scores.
Insert Table 2 about here
Table 2 also provides a ranking of the misbehavior
categories. Delivering boring lectures, straying from the
subject matter, employing unfair testing procedures, presenting
lectures which are confusing and unclear, and returning students'
work late were the 5 most frequently cited teacher misbehaviors.
Correspondingly, inductively-derived data from Study 1 revealed
that 3 of those same misbehaviors were ranked in the top 5:
Strays from subject, unfair testing, and boring lectures. The
43
Teacher Misbuthavior 19
two other misbehaviors ranked high in Study 1 were
sarcasm/putdowns and absent from class.
SLOOLLIalltratrx Rata arderaiisia. To assist us in validating the data repl3rted in Table 2, we asked each student ". . to
explain hity you think your teacher behaves in the ways you've
indicated. There may be a single reason or there may be several
reasons for your teacher's behavior. Indicate the reason or
reasons you think apply." Students were provided with enough
writing space to briefly describe up to three prenumbered reasons
for their teacher's behavior. Previous research (Kearney et al.,
in press) has shown that collecting these types of supplemental
responses provide valuable and corroborating information. Sucn
additional information allows for the triangulation of primary
and secondary data sets---a powerful method (Morine-Dershimer,
1983) for increasing the overall validity of findings.
Examination of students' reported reasons for their
teachers' behavior proved to be revealing. Of the 261 students
who participated, 117 indicated reasons why their current teacher
misbehaves; 111 described reasons why their current teacher did
not misbehave and/or why their teacher was so effective in the
classroom; and 33 gave no reasons for either their teacher's
misbehavior or effectiveness.
It is particularly interesting that without being directly
asked, almost 43% of the students indicated reasons why they felt
their teacher was so effective in the classroom. Many of these
same students also indicated that they could only say positive
20
Teacher Mlubehavior 20
things about the teacher for the course they had before this
class. However, they also indicated that they either currently
had another teacher who frequently misbehaved or that they had
had teachers during their college career who had misbehaved in
the variety of ways described on the questionnaire. As for
teacher misbehaviors, over one-half of the responses either
directly or in a restated form, included many of the actual
teacher misbehaviors referenced in the original 28 categories.
Table 3 provides representative samples of the reasons
students gave for their particular teacher's misbehavior as well
as those given for their teacher's effectiveness in the
classroom.
Insert Table 3 about here
To summarize what was illustrated across these data, students who
indicated that their teacher misbehaved described reasons that
depicted their teacher as unable to relate to students, uncaring,
preoccupied with other work, uninformed about course content,
fearful about initiating personal relationships with students,
outdated, selfish and self-centered, and not being committed to
the teaching profession. In short, the reasons given for
misbehavior suggest that students were less than satisfied with
the way their teachers were behaving. On the other hand,
students' explanations for their particular teacher's
effectiveness portrayed teachers in quite the opposite direction.
That is, the effectiveness of teachers was associated with
Teacher MiebehavMor 24
attributes like a love for the teaching profession, the ability
to establish a rapport with students, a solid knowledge of the
subject matter, a sincere concern for students, a high level of
professionalism, self confidence about teaching the course, an
open and friendly nature, and the ability to create a challenging
classroom environment. Effective teachers then, were perceived
by students as doing a good job and as doing and saying things
correctly in the classroom.
These interview-type data both corroborate and elaborate on
our other findings illustrating the validity of the teacher
misbehavior categories derived in Study 1. Correspondingly,
these data indicate that the majority of the students in this
sample either currently or previously had a least one teacher who
they perceived as behaving inappropriately. Even the students
responding to a teacher they described in very positive ways
described reasons which illustrated that the students in this
sample were able to make a clear distinction between the
effectiveness and ineffectiveness of what their college tearcs
said and did in the classroom.
Reaucing the Structure of the Categories
Next, we determined whether the students' responses to the
28 categories as presented on the questionnaire could be reduced
to a meaningful underlying factor structure. An overall default
factor analysis (eigenvalue ( 1.0) resulted in an initial 7-
factor solution. However, factors 1. 2 and 3 accounted for most
of the variance (44.7%). Moreover, these first 3 factors were
22 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
04
Teacher Mlimbehavior 22
conceptually consistent. Subsequent analysis with 3-factor
extractions produced stable factors with all items loading on
their respective factor. An examination of the item loadings
revealed that 7 items failed to meet a liberal 50/30 criterion.
With those items eliminated, our second 3-factor solution
increased the variance accounted for to 50.6%. The results of
this 3-factor solution are reported in Table 4. Interfactor
correlations between Factors 1 and 2 were .25, Factors 1 and 3 =
.26 and Factors 2 and 3 = .18. Alpha reliabilities obtained for
Factor 1 were .86 (M = 5.70, s.d. = 6.31, range = 0-32), Factor 2
= .130 = 2.179 s.d. = 3.51, range = 0-20) and Factor 3 = .80 (PI
= 3.97, s.d. = 4.04, range = 0-23).
Insert Table 4 about here
Nine items comprised Factor is Confusing/unclear lectures,
apat'netic to students, unfair testing, boring lectures,
information overload, does not know subject matter, foreign or
regional accents, inappropriate volume, and bad grammar/spelling.
This factor was labeled "incompetence." Factor 2, labeled
"offensiveness," consisted of 6 misbehavior categories:
Sarcasm/putdowns, verbally abusive, unreasonable/arbitrary rules,
sexual harassment, negative personality, and shows
favoritism/prejudice. Items included in Factor 3, labeled
"indolence," included 6 misbehavior types: Absent, tardy,
unprepared/disorganized, deviates from syllabus, late returning
work, and information underload.
Teacher 'Misbehavior 23
lamals end Emrstac nmAshing Etassdurns. In
order to substantiate the reliability of the 3-factor solution we
completed two additional procedures. Firsti we employed a
"random split sample" procedure (Armstrong and Soelberg, 1988) to
create two within sample subsets. These randomly chosen subsets,
each consisting of 130 student responses, were used to compute
separate forced 3-factor extractions. Descriptively: the results
of these additional factor analyses were virtually identical to
those produced with the entire sample of students. These results
are available upon request.
Secondly, we followed up the randomized split sample
procedure by computing similpritv concordant coefficients
(Nesselroade and Baltes: 1970). This factor matching procedure
was computed between the pairs of loadings produced on factors 1,
2, and 3 when the entire sample was included and those loadings
produced on factors 1, 2, and 3 with a random split sample. The
resulting concordant coefficient for factor 1 between the total
and the split sample was .999; for factor 2 this index was .995;
and for factor 3, .995. These indices provide strong descriptive
support for a claim of factor invariance across each set of
paired factor loadings.
tsi ftnairses. With the reliability of the 3-factor solution substantiated, we attempted to determine potential
effects of student age, gender and year in school on students'
reports of teacher misbehavior across the dimensions of teacher
incompetence, offensiveness, and indolence. We computed a
24
Teacher Misbehavior 24
regression-type 2 (college students' gender) X 4 (year in school)
fixed effects multivariate analysis of covariance including
student age as a covariate. The criterion variables were
operationalized to include students' summed responses across each
of the three dimensions of teacher misbehavior. Results
indicated that neither student age (I:s of the covariate for each
of the three dimensions of teacher misbehavior were ( = 1) nor
gender and year in school were significant (all complex
interactions or main effects a > .05; overall power estimates for
all simple main effects were above .90). Identical results were
obtained when the data were transformed into L scores prior to
computing the MANCOVA. Computations on the standardized data
indicate that the shapes of the distributions of the data
reported in Table 2 in no way affected either the results of the
MANCOVA or the factor analytic and factor matching procedures.
Complete results are available upon request. Based on these
findings then, at least for this sample of college students, age,
gender and year in school have little influence on students'
reports of teacher misbehavior.
DISCUSSION NITH IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CLASSROOM
This study represents a shift from the research tradition
which focused on student misbehaviors in the classroom to a new
perspective which examines teacher misbehaviors. We began this
investigation by assuming that teachers can and do misbehave and
that these misbehaviors can become potential sources of student
dissatisfaction and resistance. In the first of two studies, we
Teacher Mlubwhawier 25
asked college students to identify teacher misbehaviors they had
observed during their college career. Over 1700 misbehaviors
were inductively derived and then categorized into 28 different
teacher misbehavior types. Clearly, students perceived their
college teachers to "misbehave."
Categories of teacher misbehaviors ranged from using bad
grammar or misspelled words to sexual harassment and verbal
abuse. The most frequently cited misbehavior types were (1)
Sarcasm and Putdowns, (2) Absent, (3) Strays from Subject, (4)
Unfair Testing and (5) Boring Lectures. Perhaps we have all been
guilty of one or more of these misbehaviors and perhaps we have
"justified" each and every transgression. Even so, from the
students' point of view, teachers who cancel class or make their
exams too difficult are "misbehaving."
In our second study we presented another sample of college
students with multiple misbehaviors representing each of the 28
categories identified in Study 1. interested in validating the
existence of the misbehavior categories, we asked students to
indicate how frequently a teacher they had currently engaged in
each misbehavior type. Unlike Study 1 which was designed to
maximize the generation of a number of different misbehaviors
across teachers more generally, in Study 2 we anchored students'
perceptions to specific target teachers. In this way, we were
able to assess more realistically the range and frequency of each
misbehavior actually occurring in the college classroom.
As expected, most of the students reported that their own
26
Teacher Misbehavior
teacher rarely engaged in the diversity of misbehavior types
indexed. Gratefully then, it appears that most students find
their teachers to "behave" appropriately. fisiore we become too
relieved, however, it is important to note that the full range of
frequencies was reported for each and every category. For
instance, almost 30% of the students reported that their teachers
frequently (occasionally to very often) spoke in monotone and
rambled throughout the lectures. One-fourth indicated that their
ozachers were often late in returning papers and exams, wasted
class time with personal stories and opinions, asked trick
questions on tests or made the items too ambiguous, talked too
fast or lectured over students' heads, and confused students by
being unclear or inconsistent in their expectations. Apparently,
these and other misbehavior types occur frflquently enough for
students to notice and for teachers to take pause. Moreover, our
analysis of the reasons students' give to explain their teachers'
behavior tends to corroborate the validity of the 28 misbehavior
categories. Examination of these data also indicate that the
majority of students were able to discriminate their particular
teacher as either misbehaving or 12ehaving effectively based on
the 28 categories.
In an attempt to determine if a meLolingful factor structure
underlied the 28 categories, we were able to reduce all but 7
categories into 3 interpretable dimensions: (l) Incompetence,
(2) Offensiveness and (3) Indolence. The reliability of the
three dimensions of teacher misbehavior was affirmed with Fandom
27
Teacher Maabehavier 27
split sample and factor matching procedures. Moreover,
additional analyses of the factors indicated that students' age,
gender, and year in school do not influence the way students
report the misbehavior of their teachers.
Misbehaviors represented by Incompetence reflect the lack of
very basic teaching skills. Teachers who assign excessive work
and rush through the material "to get it all done" may fail to
recognize the importance of incremental methods of instruction.
These same teachers may also be accused of making their tests too
difficult and, at the same time, be unable or unwilling to help
students succeed. Specifically, the misbehaviors included in
this factor suggest that Incompetent teachers do not seem to care
about either the course or the students themselves, do not know
their students' names, will not review for exams and fail to
allow for student input during class.
The profile of Incompetence is extended further to those
teachers who are unenthused about the material, speak in a
monotone, enunciate poorly (or speak with difficult foreign or
regional accents), and talk too loudly (or softly). Not only
does Incompetence refer to instructirmal ineptitude, but this
factor also implies that stuLdents perceive Incompetent teachers
as ignorant anl confused. In other words, students report that
teachers of this type are unable to answer questions in class,
provide students with incorrect information when they do, lack
currency in their area--and then compound the problem by
presenting vague, confusing lectures and contradicting themselves
26
Teacher Milashavior BB
in front of class. In short, teacher Incompetence reflects a
number of teacher misbehaviors that clearly interfere with
instructional goals and student learning.
Teacher Offenkiveness included a number of misbehaviors that
implied teachers could be mean, cruel and ugly. Apparently,
offensive teachers humiiiate students in front of the class:
insult and publicly embarrasses them. Offensive teachers may use
profanity, become angry or yell and scream in their efforts to
intimidate students. These same teachers are rude, self-
centered, moody, and whiners; moreover, they condescend to
students by acting superior and arrogant.
If those characteristics and behaviors appear insufficient
to label teachers of this type as Offensive, consider also
reported misbehaviors of sexual harassment and prejudice.
Students identify Offensive teachers as those who are
chauvinistic, make sexual remarks and flirt with students. These
teachers reportedly play "favorites" with their students and/or
act prejudicial toward others. Finally, Offensive teachers
appear unreasonable and arbitrary; they refuse to accept late
work: punish the whole class for one student's infraction, and
present themselves as rigid, inflexible and authoritarian.
The third dimension underlying teacher misbehavior types,
Indoler%e, best exemplifies the profile of the stereotypic,
absent-minded college professor. Teachers who are considered
Indolent are those who fail to show up for class, are late when
they do, and offer poor excuses for their truancy. They might
Teacher Milibihevior 29
forget test datas and neglect to collect and grade students'
homework. Indolent teachers are late in returning students'
papers and exams. Because they are so disorganized, they fall
behind in their schedules, change due daf-es for assignments and
are forced to adjust their- syllabi. Students further report that
indolent teachers "underwhelm" them with information by making
their classes and tests too easy. Apparently, with indolent
teachers, students do not feel they are learning as much as they
should.
Earlier research (Kearney, Plax, & Burroughs, in press)
indicated that students blame one of two sources for their own
resistance decisions: Teachers or students. The results of this
investigation suggest that students may have legitimate cause for
those attributions. That is, our findings reveal that teachers
themtielves "misbehave" in the college classroom. While the
degree or frequency of those misbehaviors may vary widely across
college teachers, students do, in fact, perceive all 28 different
misbehavior types to occur. Whether or not misbehaviors of
incompetence, offensiveness and indolence actually are causally
antecedent to student resistance or other misbehaviors needs
further examination. In this way, future res:earch should examine
the interactive nature of teacher ant student resistance in the
classroom.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TEACHER
Our results demonstrate that there are a variety of teacher
misbehaviors which are likely to influence and potentially,
30
o II
Teacher Misbehavior 30
stimulate student problems in the classroom. The existence of
these misbehaviors was reaffirmed by students' reports of current
and previous experiences with teachers. We recommend that
teachers examine the list of 28 misbehavior categories in light
of their own classroom behaviors. Many of the categories
represent misbehaviors instructors do almost unknowingly. In
fact, we are all guilty of engaging in one or more of these
behaviors from time to time.
The decision to label what we say and do as "misbehaviors"
has important :.nstructional consequences. While we may be
reluctant or unwilling to view our grading procedures as unfair,
our accent as incomprehensible, and our attendance rules as
unreasonable, students may disagree. While we may feel
justified in changing the syllabus unexpectedly, embarrassing a
student who interrupts the class, and returning graded papers and
exams late, students may disagree. And when they dot
undesirable student responses may result. Such responses can
take many forms, including negative teacher evaluations, poor
attendance, classroom disruptions, and lower achievement.
Recognizing these potential consequences, we need to consider
students' perceptions as well as our own in our decisions about
what we do and say in the classroom.
60
Teacher Niabehavlar 31
REFERENCES
Armstrong, J. S., 8, SoelOerg, P. (1968). On the interpretation
of factor analysis. exyaftgiczajtsAL Bulletin, Mg 361-364.
Brophy, J. E., 8 Evertson, C. M. (1976). Learnino fr_om teaching:
a gmtnimmEnntal perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and
student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research Ea teaching (3rd Ed.) (pp. 32B-375). New York:
Macmillan.
Burroughs, N. F., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1989). Compliance-
resistance in the college classroom. Communication
219 214-e29.
Cantrell, R. P., Stenner, A. Jo, 8 Katzenmeyer, W. G. (1977).
Teacher knowledge, attitudes, and classroom teaching
correlates of student achic:vement. Journal pi gOucational
elystiolpox, 69, 180-190.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom ornization and management. In M.
C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook pl,resturct teachino (3rd
Ed.) (pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan.
Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., Sanford, J. Pm, Clements, B. S., t%
Worsham, M. E. (1984). Classroom mar:Element ism seconsiory
IMIREARLI. Englewood Cliffs, N3s Prentice-Hall.
Evertson, C. M., Emmer, E. T., Clements, B. S., Sanford, J. P.,
Worsham, J. E. (1984). Classroom manamement fgr.plementory
teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gage, N. Le, I Needels, M. C. (1989). Process-product research
.* 41, A
Teacher Misbehavior 3e
on teachings A review of criticisms. Ths. flementarv, School
Journal, 253-300.
Good, T. Log ett Brophy, J. E. (1986). School effects. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook gf research wi teechino (3rd Ed.)
(pp. 570-602). New York: Macmillan.
Kearney, P. (1987). Power in the classroom. Journal 211-houahto
gg, 45-50.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., 8, Burroughs, N. F. (ir press). An
attributional analysis of college students' resistance
decisions. Communication Education.
Kearney, P., Plax, T.G., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C.
(1984). Power in the classroom IV: Alternatives to
discipline. In R. Bostrom (Ed.), Communicatipn yearbook g,
(pp. 724-746). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., L McCroskey, J. C.
(1985). Power in the classroom Ills Teacher communication
techniques and messages. Cpmmunica ion, gdpgation, WI, 19-
28.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. S., Smith, V. R., & Sorensen, G. (1988).
Effects of teacher immediacy and strategy type on college
student resistance to on-task demands. Communication
Education, 225 54-67.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Sorensen, G., 11. Smith, V. R. (1988).
Experienced and prospective teachers' selections of
compliance-gaining messages for "common" student
misbehaviors. CommunicAtion gducation!, 22., 150-164.
.*
Teacher Mlobehavior 33
Morine-Dershimer, S. (1983). Taming ITRArabsmthinkino throuoh
trianoulation cri data pets. Austin, TX: The Research and
Development Center for Teacher Education, University of
Texas, Report No. 8014.
Nesselroade, J. R., 8 Baltes, P. B. (1970). On a dilemma of
comparative factor analysis: A study of factor matching
based on random data. Educational and Psvcholooical
Measurement, 29.11 935-948.
Plax, T. S., 8 Kearney, P. (1990). Classroom management;
Structuring the classroom for work. In J. Daly, G.
Friedrich, & A. Vangelisti (Eds.), Teaching communication:
Theory, research, and,methgqs (pp. 223-236). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum,
Flax, T. S., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., 8 Richmond, V. P.
(1986). Power in the classroom.VI: Verbal control
strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning.
Communication Educatign, 25., 43-55.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.
-C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook gi: resparch aateachino (3rd
Ed.) (pp. 376-391). New Yorks Macmillan.
Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students' thought processes. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook 21 research Im teaching (3rd Ed.)
(pp. 297-314). New York: Macmillan.
Woolfolk, A. E. (1987). Fducational psycholocv (3rd Ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
3 4'
Woolfolk, A. E., I McCune-Nicolich,
gsvcholoov far. teaGhers (2nd
Prentice-Hal1.
3r
Teacher Misbehavior 34
L. (1984). Educational
Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Table 1
"k.
Mamba-vim
Teacher Misbmhavior 35
h.', A- L.'
Enniumrat. 711103k
ABSENT
Does not show up for class, cancels class without notification, and/or offers poor aacuses for being absunt.
TARDY
Is late for class or tardy.
142
93 5
a 2
KEEPS STUDENTS OVERTIME
gawps class overtime, talks too long or starts class early before all thm students are thore.
90 5 7
EARLY DISMISSAL 22 1 23
Lets class out early, rushes through the material to get done early.
STRAYS "F- SUIL3ECI7 117 7 3
Uses the class as a forum for her/hts personal opinions, goms off an tangents, talks about family and personal life and/or gmnarally Hostas class time.
CONFUSINEWUPCLEAR LECTURES
Unclmar about what is aspectod. lectures are confusime end vague. contradicts hins/harself sumps from onm subject to another and/or lectures are inconsistent with assigned readings.
IDISORBANIZED
Twachwr fasbehavior
4 12
Is not prepared for class, umrganized, forgets tsst dates, and/or makes assignments but does not collect them.
DEVIATES FROM SYLLABUS 35 2 20
Changes due datss for assignmnints, behind schindule, doss not follow the syllabus, Changes assignments, and/or assigns books but does not usw them.
21 1 24LATE RETURNINS MORK
Late in returning papers, late in grading and turning back Imams, and/or forgets to bring graded papers to class.
SARCASM AND PUTDOIINS 154 9 1
I. sarcastic and rude, maks, fun of and humiliates students, picks on students, and/or insults and embarrasses students.
VERBALLY ABUSIVE 69 4 11
Uses profanity, is angry and Amman, yells and screams, interrupts and/or intisidatss students.
UNREASONABLE AND ARBITRARY RULES 23 1 22
Rifuses to accept late mark, gives no breaks in 31-bour classes. punishing" inntirs class for ono student's 'misbehavior, and/or is rigid, inflexible end authoritarian.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS 1 25
Makes sexual remarks to students, flirts with thee, sakes sexual innuendos and/or is chauvinistic.
37
UNRESPONSIVE TO STUDENTS' QUESTIONS
Dom. not encourage students to ask questions, does not answer questions or recognize raised hands, and/or seems °put out" to have to explain or ropeat himiheroelf.
APATHETIC TO STUDENTS
Doesn't seam to care about time course or show concern for students, dome not know the students' name's, rejects students' opinions and/or does not allow for class discussion.
INACCESSIBLE TO STUDENTS OUTSIDE OF CLASS
Does not show up for appointmmnts or schedutmd office hours, I. hard to contact, will not meet with students outside of office time and/or doesn't make time for studonts when they need help.
UNFAIR TESTINS
Asks trick westions on tests, exams do not relate to the lectures, tests are too difftcult, qumstions are too ambiguous, and/or teachar does not review for exams.
UNFAIR GRADING
grades unfairly, changes grading policy during the semester, does nat believe in giving A's, makes mistakes when grading and/or does not have a prefttermined grading scale.
WINING LECTURES
I. not an enthusiastic lectr-er, speaks in monotone and rambles, is boring, too much rspetition and/or employs no variety in lectures.
35 BEST COPY AURAE
Teacher PlisbWhavior 37
76 4
73 4
50 3
110 6
62 4
a
10
17
13
INFOINIATION OVEFILOAD
INFORMATION UNDERLOAD
NEGATIVE PERSONALITY
Teacher is impatient, self-centered, complains, acts superior and/or is moody.
NEGATIVE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE
Talks too fast and rushes through the material, talks over the students' heads, uses obscure terms and/or assigns excessive work.
The class is too easy, students feel they have not learned anything, and/or tests are too easy.
Teacher drosses sloppy, smells bad, clothes are out of style, and cares little About hisfher overall appearance.
DOES NOT KNOM SUBJECT MATTER
Doesn't know the material, unmble to answer questions, provides incorrect information, and/or isn't current.
MOMS FAVORITISM OR PREJUDICE
Plays favorites with students or acts prejudiced against others, is narrow- minded or close-minded, and/or makes prejudicial remarks.
FOREIGN OR RESIONAL ACCENTS
reacher is hard to understand, enunciates poorly, and has a strong accent that makes it difficult to understand.
INAPPROPRIATE VOLUME
Doesn't speak loudly enough or speaks too loud.
Teacher Misbehavior 30
46 3 18
45 2 19
57 3 15
24 1 21
62 4 14
52 3 16
16 0.9 26
9 0.5 27
BAD BRAMIAR/SPELL INF;
Uses bad grammars writes illegibly, miumpells words on the exam (or on the board) and/or generally uses poor English.
ALL OTHERS NOT CATEGORIZED
61=.1=0.M.....M.M...MNMWAM11
4 (
Teacher Misbehavior 39
7 0.4
50 3
Teacher Misbehavior 40
Table 2
. -1 t . ' t t 4. iL k'
, Lt t t .1: _ t
Category Mean SD Z Rank
Absent .46 .83 10.7 17.5 Tardy .87 1.09 20.7 8 Keeps students overtime .79 1.09 18.7 9 Early dismissal .72 .87 15.0 10 "trays from subject .98 1.15 27.6 2 Confusing/unclear lectures .94 1.15 24.6 4 UMprepared/disorganized .40 .79 6.8 25 Deviates from syllabus .84 1.10 21.1 7 Late returning work .87 1.16 23.8 5 Sarcasm and putdowns .49 .46 11.6 15 Verbally Abusive .26 .75 6.1 26 Unreasonable/arbitrary rules .39 .89 9.0 21 Sexual harassment .15 .55 3.4 28 Wresponsive to students'
questions .34 .73 8.0 22.5 Apathetic to students .45 .91 10.7 17.5 Inaccessible to students .37 .81 7.7 24 Unfair testing .93 1.18 27.0 3 Unfair grading .52 1.01 13.4 11 Boring lectures 1.08 1.34 29.1 1 Informmtion overload .82 1.11 23.4 6 Information underload .52 .92 12.2 14 Negative personality .46 .95 12.7 12.5 Negative physical appearance .36 .82 8.0 22.5 Does not know subject matter .25 .60 1.0 27 Shows favoritism or prejudice .41 .85 9.2 20 Foreign or regional accents .48 .93 12.7 12.5 Inappropriate volume .36 .62 7.9 19 Bad grammar/spelling .40 .87 11.1 16
*Absolute mean = 2.0, with 0 = never and 4 = very often.
Teacher Misbshavior 41
TABLE 3
Sludent Reasons for Teacher Misbehavior,
ang_for_IssishscAlfisstiturasi_in_Abaraininnis
I. ReasoneLfor Teishmr Misbehavior
°She doesn't relate with our culture."
"She is so well Educated that she can't relate to students."
"He says that this jiab is just stepping stone for him before he gets to temch at a better univErsity."
"He behaves this way to get it across to the !students not to F--K with him.'
"I think the acts tn these mays because as she says: 'I'm not a Educator, I's a sathematician'."
'I think my Religious Studies teacher would be happiEr writing a book thandtctating to aur class.'
"My teacher doesn't understand what she is trying to teach us."
'In order to sake a tmst more challenging he auks trick questions.'
"He is late because he is so busy and puts the class behind his other interests.'
"I think my teacher is thy and is afraid to be a real person with us."
'He thinks everyone tn his B.E. class is rnrolled because it if their major.'
'The instructor is mostly into research and those not to care about students.'
'She is mad at the university and takes it out on us.'
'Has gan I don't care if you come to class or mat attitude'.'
"Bmcause the is a very oWionated feminist."
'As far as his dress is concerned, he feels that has nothing to do with what he is trying to tooth.'
4S 440
Teacher Misbehavior
II. Reasons far Teacher_Effnctivenwes
"My teacher likes what be is teaching."
"Hoe sincerely likes students and loves to express himself clearly."
'She likes teaching and enjoys the rapport she has with her students."
"She reolly cares about the information being delivered to the class."
"He does keep us over sometimes, but that's only because he gets so excited about the material."
"She's a great teacher. I think it is because she has her masters in communication. She knows haw to be an effective instructor.'
"Ikecause he's fair and truthful to students."
"He definiteiy hes the desire for making each student understand the materi41."
"He's always prepared and explains the subject well."
"because she teaches what is useful."
"He iv very open, warm. and kind to every student in the class regardless of sem or race."
"She loves her job and it shows."
'He really encourages discussion and takes student's opinions as valid and equal to his own."
"He is a powerful speaker. From the first day of class I told myself I'd like to be like him."
"My teacher is challenging but I like her that may. She wants us to learn what she knows."
*These examples illustrate reoccurring themes. More complete lists are available upon request.
Teacher Misbehavior 43
Table 4
Factor Affillysis_of Teacher Misbehavior TYPWs.
MISBEHAVIOR YWCOMPETENCE OFFENSIVENESS INMOLENCE
Absent .05 -.01 .60 Tardy .09 02 .62 Confusing/Unclear lecturms .68 .08 .39 Unprepared/Disorganized .37 .08 .73 arviates from syllabus .09 .15 .70 Late returning mark .23 .29 .75 Sarcaem and putdomns .11 .82 .05 Verbally abusive .04 .79 .07 Uhreasonaiblm/arbitrary rules .16 .62 .02 Sexual harassment -.10 .52 .15 Apathmtic to students .61 .31 .10 Unfair testing .68 .11 .07 Sering lecture* .69 -.01 .19 Information overload .73 .17 .17 Information umderload .03 .02 .54 Negative personality .43 .63 .19 Does not know subject matter .57 .03 .19 Shows favoritism/prejudice .27 .64 .01 Foreigndragional accents .70 .02 00 Inappropriate volume .70 .17 -.06 Sad grammar/spelling .70 .09 .11
Eigenvalume 6.22 2.27 2.13
Variance 29.60 10.80 10.10
Alpha Reliabilities .86 .80 .00
c14
