SlideShare a Scribd company logo

TitleThe perils of merit pay linking teacher pay to performanc.docx

•Download as DOCX, PDF•
•
E
edwardmarivel

Title: The perils of merit pay: linking teacher pay to performance can't move forward until resolution of questions regarding fairness, teacher evaluation, and the relationship of test scores to teaching quality Author(s): Thomas Toch Source: Phi Delta Kappan. 91.2 (Oct. 2009): p99. Document Type: Article Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2009 Phi Delta Kappa, Inc. Full Text:  The U.S. Senate wants the federal government to make $300 million in grants next year to spur a movement to link teacher pay to performance. The House wants to spend $445 million on the effort. And the Obama Administration wants to up the ante to $487 million in appropriations and another $200 million in stimulus spending. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently called performance pay "my highest priority." Such investments make sense. The long tradition in public education of paying teachers mainly on the basis of the college credits they've amassed and the years they've taught results in bad teachers earning the same as good ones--making it seemingly tougher to recruit and retain talent in public schools at a time when research suggests that teacher quality is critical to raising student achievement. But if the logic of performance pay for teachers is compelling, reformers have been trying unsuccessfully for decades to introduce the practice in public education, practically since the concept of a salary system based exclusively on credentials and seniority gained favor in the 1920s as a way to counter the favoritism and other inequities that plagued teacher pay at the time. "Every effort must be made to devise ways to reward teachers according to their ability without opening the school door to unfair personnel practices," reformers warned President Eisenhower in 1955. So if Duncan and today's school reformers want to bring performance pay to the public school teaching profession, they'll have to avoid their predecessors' mistakes. The last, and largest, push for performance pay came in the 1980s. Ted Bell, Ronald Reagan's secretary of education, protested in 1981 that public education's single salary schedule "demands that we pay the worst at the level of the best if we want to pay the best what they are worth." Two years later, a Bell-appointed national commission on school reform recommended performance pay in A Nation at Risk, its stinging indictment of public education. The result was new reward systems for teachers in Tennessee, California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and a host of other school systems. But those pay reforms didn't last long. Teacher unions attacked merit pay, as President Reagan was fond of calling the reform, largely because it violated the collectivism at the heart of the industrial-style unionism in public education. But the teacher pay experiments of the 1980s also failed because they were, at bottom, capricious. In many instances, they offered teachers the possibility of small additional amounts of money, not enough to mean much to those who got i ...

Education
1 of 95
Title: The perils of merit pay: linking teacher pay to performance can't move forward until resolution of questions regarding fairness, teacher evaluation, and the relationship of test scores to teaching quality Author(s): Thomas Toch Source: Phi Delta Kappan. 91.2 (Oct. 2009): p99. Document Type: Article Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2009 Phi Delta Kappa, Inc. Full Text: The U.S. Senate wants the federal government to make $300 million in grants next year to spur a movement to link teacher pay to performance. The House wants to spend $445 million on the effort. And the Obama Administration wants to up the ante to $487 million in appropriations and another $200 million in stimulus spending. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently called performance pay "my highest priority." Such investments make sense. The long tradition in public education of paying teachers mainly on the basis of the college credits they've amassed and the years they've taught results in bad teachers earning the same as good ones--making it seemingly tougher to recruit and retain talent in public schools at a time when research suggests that teacher quality is critical to raising student achievement. But if the logic of performance pay for teachers is compelling, reformers have been trying unsuccessfully for decades to introduce the practice in public education, practically since the concept of a salary system based exclusively on credentials and seniority gained favor in the 1920s as a way to counter the
favoritism and other inequities that plagued teacher pay at the time. "Every effort must be made to devise ways to reward teachers according to their ability without opening the school door to unfair personnel practices," reformers warned President Eisenhower in 1955. So if Duncan and today's school reformers want to bring performance pay to the public school teaching profession, they'll have to avoid their predecessors' mistakes. The last, and largest, push for performance pay came in the 1980s. Ted Bell, Ronald Reagan's secretary of education, protested in 1981 that public education's single salary schedule "demands that we pay the worst at the level of the best if we want to pay the best what they are worth." Two years later, a Bell-appointed national commission on school reform recommended performance pay in A Nation at Risk, its stinging indictment of public education. The result was new reward systems for teachers in Tennessee, California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and a host of other school systems. But those pay reforms didn't last long. Teacher unions attacked merit pay, as President Reagan was fond of calling the reform, largely because it violated the collectivism at the heart of the industrial-style unionism in public education. But the teacher pay experiments of the 1980s also failed because they were, at bottom, capricious. In many instances, they offered teachers the possibility of small additional amounts of money, not enough to mean much to those who got it, but just enough to irk those who didn't. The number of teachers receiving the rewards shifted with annual appropriations, regardless of how many teachers were rated high enough to receive them. And the eligibility standards for the rewards were frequently left to the whims of principals. The absence of credible systems of evaluating teachers' performance remains a major barrier to performance pay today, no less of a barrier than continued union resistance to tying pay to performance. The typical teacher evaluation in public education consists of a single, fleeting classroom visit by a harried principal untrained in evaluation who is often more
interested in classroom comportment than the quality of instruction. The result is statistics like those in Chicago, where the nonprofit New Teacher Project found that 88% of the city's 600 schools did not issue a single "unsatisfactory" teacher rating between 2003 and 2006. The Obama Administration and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is planning to spend upwards of $500 million on performance pay and other teaching reforms, want to use student test scores in teacher evaluations, a step the New York Times endorsed in a recent editorial. There's a clear logic in giving student test scores a role in teacher evaluations: It's inexpensive and easy to administer and seemingly measures what matters most--student achievement. Why Not Test Scores? But test scores aren't the simple solution they seem to be. Less than half of public school teachers teach the subjects or grade levels in which students are tested, eliminating the prospect of a system that's applied fairly to all teachers. Most standardized tests today measure only a narrow band of mostly low-level skills, such as recalling or restating facts, rather than the ability to analyze information and other advanced skills. As a result, the tests tend to privilege low-level pedagogy, leaving the best teachers, those with wider teaching repertoires and the ability to move students beyond the basics, at a disadvantage. And then there's the daunting challenge of separating out individual teachers' impact on their students' reading and math scores from the myriad other influences on student achievement and the difficulty of drawing the right conclusions about teacher performance from very small numbers of student test scores, a particular challenge in elementary schools, where teachers work with a single classroom's worth of students most of the day. As a result, student test scores should play a supporting rather than a lead role in teacher evaluations, and any credible performance pay plan is going to require more effective evaluations of teachers in classrooms--multiple evaluations by multiple evaluators and based on multiple indicators of how
well teachers plan, teach, test, manage, and motivate. Comprehensive evaluations are especially important for making key decisions, such as granting teachers tenure, and for making judgments about the majority of teachers who are neither the very best nor the very worst. And they're key to winning teacher support of performance pay. In surveys, only a tiny fraction of teachers are willing to have student test scores play any role in pay levels. But their opposition to performance pay drops significantly when ratings are based on comprehensive evaluations. Encouragingly, the Gates Foundation is planning to make the evaluation issue a cornerstone of its teacher-reform work. Because there have been so few sustained performance pay systems in public education over the years, we don't know for sure whether the reform would indeed improve the teaching profession. James Guthrie and Patrick Schuermann at the National Center on Performance Incentives in Education at Vanderbilt's Peabody College, an enterprise funded by the federal government during the George W. Bush Administration to study performance pay, warn that there's not yet conclusive evidence on "the power of financial awards in promoting more effective teaching and elevating student performance" or on "the long-term effect of performance awards on the supply of effective teachers." Nor, they write, do we know the "effects of group awards relative to individual performance" or the "preferable mix of financial and nonpecuniary awards"-- important secondary questions. We need to answer these big questions about performance pay rather than assume that answers already exist. We know from surveys, for example, that bigger salaries are less important to teachers than professional work environments where they feel supported and are helped to become better at their craft. A 2007 national survey of teachers by the nonprofits Public Agenda and the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality found that, if given a choice between two otherwise identical schools, 76% of secondary teachers and 81% of elementary teachers
would rather be at a school where administrators supported teachers strongly than at a school that paid significantly higher salaries. Performance pay may be one tool with which to create a more professional culture in public school teaching, but it is no more than that. THOMAS TOCH is executive director of the Association of Independent Schools of Greater Washington and a former guest scholar at the Brookings Institution. Toch, Thomas Source Citation (MLA 7th Edition) Toch, Thomas. "The perils of merit pay: linking teacher pay to performance can't move forward until resolution of questions regarding fairness, teacher evaluation, and the relationship of test scores to teaching quality." Phi Delta Kappan 91.2 (2009): 99+. Academic OneFile. Web. 12 June 2014. Document URL http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA210599572&v= 2.1&u=tel_a_ttul&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=7f62baa2c30422 39e4e1943181d02c70 Gale Document Number: GALE|A210599572 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 . '. .,.. .'.-. _'_'_-~"">'-"" r:::, ",,-,-_¥,~ ~L'-,-_"',-- J.!."" Teacher Nonimmediacy and Misbehavior: Unintentional Negative Communication Katherine S. Thweatt West Virginia University James C. McCroskey West Virginia University This study involved the manipulation of teacher immediacy and teacher misbehaviors to determine their individual and combined impacts on perceived teacher immediacy and teacher misbehavior. Participants in the study were students enrolled in undergraduate communication classes. The results indicated that teacher nonimmediacy and teacher misbehaviors could not be manipulated independently. Analysis of variance indicated that nonimmediate teachers were perceived to be misbehaving even when no misbehaviors were
induced in the experiments, It was concluded that students perceive teachers who communicate in nonimmediate ways as misbehaving. Although immediacy has been clearly defined within the field of communication (see Mehrabian, 1969; Andersen, 1978), nonimmediacy cues have been viewed as nothing more than the opposite of immediacy cues. For the purposes of this research, immediacy is defined as "those communication behaviors that reduce perceived distance between people." Immediate behaviors may actually decrease the physical distance, or they may decrease the psychological distance, The more immediate a person is, the more likely he/ she is to communicate at close distances, smile, engage in eye contact use direct body orientations, use overall body movement and gestures, touch others, relax, and be vocally expressive. In other words, we might say that an immediate person is perceived as overtly friendly and warm" (Andersen, 1979). In instructional research, some immediacy cues that have been manipulated are eye contact, smiling, movement in the classroom, general Katherine S. Thweatt (M.A., West Virginia University, 1996) is a doctoral student at West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6293. James C. McCroskey (Ed,D., Pennsylvania State University, 1966) is a Professor and Chairperson of the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6293. This
paper is based on research conducted by the first author as part of her M.A. thesis project which was directed by the second author. COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS, Volume 13, Number 2, pages 198-204 Nonimmediacy and Misbehavior -Page 199 friendliness/ approachability, and enthusiasm. Conversely, nonimmediacy has been manipulated as not smiling, lack of eye contact, lack of movement in the classroom, etc. The impact of immediate and nonimmediate cues have been the focus of a considerable amount of research in which it was found that immediacy has positive impacts in the classroom and nonimmediacy less positive impacts. Students have been shown to have more positive affect for teachers high in immediacy which leads to increased affective learning (Andersen, 1979; Kearney, Plax, & Wendt-Wasco, 1985; Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986; Richmond, McCroskey, Plax, & Kearney, 1986). Research also indicates that students are unable to differentiate prosocial from antisocial Behavior Alteration Techniques when used by more immediate teachers (Kearney, Plax, and Burroughs, 1991). Extant research on immediacy has not identified precisely what students' perceive nonimmediate communication behaviors to be. In a study investigating the impact of
teacher immediacy on teacher misbehaviors, some evidence was uncovered that may help classify certain behaviors as nonimmediate cues and, hence, aid in the explanation of the less than positive impact of nonimmediacy in the classroom. Teacher misbehaviors have been defined as "those teacher behaviors that interfere with student learning" (Kearney, Plax, Hays & Ivey, 1991). As a result of her research, Dolin (1995) suggested that nonimmediate communication behaviors of teachers may be perceived by students as misbehaviors, because they clearly interfere with their learning. The present study sought to investigate that speculation directly under controlled experimental conditions. Since this research was based more on informed speculation than on firm theory, and reasonable explanations for divergent outcomes were clearly possible, we chose to pose a research question rather than an hypotheses. The following question was posed: "Can teacher immediacy /nonimmediacy be manipulated independently of teacher misbehaviors?" An affirmative answer to this question would indicate that teacher nonimmediacy is seen as just that, not as a form of teacher misbehavior. A negative answer to the question would confirm Dolin's (1995) speculation that students perceive teacher nonimmediacy as misbehavior. In agreeing with Dolin, we anticipated the negative outcome. However, since the misbehavior and immediacy constructs were developed independently, it was seen as quite possible they might be completely independent constructs.
METHOD Design In a 2 x 2 factorial design, participants were exposed to one of four scenarios. Teacher immediacy (immediate/nonimmediate) and teacher misbehavior (appropriate behavior/ misbehavior) were manipulated across four scenarios. After reading a scenario, participants were asked to complete scales measuring level of perceived immediacy and level of perceived teacher misbehavior. This research also included a built-in replication. Procedure In large lecture classes at West Virginia University participants were exposed to one of four stimulus behavior scenarios (See Appendix A). After reading the scenario, the participant was asked to complete scales measuring perceived teacher immediacy and perceived teacher misbehavior. The replication was identical to the original study except that different scenarios representing different operationalizations of immediacy and misbehavior were employed (See Appendix A). Page 200 - Communication Research ReportsjFall1996 Participants Participants were 382 undergraduate students enrolled in communication classes.
These classes were ones which serve all segments of the undergraduate student body and enroll approximately equal numbers of females and males. All were given credit for a course assignment for participation. There were 195 participants in study one and 187 in study two. Manipulations Immediacy. Teacher immediacy was manipulated in the four scenarios. All immediacy and nonimmediacy cues were derived from the work of Andersen (1979). Six nonverbal behaviors were manipulated to create two levels of immediacy. In the high immediacy condition, the teacher was immediate in all six nonverbal behaviors. In the low immediacy condition, the teacher engaged in no immediate behavior. Different immediacy behaviors were included in study two than in study one. Misbehavior. Teacher misbehavior was also manipulated in the four scenarios. Three behaviors were manipulated that were considered either appropriate behavior or misbehavior. Two levels of behavior were created by varying the amount of appropriate and inappropriate behaviors. In the misbehavior condition, the teacher engaged in only inappropriate behaviors. In the nonmisbehavior condition, the teacher engaged in all appropriate behaviors. Different misbehaviors were employed in study two than in study one.
Measures Subjects completed rating scales which measured perceived teacher immediacy and misbehaviors. Both scales employed two-item, seven-point response formats. Subjects were provided with the definition of immediacy. The level of immediacy of the teacher in the scenario was measured with two adjective pairs: "very immediate/very nonimmediate" and" approachable/ unapproachable." Scores could range from 2 to 14 with a higher score indicating a more positive answer. The obtained alpha reliability for this two-item measure was .94. A definition of teacher misbehavior was also provided for the subjects. Perceived frequency of misbehavior was measured by responses to two adjective pairs: "never/very often" and" frequently/seldom." Scores could range from 2 to 14 with a higher score indicating more frequent misbehavior. The obtained alpha reliability for this two-item measure was. 98. . Data Analyses The dependent variables and manipulation checks were subjected to two-way analyses of variance. Post-hoc cell comparisons were made to probe significant interaction effects obtained in both studies. Alpha for all tests was set at .05.
Immediacy. Analysis of variance for the manipulation check for immediacy indicated the inductions in both studies were generally successful. In Study One, the highly immeqiate teacher was perceived as significantly more immediate (F{1,188} = 113.58, P < .05, eta2 = .37) than the less immediate teacher, m = 11.5 and m = 5.9 respectively. In Study Two, the highly immediate teacher (m = 11.4) also was perceived as significantly more immediate (F{1,180}= 151.4, P < .05, eta2 = .44) than the teacher low in immediacy (m = 5.3). ..r '':'''.' -'._/.~~..c' ..: '... .'. " - ,_.. . Nonimmediacy and Misbehavior - Page 201 The impact of the manipulation of misbehavior did not impact perceived immediacy in either study (F < 1.0). There was a significant cross-over interaction observed in both studies (Study 1, F(l, 188) = 4.68, P < .05, eta2 = .02; Study 2, F(l, 180) = 11.39, P < .05, eta2 = .03). As noted in Table 1, the perceived immediacy in the low immediacy condition was somewhat higher in the "misbehavior" condition than the "no misbehavior" condition in both studies. In contrast, the perceived immediacy in the high immediacy condition was somewhat higher in the "no misbehavior" condition than in the "misbehavior" condition for both studies. Tests
between cell means reflecting the interaction were significant for the second study, but were not significant in the first study. Given the low effect sizes for these tests, this interaction probably should not be seen as particularly important, particularly considering the very large main effects observed. TABLE 1 Means for Immediacy Conditions Dependent Variable Study Number Low Immediacy Appropriate Misbehavior High Immediacy Appropriate Misbehavior Immediacy 5.3ac 6.5bd 12.0ab 10.9cd 2 4.5adf 6.lbef 12.3abc 1O.6cde Note: Means with the same subscript in the same study are significantly different at (at least) the .05 level. Behavioro The analysis of variance for the measures of teacher misbehavior indicated that a significant amount of variance was accounted for on perceived teacher misbehavior by the two induction variables in both Study 1 (F{3, 190} =
20.8, P < .05, eta2= .25) and Study 2 (F {3, 186} = 23.8, P < .05, eta2 = .28). The interaction effect was significant in both studies and, as indicated in Table 2, it was the primary explanation for the overall significant AOV models. In both studies the "high immediacy I appropriate behavior" condition was reported as having significantly less teacher misbehavior than the other three conditions (which did not significantly differ from each other). Thus, the condition in each study in which no teacher misbehaviors were induced was seen as having a high level of teacher misbehavior if the teacher was described as nonimmediate. For the participants in these studies, then, teachers who allegedly behaved in nonimmediate ways were seen as misbehaving, even if they were performing none of the behaviors described as misbehavior in previous research. DISCUSSION The primary purpose of these studies was to investigate the mediating effect of immediacy on perceived teacher misbehaviors. While subjects did perceive differences in immediacy and misbehaviors for all scenarios, the results indicated that immediate teacher behaviors and teacher misbehaviors cannot be manipulated fully independently (or, at least, were not in these studies). The low immediate, non- misbehaving teacher was perceived as misbehaving as much as the low immediate teacher that was misbehaving.
Page 202 -Communication Research ReportsjFall1996 TABLE 2 Means for Misbehavior Conditions Dependent Variable Study Number Low Immediacy Appropriate Misbehavior High Immediacy Appropriate Misbehavior Misbehavior 9.8a 8.7b 4.9abc 9.5c 2 9.3a IO.Ib 5.0abc 9.3c Note: Means with the same subscript in the same study are significantly different at (at least) the .05 level. This particular result is counter-intuitive in that it was expected that the low immediate, misbehaving teacher would be rated as misbehaving more than all of the other teacher types. Apparently there is an upper limit on perceptions of teacher misbehavior, and nonimmediacy reaches that limit all by itself. This leads to the most important conclusion we may draw from this research:
Nonimmediacy is seen by students as misbehavior. Dolin's (1995) research indicated that some misbehaviors previously identified by students are actually nonimmediate behaviors. This research indicates that the reverse also appears to be true. In the present studies nonimmediacy overwhelmed the impact of good behaviors. This suggests that nonimmediacy acts as a misbehavior, even though students do not necessarily recognize it as a misbehavior at a conscious level. Students did not, in Kearney, Plax, Hays, and Ivey (1991) research, generate nonimmediacy as an actual misbehavior. One explanation for this is that students may perceive this simply as "normal" bad teaching behaviors as a result of the numerous teachers they have seen engaging in these behaviors. Such common-place acts of nonimmediacy are actually behaviors or misbehaviors that serve to interfere with the learning process. It can be concluded that, for the most part, teachers who engage in misbehaviors and are low in immediacy do not produce greater perceptions of misbehavior than the teacher who is low in immediacy, but engages in no other misbehaviors, at least of the type investigated in this research. CONCLUSIONS From the results of this investigation, it can be concluded that nonimmediate teacher behaviors can be classified as teacher misbehaviors. Thus, teachers who, either by choice or ignorance, fail to engage in immediate behaviors are misbehaving, at least in the eyes of
their students. This may explain why students perceive the nonimmediate teacher, who functions in an otherwise efficient manner, less positively than the immediate teacher who may not even be efficient in accomplishing his/her duties. At least in these studies, students consistently evaluated the immediate teacher more positively than the nonimmediate teacher who engaged in no misbehaviors, even if the teacher was misbehaving. Students consistently evaluated the nonimmediate teacher as engaging in a high level of misbehavior, even if that teacher was credited with otherwise only appropriate behavior. For teachers, it is necessary to realize that simply doings one's job correctly is not enough. Teachers must make students comfortable about approaching her / him and ensure students that he/ she is comfortable with approaching students. Creating a ,< . .... Nonimmediacy and Misbehavior -Page 203 feeling of closeness, whether it is psychological or physical, ensures the teacher who may be forced to engage in what students perceive to be inappropriate behaviors (misbehave) on occasion that hel she will not lose the positive affect of the students. Future researchers may wish to consider extending this research by manipulating nonimmediacy cues as misbehaviors rather than just nonimmediate behaviors.
REFERENCES Andersen, J. F. (1978). Teacher immediacy and teaching effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown. Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 3, (pp. 543-559). new Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Dolin, D. J. (1995). Ain't Misbehavin'; A study of teacher misbehaviors, related to communication behaviors, and student resistance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Burroughs, N. F. (1991) Anattributionalanalysis of college students resistance decisions. Communication Education, 40, 325-342. Kearney, P., Pia x, 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, 309-324. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Wendt-Wasco, N. J. (1985). Teacher immediacy for affective learning in divergent college classes. Communication Quarterly, 33, 61-74.
Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavioral Research Methods and Instruments, 1,213-217. Pia x, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. c., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43-55. Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. c., Pia x, T. G., & Kearney P. (1986). Teacher nonverbal immediacy training and student affect. World Communication, 15, 181- 194. APPENDIX A EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATIONS Scenarios -Study 1 Scenario 1: Immediate Teacher/Misbehavior You are taking a class from a teacher who smiles frequently, uses vocal variety, and gestures. Moreover, this teacher is enthusiastic, walks around the classroom, and seems relaxed in the classroom. He/ she frequently cancels class without notice, does not follow the syllabus, and is usually unprepared for class. Scenario 2: Immediate Teacher/ Appropriate BehaviOr You are taking a class from a teacher who smiles frequently, uses vocal variety, and gestures. Moreover, this teacher is enthusiastic, walks around the classroom, and seems relaxed in the
classroom. He/ she is always on time for class, follows the syllabus, and arrives at class prepared. Scenario 3: Nonimmediate Teacher/Misbehavior You are taking a class from a teacher who lacks facial expression, uses monotone, and doesn't ..,~,':: ....'... ;:'.2;:'1'!A~:d."./ :);.L.J::.t:.t.&;'j;''>.')::''';k'..::~'''::.>1..'.L1.:..~ n:",:..L~.. .. ~ Page 204 - Communication Research Reports/Fall 1996 gesture. Moreover, this teacher is unenthusiastic, stands behind the podium throughout class, and seems tense. He/ she frequently cancels class without notice, does not follow the syllabus, and is usually unprepared for class. Scenario 4: Nonimmediate Teacher/ Appropriate Behavior You are taking a class from a teacher who lacks facial expression, uses monotone, and doesn't gesture. Moreover, this teacher is unenthusiastic, stands behind the podium throughout class, and seems tense. He/ she is always on time for class, follows the syllabus, and arrives at class prepared. Scenarios - Study 2 Scenario 1: Immediate Teacher/Misbehavior
You are taking a class from a teacher who seems very relaxed, looks at the class when teaching, and walks around the room during the lecture. Moreover, this teacher engages in a lot of eye contact and is generally perceived as friendly and approachable. He/she assigns an excessive amount of homework, lectures in a confusing manner, and is generally unprepared for class. Scenario 2: Immediate Teacher/ Appropriate Behavior You are taking a class from a teacher who seems very relaxed, looks at the class when teaching, and walks around the room during the lecture. Moreover, this teacher engages in a lot of eye contact and is generally perceived as friendly and approachable. He/she assigns a reasonable amount of homework, lectures in an organized manner, and is generally prepared for class. Scenario 3: Nonimmediate Teacher/Misbehavior You are taking a class from a teacher who seems very tense, looks at the board while talking, and stands behind the podium throughout the lecture. Moreover, this teacher looks at the board when lecturing and is generally perceived as unfriendly and unapproachable. He/she assigns an excessive amount of homework, lectures in a confusing manner, and is generally unprepared for class. Scenario 4: Nonimmediate Teacher/ Appropriate Behavior You are taking a class from a teacher who seems very tense,
looks at the board while talking, and stands behind the podium throughout the lecture. Moreover, this teacher looks at the board when lecturing and is generally perceived as unfriendly and unapproachable. He/ she assigns a reasonable amount of homework, lectures in an organized manner, and is generally prepared for class.

Recommended

2 wells
2 wells2 wells
2 wellsWilliam Kritsonis
 
2 wells
2 wells2 wells
2 wellsWilliam Kritsonis
 
Running Head PERSUASIVE PAPER PART 11PERSUASIVE PAPER PAR.docx
Running Head PERSUASIVE PAPER PART 11PERSUASIVE PAPER PAR.docxRunning Head PERSUASIVE PAPER PART 11PERSUASIVE PAPER PAR.docx
Running Head PERSUASIVE PAPER PART 11PERSUASIVE PAPER PAR.docxcharisellington63520
 
HRM critical thinking.docx
HRM critical thinking.docxHRM critical thinking.docx
HRM critical thinking.docxbkbk37
 
HRM critical thinking.docx
HRM critical thinking.docxHRM critical thinking.docx
HRM critical thinking.docxwrite4
 
1The CounCil of STaTe governmenTSDoes Merit Pay For Teache.docx
1The CounCil of STaTe governmenTSDoes Merit Pay For Teache.docx1The CounCil of STaTe governmenTSDoes Merit Pay For Teache.docx
1The CounCil of STaTe governmenTSDoes Merit Pay For Teache.docxeugeniadean34240
 
Criterion-Referenced Competency Test
Criterion-Referenced Competency TestCriterion-Referenced Competency Test
Criterion-Referenced Competency TestTasha Holloway
 
BEST-NC-Teacher-Pay-Report.pdf
BEST-NC-Teacher-Pay-Report.pdfBEST-NC-Teacher-Pay-Report.pdf
BEST-NC-Teacher-Pay-Report.pdfMebane Rash
 

Recommended

2 wells
2 wells2 wells
2 wellsWilliam Kritsonis
 
2 wells
2 wells2 wells
2 wellsWilliam Kritsonis
 
Running Head PERSUASIVE PAPER PART 11PERSUASIVE PAPER PAR.docx
Running Head PERSUASIVE PAPER PART 11PERSUASIVE PAPER PAR.docxRunning Head PERSUASIVE PAPER PART 11PERSUASIVE PAPER PAR.docx
Running Head PERSUASIVE PAPER PART 11PERSUASIVE PAPER PAR.docxcharisellington63520
 
HRM critical thinking.docx
HRM critical thinking.docxHRM critical thinking.docx
HRM critical thinking.docxbkbk37
 
HRM critical thinking.docx
HRM critical thinking.docxHRM critical thinking.docx
HRM critical thinking.docxwrite4
 
1The CounCil of STaTe governmenTSDoes Merit Pay For Teache.docx
1The CounCil of STaTe governmenTSDoes Merit Pay For Teache.docx1The CounCil of STaTe governmenTSDoes Merit Pay For Teache.docx
1The CounCil of STaTe governmenTSDoes Merit Pay For Teache.docxeugeniadean34240
 
Criterion-Referenced Competency Test
Criterion-Referenced Competency TestCriterion-Referenced Competency Test
Criterion-Referenced Competency TestTasha Holloway
 
BEST-NC-Teacher-Pay-Report.pdf
BEST-NC-Teacher-Pay-Report.pdfBEST-NC-Teacher-Pay-Report.pdf
BEST-NC-Teacher-Pay-Report.pdfMebane Rash
 
Re-balancing Assessment_CEPA whitepaper_HofmanGoodwinKahl_Feb2015 (1)
Re-balancing Assessment_CEPA whitepaper_HofmanGoodwinKahl_Feb2015 (1)Re-balancing Assessment_CEPA whitepaper_HofmanGoodwinKahl_Feb2015 (1)
Re-balancing Assessment_CEPA whitepaper_HofmanGoodwinKahl_Feb2015 (1)Peter Hofman
 
Performance assessment
Performance assessmentPerformance assessment
Performance assessmentXINYOUWANZ
 
Grading Ethical Issues
Grading Ethical IssuesGrading Ethical Issues
Grading Ethical IssuesCustom College Papers Texas A&M University-San Antonio
 
What Makes a Good Principal
What Makes a Good PrincipalWhat Makes a Good Principal
What Makes a Good PrincipalAzreen5520
 
20120109 Teacher Selection and Evaluation in Nebraska
20120109 Teacher Selection and Evaluation in Nebraska20120109 Teacher Selection and Evaluation in Nebraska
20120109 Teacher Selection and Evaluation in NebraskaVicki Alger
 
Teacher opinions about the use of Value-Added models
Teacher opinions about the use of Value-Added models Teacher opinions about the use of Value-Added models
Teacher opinions about the use of Value-Added models llee18
 
Fixing America’s Standardized Testing
Fixing America’s Standardized TestingFixing America’s Standardized Testing
Fixing America’s Standardized TestingAlex Cortez
 
Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Proposal Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, D...
Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Proposal Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, D...Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Proposal Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, D...
Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Proposal Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, D...William Kritsonis
 
Eunetra Ellison-Simpson
Eunetra Ellison-SimpsonEunetra Ellison-Simpson
Eunetra Ellison-SimpsonWilliam Kritsonis
 
Reducing the Number of Under-performing Teachers in K-12 Schools in New York ...
Reducing the Number of Under-performing Teachers in K-12 Schools in New York ...Reducing the Number of Under-performing Teachers in K-12 Schools in New York ...
Reducing the Number of Under-performing Teachers in K-12 Schools in New York ...Max Trezil
 
Alison mc bride doctoral forum
Alison mc bride doctoral forumAlison mc bride doctoral forum
Alison mc bride doctoral forumWilliam Kritsonis
 
Alison Coates-McBridge and William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Article: The M&M Ef...
Alison Coates-McBridge and William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Article: The M&M Ef...Alison Coates-McBridge and William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Article: The M&M Ef...
Alison Coates-McBridge and William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Article: The M&M Ef...William Kritsonis
 
Running Head REWARDING STUDENTS WITH FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 1.docx
Running Head REWARDING STUDENTS WITH FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 1.docxRunning Head REWARDING STUDENTS WITH FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 1.docx
Running Head REWARDING STUDENTS WITH FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 1.docxcharisellington63520
 
Rolling Educational Rewards....
Rolling Educational Rewards....Rolling Educational Rewards....
Rolling Educational Rewards....Nupur Srivastava
 
Running Head Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 11TARG.docx
Running Head Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 11TARG.docxRunning Head Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 11TARG.docx
Running Head Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 11TARG.docxtoltonkendal
 
The Key to Enhancing Educator Effectivness. Document
The Key to Enhancing Educator Effectivness. DocumentThe Key to Enhancing Educator Effectivness. Document
The Key to Enhancing Educator Effectivness. DocumentDoug Reznicek M.Ed.
 
The Effect of Educational Factors on Graduate Earnings
The Effect of Educational Factors on Graduate EarningsThe Effect of Educational Factors on Graduate Earnings
The Effect of Educational Factors on Graduate EarningsGregory Pimentel
 
20140908 Alger Teacher Incentive Pay that Works
20140908 Alger Teacher Incentive Pay that Works20140908 Alger Teacher Incentive Pay that Works
20140908 Alger Teacher Incentive Pay that WorksVicki Alger
 
TEST PREPARATION.pdf
TEST PREPARATION.pdfTEST PREPARATION.pdf
TEST PREPARATION.pdfInternational advisers
 
What makes a good secondary assessment on achieving the aims of assessment
What makes a good secondary assessment on achieving the aims of assessmentWhat makes a good secondary assessment on achieving the aims of assessment
What makes a good secondary assessment on achieving the aims of assessmentAlexander Decker
 
deadline 6 hours 7.3 y 7.47.4.docx
deadline 6 hours 7.3 y 7.47.4.docxdeadline 6 hours 7.3 y 7.47.4.docx
deadline 6 hours 7.3 y 7.47.4.docxedwardmarivel
 
Deadline 6 PM Friday September 27, 201310 Project Management Que.docx
Deadline 6 PM Friday September 27, 201310 Project Management Que.docxDeadline 6 PM Friday September 27, 201310 Project Management Que.docx
Deadline 6 PM Friday September 27, 201310 Project Management Que.docxedwardmarivel
 

More Related Content

Similar to TitleThe perils of merit pay linking teacher pay to performanc.docx

Re-balancing Assessment_CEPA whitepaper_HofmanGoodwinKahl_Feb2015 (1)
Re-balancing Assessment_CEPA whitepaper_HofmanGoodwinKahl_Feb2015 (1)Re-balancing Assessment_CEPA whitepaper_HofmanGoodwinKahl_Feb2015 (1)
Re-balancing Assessment_CEPA whitepaper_HofmanGoodwinKahl_Feb2015 (1)Peter Hofman
 
Performance assessment
Performance assessmentPerformance assessment
Performance assessmentXINYOUWANZ
 
What Makes a Good Principal
What Makes a Good PrincipalWhat Makes a Good Principal
What Makes a Good PrincipalAzreen5520
 
20120109 Teacher Selection and Evaluation in Nebraska
20120109 Teacher Selection and Evaluation in Nebraska20120109 Teacher Selection and Evaluation in Nebraska
20120109 Teacher Selection and Evaluation in NebraskaVicki Alger
 
Teacher opinions about the use of Value-Added models
Teacher opinions about the use of Value-Added models Teacher opinions about the use of Value-Added models
Teacher opinions about the use of Value-Added models llee18
 
Fixing America’s Standardized Testing
Fixing America’s Standardized TestingFixing America’s Standardized Testing
Fixing America’s Standardized TestingAlex Cortez
 
Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Proposal Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, D...
Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Proposal Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, D...Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Proposal Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, D...
Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Proposal Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, D...William Kritsonis
 
Reducing the Number of Under-performing Teachers in K-12 Schools in New York ...
Reducing the Number of Under-performing Teachers in K-12 Schools in New York ...Reducing the Number of Under-performing Teachers in K-12 Schools in New York ...
Reducing the Number of Under-performing Teachers in K-12 Schools in New York ...Max Trezil
 
Alison mc bride doctoral forum
Alison mc bride doctoral forumAlison mc bride doctoral forum
Alison mc bride doctoral forumWilliam Kritsonis
 
Alison Coates-McBridge and William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Article: The M&M Ef...
Alison Coates-McBridge and William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Article: The M&M Ef...Alison Coates-McBridge and William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Article: The M&M Ef...
Alison Coates-McBridge and William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Article: The M&M Ef...William Kritsonis
 
Running Head REWARDING STUDENTS WITH FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 1.docx
Running Head REWARDING STUDENTS WITH FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 1.docxRunning Head REWARDING STUDENTS WITH FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 1.docx
Running Head REWARDING STUDENTS WITH FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 1.docxcharisellington63520
 
Rolling Educational Rewards....
Rolling Educational Rewards....Rolling Educational Rewards....
Rolling Educational Rewards....Nupur Srivastava
 
Running Head Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 11TARG.docx
Running Head Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 11TARG.docxRunning Head Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 11TARG.docx
Running Head Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 11TARG.docxtoltonkendal
 
The Key to Enhancing Educator Effectivness. Document
The Key to Enhancing Educator Effectivness. DocumentThe Key to Enhancing Educator Effectivness. Document
The Key to Enhancing Educator Effectivness. DocumentDoug Reznicek M.Ed.
 
The Effect of Educational Factors on Graduate Earnings
The Effect of Educational Factors on Graduate EarningsThe Effect of Educational Factors on Graduate Earnings
The Effect of Educational Factors on Graduate EarningsGregory Pimentel
 
20140908 Alger Teacher Incentive Pay that Works
20140908 Alger Teacher Incentive Pay that Works20140908 Alger Teacher Incentive Pay that Works
20140908 Alger Teacher Incentive Pay that WorksVicki Alger
 
What makes a good secondary assessment on achieving the aims of assessment
What makes a good secondary assessment on achieving the aims of assessmentWhat makes a good secondary assessment on achieving the aims of assessment
What makes a good secondary assessment on achieving the aims of assessmentAlexander Decker
 

Similar to TitleThe perils of merit pay linking teacher pay to performanc.docx (20)

Re-balancing Assessment_CEPA whitepaper_HofmanGoodwinKahl_Feb2015 (1)
Re-balancing Assessment_CEPA whitepaper_HofmanGoodwinKahl_Feb2015 (1)Re-balancing Assessment_CEPA whitepaper_HofmanGoodwinKahl_Feb2015 (1)
Re-balancing Assessment_CEPA whitepaper_HofmanGoodwinKahl_Feb2015 (1)
 
Performance assessment
Performance assessmentPerformance assessment
Performance assessment
 
Grading Ethical Issues
Grading Ethical IssuesGrading Ethical Issues
Grading Ethical Issues
 
What Makes a Good Principal
What Makes a Good PrincipalWhat Makes a Good Principal
What Makes a Good Principal
 
20120109 Teacher Selection and Evaluation in Nebraska
20120109 Teacher Selection and Evaluation in Nebraska20120109 Teacher Selection and Evaluation in Nebraska
20120109 Teacher Selection and Evaluation in Nebraska
 
Teacher opinions about the use of Value-Added models
Teacher opinions about the use of Value-Added models Teacher opinions about the use of Value-Added models
Teacher opinions about the use of Value-Added models
 
Fixing America’s Standardized Testing
Fixing America’s Standardized TestingFixing America’s Standardized Testing
Fixing America’s Standardized Testing
 
Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Proposal Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, D...
Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Proposal Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, D...Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Proposal Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, D...
Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Proposal Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, D...
 
Eunetra Ellison-Simpson
Eunetra Ellison-SimpsonEunetra Ellison-Simpson
Eunetra Ellison-Simpson
 
Reducing the Number of Under-performing Teachers in K-12 Schools in New York ...
Reducing the Number of Under-performing Teachers in K-12 Schools in New York ...Reducing the Number of Under-performing Teachers in K-12 Schools in New York ...
Reducing the Number of Under-performing Teachers in K-12 Schools in New York ...
 
Alison mc bride doctoral forum
Alison mc bride doctoral forumAlison mc bride doctoral forum
Alison mc bride doctoral forum
 
Alison Coates-McBridge and William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Article: The M&M Ef...
Alison Coates-McBridge and William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Article: The M&M Ef...Alison Coates-McBridge and William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Article: The M&M Ef...
Alison Coates-McBridge and William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Article: The M&M Ef...
 
Running Head REWARDING STUDENTS WITH FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 1.docx
Running Head REWARDING STUDENTS WITH FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 1.docxRunning Head REWARDING STUDENTS WITH FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 1.docx
Running Head REWARDING STUDENTS WITH FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 1.docx
 
Rolling Educational Rewards....
Rolling Educational Rewards....Rolling Educational Rewards....
Rolling Educational Rewards....
 
Running Head Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 11TARG.docx
Running Head Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 11TARG.docxRunning Head Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 11TARG.docx
Running Head Target of Program Evaluation Plan, Part 11TARG.docx
 
The Key to Enhancing Educator Effectivness. Document
The Key to Enhancing Educator Effectivness. DocumentThe Key to Enhancing Educator Effectivness. Document
The Key to Enhancing Educator Effectivness. Document
 
The Effect of Educational Factors on Graduate Earnings
The Effect of Educational Factors on Graduate EarningsThe Effect of Educational Factors on Graduate Earnings
The Effect of Educational Factors on Graduate Earnings
 
20140908 Alger Teacher Incentive Pay that Works
20140908 Alger Teacher Incentive Pay that Works20140908 Alger Teacher Incentive Pay that Works
20140908 Alger Teacher Incentive Pay that Works
 
TEST PREPARATION.pdf
TEST PREPARATION.pdfTEST PREPARATION.pdf
TEST PREPARATION.pdf
 
What makes a good secondary assessment on achieving the aims of assessment
What makes a good secondary assessment on achieving the aims of assessmentWhat makes a good secondary assessment on achieving the aims of assessment
What makes a good secondary assessment on achieving the aims of assessment
 

More from edwardmarivel

deadline 6 hours 7.3 y 7.47.4.docx
deadline 6 hours 7.3 y 7.47.4.docxdeadline 6 hours 7.3 y 7.47.4.docx
deadline 6 hours 7.3 y 7.47.4.docxedwardmarivel
 
Deadline 6 PM Friday September 27, 201310 Project Management Que.docx
Deadline 6 PM Friday September 27, 201310 Project Management Que.docxDeadline 6 PM Friday September 27, 201310 Project Management Que.docx
Deadline 6 PM Friday September 27, 201310 Project Management Que.docxedwardmarivel
 
DEADLINE 15 HOURS6 PAGES UNDERGRADUATECOURSEWORKHARV.docx
DEADLINE 15 HOURS6 PAGES UNDERGRADUATECOURSEWORKHARV.docxDEADLINE 15 HOURS6 PAGES UNDERGRADUATECOURSEWORKHARV.docx
DEADLINE 15 HOURS6 PAGES UNDERGRADUATECOURSEWORKHARV.docxedwardmarivel
 
De nada.El gusto es mío.Encantada.Me llamo Pepe.Muy bien, grac.docx
De nada.El gusto es mío.Encantada.Me llamo Pepe.Muy bien, grac.docxDe nada.El gusto es mío.Encantada.Me llamo Pepe.Muy bien, grac.docx
De nada.El gusto es mío.Encantada.Me llamo Pepe.Muy bien, grac.docxedwardmarivel
 
DDBA 8307 Week 4 Assignment TemplateJohn DoeDDBA 8.docx
DDBA 8307 Week 4 Assignment TemplateJohn DoeDDBA 8.docxDDBA 8307 Week 4 Assignment TemplateJohn DoeDDBA 8.docx
DDBA 8307 Week 4 Assignment TemplateJohn DoeDDBA 8.docxedwardmarivel
 
DDL 24 hours reading the article and writing a 1-page doubl.docx
DDL 24 hours reading the article and writing a 1-page doubl.docxDDL 24 hours reading the article and writing a 1-page doubl.docx
DDL 24 hours reading the article and writing a 1-page doubl.docxedwardmarivel
 
DCF valuation methodSuper-normal growth modelApplicatio.docx
DCF valuation methodSuper-normal growth modelApplicatio.docxDCF valuation methodSuper-normal growth modelApplicatio.docx
DCF valuation methodSuper-normal growth modelApplicatio.docxedwardmarivel
 
DDBA 8307 Week 2 Assignment ExemplarJohn Doe[footnoteRef1] .docx
DDBA 8307 Week 2 Assignment ExemplarJohn Doe[footnoteRef1] .docxDDBA 8307 Week 2 Assignment ExemplarJohn Doe[footnoteRef1] .docx
DDBA 8307 Week 2 Assignment ExemplarJohn Doe[footnoteRef1] .docxedwardmarivel
 
DBM380 v14Create a DatabaseDBM380 v14Page 2 of 2Create a D.docx
DBM380 v14Create a DatabaseDBM380 v14Page 2 of 2Create a D.docxDBM380 v14Create a DatabaseDBM380 v14Page 2 of 2Create a D.docx
DBM380 v14Create a DatabaseDBM380 v14Page 2 of 2Create a D.docxedwardmarivel
 
DBA CAPSTONE TEMPLATEThe pages in this template are correctl.docx
DBA CAPSTONE TEMPLATEThe pages in this template are correctl.docxDBA CAPSTONE TEMPLATEThe pages in this template are correctl.docx
DBA CAPSTONE TEMPLATEThe pages in this template are correctl.docxedwardmarivel
 
DB3.1 Mexico corruptionDiscuss the connection between pol.docx
DB3.1 Mexico corruptionDiscuss the connection between pol.docxDB3.1 Mexico corruptionDiscuss the connection between pol.docx
DB3.1 Mexico corruptionDiscuss the connection between pol.docxedwardmarivel
 
DB2Pepsi Co and Coke American beverage giants, must adhere to th.docx
DB2Pepsi Co and Coke American beverage giants, must adhere to th.docxDB2Pepsi Co and Coke American beverage giants, must adhere to th.docx
DB2Pepsi Co and Coke American beverage giants, must adhere to th.docxedwardmarivel
 
DB1 What Ive observedHave you ever experienced a self-managed .docx
DB1 What Ive observedHave you ever experienced a self-managed .docxDB1 What Ive observedHave you ever experienced a self-managed .docx
DB1 What Ive observedHave you ever experienced a self-managed .docxedwardmarivel
 
DB Response 1I agree with the decision to search the house. Ther.docx
DB Response 1I agree with the decision to search the house. Ther.docxDB Response 1I agree with the decision to search the house. Ther.docx
DB Response 1I agree with the decision to search the house. Ther.docxedwardmarivel
 
DB Response prompt ZAKChapter 7, Q1.Customers are expecting.docx
DB Response prompt ZAKChapter 7, Q1.Customers are expecting.docxDB Response prompt ZAKChapter 7, Q1.Customers are expecting.docx
DB Response prompt ZAKChapter 7, Q1.Customers are expecting.docxedwardmarivel
 
DB Topic of Discussion Information-related CapabilitiesAnalyze .docx
DB Topic of Discussion Information-related CapabilitiesAnalyze .docxDB Topic of Discussion Information-related CapabilitiesAnalyze .docx
DB Topic of Discussion Information-related CapabilitiesAnalyze .docxedwardmarivel
 
DB Instructions Each reply must be 250–300 words with a minim.docx
DB Instructions Each reply must be 250–300 words with a minim.docxDB Instructions Each reply must be 250–300 words with a minim.docx
DB Instructions Each reply must be 250–300 words with a minim.docxedwardmarivel
 
DB Defining White Collar CrimeHow would you define white co.docx
DB Defining White Collar CrimeHow would you define white co.docxDB Defining White Collar CrimeHow would you define white co.docx
DB Defining White Collar CrimeHow would you define white co.docxedwardmarivel
 
DAVID H. ROSENBLOOMSECOND EDITIONAdministrative Law .docx
DAVID H. ROSENBLOOMSECOND EDITIONAdministrative Law .docxDAVID H. ROSENBLOOMSECOND EDITIONAdministrative Law .docx
DAVID H. ROSENBLOOMSECOND EDITIONAdministrative Law .docxedwardmarivel
 

More from edwardmarivel (20)

deadline 6 hours 7.3 y 7.47.4.docx
deadline 6 hours 7.3 y 7.47.4.docxdeadline 6 hours 7.3 y 7.47.4.docx
deadline 6 hours 7.3 y 7.47.4.docx
 
Deadline 6 PM Friday September 27, 201310 Project Management Que.docx
Deadline 6 PM Friday September 27, 201310 Project Management Que.docxDeadline 6 PM Friday September 27, 201310 Project Management Que.docx
Deadline 6 PM Friday September 27, 201310 Project Management Que.docx
 
DEADLINE 15 HOURS6 PAGES UNDERGRADUATECOURSEWORKHARV.docx
DEADLINE 15 HOURS6 PAGES UNDERGRADUATECOURSEWORKHARV.docxDEADLINE 15 HOURS6 PAGES UNDERGRADUATECOURSEWORKHARV.docx
DEADLINE 15 HOURS6 PAGES UNDERGRADUATECOURSEWORKHARV.docx
 
De nada.El gusto es mío.Encantada.Me llamo Pepe.Muy bien, grac.docx
De nada.El gusto es mío.Encantada.Me llamo Pepe.Muy bien, grac.docxDe nada.El gusto es mío.Encantada.Me llamo Pepe.Muy bien, grac.docx
De nada.El gusto es mío.Encantada.Me llamo Pepe.Muy bien, grac.docx
 
DDBA 8307 Week 4 Assignment TemplateJohn DoeDDBA 8.docx
DDBA 8307 Week 4 Assignment TemplateJohn DoeDDBA 8.docxDDBA 8307 Week 4 Assignment TemplateJohn DoeDDBA 8.docx
DDBA 8307 Week 4 Assignment TemplateJohn DoeDDBA 8.docx
 
DDL 24 hours reading the article and writing a 1-page doubl.docx
DDL 24 hours reading the article and writing a 1-page doubl.docxDDL 24 hours reading the article and writing a 1-page doubl.docx
DDL 24 hours reading the article and writing a 1-page doubl.docx
 
DCF valuation methodSuper-normal growth modelApplicatio.docx
DCF valuation methodSuper-normal growth modelApplicatio.docxDCF valuation methodSuper-normal growth modelApplicatio.docx
DCF valuation methodSuper-normal growth modelApplicatio.docx
 
ddr-.docx
ddr-.docxddr-.docx
ddr-.docx
 
DDBA 8307 Week 2 Assignment ExemplarJohn Doe[footnoteRef1] .docx
DDBA 8307 Week 2 Assignment ExemplarJohn Doe[footnoteRef1] .docxDDBA 8307 Week 2 Assignment ExemplarJohn Doe[footnoteRef1] .docx
DDBA 8307 Week 2 Assignment ExemplarJohn Doe[footnoteRef1] .docx
 
DBM380 v14Create a DatabaseDBM380 v14Page 2 of 2Create a D.docx
DBM380 v14Create a DatabaseDBM380 v14Page 2 of 2Create a D.docxDBM380 v14Create a DatabaseDBM380 v14Page 2 of 2Create a D.docx
DBM380 v14Create a DatabaseDBM380 v14Page 2 of 2Create a D.docx
 
DBA CAPSTONE TEMPLATEThe pages in this template are correctl.docx
DBA CAPSTONE TEMPLATEThe pages in this template are correctl.docxDBA CAPSTONE TEMPLATEThe pages in this template are correctl.docx
DBA CAPSTONE TEMPLATEThe pages in this template are correctl.docx
 
DB3.1 Mexico corruptionDiscuss the connection between pol.docx
DB3.1 Mexico corruptionDiscuss the connection between pol.docxDB3.1 Mexico corruptionDiscuss the connection between pol.docx
DB3.1 Mexico corruptionDiscuss the connection between pol.docx
 
DB2Pepsi Co and Coke American beverage giants, must adhere to th.docx
DB2Pepsi Co and Coke American beverage giants, must adhere to th.docxDB2Pepsi Co and Coke American beverage giants, must adhere to th.docx
DB2Pepsi Co and Coke American beverage giants, must adhere to th.docx
 
DB1 What Ive observedHave you ever experienced a self-managed .docx
DB1 What Ive observedHave you ever experienced a self-managed .docxDB1 What Ive observedHave you ever experienced a self-managed .docx
DB1 What Ive observedHave you ever experienced a self-managed .docx
 
DB Response 1I agree with the decision to search the house. Ther.docx
DB Response 1I agree with the decision to search the house. Ther.docxDB Response 1I agree with the decision to search the house. Ther.docx
DB Response 1I agree with the decision to search the house. Ther.docx
 
DB Response prompt ZAKChapter 7, Q1.Customers are expecting.docx
DB Response prompt ZAKChapter 7, Q1.Customers are expecting.docxDB Response prompt ZAKChapter 7, Q1.Customers are expecting.docx
DB Response prompt ZAKChapter 7, Q1.Customers are expecting.docx
 
DB Topic of Discussion Information-related CapabilitiesAnalyze .docx
DB Topic of Discussion Information-related CapabilitiesAnalyze .docxDB Topic of Discussion Information-related CapabilitiesAnalyze .docx
DB Topic of Discussion Information-related CapabilitiesAnalyze .docx
 
DB Instructions Each reply must be 250–300 words with a minim.docx
DB Instructions Each reply must be 250–300 words with a minim.docxDB Instructions Each reply must be 250–300 words with a minim.docx
DB Instructions Each reply must be 250–300 words with a minim.docx
 
DB Defining White Collar CrimeHow would you define white co.docx
DB Defining White Collar CrimeHow would you define white co.docxDB Defining White Collar CrimeHow would you define white co.docx
DB Defining White Collar CrimeHow would you define white co.docx
 
DAVID H. ROSENBLOOMSECOND EDITIONAdministrative Law .docx
DAVID H. ROSENBLOOMSECOND EDITIONAdministrative Law .docxDAVID H. ROSENBLOOMSECOND EDITIONAdministrative Law .docx
DAVID H. ROSENBLOOMSECOND EDITIONAdministrative Law .docx
 

Recently uploaded

call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️
call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️
call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️9953056974 Low Rate Call Girls In Saket, Delhi NCR
 
Paris 2024 Olympic Geographies - an activity
Paris 2024 Olympic Geographies - an activityParis 2024 Olympic Geographies - an activity
Paris 2024 Olympic Geographies - an activityGeoBlogs
 
Class 11 Legal Studies Ch-1 Concept of State .pdf
Class 11 Legal Studies Ch-1 Concept of State .pdfClass 11 Legal Studies Ch-1 Concept of State .pdf
Class 11 Legal Studies Ch-1 Concept of State .pdfakmcokerachita
 
BASLIQ CURRENT LOOKBOOK LOOKBOOK(1) (1).pdf
BASLIQ CURRENT LOOKBOOK LOOKBOOK(1) (1).pdfBASLIQ CURRENT LOOKBOOK LOOKBOOK(1) (1).pdf
BASLIQ CURRENT LOOKBOOK LOOKBOOK(1) (1).pdfSoniaTolstoy
 
Alper Gobel In Media Res Media Component
Alper Gobel In Media Res Media ComponentAlper Gobel In Media Res Media Component
Alper Gobel In Media Res Media ComponentInMediaRes1
 
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptxThe basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptxheathfieldcps1
 
Call Girls in Dwarka Mor Delhi Contact Us 9654467111
Call Girls in Dwarka Mor Delhi Contact Us 9654467111Call Girls in Dwarka Mor Delhi Contact Us 9654467111
Call Girls in Dwarka Mor Delhi Contact Us 9654467111Sapana Sha
 
_Math 4-Q4 Week 5.pptx Steps in Collecting Data
_Math 4-Q4 Week 5.pptx Steps in Collecting Data_Math 4-Q4 Week 5.pptx Steps in Collecting Data
_Math 4-Q4 Week 5.pptx Steps in Collecting DataJhengPantaleon
 
Sanyam Choudhary Chemistry practical.pdf
Sanyam Choudhary Chemistry practical.pdfSanyam Choudhary Chemistry practical.pdf
Sanyam Choudhary Chemistry practical.pdfsanyamsingh5019
 
Incoming and Outgoing Shipments in 1 STEP Using Odoo 17
Incoming and Outgoing Shipments in 1 STEP Using Odoo 17Incoming and Outgoing Shipments in 1 STEP Using Odoo 17
Incoming and Outgoing Shipments in 1 STEP Using Odoo 17Celine George
 
KSHARA STURA .pptx---KSHARA KARMA THERAPY (CAUSTIC THERAPY)————IMP.OF KSHARA ...
KSHARA STURA .pptx---KSHARA KARMA THERAPY (CAUSTIC THERAPY)————IMP.OF KSHARA ...KSHARA STURA .pptx---KSHARA KARMA THERAPY (CAUSTIC THERAPY)————IMP.OF KSHARA ...
KSHARA STURA .pptx---KSHARA KARMA THERAPY (CAUSTIC THERAPY)————IMP.OF KSHARA ...M56BOOKSTORE PRODUCT/SERVICE
 
How to Configure Email Server in Odoo 17
How to Configure Email Server in Odoo 17How to Configure Email Server in Odoo 17
How to Configure Email Server in Odoo 17Celine George
 
Presentation by Andreas Schleicher Tackling the School Absenteeism Crisis 30 ...
Presentation by Andreas Schleicher Tackling the School Absenteeism Crisis 30 ...Presentation by Andreas Schleicher Tackling the School Absenteeism Crisis 30 ...
Presentation by Andreas Schleicher Tackling the School Absenteeism Crisis 30 ...EduSkills OECD
 
Contemporary philippine arts from the regions_PPT_Module_12 [Autosaved] (1).pptx
Contemporary philippine arts from the regions_PPT_Module_12 [Autosaved] (1).pptxContemporary philippine arts from the regions_PPT_Module_12 [Autosaved] (1).pptx
Contemporary philippine arts from the regions_PPT_Module_12 [Autosaved] (1).pptxRoyAbrique
 
Accessible design: Minimum effort, maximum impact
Accessible design: Minimum effort, maximum impactAccessible design: Minimum effort, maximum impact
Accessible design: Minimum effort, maximum impactdawncurless
 
Introduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher Education
Introduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher EducationIntroduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher Education
Introduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher Educationpboyjonauth
 
Kisan Call Centre - To harness potential of ICT in Agriculture by answer farm...
Kisan Call Centre - To harness potential of ICT in Agriculture by answer farm...Kisan Call Centre - To harness potential of ICT in Agriculture by answer farm...
Kisan Call Centre - To harness potential of ICT in Agriculture by answer farm...Krashi Coaching
 
The Most Excellent Way | 1 Corinthians 13
The Most Excellent Way | 1 Corinthians 13The Most Excellent Way | 1 Corinthians 13
The Most Excellent Way | 1 Corinthians 13Steve Thomason
 

Recently uploaded (20)

call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️
call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️
call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️
 
Paris 2024 Olympic Geographies - an activity
Paris 2024 Olympic Geographies - an activityParis 2024 Olympic Geographies - an activity
Paris 2024 Olympic Geographies - an activity
 
Class 11 Legal Studies Ch-1 Concept of State .pdf
Class 11 Legal Studies Ch-1 Concept of State .pdfClass 11 Legal Studies Ch-1 Concept of State .pdf
Class 11 Legal Studies Ch-1 Concept of State .pdf
 
BASLIQ CURRENT LOOKBOOK LOOKBOOK(1) (1).pdf
BASLIQ CURRENT LOOKBOOK LOOKBOOK(1) (1).pdfBASLIQ CURRENT LOOKBOOK LOOKBOOK(1) (1).pdf
BASLIQ CURRENT LOOKBOOK LOOKBOOK(1) (1).pdf
 
Alper Gobel In Media Res Media Component
Alper Gobel In Media Res Media ComponentAlper Gobel In Media Res Media Component
Alper Gobel In Media Res Media Component
 
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptxThe basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
 
Call Girls in Dwarka Mor Delhi Contact Us 9654467111
Call Girls in Dwarka Mor Delhi Contact Us 9654467111Call Girls in Dwarka Mor Delhi Contact Us 9654467111
Call Girls in Dwarka Mor Delhi Contact Us 9654467111
 
_Math 4-Q4 Week 5.pptx Steps in Collecting Data
_Math 4-Q4 Week 5.pptx Steps in Collecting Data_Math 4-Q4 Week 5.pptx Steps in Collecting Data
_Math 4-Q4 Week 5.pptx Steps in Collecting Data
 
Sanyam Choudhary Chemistry practical.pdf
Sanyam Choudhary Chemistry practical.pdfSanyam Choudhary Chemistry practical.pdf
Sanyam Choudhary Chemistry practical.pdf
 
Incoming and Outgoing Shipments in 1 STEP Using Odoo 17
Incoming and Outgoing Shipments in 1 STEP Using Odoo 17Incoming and Outgoing Shipments in 1 STEP Using Odoo 17
Incoming and Outgoing Shipments in 1 STEP Using Odoo 17
 
KSHARA STURA .pptx---KSHARA KARMA THERAPY (CAUSTIC THERAPY)————IMP.OF KSHARA ...
KSHARA STURA .pptx---KSHARA KARMA THERAPY (CAUSTIC THERAPY)————IMP.OF KSHARA ...KSHARA STURA .pptx---KSHARA KARMA THERAPY (CAUSTIC THERAPY)————IMP.OF KSHARA ...
KSHARA STURA .pptx---KSHARA KARMA THERAPY (CAUSTIC THERAPY)————IMP.OF KSHARA ...
 
How to Configure Email Server in Odoo 17
How to Configure Email Server in Odoo 17How to Configure Email Server in Odoo 17
How to Configure Email Server in Odoo 17
 
Presentation by Andreas Schleicher Tackling the School Absenteeism Crisis 30 ...
Presentation by Andreas Schleicher Tackling the School Absenteeism Crisis 30 ...Presentation by Andreas Schleicher Tackling the School Absenteeism Crisis 30 ...
Presentation by Andreas Schleicher Tackling the School Absenteeism Crisis 30 ...
 
Código Creativo y Arte de Software | Unidad 1
Código Creativo y Arte de Software | Unidad 1Código Creativo y Arte de Software | Unidad 1
Código Creativo y Arte de Software | Unidad 1
 
9953330565 Low Rate Call Girls In Rohini Delhi NCR
9953330565 Low Rate Call Girls In Rohini Delhi NCR9953330565 Low Rate Call Girls In Rohini Delhi NCR
9953330565 Low Rate Call Girls In Rohini Delhi NCR
 
Contemporary philippine arts from the regions_PPT_Module_12 [Autosaved] (1).pptx
Contemporary philippine arts from the regions_PPT_Module_12 [Autosaved] (1).pptxContemporary philippine arts from the regions_PPT_Module_12 [Autosaved] (1).pptx
Contemporary philippine arts from the regions_PPT_Module_12 [Autosaved] (1).pptx
 
Accessible design: Minimum effort, maximum impact
Accessible design: Minimum effort, maximum impactAccessible design: Minimum effort, maximum impact
Accessible design: Minimum effort, maximum impact
 
Introduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher Education
Introduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher EducationIntroduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher Education
Introduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher Education
 
Kisan Call Centre - To harness potential of ICT in Agriculture by answer farm...
Kisan Call Centre - To harness potential of ICT in Agriculture by answer farm...Kisan Call Centre - To harness potential of ICT in Agriculture by answer farm...
Kisan Call Centre - To harness potential of ICT in Agriculture by answer farm...
 
The Most Excellent Way | 1 Corinthians 13
The Most Excellent Way | 1 Corinthians 13The Most Excellent Way | 1 Corinthians 13
The Most Excellent Way | 1 Corinthians 13
 

TitleThe perils of merit pay linking teacher pay to performanc.docx

  • 1. Title: The perils of merit pay: linking teacher pay to performance can't move forward until resolution of questions regarding fairness, teacher evaluation, and the relationship of test scores to teaching quality Author(s): Thomas Toch Source: Phi Delta Kappan. 91.2 (Oct. 2009): p99. Document Type: Article Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2009 Phi Delta Kappa, Inc. Full Text: The U.S. Senate wants the federal government to make $300 million in grants next year to spur a movement to link teacher pay to performance. The House wants to spend $445 million on the effort. And the Obama Administration wants to up the ante to $487 million in appropriations and another $200 million in stimulus spending. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently called performance pay "my highest priority." Such investments make sense. The long tradition in public education of paying teachers mainly on the basis of the college credits they've amassed and the years they've taught results in bad teachers earning the same as good ones--making it seemingly tougher to recruit and retain talent in public schools at a time when research suggests that teacher quality is critical to raising student achievement. But if the logic of performance pay for teachers is compelling, reformers have been trying unsuccessfully for decades to introduce the practice in public education, practically since the concept of a salary system based exclusively on credentials and seniority gained favor in the 1920s as a way to counter the
  • 2. favoritism and other inequities that plagued teacher pay at the time. "Every effort must be made to devise ways to reward teachers according to their ability without opening the school door to unfair personnel practices," reformers warned President Eisenhower in 1955. So if Duncan and today's school reformers want to bring performance pay to the public school teaching profession, they'll have to avoid their predecessors' mistakes. The last, and largest, push for performance pay came in the 1980s. Ted Bell, Ronald Reagan's secretary of education, protested in 1981 that public education's single salary schedule "demands that we pay the worst at the level of the best if we want to pay the best what they are worth." Two years later, a Bell-appointed national commission on school reform recommended performance pay in A Nation at Risk, its stinging indictment of public education. The result was new reward systems for teachers in Tennessee, California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and a host of other school systems. But those pay reforms didn't last long. Teacher unions attacked merit pay, as President Reagan was fond of calling the reform, largely because it violated the collectivism at the heart of the industrial-style unionism in public education. But the teacher pay experiments of the 1980s also failed because they were, at bottom, capricious. In many instances, they offered teachers the possibility of small additional amounts of money, not enough to mean much to those who got it, but just enough to irk those who didn't. The number of teachers receiving the rewards shifted with annual appropriations, regardless of how many teachers were rated high enough to receive them. And the eligibility standards for the rewards were frequently left to the whims of principals. The absence of credible systems of evaluating teachers' performance remains a major barrier to performance pay today, no less of a barrier than continued union resistance to tying pay to performance. The typical teacher evaluation in public education consists of a single, fleeting classroom visit by a harried principal untrained in evaluation who is often more
  • 3. interested in classroom comportment than the quality of instruction. The result is statistics like those in Chicago, where the nonprofit New Teacher Project found that 88% of the city's 600 schools did not issue a single "unsatisfactory" teacher rating between 2003 and 2006. The Obama Administration and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is planning to spend upwards of $500 million on performance pay and other teaching reforms, want to use student test scores in teacher evaluations, a step the New York Times endorsed in a recent editorial. There's a clear logic in giving student test scores a role in teacher evaluations: It's inexpensive and easy to administer and seemingly measures what matters most--student achievement. Why Not Test Scores? But test scores aren't the simple solution they seem to be. Less than half of public school teachers teach the subjects or grade levels in which students are tested, eliminating the prospect of a system that's applied fairly to all teachers. Most standardized tests today measure only a narrow band of mostly low-level skills, such as recalling or restating facts, rather than the ability to analyze information and other advanced skills. As a result, the tests tend to privilege low-level pedagogy, leaving the best teachers, those with wider teaching repertoires and the ability to move students beyond the basics, at a disadvantage. And then there's the daunting challenge of separating out individual teachers' impact on their students' reading and math scores from the myriad other influences on student achievement and the difficulty of drawing the right conclusions about teacher performance from very small numbers of student test scores, a particular challenge in elementary schools, where teachers work with a single classroom's worth of students most of the day. As a result, student test scores should play a supporting rather than a lead role in teacher evaluations, and any credible performance pay plan is going to require more effective evaluations of teachers in classrooms--multiple evaluations by multiple evaluators and based on multiple indicators of how
  • 4. well teachers plan, teach, test, manage, and motivate. Comprehensive evaluations are especially important for making key decisions, such as granting teachers tenure, and for making judgments about the majority of teachers who are neither the very best nor the very worst. And they're key to winning teacher support of performance pay. In surveys, only a tiny fraction of teachers are willing to have student test scores play any role in pay levels. But their opposition to performance pay drops significantly when ratings are based on comprehensive evaluations. Encouragingly, the Gates Foundation is planning to make the evaluation issue a cornerstone of its teacher-reform work. Because there have been so few sustained performance pay systems in public education over the years, we don't know for sure whether the reform would indeed improve the teaching profession. James Guthrie and Patrick Schuermann at the National Center on Performance Incentives in Education at Vanderbilt's Peabody College, an enterprise funded by the federal government during the George W. Bush Administration to study performance pay, warn that there's not yet conclusive evidence on "the power of financial awards in promoting more effective teaching and elevating student performance" or on "the long-term effect of performance awards on the supply of effective teachers." Nor, they write, do we know the "effects of group awards relative to individual performance" or the "preferable mix of financial and nonpecuniary awards"-- important secondary questions. We need to answer these big questions about performance pay rather than assume that answers already exist. We know from surveys, for example, that bigger salaries are less important to teachers than professional work environments where they feel supported and are helped to become better at their craft. A 2007 national survey of teachers by the nonprofits Public Agenda and the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality found that, if given a choice between two otherwise identical schools, 76% of secondary teachers and 81% of elementary teachers
  • 5. would rather be at a school where administrators supported teachers strongly than at a school that paid significantly higher salaries. Performance pay may be one tool with which to create a more professional culture in public school teaching, but it is no more than that. THOMAS TOCH is executive director of the Association of Independent Schools of Greater Washington and a former guest scholar at the Brookings Institution. Toch, Thomas Source Citation (MLA 7th Edition) Toch, Thomas. "The perils of merit pay: linking teacher pay to performance can't move forward until resolution of questions regarding fairness, teacher evaluation, and the relationship of test scores to teaching quality." Phi Delta Kappan 91.2 (2009): 99+. Academic OneFile. Web. 12 June 2014. Document URL http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA210599572&v= 2.1&u=tel_a_ttul&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=7f62baa2c30422 39e4e1943181d02c70 Gale Document Number: GALE|A210599572 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
  • 6. 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
  • 7. 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. ***************************************************** ******************
  • 8. "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
  • 9. 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
  • 10. 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
  • 11. 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
  • 12. 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
  • 13. 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
  • 14. 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
  • 15. 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
  • 16. 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'
  • 17. 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
  • 18. 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
  • 19. 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
  • 20. 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
  • 21. 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
  • 22. 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
  • 23. 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
  • 24. 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
  • 25. 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
  • 26. 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
  • 27. 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
  • 28. 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
  • 29. 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
  • 30. 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
  • 31. 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
  • 32. 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
  • 33. 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
  • 34. 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
  • 35. 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
  • 36. 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
  • 37. 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
  • 38. 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:
  • 39. 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-
  • 40. 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
  • 41. 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,
  • 42. 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
  • 43. 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
  • 44. 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
  • 45. 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
  • 46. 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
  • 47. 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
  • 48. 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
  • 49. 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
  • 50. "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
  • 51. 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
  • 52. 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
  • 53. 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,
  • 54. 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
  • 55. 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
  • 56. 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
  • 57. 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
  • 58. 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
  • 59. 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
  • 60. 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
  • 61. 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-
  • 62. 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
  • 63. 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.)
  • 64. (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
  • 65. 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
  • 66. 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
  • 67. 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
  • 68. 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
  • 69. 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
  • 70. 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
  • 71. 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
  • 72. 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
  • 73. 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
  • 74. 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
  • 75. 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."
  • 76. "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.
  • 77. 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
  • 78. Alpha Reliabilities .86 .80 .00 c14 . '. .,.. .'.-. _'_'_-~"">'-"" r:::, ",,-,-_¥,~ ~L'-,-_"',-- J.!."" Teacher Nonimmediacy and Misbehavior: Unintentional Negative Communication Katherine S. Thweatt West Virginia University James C. McCroskey West Virginia University This study involved the manipulation of teacher immediacy and teacher misbehaviors to determine their individual and combined impacts on perceived teacher immediacy and teacher misbehavior. Participants in the study were students enrolled in undergraduate communication classes. The results indicated that teacher nonimmediacy and teacher misbehaviors could not be manipulated independently. Analysis of variance indicated that nonimmediate teachers were perceived to be misbehaving even when no misbehaviors were
  • 79. induced in the experiments, It was concluded that students perceive teachers who communicate in nonimmediate ways as misbehaving. Although immediacy has been clearly defined within the field of communication (see Mehrabian, 1969; Andersen, 1978), nonimmediacy cues have been viewed as nothing more than the opposite of immediacy cues. For the purposes of this research, immediacy is defined as "those communication behaviors that reduce perceived distance between people." Immediate behaviors may actually decrease the physical distance, or they may decrease the psychological distance, The more immediate a person is, the more likely he/ she is to communicate at close distances, smile, engage in eye contact use direct body orientations, use overall body movement and gestures, touch others, relax, and be vocally expressive. In other words, we might say that an immediate person is perceived as overtly friendly and warm" (Andersen, 1979). In instructional research, some immediacy cues that have been manipulated are eye contact, smiling, movement in the classroom, general Katherine S. Thweatt (M.A., West Virginia University, 1996) is a doctoral student at West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6293. James C. McCroskey (Ed,D., Pennsylvania State University, 1966) is a Professor and Chairperson of the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6293. This
  • 80. paper is based on research conducted by the first author as part of her M.A. thesis project which was directed by the second author. COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS, Volume 13, Number 2, pages 198-204 Nonimmediacy and Misbehavior -Page 199 friendliness/ approachability, and enthusiasm. Conversely, nonimmediacy has been manipulated as not smiling, lack of eye contact, lack of movement in the classroom, etc. The impact of immediate and nonimmediate cues have been the focus of a considerable amount of research in which it was found that immediacy has positive impacts in the classroom and nonimmediacy less positive impacts. Students have been shown to have more positive affect for teachers high in immediacy which leads to increased affective learning (Andersen, 1979; Kearney, Plax, & Wendt-Wasco, 1985; Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986; Richmond, McCroskey, Plax, & Kearney, 1986). Research also indicates that students are unable to differentiate prosocial from antisocial Behavior Alteration Techniques when used by more immediate teachers (Kearney, Plax, and Burroughs, 1991). Extant research on immediacy has not identified precisely what students' perceive nonimmediate communication behaviors to be. In a study investigating the impact of
  • 81. teacher immediacy on teacher misbehaviors, some evidence was uncovered that may help classify certain behaviors as nonimmediate cues and, hence, aid in the explanation of the less than positive impact of nonimmediacy in the classroom. Teacher misbehaviors have been defined as "those teacher behaviors that interfere with student learning" (Kearney, Plax, Hays & Ivey, 1991). As a result of her research, Dolin (1995) suggested that nonimmediate communication behaviors of teachers may be perceived by students as misbehaviors, because they clearly interfere with their learning. The present study sought to investigate that speculation directly under controlled experimental conditions. Since this research was based more on informed speculation than on firm theory, and reasonable explanations for divergent outcomes were clearly possible, we chose to pose a research question rather than an hypotheses. The following question was posed: "Can teacher immediacy /nonimmediacy be manipulated independently of teacher misbehaviors?" An affirmative answer to this question would indicate that teacher nonimmediacy is seen as just that, not as a form of teacher misbehavior. A negative answer to the question would confirm Dolin's (1995) speculation that students perceive teacher nonimmediacy as misbehavior. In agreeing with Dolin, we anticipated the negative outcome. However, since the misbehavior and immediacy constructs were developed independently, it was seen as quite possible they might be completely independent constructs.
  • 82. METHOD Design In a 2 x 2 factorial design, participants were exposed to one of four scenarios. Teacher immediacy (immediate/nonimmediate) and teacher misbehavior (appropriate behavior/ misbehavior) were manipulated across four scenarios. After reading a scenario, participants were asked to complete scales measuring level of perceived immediacy and level of perceived teacher misbehavior. This research also included a built-in replication. Procedure In large lecture classes at West Virginia University participants were exposed to one of four stimulus behavior scenarios (See Appendix A). After reading the scenario, the participant was asked to complete scales measuring perceived teacher immediacy and perceived teacher misbehavior. The replication was identical to the original study except that different scenarios representing different operationalizations of immediacy and misbehavior were employed (See Appendix A). Page 200 - Communication Research ReportsjFall1996 Participants Participants were 382 undergraduate students enrolled in communication classes.
  • 83. These classes were ones which serve all segments of the undergraduate student body and enroll approximately equal numbers of females and males. All were given credit for a course assignment for participation. There were 195 participants in study one and 187 in study two. Manipulations Immediacy. Teacher immediacy was manipulated in the four scenarios. All immediacy and nonimmediacy cues were derived from the work of Andersen (1979). Six nonverbal behaviors were manipulated to create two levels of immediacy. In the high immediacy condition, the teacher was immediate in all six nonverbal behaviors. In the low immediacy condition, the teacher engaged in no immediate behavior. Different immediacy behaviors were included in study two than in study one. Misbehavior. Teacher misbehavior was also manipulated in the four scenarios. Three behaviors were manipulated that were considered either appropriate behavior or misbehavior. Two levels of behavior were created by varying the amount of appropriate and inappropriate behaviors. In the misbehavior condition, the teacher engaged in only inappropriate behaviors. In the nonmisbehavior condition, the teacher engaged in all appropriate behaviors. Different misbehaviors were employed in study two than in study one.
  • 84. Measures Subjects completed rating scales which measured perceived teacher immediacy and misbehaviors. Both scales employed two-item, seven-point response formats. Subjects were provided with the definition of immediacy. The level of immediacy of the teacher in the scenario was measured with two adjective pairs: "very immediate/very nonimmediate" and" approachable/ unapproachable." Scores could range from 2 to 14 with a higher score indicating a more positive answer. The obtained alpha reliability for this two-item measure was .94. A definition of teacher misbehavior was also provided for the subjects. Perceived frequency of misbehavior was measured by responses to two adjective pairs: "never/very often" and" frequently/seldom." Scores could range from 2 to 14 with a higher score indicating more frequent misbehavior. The obtained alpha reliability for this two-item measure was. 98. . Data Analyses The dependent variables and manipulation checks were subjected to two-way analyses of variance. Post-hoc cell comparisons were made to probe significant interaction effects obtained in both studies. Alpha for all tests was set at .05.
  • 85. Immediacy. Analysis of variance for the manipulation check for immediacy indicated the inductions in both studies were generally successful. In Study One, the highly immeqiate teacher was perceived as significantly more immediate (F{1,188} = 113.58, P < .05, eta2 = .37) than the less immediate teacher, m = 11.5 and m = 5.9 respectively. In Study Two, the highly immediate teacher (m = 11.4) also was perceived as significantly more immediate (F{1,180}= 151.4, P < .05, eta2 = .44) than the teacher low in immediacy (m = 5.3). ..r '':'''.' -'._/.~~..c' ..: '... .'. " - ,_.. . Nonimmediacy and Misbehavior - Page 201 The impact of the manipulation of misbehavior did not impact perceived immediacy in either study (F < 1.0). There was a significant cross-over interaction observed in both studies (Study 1, F(l, 188) = 4.68, P < .05, eta2 = .02; Study 2, F(l, 180) = 11.39, P < .05, eta2 = .03). As noted in Table 1, the perceived immediacy in the low immediacy condition was somewhat higher in the "misbehavior" condition than the "no misbehavior" condition in both studies. In contrast, the perceived immediacy in the high immediacy condition was somewhat higher in the "no misbehavior" condition than in the "misbehavior" condition for both studies. Tests
  • 86. between cell means reflecting the interaction were significant for the second study, but were not significant in the first study. Given the low effect sizes for these tests, this interaction probably should not be seen as particularly important, particularly considering the very large main effects observed. TABLE 1 Means for Immediacy Conditions Dependent Variable Study Number Low Immediacy Appropriate Misbehavior High Immediacy Appropriate Misbehavior Immediacy 5.3ac 6.5bd 12.0ab 10.9cd 2 4.5adf 6.lbef 12.3abc 1O.6cde Note: Means with the same subscript in the same study are significantly different at (at least) the .05 level. Behavioro The analysis of variance for the measures of teacher misbehavior indicated that a significant amount of variance was accounted for on perceived teacher misbehavior by the two induction variables in both Study 1 (F{3, 190} =
  • 87. 20.8, P < .05, eta2= .25) and Study 2 (F {3, 186} = 23.8, P < .05, eta2 = .28). The interaction effect was significant in both studies and, as indicated in Table 2, it was the primary explanation for the overall significant AOV models. In both studies the "high immediacy I appropriate behavior" condition was reported as having significantly less teacher misbehavior than the other three conditions (which did not significantly differ from each other). Thus, the condition in each study in which no teacher misbehaviors were induced was seen as having a high level of teacher misbehavior if the teacher was described as nonimmediate. For the participants in these studies, then, teachers who allegedly behaved in nonimmediate ways were seen as misbehaving, even if they were performing none of the behaviors described as misbehavior in previous research. DISCUSSION The primary purpose of these studies was to investigate the mediating effect of immediacy on perceived teacher misbehaviors. While subjects did perceive differences in immediacy and misbehaviors for all scenarios, the results indicated that immediate teacher behaviors and teacher misbehaviors cannot be manipulated fully independently (or, at least, were not in these studies). The low immediate, non- misbehaving teacher was perceived as misbehaving as much as the low immediate teacher that was misbehaving.
  • 88. Page 202 -Communication Research ReportsjFall1996 TABLE 2 Means for Misbehavior Conditions Dependent Variable Study Number Low Immediacy Appropriate Misbehavior High Immediacy Appropriate Misbehavior Misbehavior 9.8a 8.7b 4.9abc 9.5c 2 9.3a IO.Ib 5.0abc 9.3c Note: Means with the same subscript in the same study are significantly different at (at least) the .05 level. This particular result is counter-intuitive in that it was expected that the low immediate, misbehaving teacher would be rated as misbehaving more than all of the other teacher types. Apparently there is an upper limit on perceptions of teacher misbehavior, and nonimmediacy reaches that limit all by itself. This leads to the most important conclusion we may draw from this research:
  • 89. Nonimmediacy is seen by students as misbehavior. Dolin's (1995) research indicated that some misbehaviors previously identified by students are actually nonimmediate behaviors. This research indicates that the reverse also appears to be true. In the present studies nonimmediacy overwhelmed the impact of good behaviors. This suggests that nonimmediacy acts as a misbehavior, even though students do not necessarily recognize it as a misbehavior at a conscious level. Students did not, in Kearney, Plax, Hays, and Ivey (1991) research, generate nonimmediacy as an actual misbehavior. One explanation for this is that students may perceive this simply as "normal" bad teaching behaviors as a result of the numerous teachers they have seen engaging in these behaviors. Such common-place acts of nonimmediacy are actually behaviors or misbehaviors that serve to interfere with the learning process. It can be concluded that, for the most part, teachers who engage in misbehaviors and are low in immediacy do not produce greater perceptions of misbehavior than the teacher who is low in immediacy, but engages in no other misbehaviors, at least of the type investigated in this research. CONCLUSIONS From the results of this investigation, it can be concluded that nonimmediate teacher behaviors can be classified as teacher misbehaviors. Thus, teachers who, either by choice or ignorance, fail to engage in immediate behaviors are misbehaving, at least in the eyes of
  • 90. their students. This may explain why students perceive the nonimmediate teacher, who functions in an otherwise efficient manner, less positively than the immediate teacher who may not even be efficient in accomplishing his/her duties. At least in these studies, students consistently evaluated the immediate teacher more positively than the nonimmediate teacher who engaged in no misbehaviors, even if the teacher was misbehaving. Students consistently evaluated the nonimmediate teacher as engaging in a high level of misbehavior, even if that teacher was credited with otherwise only appropriate behavior. For teachers, it is necessary to realize that simply doings one's job correctly is not enough. Teachers must make students comfortable about approaching her / him and ensure students that he/ she is comfortable with approaching students. Creating a ,< . .... Nonimmediacy and Misbehavior -Page 203 feeling of closeness, whether it is psychological or physical, ensures the teacher who may be forced to engage in what students perceive to be inappropriate behaviors (misbehave) on occasion that hel she will not lose the positive affect of the students. Future researchers may wish to consider extending this research by manipulating nonimmediacy cues as misbehaviors rather than just nonimmediate behaviors.
  • 91. REFERENCES Andersen, J. F. (1978). Teacher immediacy and teaching effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown. Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 3, (pp. 543-559). new Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Dolin, D. J. (1995). Ain't Misbehavin'; A study of teacher misbehaviors, related to communication behaviors, and student resistance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Burroughs, N. F. (1991) Anattributionalanalysis of college students resistance decisions. Communication Education, 40, 325-342. Kearney, P., Pia x, 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, 309-324. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Wendt-Wasco, N. J. (1985). Teacher immediacy for affective learning in divergent college classes. Communication Quarterly, 33, 61-74.
  • 92. Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavioral Research Methods and Instruments, 1,213-217. Pia x, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. c., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43-55. Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. c., Pia x, T. G., & Kearney P. (1986). Teacher nonverbal immediacy training and student affect. World Communication, 15, 181- 194. APPENDIX A EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATIONS Scenarios -Study 1 Scenario 1: Immediate Teacher/Misbehavior You are taking a class from a teacher who smiles frequently, uses vocal variety, and gestures. Moreover, this teacher is enthusiastic, walks around the classroom, and seems relaxed in the classroom. He/ she frequently cancels class without notice, does not follow the syllabus, and is usually unprepared for class. Scenario 2: Immediate Teacher/ Appropriate BehaviOr You are taking a class from a teacher who smiles frequently, uses vocal variety, and gestures. Moreover, this teacher is enthusiastic, walks around the classroom, and seems relaxed in the
  • 93. classroom. He/ she is always on time for class, follows the syllabus, and arrives at class prepared. Scenario 3: Nonimmediate Teacher/Misbehavior You are taking a class from a teacher who lacks facial expression, uses monotone, and doesn't ..,~,':: ....'... ;:'.2;:'1'!A~:d."./ :);.L.J::.t:.t.&;'j;''>.')::''';k'..::~'''::.>1..'.L1.:..~ n:",:..L~.. .. ~ Page 204 - Communication Research Reports/Fall 1996 gesture. Moreover, this teacher is unenthusiastic, stands behind the podium throughout class, and seems tense. He/ she frequently cancels class without notice, does not follow the syllabus, and is usually unprepared for class. Scenario 4: Nonimmediate Teacher/ Appropriate Behavior You are taking a class from a teacher who lacks facial expression, uses monotone, and doesn't gesture. Moreover, this teacher is unenthusiastic, stands behind the podium throughout class, and seems tense. He/ she is always on time for class, follows the syllabus, and arrives at class prepared. Scenarios - Study 2 Scenario 1: Immediate Teacher/Misbehavior
  • 94. You are taking a class from a teacher who seems very relaxed, looks at the class when teaching, and walks around the room during the lecture. Moreover, this teacher engages in a lot of eye contact and is generally perceived as friendly and approachable. He/she assigns an excessive amount of homework, lectures in a confusing manner, and is generally unprepared for class. Scenario 2: Immediate Teacher/ Appropriate Behavior You are taking a class from a teacher who seems very relaxed, looks at the class when teaching, and walks around the room during the lecture. Moreover, this teacher engages in a lot of eye contact and is generally perceived as friendly and approachable. He/she assigns a reasonable amount of homework, lectures in an organized manner, and is generally prepared for class. Scenario 3: Nonimmediate Teacher/Misbehavior You are taking a class from a teacher who seems very tense, looks at the board while talking, and stands behind the podium throughout the lecture. Moreover, this teacher looks at the board when lecturing and is generally perceived as unfriendly and unapproachable. He/she assigns an excessive amount of homework, lectures in a confusing manner, and is generally unprepared for class. Scenario 4: Nonimmediate Teacher/ Appropriate Behavior You are taking a class from a teacher who seems very tense,
  • 95. looks at the board while talking, and stands behind the podium throughout the lecture. Moreover, this teacher looks at the board when lecturing and is generally perceived as unfriendly and unapproachable. He/ she assigns a reasonable amount of homework, lectures in an organized manner, and is generally prepared for class.