College student misbehaviors: an exploration of instructor perceptions

Johnson, Zac D.; Claus, Christopher; Goldman, Zachary W.; Sollitto, Michael

doi:10.1080/03634523.2016.1202995

Cited by 24 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In functionalist‐instrumental terms, resistant behaviour in the classroom is solely understood in relation to the achievement of teaching goals. Addressing the numerous possible manifestations of students' resisting behaviours, the majority of the literature in this category considers student resistance as a destructive phenomenon (Burroughs, Kearney, & Plax, ; Lamude, Schudder, & Furnolamude, ; Seidel & Tanner, ; Weimer, ; Yüksel, ) and terms it either as misbehaviour (Johnson, Claus, Goldman, & Sollitto, ; Johnson, Goldman, & Claus, ; Kearney, Plax, Smith, & Sorensen, ; Kearney, Plax, Sorensen, & Smith, ), non‐compliance (Burroughs, ; Lamude et al, ; Zhang, Zhang, & Castelluccio, ) or destructive student behaviour (Seidel & Tanner, ; Shekhar & Borrego, ). Students' destructive behaviour ranges from advising the teacher to adopt a different teaching style, blaming the teacher for their behaviour, up to deception, revenge and by appealing to powerful others such as the dean (Akerlind & Trevitt, ; Chory‐Assad & Paulsel, ; Harris, Brown, & Dargusch, ; Paulsel & Chory‐Assad, ; Pursell, ; Seidel & Tanner, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The external factors are environmental factors such as family, social class, and cultural identity, in addition to students' prior negative experiences with learning. Furthermore, Johnson et al () classify the reasons for student resistance into deficiency (problematic behaviour resulting from students' lack of personality traits, skill or behaviour), belief (students' misconceptions regarding college) and external antecedents (students' work commitments or relationships with others). Also, Schneiderhan () argues that the reason for resistant behaviour is to be found in the students themselves (i.e., their age, gender, dogma and academic focus) and Yüksel () sees their negative attitudes as the main reason for resistance to the course or the teacher.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Student resistance in the classroom—Functional‐instrumentalist, critical‐emancipatory and critical‐functional conceptualisations

Winkler

Rybnikova

2019

Higher Education Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper provides a systemic literature review and a typology of texts that discuss student resistance in the classroom in Higher Education. Analysing 134 empirical and conceptual studies published between 1988 and 2018 for how student resistance is conceptualised, this review identifies three approaches: functional‐instrumentalist, critical‐emancipatory and critical‐functional. Presenting the three approaches in more depth, the article points to the main tenets, like supposed reasons for and suggested ways of handling student resistance. In the final part of the analysis, the paper discusses the typology in light of the current institutional background of Higher Education, including the managerial university and ambivalences of critical education. Finally, the article offers future research directions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student resistance in the classroom—Functional‐instrumentalist, critical‐emancipatory and critical‐functional conceptualisations

Winkler

Rybnikova

2019

Higher Education Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instructors are most effective when they are both assertive and responsive, as both communication styles are positively associated with students' affective learning (Allen, Long, O'mara, & Judd, 2008), and motivation (McCroskey, Richmond, & Bennett, 2006) in a course. Further, as Johnson, Claus, Goldman, and Sollitto (2017) note, approaching students who engage in misbehaviors (such as tardiness or handing in late work) is a helpful means to assist at-risk or struggling students to identify resources and strategies to help them succeed.…”

Section: Teaching Behaviors That Create a Supportive Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Precarity, citizenship, and the “traditional” student

Bahrainwala

2020

Communication Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Precarity, or the condition of continual wage insecurity, is shaping a generation of U.S. college students that suffer continually under poor material conditions, exploitative work schedules, and institutions that do not recognize their precarity. I ground the latter point-that higher education does not recognize the needs of its student precariat-in the argument that such institutions are oriented toward the specter of the traditional student, a concept suffused with citizenship rhetorics. In this paper, I examine the discursive construct of the traditional student, and how it deploys rhetorics of citizenship that deepen exclusions and contribute to student precarity in U.S. higher education. National survey data reveal that college students in the U.S. are experiencing acute precarities on multiple fronts. A startling 60% were food-insecure in 2019, with more students of color, students in 2-year colleges, and LGBTQ+ students reporting food insecurity (AAC&U News, 2019). Over two-thirds of all U.S. students graduate with an average of $30,000 in debt (Dynarski, 2015) at a time when an undergraduate degree has all but become a requirement for an entry-level job. Additionally, a quarter of all university students work full-time to put themselves through college, while 40% work at least 30 h a week (Deruy & National Journal, 2015). Similarly, faculty experience parallel precarities as tenure-track opportunities shrink (Harris, 2019), research expectations balloon (Kafka, 2018), and contingent labor becomes the new majority of faculty labor in the U.S. (Murray, 2019). College students then experience the pressures of faculty contingency secondhand when they are unable to develop relationships or request recommendations from instructors whose labor is stretched across multiple campuses. This carries costs for student learning, which becomes shaped by what McConnell (2019) calls a pedagogy of the transitory, which identifies contingency as a communicative phenomenon and a culturally thick experience that shapes the college learning environment (2019). Students and their faculty imbibe what Rifenburg, Johnston, Ng, and Carney (2019) call the labor casualization of the expanding neoliberal university, which expects faculty and students to labor beyond the classroom through scholarly and civic engagement, public intellectual work, and unpaid internships, with little thought to material compensation and domestic burdens. Given these documented precarities, it is important to ask how institutions discursively orient away from the student precariat and their needs, which in turn reproduces these cycles of precarity. In this essay, I reflect on the notion of the student-citizen to consider

show abstract

“…Classroom distractions can manifest in many forms. Previous scholars have examined loud side conversations, confrontational behaviors, compulsively communicating, cheating, allowing cell phones to ring, student challenge behaviors, student misbehaviors, and off task behaviors as distracting (Boice, 1996;Campbell, 2006;Fried, 2008;Johnson, Claus, Goldman, & Sollitto, 2017;Kearney, Plax, Sorensen, & Smith, 1988;McCroskey & Richmond, 1993;McPherson & Liang, 2007;Simonds, 1997). Similarly, and perhaps most popular in the literature, students and instructors are highly susceptible to distractions via social media and technology use (Elder, 2013;Kuznekoff, Munz, & Titsworth, 2015;McCoy, 2013;Sana, Weston, & Cepeda, 2013;Qian & Li, 2017).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peers and Instructors as Sources of Distraction from a Cognitive Load Perspective

Frisby

Sexton

Buckner

et al. 2018

ij-sotl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Framed by literature regarding classroom interactions that affect students' cognitive processing, this study provided an integrative approach to understanding distracting instructor and student communication. Participants qualitatively reported on either a distracting peer (n = 90) or instructor (n = 127). The responses were coded using anti-citizenship behaviors and instructor misbehaviors. One additional category emerged that extends the instructor misbehavior literature. Participants completed a new distraction scale and a cognitive load scale. Our results revealed differences in frequencies for each behavior, but all instructor and student behaviors were equally distracting and had similar negative influences on students' cognitive load. Implications for instructors to manage these distracting behaviors are discussed.

show abstract

College student misbehaviors: an exploration of instructor perceptions

Cited by 24 publications

References 29 publications

Student resistance in the classroom—Functional‐instrumentalist, critical‐emancipatory and critical‐functional conceptualisations

Student resistance in the classroom—Functional‐instrumentalist, critical‐emancipatory and critical‐functional conceptualisations

Precarity, citizenship, and the “traditional” student

Peers and Instructors as Sources of Distraction from a Cognitive Load Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About