2009
DOI: 10.1080/10528008.2009.11489071
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Maintaining Fairness When a Student Goes Afoul of Classroom Rules: A Procedural Justice Model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In a qualitative exploration of the criteria that students consider for classroom fairness, Robbins and Jeffords (2009) found that 60 percent of students' responses focused on the significance of consistency in application of classroom procedures. In contrast, Whalen and Koernig (2009) noted students' desire for teacher flexibility in enforcing classroom procedures based on their special circumstances. Houston and Bettencourt (1999, p. 89) further document cases in which students advocate for flexible treatment; for instance, in the following case: "I got my wisdom teeth pulled this semester, and my instructor was fair enough to let me reschedule my speech that I had that week" (Houston & Bettencourt, 1999, p. 89).…”
Section: Procedural Justicementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In a qualitative exploration of the criteria that students consider for classroom fairness, Robbins and Jeffords (2009) found that 60 percent of students' responses focused on the significance of consistency in application of classroom procedures. In contrast, Whalen and Koernig (2009) noted students' desire for teacher flexibility in enforcing classroom procedures based on their special circumstances. Houston and Bettencourt (1999, p. 89) further document cases in which students advocate for flexible treatment; for instance, in the following case: "I got my wisdom teeth pulled this semester, and my instructor was fair enough to let me reschedule my speech that I had that week" (Houston & Bettencourt, 1999, p. 89).…”
Section: Procedural Justicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unlike distributive justice that focuses particularly on the outcome distribution, procedural justice considers the classroom procedures that give rise to particular classroom outcomes and distributions. The literature suggests several sub-themes form students' perception of procedural justice including student voice (Colquitt, 2001;Oppenheimer, 1989;Schmidt, Houston, Bettencourt, & Boughton, 2003;Tata, 2005), promise-keeping (Horan et al, 2010), consistency (Colquitt, 2001;Robbins & Jeffords, 2009), flexibility (Houston & Bettencourt, 1999;Whalen & Koernig, 2009), and accuracy, transparency, and explicitness of information (Gordon & Fay, 2010;Grace, 2017;Pepper & Pathak, 2008). Student voice highlights the importance of providing students with the opportunity to articulate their opinions and assume ownership over decision-making processes (including feedback and grading decisions) in the classroom.…”
Section: Procedural Justicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, reasonableness takes into account the meaningful enactment of classroom procedures such as assignments (Houston & Bettencourt, 1999;Whalen & Koernig, 2009) and tests (Rodabaugh, 1994).…”
Section: Classroom Procedural Justicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…When the case of organisational justice is transferred into the classroom environment, the effects of teachers' behaviours as classroom managers on students, in other words the target audience, might result in more significant results. Whalen & Koernig (2009) state that students' perceptions of fairness regarding their learning environment have an effect on their performance, and their attitudes towards courses and academic staff. When the target audience of education is pre-service teachers, their attitudes towards the teaching profession will probably be affected from this aforementioned situation.…”
Section: Organisational Justicementioning
confidence: 99%