Paper presented to the BERA Annual Conference 2009
An exploratory study of disruptive behaviour and incivility in higher education classrooms.
Paula Rivas
Edge Hill University, St Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester, 2-5 September 2009
Abstract
Within the United Kingdom there has been a recent increase in media attention that focuses on the deterioration of classroom behaviour in compulsory secondary school education. Surprisingly the same level of interest has yet to infiltrate the literature on classroom conduct in higher education and there is a dearth of research in this field. This study surveyed three hundred and fifty undergraduate nursing students and fifty seven teaching staff at a University in the North West of England. Results of the survey confirmed that students and teachers were experiencing high levels of disruptive classroom behaviour the most frequent being: chatting in class, entering class late, students regularly going to the toilet and students preparing to leave early. Issues were also raised in the survey in relation to classroom dynamics in higher education. The study highlights the need for further investigation into the causes and management of classroom incivility in UK higher education classrooms.
Key words: student; behaviour; incivility; higher education; disruptive classroom behaviour.
Email:
Introduction
Definition of classroom incivility
The word civil has ancient Latin roots in the word ‘civitas’ meaning community or city and although authors define and describe civility, there is no consistent definition (Clark Carnosso 2008). Clark (2008b) suggests that this lack of universal definition is due to the interpretation of individual perceptions with each person making meaning of an encounter based on his or her own attitudes, beliefs and life experiences. Contemporary authors consider civility to be an admirable attribute (Forni 2002). According to Sistare (2004) civility requires tolerance, listening and discussing different viewpoints without personal attacks. Similarly, Guinness (2008) defines civility as respect for differences and treating one another with dignity. Whilst being civil is to be polite, respectful and decent, conversely, incivility is defined as ‘speech or action that is that is discourteous, rude or impolite’ (Clark 2008b;4). Hernandez Fister (2001) define uncivil behaviours as being intentionally rebellious, defiant, disrespectful or antagonistic in nature. When describing incivility in the workplace. Uncivil behaviours are characterized as rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others (Anderson and Pearson 1999) and as causing an atmosphere of disrespect, conflict and stress (Clark 2008b). Feldmann (2001:137) defines Classroom incivility as ‘any action that interferes with a harmonious and cooperative learning atmosphere in the classroom’. Furthermore Nilson and Jackson (2004) extend this definition to incorporate unacceptable student behaviour that may occur both inside and outside of the class. Feldman (2001) introduces the term academic incivility into the literature as rude, discourteous behaviour that disrupts the learning environment. Morrissete (2001) implies that student incivility is intentional behaviour that proceeds to disrupt and impede the teaching and learning processes of others. For the purpose of this study the words disruptive behaviour are deemed to be synonymous with the term incivility.
Frequency of classroom incivility
Within the United Kingdom there has been a recent increase in media attention on the deterioration of classroom behaviour in compulsory secondary school education (DFES 2005; OFSTED 2005; ATL 2009). Similarly, media reports suggest that students and teachers nationally are experiencing high levels of disruptive classroom behaviours within higher education Clements 2004; Meike 2006; White 2009). Whilst there is a national focus on student conduct in general throughout the HEI sector, highlighted by the launch of the National Student Conduct Survey (2007), there is no published empirical work specifically related to disruptive classroom behaviour in British Higher Education. Within the United States the literature has identified an increase in the number of disruptive behaviours or ‘incivilities’ (a term used in the literature from the USA) that take place by students in higher education undergraduate programmes. Incivility in higher education classrooms is described as an emergent problem with reports in the literature of the increase in the incidence of problematic student behaviour (Young 2003; Luparell 2003; Thomas 2003; Clark & Springer 2007; and Clark 2008c. Lashley and DeMenses (2001) found that respondents had observed an increase in student incivility compared with five years before the study. Hanson (2001) explored the phenomenon of classroom incivility from the perspective of teachers and reported that during the course of their career, the majority of teachers had experienced classroom incivility in some form. Recent studies have specifically identified an increase in student incivility in nursing programmes both within the academic setting (Kalanko et al 2006; White 2009) and clinical placements (Lashley DeMenses 2001).
This study
This study consisted of an exploratory survey to address the lack of empirical research on the incidence and impact of disruptive classroom behaviour in higher education classrooms within the United Kingdom. Specifically, the research questions addressed within the study were related to the prevalence of classroom behaviours that are deemed to be disruptive and the extent of disruption to learning and teaching of specific disruptive classroom behaviours.
Method
Design
A survey approach was utilized within this study. Data was gathered through the utilization of questionnaires. Focus groups were utilized following the completion of the first draft of the questionnaires to identify any errors or additions and to clarify the terminology used as research literature emphasize the importance of producing questions that respondents can understand (Czaja Blair 1996). Focus groups that are used for this purpose, that is to generate contextual data to inform a survey, are often described as pre-pilot focus groups (Bloor et al 2001). Two questionnaires were designed for staff and students. The initial draft was based on a questionnaires utilized in two unpublished surveys from Indiana University (1998) and The University of Arizona (2003). The questionnaires consisted of mostly closed-ended questions that related to the frequency of specific disruptive behaviours and perceptions of the impact on teaching and learning with some interspersed follow-up, open-ended questions. The use of open-ended questions also allowed the identification of behaviour and responses that had not been addressed in closed-ended questions within the questionnaire. The questionnaires asked students and staff to rate their experiences of the frequency of specific disruptive classroom behaviours using a 3-point scale (1=never, 2=often, 3=frequently) and also the extent to which these behaviours impacted on their teaching and learning using a 4-point scale (1=not disruptive, 2=slightly disruptive, 3=moderately disruptive, 4=very disruptive). Demographic data that included gender and age was also requested.
Participants
Participants consisted of 350 undergraduate male and female, traditional and non-traditional pre-registration nursing students and 57 male and female teaching staff. The student sample consisted of cohorts in their first year of study where class sizes are at a maximum and may consist of between 50 and 250 students at one time. It is suggested that these large groups of students can prove more difficult to exert control over and often cause most problems in relation to classroom behaviour (Carbone 1999, Fry et al, 2003). The staff sample comprised of pre-registration nurse teachers, both male and female, that teach students in their first year.
Results
Student survey
The frequency of disruptive behaviour as reported by students
Students had experienced all of the behaviours that were listed in the survey at some point during the first year of their course (Table 1). The most frequently experienced ‘disruptive’ behaviours included chatting in class (98.8%), entering class late (98.3%), drinking in class, (97.2%), going to the toilet (97.0%) and preparing to leave early (92.8%). Several students had also experienced behaviours that could be perceived as being intimidating and endangering personal safety. These included the use of offensive language (41.0%), verbal abuse (17.5%) and physical threats (2.4%). (Table 1)
Table I Frequency of disruptive classroom behaviour experienced by students
Behaviour / FrequencyChatting in class / 98.8%
Entering late / 98.3%
Drinking in class / 97.2%
Going to the toilet / 97.0%
Preparing to leave early / 92.8%
Mobile phone ringing in class / 91.7%
Texting in class / 90.5%
Eating in class / 86.1%
Dominating the discussion / 84.3%
Entering loudly / 84.0%
Chewing gum in class / 83.9%
Leaving early / 81.8%
Acting bored/ apathetic / 81.0%
Skipping classes / 77.8%
Leaving class to answer phone / 71.2%
Not being prepared for sessions / 67.2%
Sleeping in class / 56.6%
Reading magazines/ newspapers / 56.3%
Use of offensive language / 41.0%
Talking on phone in class / 39.4%
Playing games on mobile phones / 38.2%
Listening to iPods/MP3 players / 33.8%
Inappropriate attire / 27.7%
Writing assignments for other modules / 23.7%
Poor personal hygiene / 22.3%
Verbal abuse of other students / 17.5%
Physical intimacy / 6.1%
Threatening other students / 2.4%
In response to the question “Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on disruptive classroom behaviour”,’ several students commented on the frequency of disruptive behaviour and their selected remarks serve to emphasize the extent of the problem
“I think that disruptive behaviour is becoming worse as the course continues”. (Student 81)
“The continuing chatting has to be addressed. The sooner that disruptive behaviour is sorted out the better”. (Student 140)
“I think disruptive behaviour should be taken more seriously and more should be done to stop it because it isn't fair on students who are not being disruptive as it is stopping the learning. This isn't fair and the people being disruptive are getting away with it”. (Student 130)
“Talking, mobile phones, late arrivals seem to be getting worse and appear to be ignored by most tutors”. (Student 87)
Students were asked to identify and describe any disruptive behaviour that has not been mentioned Students identified several disruptive classroom behaviours that had not been included. These behaviours fall into three categories: student initiated behaviour, teachers displaying ineffective classroom control and teachers as inadequate role models. (Table 2)
Table 2. Other disruptive behaviours identified by students.
Student initiatedStudents shouting out in class
Asking questions that have already been answered
Pushing/kicking the chair in front
Discussing issues not relevant to the topic
Passing notes
Classroom domination by mature students
Interrupting the teacher
Teachers’ classroom control
Lecturers being drawn off track
Unable to hear the teacher or take part in the discussion
Lecturers struggling to use technical equipment
Teachers as role models
Lecturers turning up late
Lecturers being unprepared
Lecturers going off the topic
Too many powerpoint lectures
The level of disruption on learning as perceived by students
All of the behaviours listed in the questionnaire were perceived to be slightly, moderately or very disruptive to their learning. Behaviours that had the highest frequency of being moderately or very disruptive to students were chatting in class (96.0%), students entering late (92.9%), mobile phones ringing in class (91.5%), preparing to leave early (89.3%), going to the toilet (87.0%) and students dominating the discussion (81.8%) (Table 3).
Table 3 Frequency of behaviours that students both experienced and perceived to be disruptive to learning.
Behaviour / FrequencyChatting in class / 96.0 %
Students entering late / 92.9 %
Mobile phone ringing in class / 91.5 %
Preparing to leave early / 89.3 %
Going to the toilet / 87.0 %
Dominating the discussion / 81.8 %
Leaving early / 75.6 %
Entering loudly / 73.7 %
Use of offensive language / 71.4 %
Texting in class / 68.6 %
Acting bored/ apathetic / 67.1 %
Leaving class to answer phone / 61.5 %
Eating in class / 56.8 %
Not being prepared for sessions / 55.9 %
Skipping classes / 50.1 %
Drinking in class / 47.3 %
Reading magazines/ newspapers / 39.7 %
Talking on phone in class / 38.2 %
Chewing gum in class / 34.9 %
Playing games on mobile phones / 34.9 %
Sleeping in class / 27.7 %
Listening to iPods/MP3 players / 26.3 %
Poor personal hygiene / 22.8 %
Inappropriate attire / 21.2 %
Verbal abuse of other students / 18.8 %
Writing assignments for other modules / 18.2 %
Physical intimacy / 5.9 %
Threatening other students / 2.7 %
When asked for additional comments, students expressed the extent to which their peers’ disruptive behaviour had a negative effect on their learning.
“I am a mature student who has given up a lot to do this course. Disruptive classroom behaviour has a serious effect on my learning and has at times made me question if I can continue on my course” (Student 103)
“Disruptive behaviour makes it difficult to concentrate-please do something”(Student 187)
“Need to be more strict with disruptive behaviour, it’s stopping our learning” (Student 183)
“Chatting in class is like birds tweeting in the garden. You’re trying to concentrate when the lecturer is struggling to be heard and all you hear is ‘my boyfriend this etc”(Student 127)
“It can be very off putting and hard to concentrate especially when this is an important year”(Student 9)
Demographic factors
The majority of students fall into the age 23 and under category (51.4%) Within this group reported certain behaviours were perceived as being only slightly disruptive, for example chewing gum in class (70.5%), texting in class (37.3%), mobile phones ringing in class (4.8%) and threatening other students (66.4%). They did not report high percentages within their age category for any of the listed behaviours in relation to finding them very disruptive. The statistics above were reflected in some of the comments of these students.
‘Behaviour such as listening to iPods or texting is not disruptive to me as long as other students do not interfere with the lecture’. (Student 147, age 19)
‘In current society mobile phones are a part of every day life in the world of work, home community. Change with the times mobile phones are not disruptive!!! Be grateful, in America and other countries students are checked for lethal weapons’.(Student 131, age 21)
‘People leaving to go to the toilet or use the phone is not disruptive to me and I feel that it should be accepted as long as it is done discretely’. (Student 166, age 19)