Classroom Incivilities: The Challenge of Interactions ... Incivilities: The Challenge of Interactions between College Students and ... (those graduating from high school in 2000 and

Classroom Incivilities: The Challenge ofInteractions between College Students andInstructors in the US

HEIKE C. ALBERTS*, HELEN D. HAZEN** & REBECCA B. THEOBALD†

*Department of Geography and Urban Planning, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, USA, **Department of

Geography, Macalester College, USA, †Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of

Colorado at Colorado Springs, USA

ABSTRACT This study investigates patterns in classroom incivilities among pre-tenure geographyfaculty at US colleges and universities. The analysis considers experiences of different groups offaculty, and societal and institutional contexts for faculty and student expectations. Mostrespondents reported experiencing minor incivilities, a minority outright hostility. Women reportedexperiencing more incivilities than other demographic groups. Large class size increased reports ofmisbehaviours. Instructors’ physical appearance was also noted as influencing student–facultyinteractions. Instructors’ approaches to incivilities differed among groups. Non-White andinternational instructors reported fewer instances of confronting misbehaviours. Mentoring andsharing expertise are identified as key ways to support instructors.

KEY WORDS: Incivilities, classroom interactions, teaching strategies, diversity, gender

Introduction

Classroom incivilities are a major concern for many college and university faculty. These

incivilities include behaviours such as students coming late to class, missing class, reading

or sleeping in class, and cheating on assignments and exams (Kuhlenschmidt, 1999; Boice,

2000), although what is labelled as disruptive or undesirable behaviour is subjective (Bray

& Del Favero, 2004).1 Of greater concern to many professors than classroom disruptions

are more hostile behaviours displayed by students, such as personal comments or

unjustified complaints to higher authorities (Boice, 2000).

The issue has been brought to the fore in the United States (US) by an increase in

reports of serious incivilities since the 1990s, including threatening behaviours (e.g.

stalking, intimidation) and physical and verbal attacks against instructors (Sorcinelli,

1994; Schneider, 1998; Kuhlenschmidt & Layne, 1999). Despite this apparent trend, most

concerns in the US continue to revolve around less serious behaviours. For instance,

instructors often complain that US students resent instructors who are challenging and

ISSN 0309-8265 Print/1466-1845 Online/10/030439-24 q 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/03098260903502679

Correspondence Address: Helen D. Hazen, Department of Geography, Macalester College, 1600 Grand Avenue,

St. Paul, MN 55105, USA. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Geography in Higher Education,Vol. 34, No. 3, 439–462, August 2010

demand a lot of work, and instead prefer those who are entertaining, approachable and

flexible (Trout, 1998). Further concerns include US students feeling entitled to receive

good grades, even when the work they submit does not meet standards; expecting

instructors to be available to them at all times and prepared to make accommodations for

them; and blaming their instructors if they do not succeed in academe (Bartlett, 2004).

These attitudes have led many instructors to develop extensive behaviour policies for

their classes, creating syllabi that resemble legal contracts rather than paths to learning

(Wasley, 2008).

Although such behaviours are reported in other parts of the world as well, several

structural factors make the US context distinctive. Many believe that the particularly

informal academic atmosphere that has evolved in the US has an influence on student

behaviour, resulting in students who show insufficient respect for their classmates or the

instructor (cf. Sarkisian, 2000; Alberts, 2008). It is also often claimed that the structure of

the US education system offers many students little academic challenge prior to university,

resulting in unrealistic expectations of work at the university level (Greene & Forster,

2003; Bettinger & Long, 2005). In particular, much has been made of the idea that the

‘Millennial Generation’ (those graduating from high school in 2000 and onwards) is more

likely to exhibit a variety of classroom misbehaviours, being somehow less well equipped

to deal with college education than were previous generations owing to permissive parents,

overly lenient grade school environments, and a regular diet of instant gratification

entertainment (Kirk, 2005; Twenge, 2006; Hogan, 2007). Evidence that directly supports

these assertions is hard to find, however. Nonetheless, many instructors attest that short

student attention spans make teaching challenging (Perlmutter, 2004). Some have also

noted that in an era of increasing costs of college education—a considerable concern in the

US—many students today view themselves as customers rather than scholars, making

increasing demands of instructors and other college personnel (Hogan, 2007).

It is not only students who create problems with classroom incivilities, however.

Faculty, too, contribute to the problem (Bray & Del Favero, 2004).2 Indeed, Boice (1996)

concluded in probably the most extensive of all empirical studies of classroom incivilities

to date that, “Clearly, teachers were the most crucial initiators of [classroom incivility]”

(p. 481). Braxton and Bayer (1999) note faculty behaviours such as, “condescending

negativism, inattentive planning, moral turpitude, particularistic grading, personal

disregard, uncommunicated course details, and uncooperative cynicism” (p. 21) as

provoking student incivilities. Schneider (1998) argues that students rarely get punished

for committing incivilities, providing little disincentive for antisocial behaviour.

Particularly as tenure expectations become more and more demanding in the US, faculty

members may feel wary of confronting incivilities. Hogan (2007) suggests that this may

lead to a weakening of discipline as instructors attempt to avoid negative evaluations.

Instructors may also be hesitant to confront incivilities if they perceive that the occurrence

of such behaviours reflects negatively on their teaching skills (Hirschy & Braxton, 2004;

Kirk, 2005). Others simply may not know how to handle problematic situations

(Sorcinelli, 1994), or may feel that they do not have support from higher authorities to

punish misbehaviours, particularly as universities compete for students and seek to avoid

lawsuits (Schneider, 1998).

Classroom incivilities have a profound effect on both faculty and students by harming

the classroom climate (Hirschy & Braxton, 2004). Furthermore, as a rule, students expect

their professors to step in and control disruptive behaviours and have little respect for

440 H. C. Alberts et al.

instructors who do not (Kuhlenschmidt, 1999; Young, 2003), so investigating classroom

incivilities and ways to respond to them is important. Unfortunately, few studies have

examined systematically the factors that influence how frequently incivilities occur and

what measures are most successful for tackling them. This study seeks to address this gap

by providing data on the occurrence of classroom incivilities in the classes of early-career

geography faculty teaching at colleges and universities across the United States. Compared

with faculty in general, the early-career population has been under-studied in the past,

although recent analyses have conveyed the importance of addressing their concerns and

developmental processes (Perry et al., 1997, 2000; Solem & Foote, 2004; Theobald, 2007).

We begin from the premise that most college instructors have to deal with student

incivilities at some point in their career but that the frequency and type of incivilities they

experience may vary by characteristics of the instructor (such as teaching experience,

gender and nationality/ethnicity), as well as of the institution (such as class setting and

class size). Greater understanding of such patterns may guide efforts to assist instructors in

dealing with classroom problems, particularly when focused on those at the start of their

careers who are experiencing the steepest learning curve and have the most time to benefit

from improved approaches (cf. Solem et al., 2008; Solem & Foote, 2008). With this goal

in mind, we also provide information on how different instructors respond to incivilities

and the perceived success of these measures.

Research to Date

Incidence of Classroom Incivilities

In 1996, Boice lamented that the literature on classroom incivilities in higher education

was scarce and suffered from a number of shortcomings.3 He felt that the topic of

classroom misbehaviours was often approached only indirectly, that many studies stated

the obvious, and that few authors provided empirical data to support their findings. The

few studies that were empirical tended to be abstract and rarely addressed the extent to

which classroom incivilities occur and how they could be addressed. As a result, these

studies received little attention from academics and practitioners. Since then, a number of

studies have been completed; indeed two special issues of New Directions for Teaching

and Learning (1999 and 2004) have been devoted to the topic. Some understanding of the

incidence of classroom misbehaviours is emerging from this research. Boice (1996, 2000),

for example, found that faculty and students agreed on the three most annoying classroom

disturbances: students talking during class, students confronting teachers with sarcastic

remarks, and students disrupting class with emotional outbursts. Hogan (2007) found that

University of Arkansas faculty members were particularly bothered by students leaving

class early or otherwise interrupting class, as well as the use of electronic devices, while

students were more annoyed by other students interrupting their classmates or dominating

classroom discussions. Despite these examples, there remains a shortage of studies that

report empirical research rather than anecdotal experience.

Some research suggests how and when incivilities occur. Boice (1996) found that

classroom incivilities occur regardless of an instructor’s teaching experience, and were

instead linked to how the professor handled the first couple of classes in a semester.

Similarly, Hirschy and Braxton (2004) report that classes in which disturbances are not

addressed early on in the semester often descend into a vicious circle of increasing disorder

Classroom Incivilities 441

and frustration. Boice’s (1996) study also showed that incivilities increased around exams

and deadlines for major projects, but that these fluctuations could be avoided if the

professor provided students with help and positive motivation during these stressful times.

Alexander-Snow (2004) argues that characteristics such as race, gender and ethnicity

explain varying rates of classroom incivilities. In a similar vein, McCalman (2007) states

that if a teacher’s profile does not match expectations (e.g. by being from another country),

students are more likely to engage in incivilities. Few authors provide much empirical

support for such claims, however. Several studies show how female students are

disadvantaged in the classroom (e.g. Tannen, 1991; Romano, 1994), or discuss the struggles

of female academics (e.g. Lim & Herrera-Sobek, 2000; Moody, 2004), but most remain

largely silent regarding classroom incivilities. Most authors also ignore the importance of

personal characteristics of instructors, although Kuhlenschmidt and Layne (1999) suggest

that factors such as body size or voice may have an impact on the frequency and type of

disruptive behaviours that college instructors experience.

A few studies provide evidence that class setting plays a role. In particular, there is

widespread agreement that class size has a significant impact on classroom incivilities,

with most problems in large lecture-style classes. Due to the impersonal nature of these

large classes, some students may display behaviours that they would not exhibit in smaller

classes (Kuhlenschmidt, 1999). However, somewhat to his own surprise, Boice (1996)

found that classroom discomfort (e.g. stuffy air and cramped seating) had almost no effect

on student incivilities. The only exception to this was that students struggling to find seats

in overcrowded lecture halls were more likely to vent their frustration with disruptive

behaviour.

Addressing Classroom Incivilities

Advice on addressing classroom misbehaviours is abundant (e.g. Davis, 1993; Sorcinelli,

1994; Carbone, 1999; Holton, 1999; Kuhlenschmidt & Layne, 1999; Kirk, 2005;

McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006), although, again, evidence to back up assertions is scant.

Typical advice for instructors includes communicating expectations to students, keeping

on task in the classroom, and being well organized. A further common suggestion is to

personalize large classes by learning names, chatting with students individually, and

making eye contact, as students are less likely to engage in disruptive behaviour when they

feel that the instructor knows them (Sorcinelli, 1994). Ensuring that grading is fair and

transparent is also frequently mentioned, with suggestions such as using grading rubrics

and having students submit written explanations to contest a grade. The logic behind such

strategies is that “prevention is to be preferred to confrontation” (Sorcinelli, 1994, p. 370).

Others encourage a greater focus on ensuring that students are disciplined in an effective

and fair manner and that they understand class boundaries. For instance, Holton (1999),

Kuhlenschmidt and Layne (1999), and Sorcinelli (1994) all note that it is important for

students to get the message that their instructors are serious about enforcing good

behaviour in order to prevent classroom disturbances. McKinney (2007) argues that

setting boundaries is the most important strategy for minimizing problems caused by

needy, defiant or obnoxious students. For her, setting boundaries involves a range of

strategies from referring students to other campus resources (e.g. counselling centres) to

establishing clear and consistent policies in the syllabus in order to minimize problems

with late papers and missed exams. She also recommends setting clear boundaries for


student–faculty interactions, for instance, limiting the time instructors spend with

individual students in office hours and over email.

While there is general agreement on the usefulness of most of these strategies, some

authors also discuss ideas that are controversial. For example, while some people find pop

quizzes and assigned seats helpful in encouraging attendance, others think that these

methods are counterproductive as they can actually increase disturbances from students

who do not want to be there (Carbone, 1999), as well as unnecessarily limit the freedom of

well-behaved students. Several authors argue that some questionable approaches, such as

treating students with condescension, being impolite, or belittling them, actually create

classroom disturbances (Schneider, 1998; Boice, 2000; Bray & Del Favero, 2004; Hogan,

2007). The line between correcting student behaviour and treating students in ways that

provoke further incivilities is a fine one.

This diversity of approaches to incivilities reflects a philosophical divide in how to

tackle classroom problems. Bray and Del Favero (2004) identify several sociological

explanations for classroom incivilities. In simplified terms, two broad approaches can be

identified from these explanations. One approach suggests that students are deterred from

deviant behaviour by the punishment associated with that behaviour. A second strand of

thought points to the importance of social bonds within the classroom as an important

mechanism for nurturing feelings of attachment within a group setting, and thereby

discouraging uncivil behaviours. This approach stresses that students and instructor are

jointly responsible for the breakdown of civil behaviour and that the problem can be

tackled by generating shared experiences and maintaining high expectations for class

interactions. In this context, an overly punitive approach can develop an “us against them”

mentality that is ultimately counter-productive (Bray & Del Favero, 2004, p. 15).

While the existing literature has increased our understanding of why classroom

incivilities occur, and provided some advice on handling disturbances, other gaps still

need to be addressed. In particular, several authors highlight the need for further

investigation into whether and how instructors contribute to negative behaviours (Boice,

1996, 2000; Schneider, 1998; Kuhlenschmidt & Layne, 1999). In this paper, we identify

and address three main shortcomings of the current literature. First, relatively few writings

on classroom incivilities are empirical. Our study seeks to address this by reporting results

from a survey undertaken with early-career geography faculty teaching in the US. Second,

the degree to which characteristics of instructors play a role in the occurrence of classroom

incivilities remains under-studied. Here we consider factors such as race, gender and

teaching experience to seek patterns in how students respond to different instructors.

Finally, noting that there is a wealth of first-hand experience of confronting incivilities

among early-career faculty, we investigate the approaches and effectiveness of the

strategies used by our respondents.

Methods

Study Participants

Our study examined early-career geography faculty teaching at institutions of higher

education in the US. While the issues discussed here are not specific to the discipline of

geography, we focused our study on geography faculty to control for discipline as a

potential confounding factor influencing student behaviour. We selected geography as


a discipline that spans both the natural and social sciences, as well as the discipline for

which we could best contextualize our results through our position as insiders.

Even though instructors at all stages of their careers are confronted with classroom

incivilities, we focused on early-career faculty as those in greatest need of assistance in

this early part of their academic career. In particular, their toolkit for responding to student

incivilities may be more limited as they have had fewer years to experiment with different

classroom techniques. Having said that, newer instructors have received their training

more recently and may thus be more familiar with new teaching approaches. They might

also be more willing to experiment with new strategies, and would benefit the most from

trying out different strategies as they still have most of their career ahead of them.

We defined early-career geography faculty as all instructors teaching geography at the

college or university level who have not yet been granted tenure, regardless of whether

they hold a tenure-track position. Early-career faculty were identified by reviewing

membership lists of the Association of American Geographers (AAG), searching

geography department websites at US institutions of higher education, contacting

previously identified early-career faculty, and using web-search engines to seek recently

graduated geographers who might be teaching in departments other than geography. Prior

research (Theobald, 2007), principally based on AAG membership figures and snowball

contacts, had identified approximately 600 early-career geography faculty teaching in US

institutions of higher education. However, deeper investigation revealed more than 1300

non-tenured geography faculty members. This increase in the survey population was due

to identification of many instructors at smaller institutions—especially community

colleges—who are not members of the AAG. All individuals identified were sent an email

invitation in fall of 2007 to participate in an online survey, followed by an emailed

reminder in December 2007. Responses were collected anonymously through a web

survey service and contained no personal identifiers other than the demographic

information supplied by respondents. Of the 1342 faculty invited to participate, 397

individuals completed the survey, giving a response rate of 30 per cent.

Data Collection and Analysis

The survey included a combination of multiple-choice answers for demographic

information, and rating scales for information on the frequency of classroom incivilities

and the effectiveness of classroom strategies to tackle them. Where appropriate,

respondents were also provided with an ‘other’ category (with room to specify what the

respondent had in mind), as well as free-response boxes where they could add further

comments or clarification in order to allow respondents to direct us to issues that we had

overlooked. For instance, several questions asked whether or not respondents considered

themselves members of particular groups (e.g. ethnic groups), and a free-response box was

then provided for respondents to note further aspects of their identity that they felt might

be significant in how students respond to them.

This mostly structured format was chosen over open-ended questions in order to ensure

that answers were given in a consistent way, so that statistical operations could be

performed effectively and to make the survey quick and simple to encourage participation.

To provide one example: in investigating possible approaches to tackling classroom

incivilities, respondents were given a list of potential strategies and asked to state if they

used each strategy ‘frequently’, ‘occasionally’ or ‘never.’ It is important to note here that


we did not quantify terms such as ‘occasionally’ or ‘frequently’, raising some concerns

over subjectivity. It is our opinion, however, that each respondent’s perception of the

problem, as reflected in their selection of one of these general terms, is a better assessment

of the seriousness of the problem than efforts to make responses more quantitative with

associated problems with inaccuracy. The range of possible answers for each question was

compiled from reviews of the existing literature and informal conversations with

colleagues, and was tested in a small pilot study in September 2007. The pilot surveys

were distributed to 10 early-career geography faculty at three different types of institutions

located in different states. We asked participants in the pilot study to give us feedback on

the technical aspects of completing the survey online as well as the content and wording of

the questions. Based on this feedback, we adjusted some of our response categories and

reworded questions and statements that had been misunderstood.

Data analysis was largely quantitative. In order to investigate differences in the

frequency of incivilities and use of different teaching strategies according to

characteristics of the instructor and instructional setting, we cross-tabulated variables

and calculated chi-square statistics. Results are reported at the 95 per cent significance

level throughout. Qualitative responses to open-ended questions were used to

contextualize the results of the quantitative analysis. We selected direct quotations that

best illustrated the results of the quantitative data or, where noted, particularly unusual

responses that led us to develop new hypotheses.

Results

Representativeness of the Sample

The demographic and academic characteristics of the participants are provided in

Tables 1 and 2. These tables also include summary statistics for the whole population of

early-career geography professors in the US, where such data are available. Overall, it

appears that our sample is representative of the population from which it was drawn in

most characteristics available, including sex, nationality and tenure track vs. non-tenure

track jobs. A slightly higher proportion of foreign-born faculty responded to the survey

than is in the survey population.

We also asked our respondents to provide background information on the institutions

where they currently teach (Table 3). Characteristics of the student bodies and tenure

expectations are listed as described by respondents, while acknowledging that there will be

some degree of subjectivity in such classifications. The three individuals who held

positions at more than one institution were invited to respond to the survey in the context

of just one of their institutions. Our sample included a slightly higher proportion of

respondents who work at research universities and live in large cities than is in the survey

population. Overall, however, we consider the survey sample to be reasonably

representative of the population.

Incidence of Classroom Incivilities

As expected, most respondents reported experiencing some form of classroom incivility

(Table 4). The most commonly reported incivility was inattentiveness, with 27.6 per cent

of respondents saying that they frequently had to deal with such behaviour, and a further


65.6 per cent suggesting that they deal with the problem occasionally. Disrespectful

behaviours, such as interrupting class or arriving late, were also common (reported by 75.8

per cent of respondents). When invited to comment further on these types of incivilities in

an open-ended question, a dozen instructors highlighted how student behaviours have

changed in recent years, particularly in the presence of new technologies, lending support

to the idea that the Millennial Generation may, indeed, present particular challenges.

Several respondents stated that addressing instructors by their first names was not

something that they would have done as students; some commented that informalities may

be increased by email. For instance, one instructor reported: “I’m facing what might be

called ‘virtual incivilities’: students who fail to follow simple rules of etiquette with

e-mail, etc.” Others commented about incivilities involving laptops in class, such as

playing games or surfing the internet.

The relatively rarer occurrence of hostility against an instructor as an individual or as a

member of a certain group (e.g. as defined by nationality, race or sexual orientation) is

perhaps of greater concern; this was reported by 21.3 per cent of all instructors (Table 4).

In many cases, women felt that they were particular targets. One instructor at a master’s

level institution in a large metropolitan area explained in the following terms: “Given that

I am a woman and not attractive, there tends to be occasional hostility toward me.”

Another female faculty member at a research institution in a small town noted: “I haven’t

Table 1. Selected demographic characteristics of survey respondents

Characteristic

Proportion ofrespondents (%)

(n ¼ 397)

Proportion ofpopulation (%)

(n ¼ 1342)

Sex Male 61.7 62.7Female 38.3 37.3

Age (years) ,30 8.631–40 45.6 Not available41–50 27.5over 50 18.4

Nationality US 80.0 84.5Europe 7.3 3.8Asia 7.3 6.1Africa 1.5 2.4Latin America 1.3 0.5Canada 0.0 0.2Australasia 0.0 0.7

Race (as self-identifiedby respondents)

White/Caucasian 88.0 85.5

Asian 7.9 10.7Black 1.5 2.9Hispanic 1.5 0.7Mixed race 0.8 0.1Native American 0.3 0.1

Immigration status US citizens by birth 80.7Naturalized US citizens 4.3Permanent residents 7.6 Not availableTemporary visas 7.4


Table 2. Selected academic characteristics of survey respondents

Characteristic


(n ¼ 397) National statistics (%)

Qualifications Ph.D. 71.8 40.2þ

Masters 26.3 26.0þ

Bachelors 1.8 17.8þ

Undetermined 0.0 15.9þ

Teaching experience ,1 year 9.21–5 years 47.4 Not available6–10 years 24.0.10 years 19.4

Job type Tenure track 62.0 64.1*Non–tenure track 38.0 35.9*

Sub-discipline Human geography 42.1Physical geography 26.7 Not availableGIS/methods 16.2Nature-society 15.1

Sources: þ AAG Membership by Sex and Highest Degree Attained, 2007 (A. Thocher, personalcommunication, 24 July 2008).

* Broyles (2006), National Center for Education Statistics.

Table 3. Selected characteristics of respondents’ institutions

Characteristic


(n ¼ 397)

Proportion ofpopulation (%)

(n ¼ 1342)#

Institution governance Public 90.5 92.0Private not-for-profit 9.5 8.0

Perception of tenureexpectations

Research-focused 33.0 46.2Balanced teaching/research 38.2 44.4Teaching-focused 28.7 9.4

Type of institution Research university 57.4 54.7Master’s level university 28.2 35.9Baccalaureate college/Special 6.9 4.1Associate college 7.2 5.3

Institution location Large metropolitan area 36.4 24.1Mid-sized city 31.0 37.9Small town 32.6 37.9

Student body description Almost exclusively white American 8.5Predominantly white American butwith some non-white students

42.3

Predominantly white American butwith a substantial presence of non-white students

42.6 Not available

Predominantly non-white students 6.7

Source: # Based on basic Carnegie Classification (Carnegie, 2008).


had much problem with hostility toward me at this particular university, but I previously

held a position for two years in a large university in the Great Plains where it was

frequently an issue for me as a female and for others because they were foreign faculty.”

Cross-tabulations revealed no statistically significant differences in the rates at which

inattentive or disrespectful student behaviour occurs according to characteristics of the

instructor such as gender, nationality and race. However, there were systematic

differences in reports of hostility towards the professor as a member of a specific group. In

this case, results were highly significant for gender (r ¼ 0.000, n ¼ 378), and significant

for nationality (defined as US-born versus non US-born) (r ¼ 0.031, n ¼ 378), and race

(defined as White versus non-White) (r ¼ 0.045, n ¼ 373). Women also reported far

higher rates of hostility directed at them individually than did men (r ¼ 0.000, n ¼ 379)

(Table 5). In summary, international instructors, instructors of colour, and especially

women report being confronted with hostile student behaviours more frequently than do

other groups.

When asked to comment further on student incivilities in a free-response box, the

importance of gender in particular was reinforced. Of the 71 additional comments we

received, 12 related to issues of gender. One woman wrote: “Although I have never had

students display hostility towards me that I could identify as targeting me because of some

aspect of my ascribed identity, I have had instances of personal interaction where students

had particular expectations because I am female (invading my personal space in my office,

addressing me inappropriately).” Others reported that male students especially express

hostility towards female instructors. In addition to hostility, several women reported

situations that could be labelled as sexual harassment. One woman found pornography

pasted on her office door, while another reported: “I occasionally receive comments about

my appearance, get asked on dates, and experience other interactions that border on sexual

harassment.” Others say that while they do not experience hostility as such, gender clearly

Table 4. Percentage of respondents reporting inappropriate classroom behaviour by type ofbehaviour

Never Occasionally Frequently n

Inattentiveness (failure to respond, lookingbored, etc.)

6.8 65.6 27.6 381

Disrespectful (coming late, interrupting class,playing on cell phones, etc.)

24.2 61.3 14.5 380

Hostility (making hostile comments, refusingto participate in activities, etc.)

78.6 20.8 0.5 379

Hostility towards instructor as a member ofa particular group (defined by nationality, race,sexual orientation, political conviction)

89.9 9.3 0.8 378

Table 5. Percentage of respondents reporting hostility against an individual by gender


Male 85.1 14.5 0.4 235Female 68.1 31.3 0.7 144Total 78.6 20.8 0.5 379

Note: x2 ¼ 15.488, 0.000.


matters. One woman noted: “There is very little overt hostility (e.g. explicit reference to

my gender); however, there have clearly been interactions that are framed by my gender

(e.g. inability to accept me as an authority figure, expectations that my ‘niceness’ means

that I am not difficult, or surprise when I maintain high standards and enforce them).”

Several female respondents also commented that they felt that students treated them more

informally than their male colleagues: “Frequently students are too casual with me and

treat me like one of their buddies.4 I also feel as a young, female professor I am more often

called by my first name or ‘Mrs’ (rather than ‘Dr.’ or ‘Professor’) by undergraduates than

[are] my male counterparts.”

We used a further open-ended question to ask instructors if they thought that any other

personal characteristic might influence how students react to them. Over 50 respondents

provided an answer. We had included this question to give respondents the opportunity to

talk about sensitive issues such as sexual orientation, ethnicity or disabilities, which were

not broached directly in survey questions; however, only a few instructors brought up

these kinds of issues: three listed disabilities (two learning disabilities, one physical

disability), five referred to their foreign status or accent, and three identified themselves as

homosexual. For instance, one respondent wrote: “I am a lesbian, and while I do not

overtly ‘come out’ to students, I know that my sexual identity is something that many of

our students know and discuss.” Another instructor mentioned her “obvious Jewish

background” as an issue, stating that it “alienates Muslims and very left wing students”.

What we had not anticipated in asking this question was the number of respondents who

referred to their physical appearance as significant in how students respond to them. One

respondent stated: “Male, white, young, handsome, 6 feet tall. These facets of my identity

should not be relevant, but unfortunately, in the classroom, they are”; another commented:

“I have found, sadly, that the quality of my appearance has some effect on how students

respond to me.” Of the over 50 respondents who provided extra comment for this question,

three respondents mentioned that they were of small stature, five that they were very tall,

three male respondents made reference to being balding, two to having a beard, and one to

long hair. For instance, “I currently have a beard! This may seem trivial, but I’ve been told

it makes me look older, which might have an influence on how students respond to me.”

By contrast, 14 respondents (almost all women) pointed out that they looked younger than

their age, although whether this was considered to be an advantage (facilitating easy

connection with students) or a disadvantage (being perceived as inexperienced) differed

among respondents. Finally, seven respondents described themselves as big or overweight

and stated that this influences how students respond to them; for instance: “I am a BIG

(overweight) person. This has both þ and – which probably cancel each other out . . . but

it is a factor.”

In addition to instructors’ personal characteristics, we hypothesized that type of

institution might influence student misbehaviours. Somewhat surprisingly, very few

statistically significant differences were found by characteristics of the institution, and

those that did emerge were often not consistent across different types of misbehaviours,

making us wary of drawing conclusions without further investigation. Two characteristics

of the institution did show compelling evidence of correlation with student misbehaviours,

however. Instructors teaching at public institutions reported more problems with

inattentive students—29.6 per cent of respondents at public universities claimed to have

frequent problems with inattentive students, compared with just 8.3 per cent at private

institutions (r ¼ 0.003, n ¼ 381). Second, hostility towards the instructor was more often


reported by instructors at research universities. At research institutions 28.0 per cent of

instructors claimed to have suffered from student hostility, while the respective figures for

teaching-oriented institutions (17.5 per cent) and institutions where teaching and research

are valued equally (18.2 per cent) were significantly lower (r ¼ 0.033, n ¼ 379).

Another of our initial hypotheses was that class size and type of class would have a

strong influence on the frequency and severity of student misbehaviours, with larger

classes theorized to offer greater opportunity for classroom incivilities. Results obtained

support this idea with large lecture classes being reported as presenting the greatest

challenges concerning student behaviours (Table 6). Serious behaviour problems were

reported much less frequently for smaller lecture classes, labs and field trips; seminars

were reported to suffer the least from incivilities. These results clearly support the idea

developed in the literature that interactions between instructors and individual students—

so much easier in smaller classes—may be critical to preventing classroom incivilities.

Strategies to Address Classroom Incivilities

In addition to asking our respondents how frequently they experience particular

incivilities, we also investigated the strategies they use to deal with them and how

successful they consider these strategies (Tables 7 and 8). Respondents were offered a list

of potential strategies for dealing with incivilities and asked to state how frequently, if

ever, they used them. Respondents were also given the opportunity to list additional

strategies that they had used. Three strategies stood out as most commonly used, each by at

least two-thirds of respondents. Almost all instructors (86.2 per cent) used friendly, verbal

reminders to point out student misbehaviours. One instructor even provided us with an

elaborate script to demonstrate:

Typically my classes go rather smoothly without incident. Occasionally a cluster

will begin to whisper. I usually say “Ladies or Gentlemen . . . please hold your

conversation until the end of class.” That gentle warning will shut up most students.

The next time we meet I will usually go up to the cluster before class and gently say

“You aren’t going to give me any trouble today . . . are you?” I always get a prompt,

“No Sir.” If I see several people texting before class I will say “let’s all turn our

phones off, I need your full attention for this important geography lecture today.” If

they lay their head down I walk by and slap them on the shoulder and say “how late

were you out last night?”.

Table 6. Percentage of respondents reporting classroom incivilities by type of class taught

No problemwith incivilities

Incivilitiesare a minorinconvenience

Incivilities area significantinconvenience n

Large lecture (.50 students) 9.1 62.7 28.2 241Small lecture (,50 students) 24.4 69.2 6.3 348Seminar 71.2 25.4 3.4 264Lab 43.9 51.7 4.4 180Fieldtrip 51.9 40.1 8.0 162


Most instructors also reported talking to students in private about particular misbehaviours

(74.5 per cent), and incorporating behaviour-related policies in their syllabi (70.4 per cent).

These three strategies were generally rated as very effective in dealing with student

misbehaviours. At the other end of the spectrum, the less personal strategy of listing

behaviour-related policies in the syllabus was rated as highly effective by just 33.7 per cent

of respondents. Overall, the more ‘personal’ the response, the more effective it was

considered by instructors.

Of the other strategies proposed in the survey, a second set was used by a substantial

proportion of respondents. Over 40 per cent had joked about a particular misbehaviour

with the class, 39.9 per cent had ordered a student to stop a certain behaviour during class,

and 23.0 per cent had asked a misbehaving student to leave the classroom. These three

Table 7. Reported use of strategies to deal with classroom misbehaviours (% of respondents)

Used Never usedTried but nolonger use n

Friendly verbal reminders of proper behaviour 86.2 12.5 1.3 376Talking to a student in private after class 74.5 24.7 0.8 376Behaviour-related syllabus policies 70.4 28.6 1.1 378Joking about an incivility with the rest of the class 42.3 52.4 5.3 376Ordering a student during class to stop a particularbehaviour

39.9 56.6 3.5 376

Asking a student to leave the classroom 23.0 75.9 1.1 378Threatening to deduct points from a student’s grade 11.7 87.5 0.8 377Deducting points from a student’s grade 12.5 87.3 0.3 377Requesting that a senior member of the departmentspeak to a student

8.0 91.5 0.5 377

Filing an official complaint about a student’s behaviour 10.6 88.9 0.5 377

Table 8. Effectiveness of strategies to deal with classroom misbehaviours, as rated by respondents(% of respondents)

Noteffective

Somewhateffective

Veryeffective n

Friendly verbal reminders of properbehaviour

2.4 44.0 53.6 332

Talking to a student in private after class 2.1 28.6 69.3 283Behaviour-related syllabus policies 10.2 56.1 33.7 285Joking about an incivility with the rest ofthe class

15.2 49.3 35.5 211

Ordering a student during class to stop aparticular behaviour

12.5 36.3 51.2 168

Asking a student to leave the classroom 10.6 35.6 53.8 104Threatening to deduct points from astudent’s grade

28.0 36.0 36.0 75

Deducting points from a student’s grade 27.4 39.7 32.9 73Requesting that a senior member of thedepartment speak to a student

32.1 37.5 30.4 56

Filing an official complaint about astudent’s behaviour

20.0 43.3 36.7 60


strategies were also rated as generally helpful in addressing behaviour issues, with over

half of those who had ordered students to stop a behaviour or asked them to leave the

classroom evaluating these strategies as very effective.

The remaining strategies listed in the survey were used infrequently. It is impossible to

say whether this is because instructors had never thought of these strategies, believed that

they would not work, or thought that they were not appropriate. Only a small minority of

respondents reported using grades as a mechanism to enforce behaviour—just 12 per cent

of respondents stated that they had threatened a student with deducting points for

inappropriate behaviour. This is perhaps a reflection of academic performance and

behaviour being considered two separate issues. The instructors who did use grades as an

enforcement mechanism were split as to its effectiveness, with 36.0 per cent reporting that

the strategy was highly effective, 36.0 per cent somewhat effective, and 28.0 per cent that

the strategy had not been helpful. The remaining two strategies included in the

questionnaire are the most formal and severe of the strategies listed. Requesting that a

senior member of the department speak to a particular student had been used by just 8.0

per cent of respondents and filing an official complaint about a student by 10.6 per cent,

although these low numbers may reflect a lack of need to employ these strategies rather

than an unwillingness to use them. Again, opinion was divided as to the effectiveness of

these approaches.

Respondents outlined a variety of additional strategies in a free-response box. Several

of these revolved around the idea of shaming or embarrassing students. For instance,

“I believe in shame, and I don’t deny the advantage that I have as a tall male in a large

lecture setting. I deliberately put on a no-nonsense persona on day one, and the students

know I won’t ignore what I consider to be stupid behaviour. It is confrontational,

I acknowledge, but it works.” Another male instructor stated, “I do my best to embarrass

someone who sleeps or plays in class. I usually ask them how long they have been out of

high school, or why they think they can be disrespectful.” Another male instructor took an

even more confrontational approach: “Yelling at them. Yes, yelling. Like my mom used

to do when we were real bad. I then tell them if they want to act like they are in 3rd grade,

I will treat them like they are in 3rd grade.” By contrast, another instructor noted that she

felt restrained from disciplining students as strongly as she would wish, and supported the

idea that tenure expectations may influence some faculty in their approach towards

discipline: “The problem in the US is that the professors are being evaluated for tenure.

If you try to adopt a strong class discipline like in Europe, you will end up with very poor

evaluations . . . .” Although the small number of additional responses did not allow

statistical analysis of patterns in who was using shaming as a device for maintaining

discipline, it was notable that all the instructors who described using such techniques

were male.

Rather than dealing with misbehaviours, some instructors recommended tactics to avoid

incivilities arising in the first place. Foremost among these was the idea of learning

students’ names. One male professor wrote: “By far the most effective strategy has been to

learn my students’ names as quickly as possible. I learn every student’s name (,120 each

semester) and I call on them frequently during lectures. Once they know that I know who

they are there’s enhanced interaction and little bullshit after that.” Another instructor

stated that she encourages “other students to put peer pressure on the disruptive students.

I have told them that they are free to raise their hands during my lecture and I will halt class

while they ask a student to stop talking. Some of these students say things such as,


‘I’ve paid money for my education and I want to hear the lecture’.” Finally, a few

respondents suggested simply ignoring disruptive students. The philosophical divide

between instructors who favour strong discipline and those who emphasize classroom

atmosphere can clearly be seen among these responses.

Student Misbehaviours beyond the Classroom

In addition to incivilities in the classroom, we also examined student misbehaviours that

occur outside the classroom (Table 9). Respondents were again offered a list of suggested

behaviours for comment, as well as the opportunity to add further misbehaviours that they

had noted. By far the most common complaint selected from among those offered was that

students demand make-up exams, extra credit or extensions for dubious reasons. Nearly 90

per cent of respondents listed this as either a frequent or occasional annoyance. Students

complaining about tough standards came in a close second, with 83.6 per cent of

instructors stating that they deal with this infrequently. Most also occasionally had to deal

with plagiarism and/or cheating (85.0 per cent). Far fewer instructors (18.1 per cent)

reported having students threaten to complain about them. It should be noted that it is

impossible to tell from these results what proportion of these complaints might have been

legitimate, although in several cases instructors added additional comments to clarify why

they had been criticized unfairly. For instance, one instructor reported being told by

students that making critical comments about the US in class was inappropriate as she was

a foreigner.

As before, we used cross-tabulations to identify systematic differences in the rates at

which different groups of instructors experience particular behaviours. The most

significant results were obtained for the incidence of plagiarism/cheating. International

instructors (r ¼ 0.000, n ¼ 365; Table 10) and non-White instructors (r ¼ 0.000, n ¼ 360)

reported fewer instances of plagiarism/cheating than did American and White instructors;

additionally, those who teach physical geography or GIS/methods reported fewer

instances of plagiarism/cheating than those who teach human geography or nature and

society classes (r ¼ 0.006, n ¼ 363). While the latter difference can be explained by the

fact that it is probably easier to plagiarize in the more writing-intensive sub-disciplines of

geography, explaining why non-American and non-White instructors reported less

plagiarism is harder. There was also a statistically significant difference in how often

Table 9. Percentage of respondents reporting particular student incivilities


Students demand make-up exams, extra creditor extensions for dubious reasons

10.8 58.7 30.4 378

Students complain about tough standards 16.4 61.8 21.8 377Students argue about grades 16.7 73.2 10.1 377Students commit plagiarism or other formsof cheating

14.8 74.2 11.0 365

Students threaten to complain about theinstructor

81.9 16.0 2.1 376

Students complain about a particular biasexpressed by the instructor

72.5 26.2 1.3 374


professors were accused of being biased in their classes, with human geographers and

nature and society instructors experiencing more instances (r ¼ 0.007, n ¼ 372), again

probably related to the more subjective nature of the material taught in these sub-

disciplines.

In terms of gender, female early-career faculty generally experienced undesirable

student behaviours more often than did male instructors.5 We found statistically significant

differences in three categories—students demanding make-up exams, extra credit or

extensions for dubious reasons (r ¼ 0.021, n ¼ 378; Table 11), students complaining

about tough standards (r ¼ 0.002, n ¼ 377; Table 12), and students complaining that the

instructor expressed a particular bias in class (r ¼ 0.035, n ¼ 374).

Strategies to Address Student Misbehaviours beyond the Classroom

In order to assess how geography instructors tackle these further student incivilities, we

asked respondents to indicate how they respond to two common student requests: deadline

extensions and grade adjustments. Responses suggested that most instructors are relatively

flexible when it comes to granting extensions, but are far less likely to change grades. Over

two-thirds said that they would either never change grades (12.0 per cent) or were unlikely

to do so without exceptional circumstances (57.9 per cent); by contrast, nearly 70 per cent

Table 11. Percentage of respondents reporting students demanding make-up exams, extra credit, orextensions, by gender of instructor



Note: x2 ¼ 7.7, r ¼ 0.021.

Table 10. Percentage of respondents reporting incidences of plagiarism/cheating among students,by nationality of instructor

Nationality of Instructor Never Occasionally Frequently n

US-born 11.0 76.9 12.0 299Non US-born 31.8 62.1 6.1 66Total 14.8 74.2 11.0 365

Note: x2 ¼ 19.1, r ¼ 0.000.

Table 12. Percentage of respondents reporting students complaining about tough standards, bygender of instructor



Note: x2 ¼ 12.7, r ¼ 0.002.


stated that they were sometimes amenable to deadline extensions. It appears again that

instructors clearly distinguish between student behaviour on the one hand and student

assessment on the other.

We also asked what strategies instructors used to deal with these kinds of demands and

how successful they consider these strategies (Tables 13 and 14). The vast majority of our

respondents (94.5 per cent) were willing to look over a student’s work again if the student

had concerns about the grade, and considered this strategy effective. Over 60 per cent of

our survey participants had sought advice from colleagues in a grade dispute, and most

claimed this strategy to be effective, as well. Other strategies to deal with grading concerns

were less popular. The concept of extra credit was particularly contentious. Well over one-

third of respondents (43.4 per cent) had experimented with extra credit, but opinion was

split as to its effectiveness, and one-quarter of those who reported using the approach had

subsequently abandoned it. Additional comments on the topic indicate a philosophical

Table 13. Reported use of particular strategies to deal with grading issues (% of respondents)

UsedNeverused

Tried but nolonger used n

Rechecking student work if there are concernsabout grades

94.4 5.6 0.0 372

Seeking advice of a colleague beforeadjusting grades or assignments

59.3 37.4 3.3 369

Offering extra credit when students demand it 31.2 56.6 12.2 369Including policies on the syllabus as to howstudents can complain about grades

26.1 73.0 0.8 371

Demanding that students put concerns aboutgrades in writing

10.1 89.1 0.8 367

Making students wait 24 hours before theycan complain about a grade

9.5 90.2 0.3 369

Demanding to see proof of family and medicalemergencies

67.6 29.7 2.7 370

Table 14. Reported effectiveness of strategies to deal with grading issues, as rated by respondents(% of respondents)

IneffectiveSomewhateffective

Veryeffective n

Rechecking student work if there are concernsabout grades

2.6 30.5 66.9 351


6.2 43.4 50.4 226

Offering extra credit when students demand it 23.5 46.3 30.2 162Including policies on the syllabus as to howstudents can complain about grades

10.6 39.4 50.0 104

Demanding that students put concerns aboutgrades in writing

24.0 30.0 46.0 50

Making students wait 24 hours before theycan complain about a grade

15.7 33.3 50.9 51

Demanding to see proof of family and medicalemergencies

7.6 42.4 50.0 250


divide, with some respondents describing extra credit as a valuable tool and others

rejecting it on principle. As one instructor put it, “‘Extra credit’ is an awful idea because it

subverts standards and, so, I never employ it”. Several of the instructors in our sample

stated that when they do offer extra credit, they offer the option to the entire class and not to

a subset of students. Some also pointed out that they would not give in to students

demanding extra credit, but that it was part of their course set-up to offer a certain number

of extra credit points. Others commented that rather than giving extra credit they allowed

students to drop their lowest grade; some added that dropping the lowest grade could also

be used to deal with students who missed exams or assignments without having to demand

documentation.

Only a minority of instructors had tried the other strategies we listed on the survey for

addressing grade complaints. About one-quarter (26.1 per cent) included policies on their

syllabi that explain the procedure a student has to follow to complain about a grade. About

10 per cent had experimented with only accepting student complaints in writing, and a

further 10 per cent with having students wait a specified period (usually 24 hours) before

they can complain about a grade, both approaches with the goal of having students think

carefully about why they deserve a better grade. While opinions regarding the

effectiveness of these strategies varied considerably, about three-quarters of the

respondents who had used them considered them effective.

Respondents made several additional suggestions for strategies that worked for them in

dealing with or avoiding grade complaints. In addition to throwing out lowest scores, which

many felt was a fair and easy way to address certain assessment issues, several spoke highly

of grading rubrics as a way to make grading fast as well as transparent to the students, thus

reducing grade complaints. Some also said that they would not count problematic questions

on exams—either when a large proportion of students had not answered the question

correctly or when students made a case for why the question was unfair.

Differences in the Use of Strategies

We hypothesized that differences may exist among groups of instructors in the strategies

they select to deal with classroom issues. Gender differences were notable in this case,

with one-quarter of the strategies suggested used significantly more frequently by women

than men, often by a large margin (Table 15). For example, 75.0 per cent of female

Table 15. Percentage of respondents using particular strategies to deal with student misbehaviours,by gender

Have usedstrategy

(female / male)

Have not usedstrategy

(female / male) R n

Friendly verbal reminders of properbehaviour

94.4 / 83.0 5.6 / 16.6 0.005 377

Ordering a student during class to stop aparticular behaviour

50.0 / 39.3 50.0 / 60.7 0.043 376


75.0 / 55.0 25.0 / 45.0 0.000 369

Making students wait 24 hours beforethey can complain about a grade

15.1 / 6.5 84.9 / 93.5 0.007 369


respondents had sought advice from a colleague in addressing a student misbehaviour,

compared with 55.0 per cent of men. Patterns also emerged for nationality and race,

although in this case the dominant group was more likely to use most strategies. Instructors

of colour were found to be significantly less likely than white instructors to use six of the

16 strategies: behaviour-related syllabus policies, joking about misbehaviours, ordering a

student to stop a certain behaviour, talking to a student in private after class, filing a formal

complaint, and rechecking students’ work.

Discussion

As expected, we are not alone as early-career geography faculty in experiencing student

incivilities, both in and outside the classroom. Fortunately, the most common of these

misbehaviours are also the least serious, often probably more thoughtlessness on the part

of students than deliberate actions. Only a minority of our respondents have had to deal

with the more serious issue of outright hostility. Nonetheless, the fact that student

misbehaviour was reported by almost all respondents, and was found to be an issue across

all institutional settings, is worthy of comment and adds to the growing literature noting

the pervasiveness of classroom incivilities.

Of great concern is the fact that student incivilities are significantly more problematic

for certain sub-groups of faculty—particularly women, and to a lesser degree international

faculty and professors of colour—exactly those faculty who are often dealing with other

disadvantages and unfairly weighted power dynamics in the workplace. One of the most

significant findings from this research is that women report classroom incivilities at a

significantly higher rate than men. Additionally, some of the incivilities that they face have

a gendered component to them, suggesting that female instructors are not only targeted as

professors, but also as women. This clearly supports previous research that has highlighted

gender issues in the classroom (see Cooper & Steven, 2002).

Similarly, faculty from minority groups, whether ethnic, religious or racial, sometimes

reported feeling targeted because of their identity. The reason why women and minority

groups experience more student incivilities may be explained partly by student perceptions

or misperceptions of these different groups. Research has shown, in particular, that

students make presumptions about an instructor based on race or nationality; for example,

that international instructors are not as well educated or well trained (McCroskey, 2002;

McCalman, 2007), or that non-White instructors are harder to understand because of

heavy accents, even when using received English pronunciation (Rubin & Smith, 1990;

Rubin, 1998; Clayton, 2008). Women, by contrast, may be considered a ‘soft touch’

by students, more easily intimidated and more likely to yield to demands (Kardia et al.,

2001). Evidence such as this suggests that these groups may legitimately feel targeted

by students.

It is also possible, however, that the greater vulnerability of these groups of faculty may

make them more sensitive to feeling targeted by students and therefore more likely to

report it—what to an individual who feels entirely secure in his job may be a laughable

event may create significant discomfort for someone feeling otherwise marginalized in the

workplace. This vulnerability may be based in entrenched systemic problems such as

racism or sexism, or more tangible factors. For instance, international professors may feel

more vulnerable in their jobs if their visas depend on their employment, leading to very

different power dynamics in the classroom than in the case of native-born instructors.


Regardless, the fact that those already most vulnerable in the classroom have to bear the

additional burden of dealing with classroom incivilities is clearly problematic.

The intersection of vulnerability and incivility not only plays out in the rates at which

different groups experience incivilities but may also be reflected in the ways that female,

international, and non-White faculty choose to address (or, significantly, choose not to

address) classroom misbehaviours. Our findings suggest that groups of faculty differ

systematically in the ways that they choose to address classroom incivilities, although in

this case women and non-White faculty responded in different ways. Women were found

to use a wider range of strategies to target incivilities than do men. This could simply be a

reflection of women having to cope with more incivilities, or that they are more proactive

in tackling incivilities. International and non-White instructors, by contrast, appeared to

use several strategies to deal with incivilities at a significantly lower rate than their White

counterparts.

We hypothesize that the specific vulnerability of non-Whites may lead many to shy

away from confronting incivilities. While the pressures of systemic racism may help to

explain this idea, there are also several factors unique to the position of international

instructors that may explain why they are less likely to address incivilities. For instance,

many international instructors are surprised by what they perceive as a lack of discipline of

students in the United States (Alberts, 2008), and may not have appropriate experience or

training to tackle discipline issues in the US. Instructors originating from cultures with

little tradition of direct confrontation in public settings may feel especially uncomfortable

in drawing attention to misbehaving students. Those for whom English is a second

language face particular challenges in tackling incivilities as confronting students who are

verbally more nimble in English may be a daunting prospect. The intersection of

vulnerability and incivilities is doubtless worthy of further study to begin to tease apart

some of these complexities and provide solid evidence regarding these hypotheses.

Although these findings are important, they are perhaps expected. The notion of

‘otherness’ was also important in less obvious ways than just race and gender, however. In

particular, physical appearance of the instructor was reported as influencing student

behaviour, with such seemingly insignificant factors as hairstyles credited with influencing

how students react to professors. While it cannot be discounted that some of this

perception may say more about the insecurities of us as teachers than the biases of our

students, the public persona that we project as faculty members is clearly important.

Appearing young, and by association inexperienced, was a particular concern, although

understandable. Less excusable were reports that a lack of physical attractiveness of an

instructor could influence student–faculty interactions in negative ways.

It is not only characteristics of instructors that appear to influence behaviour in class.

After gender, the next most influential factor correlated with frequency of student

misbehaviours was class size, with large classes leading to more problems. This result

further reinforces existing evidence that smaller class sizes are more conducive to learning

and good behaviour. As this and other research has shown, students are less likely to

misbehave when they are not part of an anonymous mass, but are recognized as

individuals. While individual instructors do not usually have control over class size, they

can employ learning strategies that actively involve students in the class and allow more

intense personal interaction between students and faculty, even in large classes, which

in turn can reduce instances of incivilities (Rodgers & Starrett, 2006). Furthermore, in a

setting where the instructor knows his or her students, it is easier to confront students in


a personalized manner when misbehaviours do occur, which our findings suggest increases

the likelihood that these measures are effective.

With respect to strategies to address classroom incivilities, there is clearly no ‘silver

bullet’ solution, with different instructors having individual preferences for classroom

discipline and most approaches having both detractors and supporters. Just as professors

must teach in a style in which they feel comfortable, so discipline approaches, too, must be

tailored to the individual. Having said this, it is important to make instructors aware of the

range of approaches available to minimize classroom incivilities or respond to them when

they occur. This provides a strong argument for improved training of future instructors as

well as those in the early stages of their careers. This kind of training can be provided in

the institutions in which instructors earn their terminal degrees (for example through

initiatives such as the Preparing Future Faculty programme, which provides classes for

future instructors across disciplinary borders), or by the institutions that hire the junior

faculty (for example as part of new faculty orientation or a workshop series). Considering

the evidence presented here that different instructors meet different challenges and are

likely to respond to them in different ways, individual mentoring may be key to helping

faculty deal with the specific problems they face (see also Hardwick, 2005), particularly if

mentors can be assigned who may have had similar experiences. Training also needs to

focus on giving faculty the confidence to implement strategies if our hypothesis is correct

that certain vulnerable groups of faculty may not be using certain techniques through fear

of confrontation.

Although we argue that many of our results could be applied to early-career faculty

in other disciplines, several of our results appear to have implications especially for

geography faculty. In particular, the position of geography at the nexus of so many

cultural and ethical issues places a significant burden on the geography instructor to

address contentious issues in the classroom. Bradbeer (2008) notes in his discussion of

trends in higher education in Great Britain, for instance, “for university teachers of

geography, and environmental sciences generally, there would seem to be an additional

professional value, that of the cultivation of an environmental sensitivity and a concern

not just for the flourishing of other humans but also for other species and our collective

home, the Earth” (p. 223). In communicating messages such as these that have strong

value components, instructors may incite heated discussions among students who have

few resources for constructive discussions (Snider, 1999). The position of non-White or

international faculty may be especially challenging in this respect, if their views, as

well as the topic, are considered to be alien or contentious. Although an isolated

example, such discipline-specific issues suggest a need for discipline-focused responses,

as well. In the context of geography such an opportunity is provided by the Geography

Faculty Development Alliance (GFDA),6 under the leadership of Ken Foote at the

University of Colorado at Boulder. These week-long workshops focus on teaching

issues as well as professional development through the promotion of discussion

among people tackling similar problems. This model could clearly be reproduced for

other disciplines.

Conclusion

Classroom incivilities are not generated in a vacuum but are related to classroom dynamics

as created by both student and teacher (Braxton & Bayer, 1999). This should not be seen as


an excuse for student misbehaviour but instead as a means of empowerment for

instructors, who can justly see themselves as part of the solution as well as part of the

problem. Two broad strategies exist to tackling classroom misbehaviours: a disciplinarian

approach where penalties are expected to deter uncivil behaviours, and a shared

responsibility approach where both students and faculty are charged with generating a

positive classroom atmosphere to ensure the class’s success. Our results suggest that both

types of strategies can be powerful tools for college-level instructors. Fortunately, these

two philosophical approaches to classroom discipline do not have to be mutually

exclusive, and thus clearly defined expectations and evenly enforced penalties for non-

compliance are completely consistent with developing a classroom atmosphere of mutual

respect. Giving future and early-career faculty more training to develop such strategies for

avoiding and responding to student incivilities will improve not only their experiences in

the classroom, but those of their students as well.

Notes

1 Bray and Del Favero (2004) further note that, owing to the power dynamics of the classroom, it is

typically the instructor rather than the student who defines what is considered an incivility.2 Contrary to the relative scarcity of studies of classroom incivilities in higher education, there is an

extensive body of literature on classroom problems at the elementary and secondary school levels, as

well as numerous studies concerning cheating and plagiarism (Davis, 1993; McKeachie & Svinicki,

2006).3 The same phenomenon was described by Wei (2007).4 Previous research found that female instructors not only experience more discipline problems but also

receive lower scores on student evaluations (Wei, 2007).5 More about the GFDA can be found at: http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gfda/gfda.html.

References

Alberts, H. (2008) The challenges and opportunities of foreign–born instructors in the classroom, Journal of

Geography in Higher Education, 32(2), pp. 189–203.

Alexander-Snow, M. (2004) Dynamics of gender, ethnicity, and race in understanding classroom incivility,

New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 99, pp. 21–31.

Bartlett, T. (2004) Taking control of the classroom, Chronicle of Higher Education, September 17, p. 8.

Bettinger, E. & Long, B. (2005) Addressing the Needs of Under-Prepared Students in Higher Education: Does

College Remediation Work? NBER Working Paper No. W11325. Available at SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstra

ct ¼720411 (accessed April 2009)

Boice, R. (1996) Classroom incivilities, Research in Higher Education, 37(4), pp. 453–485.

Boice, R. (2000) Advice for New Faculty Members, Nihil Nimus (Boston: Allyn & Bacon).

Bradbeer, J. (2008) Professional standards and values for university teachers of geography, Journal of Geography

in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 219–244.

Braxton, J. M. & Bayer, A. E. (1999) Faculty Misconduct in Collegiate Teaching (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University).

Bray, N. J. & Del Favero, M. (2004) Sociological explanations for faculty and student classroom incivilities, New

Directions for Teaching and Learning, 99, pp. 9–19.

Broyles, S. G. (2006) Employees in postsecondary institutions, fall 2004, and salaries of full-time instructional

faculty, 2004–05. Table 2. Full-time professional employees at Title IV institutions, by control of institution,

place of employment, level of institution, and faculty status: United States, fall 2004. U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics 2006–187, Washington,

D.C. p. 5. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006187.pdf (accessed June 2008).

Carbone, E. (1999) Students behaving badly in large classes, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 77,

pp. 35–43.


Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2008) Basic Classification of Institutions of Higher

Education. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: Stanford, California. Available at

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp (accessed April 2008).

Clayton, M. (2008) Foreign teaching assistants’ first test: the accent. Christian Science Monitor, 92, June 5, p. 14.

Available at http://www.csmonitor.com/2000/0905/p14s1.html (accessed July 2008).

Cooper, J. & Steven, D. (Eds) (2002) Tenure in the Sacred Grove: Issues and Strategies for Women and Minority

Faculty (Albany: State University of New York Press).

Davis, B. G. (1993) Tools for Teaching (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

Greene, J. & Foster, G. (2003) Public High School Graduation and College Readiness Rates in the United States.

Working Paper. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Available at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/

html/ewp_03.htm (accessed April 2009).

Hardwick, S. W. (2005) Mentoring early career faculty in geography: Issues and strategies, Professional

Geographer, 57, pp. 21–28.

Hirschy, A. & Braxton, J. (2004) Effects of student classroom incivilities on students, New Directions for

Teaching and Learning, 99, pp. 67–76.

Hogan, M. (2007) The Effects of Perceived Disruptive Behavior on Classroom Civility (Fayetteville, AR:

University Ombuds Office, University of Arkansas).

Holton, S. (1999) After the eruption: Managing conflict in the classroom, New Directions for Teaching and

Learning, 77, pp. 59–68.

Kardia, D., Simpkins, D., Lun, J. & August, L. (2001) ‘Does faculty gender matter to students? Reflections on the

controversy relating to gender and undergraduate student ratings’, Presentation at the Annual Conference of

the American Educational Research Association, April 2001.

Kirk, D. J. (2005) Taking Back the Classroom (Des Moines, IA: Tiberius).

Kuhlenschmidt, S. (1999) Promoting internal civility: Understanding our beliefs about teaching and students,

New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 77, pp. 13–22.

Kuhlenschmidt, S. & Layne, L. (1999) Strategies for dealing with difficult behaviour, New Directions for

Teaching and Learning, 77, pp. 45–57.

Lim, S. & Herrera-Sobek, M. (2000) Power, Race and Gender in Academe: Strangers in the Tower (New York:

Modern Language Association).

McCalman, C. (2007) Being an interculturally competent instructor in the United States: Issues of classroom

dynamics, appropriateness, and recommendations for international instructors, New Directions for Teaching

and Learning, 110, pp. 65–74.

McCroskey, L. L. (2002) Domestic and international college instructors: An examination of perceived differences

and their correlates, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31(2), pp. 63–83.

McKeachie, W. & Svinicki, M. (2006) McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College

and University Teachers (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin).

McKinney, M. (2007) Setting boundaries, Successful Academic Newsletter. Available at http://www.successfula

cademic.com (accessed April 2008).

Moody, J. (2004) Faculty Diversity: Problems and Solutions (New York: Routledge).

New Directions for Teaching and Learning. (2004). Issue 99.

New Directions for Teaching and Learning. (1999). Issue 77.

Perlmutter, D. D. (2004) Thwarting misbehavior in the classroom, Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30),

pp. A8–A9.

Perry, R. P., Clifton, R. A., Menec, V. H., Ward Struthers, C. & Menges, R. J. (2000) Faculty in transition:

A longitudinal analysis of perceived control and type of institution in the research productivity of newly

hired faculty, Research in Higher Education, 41(2), pp. 165–194.

Perry, R. P., Menec, V. H., Ward Struthers, C., Hechter, F. J., Schonwetter, D. J. & Menges, R. J. (1997) Faculty

in transition: A longitudinal analysis of perceived control and type of institution in adjustment to

postsecondary institutions, Research in Higher Education, 38(5), pp. 519–556.

Rodgers, M. L. & Starrett, D. A. (2006) Calling all students . . . come in, students . . . . National Teaching

and Learning Forum Newsletter, 15(5). Reproduced in Tomorrow’s Professor, November 3, 2006.

Available at http://amps-tools.mit.edu/tomprofblog/archives/2006/11/757_calling_all.html#more (accessed

April 2009).

Romano, R. (1994) Gender issues in teaching, Speaking of Teaching, Stanford University Newsletter on

Teaching, 6(1), pp. 1–6.


Rubin, D. & Smith, K. A. (1990) Effects of accent, ethnicity, and lecture topic on undergraduates’ perceptions of

nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14,

pp. 337–353.

Rubin, D. L. (1998) Help! My professor (or doctor, or boss) doesn’t talk English!, in: J. Martin, T. Nakayama &

L. Flores (Eds) Readings in Cultural Contexts (Mountainview, CA: Mayfield Publishing).

Sarkisian, E. (2000) Teaching American Students: A Guide for International Faculty and Teaching Assistants in

Colleges and Universities (Cambridge: Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning, Harvard University).

Schneider, A. (1998) Insubordination and intimidation signal the end of decorum in many classrooms, Chronicle

of Higher Education, 44(29), pp. A12–A14.

Snider, A. (1999) Stifling the naysayer in an age of compulsory niceness, Chronicle of Higher Education, May 7,

p. A64.

Solem, M. & Foote, K. (2004) Concerns, attitudes, and abilities of early career geography faculty, Annals of the

Association of American Geographers, 94(4), pp. 889–912.

Solem, M. & Foote, K. (2008) Teaching College Geography: A Practical Guide for Graduate Students and

Early–Career Faculty (Upper Saddle River, NJ: American Association of Geographers, Prentice Hall).

Solem, M., Foote, K. & Monk, J. (Eds) (2008) Aspiring Academics: A Source Book for Graduate Students and

Early-Career Faculty (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Association of American Geographers, Prentice Hall).

Sorcinelli, M. D. (1994) Dealing with troublesome behaviors in the classroom, in: K. Prichard & R. Sawyer (Eds)

Handbook of College Teaching: Theory and Applications, pp. 365–373 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press).

Tannen, D. (1991) Teachers’ classroom strategies should recognize that men and women use language

differently, Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at https://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/

chronicle061991.htm (accessed October 2008).

Theobald, R. (2007) Foreign-born early-career faculty: The case of the discipline of geography. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Trout, P. (1998) Point of view: Incivility in the classroom breeds ‘education lite’, Chronicle of Higher Education,

July 24, p A40.

Twenge, J. M. (2006) Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans are More Confident, Assertive,

Entitled—and More Miserable than Ever Before (New York: Free Press).

Wasley, P. (2008) The syllabus becomes a repository of legalese, Chronicle of Higher Education, March 14, 54

(27), p. 1.

Wei, F. -Y. (2007) Cross-cultural teaching apprehension: A coidentity approach toward minority teachers, New

Directions for Teaching and Learning, 110, pp. 5–14.

Young, J. (2003) Sssshhh . . . we’re taking notes here: Colleges look for new ways to discourage disruptive

behavior in the classroom, Chronicle of Higher Education, August 8, p. 29.


Copyright of Journal of Geography in Higher Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Classroom Incivilities: The Challenge of Interactions ... Incivilities: The Challenge of Interactions between College Students and ... (those graduating from high school in 2000 and