This article was downloaded by: [Adams State University]On: 15 October 2014, At: 11:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research in Post-Compulsory EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpce20

The importance of the affective domain in furthereducation classroom cultureMegan Russell aa Swindon College , United KingdomPublished online: 24 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Megan Russell (2004) The importance of the affective domain in further education classroom culture,Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 9:2, 249-270, DOI: 10.1080/13596740400200178

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13596740400200178

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Volume 9, Number 2, 2004

249

The Importance of the Affective Domain in Further Education Classroom Culture

MEGAN RUSSELL Swindon College, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT Although links between the affective domain in the classroom and a facilitative learning environment has been mooted in the literature, little research has focused on Further Education (FE). Accordingly, I sought the views of staff and students in a large FE College in the south of England from 100 returned questionnaires in the Spring of 2003. When compared, the data showed considerable agreement between staff and students on the presence, nature and causes of an affective domain in the classroom, although there were significant differences in focus between the two groups. In addition, both staff and students felt that relationships in the classroom directly affected the learning environment. Staff were seen as relational ‘gatekeepers’ in the classroom, and their need for interpersonal skills – although not necessarily skills training – was noted.

Introduction

Whilst both the importance of staff–student relationships and their effect on learning outcomes is acknowledged in the literature, little work has been conducted specifically in FE. As an FE practitioner I was interested to know if adult students and FE lecturers recognised the affective domain in their own classrooms and, if they did, what their views were on its sources, expression and educational significance.

The qualitative survey of both staff and students was carried out at a large FE College in the south of England in the Spring and Summer terms of 2003.

Conceptual Framework

Teaching is recognised as a person-centred ‘caring’ profession, comparable with air traffic control in terms of relational ‘busyness’ (Watkins, 1997). Although writing specifically about educational management, Law & Glover felt that ‘given that education is predominately a “people business”, motivating others ... is a key skill and a major priority’ (Law & Glover, 2000, p. 56), whilst

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Megan Russell

250

Cunningham described teaching as an ‘interpersonally intense occupation subject to chronic tension’ (cited by Leithwood, 1999, p. 189).

The need for good relationships between staff and students is not merely the result of seeing students as ‘clients’, whose opinion of the school is of significance (Reynolds & Packer, cited in Robertson, 1997). In the literature, the outcome of these relationships is also linked directly to academic success in a variety of ways, for example, by providing an ordered environment in which learning can take place (Robertson, 1997) or an environment of personal encouragement facilitating academic growth (Tausch, cited in Elliott-Kemp & Rogers, 1982, p. 10).

The relational skills required by teachers are seen as diverse, requiring multiple relational competencies (Smilansky, cited in Crawford et al, 1997), though other authors emphasise specific skills. Robertson (1997) stresses the need for good classroom control:

It is in such skills as organising, presenting, communicating and monitoring that the teacher’s actual authority rests. Without them he will fail to capture the interest of his pupils or to gain their respect, and his attempts to retain control by wielding power will be resented. (Robertson, 1997, p. 60)

Other authors emphasise teachers’ self-awareness, communicating and relating skills: ‘all other criteria – and no doubt there would be many – would be of lesser importance than these personal and attitudinal qualities’ (Elliott-Kemp & Rogers, 1982, p. 13).

Whatever the methods employed, staff–student relationships constitute the affective part of what is variously called the classroom environment, climate or culture, the success or otherwise of which many practitioners link directly with student learning outcomes: ‘creating a positive climate was identified as a prime characteristic of quality teachers in a study of teaching in 11 countries’ (OECD, cited in Muijs & Reynolds, 2001, p. 57). According to Wubbels, ‘the most important aspect of classroom climate is the relationship between teacher and students’ (their emphases)’ (Wubbels, cited in Muijs & Reynolds, 2001, p. 58), whilst in her language teaching Hadfield is ‘convinced that a successful group dynamic is a vital element in the teaching/learning process ... a positive group atmosphere can have a beneficial effect on the morale, motivation, and self-image of its members, and thus significantly affect their learning’ (Hadfield, 1992, p. 10). Deleterious effects on learning of a poor classroom atmosphere, whether caused by pupils (Goleman, 1996) or teachers (Brophy et al, 1974) is also noted. The presence of an affective element in the classroom linked to learning outcomes is thus generally accepted in the literature.

Research Methodology

In the spring term of 2003, I sent out questionnaires to all staff with classroom experience (to include the valued perspectives of Learning Support Assistants or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN IN THE CLASSROOM

251

LSAs and others) of a large English FE College and received 47 replies. At the same time, I sent a similar questionnaire to adult students from a variety of A-level standard classes and received 50 replies. Of the students questioned, 42% were between 16 and 20 years of age, 30% between 21 and 30, 24% between 31 and 40, and 4% between 41 and 50 years old.

All questionnaires were confidential. They included basic demographic details such as age and sex, a set of questions with a ‘yes/no’ response designed to establish the presence of classroom relationships, and a range of questions that used a five-point Likert scale – from ‘strongly agree’ to strongly disagree’ – to establish the perceived nature of the affective domain in terms of student and teacher input. Opportunities for individual comment were included: both teachers and students were asked to describe their worst and best classroom experiences, and students were asked to give a recipe for an ideal classroom. Throughout the process, I adhered to a ‘respect for persons’ and ‘respect for truth’ research ethic (Bassey, 1990).

The data was analysed using a coding system, based on Glaser & Strauss’s (1967) Grounded Theory method of verifying (rather than generating) theory grounded in field data. This involved coding the data into categories through a method of constant comparison as it was gathered. The categories derived in this way are said to be grounded in that they emerge from the data under study: they do not come from the literature, nor are they ‘borrowed’ from other theories. As the coding progresses it become more selective and later categories showed a higher level of abstraction. Data collection only stopped for a particular category when I thought it to be theoretically saturated, that is the inclusion of further incidents yielded no further concepts. In this survey, three core categories emerged, from which the importance of the affective domain in classroom atmosphere could be hypothesised.

My method owed more to Glaser’s later interpretation of the original method, rather than Strauss & Corbin’s (1990) alternative. In his rebuttal of Strauss & Corbin, Glaser (1992) asks only one neutral question of the data, ‘what category or property of a category does this incident indicate?’, whereas Strauss & Corbin (1990) give an equal emphasis to the asking of questions, as well as the making of comparisons in the coding process. Glaser has therefore retained an emphasis on the inevitable emergence of theory from data, whilst Strauss and Corbin prefer to describe grounded theory as ‘an action–interactional orientated method of theory building’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 104).

Quantitative and qualitative data were included. The number of responses to ‘yes/no’ questions were simply added up and the sum compared. Answers to the scaled questions were compared by summing the number of responses to each point on the Likert scale and then plotting this number on a graph generated by ‘Excel’: the percentage responses were then read off the graph. The percentages were used as the basis for comparison. Text-based questions were analysed qualitatively by looking for similarities and patterns in the language and concepts used.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Megan Russell

252

The staff and student questionnaires were analysed separately, and the major themes that emerged from both sets of data were then contrasted and compared.

Results

The Presence and Importance of the Affective Domain in Classrooms

These ‘yes/no’ questions showed that:

• the majority of staff and students had experience of a class disrupted by an individual or small group;

• most staff and just over half of the students had experience of a class where groups formed that would not work with each other;

• most staff and just over half of the students had experience of a class that just did not seem to ‘gel’ together;

• the majority of students had experience of a class where everyone got on well together from the start;

• every single student had experienced a teacher whom they felt had made the lessons really interesting;

• the majority of students had experience of a teacher who made everyone feel valued, whether or not they were good at the subject;

• every member of staff felt that they had won over a difficult individual or small group;

• most staff felt they had won over a difficult class; • most staff knew of a class that was a delight from start to finish.

The Nature of the Affective Domain

Answers to the scaled questions were broken down, and are shown in Table I.

Scaled question Analysis of responses Every class has its own atmosphere

Both staff and students agreed that each class has its own atmosphere. The staff were more likely to strongly agree.

The behaviour of students can make or break a class

Staff and the majority of students agreed: staff were more likely to strongly agree.

Some student behaviour is due to personal issues they bring with them

Most staff and students agreed. Staff were more likely to strongly agree and a small minority of students disagreed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN IN THE CLASSROOM

253

Students should respect the teacher and do as they were told

Although there was a spread of opinion, the majority of staff and students felt students should respect teachers, and do as they were told. Staff were more likely to disagree or strongly disagree.

Some teacher behaviour is due to personal issues they bring with them

The majority of staff agreed or strongly agreed: a minority disagreed or strongly disagreed. Whilst the majority of students agreed with staff, they were more likely to have no opinion.

The behaviour of individual teachers affects the behaviour of their classes

Both staff and students felt that teacher behaviour affected that of their classes, although staff were more likely to strongly agree.

Students’ personal problems are not the concern of the classroom teacher

The vast majority of staff felt that students’ personal problems were their concern. However, although nearly 40% of students agreed with them, the majority disagreed and nearly 20% had no opinion.

Acceptable class behaviour should be a matter of negotiation between student and teacher

The majority of staff and students felt that class behaviour should be a matter of negotiation. A substantial minority of staff disagreed or strongly disagreed: no students were of this opinion.

Good teachers use interpersonal skills to manage their classes effectively

The vast majority of staff and students. Staff were more likely to strongly agree.

Teachers’ should be trained in interpersonal skills

The majority of staff and students agreed. Some of each group expressed no opinion, and a minority of staff disagreed.

Good teachers act as counsellors to students

The majority of staff and students felt that good teachers act as counsellors to students, though staff were more likely to strongly agree. A substantial minority of both disagreed, though only staff strongly disagreed.

Teachers’ adapt their behaviour to suit different classes

The vast majority of staff agreed that they adapted their behaviour to suit different classes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Megan Russell

254

Some teachers aggravate students so they misbehave

The majority of students felt teacher behaviour caused students to misbehave.

Teachers should be trained as counsellors.

Over half of the staff felt teachers should be trained as counsellors, whilst a substantial minority disagreed. Over 20% expressed no opinion

Table I. Responses to sealed questions.

Best and Worst Classroom Experiences

In these open questions, staff were asked to comment on their triumphs and nightmares in the classroom, whilst students were asked to describe positive and negative learning experiences. The comments were coded into the following themes: Staff triumphs

• Success with individuals. • Success with groups. • Other.

Staff nightmares

• Violence. • The threat of violence. • Disruptive pupils. • Other.

Students’ positive classroom experiences

• Learning with laughter. • Feeling encouraged. • Good teaching. • Good classes. • Good learning experience.

Students’ negative classroom experiences

• Feeling uncomfortable. • Bad classes. • Bad teaching. • Poor learning experience. • Feeling humiliated. • Irritated by other students.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN IN THE CLASSROOM

255

‘Ideal’ Class Recipes

Students were asked to choose five characteristics they would like to see in their ‘ideal’ class. The information gathered was coded into three main themes: pedagogy, teachers and classroom atmosphere. The themes were put in decreasing order of importance, where importance was judged by the number of comments coded to that category. Atmosphere: 60 comments overall.

Twenty-five comments referred specifically to classroom atmosphere: • Eleven referred specifically to the need for a nice, relaxed, friendly

atmosphere. • Others covered the need for humour, co-operation and open, non-

competitive relationships where everyone had a voice.

Twenty-two comments referred to other students:

• Five comments on the advantage of friendly peers. • Fourteen comments on the need for co-operative working practices between

students. • Three comments on the advantage of a mix of personality types in a class.

Thirteen comments were on the need for respect, and half of these comments expected staff–student respect to be mutual. Pedagogy: 40 comments overall.

• Ten expressed views on lesson content, from the balance between practical and theory to the use of handouts.

• Seven people advocated the use of a variety of teaching methods. • Seven said that lessons need to be interesting or fun. • Six preferred lessons to be structured. • Seven advocated small classes. • Three commented on the need for ‘good’ teaching (unspecified).

Teachers: 37 comments overall.

• Sixteen comments on interpersonal skills, including the need for teachers to be approachable, to listen, show concern and encourage where appropriate.

• Eleven comments on the need for professional skills, including the ability to discipline, pace the work in a class, help make the subject fun.

• Six comments on the need for teachers to communicate well with students. • Four comments on the need for teachers to know, and be enthusiastic about,

their subject.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Megan Russell

256

Discussion

The Existence of the Affective Domain in the Classroom

The data gathered showed that both staff and students in the FE College recognised the existence of classroom ‘atmosphere’, which included relationships within the classroom. In addition, both staff and students described the importance of atmosphere in terms of its contribution to learning and sought an atmosphere that facilitated learning. The affective domain was therefore not only present, but perceived by those involved to influence a facilitative classroom atmosphere.

The importance of classroom climate or atmosphere, and its link to learning, has already been noted in the literature. Muijs & Reynolds, for example, define climate as ‘a wide-ranging concept encompassing the mood or atmosphere that is created in the teacher’s classroom through the rules set out, the way the teacher interacts with students, and the way the physical environment is set out’ (Muijs & Reynolds, 2001, p. 57). That atmosphere is contextual and therefore unique, is suggested by the fact that in the College both students and staff felt that each class had its own atmosphere. The influence of students is suggested by the fact that the vast majority of College staff felt that they changed their behaviour to suit different classes: however, other research suggested that different classes taught by the same teacher had very similar perceptions of their teacher’s interpersonal behaviour (Wubbels & Levy, 1993).

Factors Contributing to the Affective Domain

In the College there was general agreement that both staff and student behaviour contributed to classroom atmosphere, although the groups did not necessarily share the same concerns or attribute importance to the same behaviours. However, both staff and students believed that classroom behaviour was at least partly attributable to personal issues the individuals concerned brought into College with them: in other words, a lot that went on in the classroom was perceived to have its origins elsewhere. Student behaviour. Staff and the majority of students agreed that the behaviour of students was highly significant: they believed that student behaviour could make or break a class.

Not surprisingly, therefore, College staff were very concerned about pupil misbehaviour and when asked about ‘nightmare’ moments in the classroom talked of little else. The experience of violence, threats of violence and disruptive behaviour caused College teachers more grief than any other aspect of the affective domain. Reported incidents of direct violence included ‘a female student who strongly reacted to being told that an appointment she had made would have to be cancelled because it clashed with a teaching session – she threw herself, tables, chairs and anything else she could reach all around the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN IN THE CLASSROOM

257

room’. Another teacher talked of a ‘lower ability GCSE group which I took over half way through a year. They ended up throwing things around the lab’; yet another witnessed ‘a fight on the workshop floor between a student and the assisting instructor’.

Threats of violence were also noted. Staff mentioned being:

threatened by a male student. a student who came over as very aggressive and made me feel unsafe. The student was rude and very much in your face at all times.

Another said that ‘I have been spat at and suffered verbal abuse and threatening behaviour!’. One incident started in the classroom and then continued outside College: this involved:

having a skin-headed pupil, that had just been released from the cells overnight cells in the police station from beating up his Dad, place his forehead on mine. This was treated as an assault and the police were called. The same pupil tried it on outside the school that evening. I had to be escorted home. And again, in town, he tried again, some time later.

Some threats descended into farce: the last teacher also described:

a stand up confrontation with a secondary pupil who was dancing from one foot to another waiting for me to make the first move. He was trying to goad me into swinging for him. As he left the room in a rage (without hitting me) the door slammed and the whole doorframe fell out and crashed to the floor. The whole class that was left in the room thought it was hilarious.

Interestingly, violence was not a concern of College students at all unless they were on the receiving end. Only one mentioned an incident when she considered herself to have been ‘violently assaulted’ by a teacher in primary school.

Individuals or groups of students deemed as disruptive rather than violent also attracted many negative comments from staff. Their recollections included:

disruptive behaviour where students turn up with no pens, paper etc. and no intention of doing any work. They then distract other students and stop them working. being called to remove a disruptive pupil from a member of staff’s classroom. The whole class and teacher were at boiling point. students constantly turning up late then proceed to chatter and not settle down.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Megan Russell

258

sexual innuendoes, teacher/student personality clashes, challenging any form of authority, little teaching happening because of addressing the above issues.

A staff member who had previously taught in secondary schools reported taking a group of 15-year-old boys for badminton; ‘They were constantly leaving the gym and so my Head of Department suggested I lock the doors. They then climbed up the wall bars’.

Conversely, a large number of College teachers described turning student misbehaviour around as one of their triumphs. Comments included feeling pleased:

when difficult students actually begin to interact proactively after much effort. getting through to a student who had been constantly disruptive and getting this person to produce an excellent piece of work which gave her the confidence to apply to go to university. (Now in university and doing very well) breakthrough with individuals. Time dedicated to understanding where the problems come from. Worked out ways to get the best out of each other. I was able to take (an aggressive) student to one side and discuss his behaviour. I did this in a light-hearted way. As a result the student seemed to respond to me and become a lot more bearable to work with and help.

Success at changing the attitudes and behaviour of groups was also considered as a triumph. Staff mentioned ‘winning groups over after a long hard slog’, and ‘getting the class to work through issues which they objected to and they enjoyed it’.

College students were aware of peer group disruption, and commented on ‘other pupils disrupting the lesson’, but examples were few. One remembered ‘when people from my class made a teacher cry’, but according to the comments they were far more likely to be irritated by other students’ academic prowess than disturbed by poor behaviour. For example, students expressed irritation with:

students who think they know everything and are therefore high profile. when someone individual answers all the questions and always has something to say about everything. It becomes annoying as well as boring.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN IN THE CLASSROOM

259

here there is one or two ... students who have all the answers! A ‘fellow’ student ‘showing off’.

Conversely, students were positive about their peers who helped them learn, and talked of ‘feeling part of a effective working class’, or of a ‘group activity with a group you gel with, (have) discussions etc.’

All teachers are aware that students seek to test relational boundaries in the classroom, and this was clearly shown in an ethnography of initial encounters between new secondary pupils and their teachers. The authors used the word ‘sussed’ to describe the way pupils assessed teacher behaviour, dress, teaching techniques and perceived ability to maintain discipline, and used this information to determine their own behaviour (Beynon, 1985). Hadfield noted that student behaviour was a major cause of staff anxiety, and observed that ‘the atmosphere in the class and the chemistry of the group’ was of more concern to teachers than finding new ways to teach (Hadfield, 1992, p. 7). According to Galloway:

The effect children have on the behaviour of their teachers is often as great as, or greater than, the effect teachers have on the behaviour of their pupils. The main difference is that children tend to be more aware of their teacher’s influence than teachers are of their pupils’. (Galloway, 1976, p. 42)

McGuiness sees the majority of pupils as basically co-operative. However, the effect on teachers of a minority of difficult or aggressive pupils may be considerable: ‘pupil aggression saps energy and confidence, even amongst experienced teachers’ (McGuiness, 1993, p. 4), and ‘with difficult pupils, a teacher needs energy in the classroom’ (Newell & Jeffrey, 2002, p. 126). Referring to pupils with behavioural and emotional difficulties, Ayers says that ‘the way the teacher feels, or is made to feel, by this type of pupil behaviour is a significant part of the diagnostic picture’ (Ayers et al, 1996, p. 65). As a member of the College staff said, ‘(when) one severely dysfunctional student got control of (the) smartboard, (they) would not relinquish (the) “pen”, (and) had other students gathered around (them) and was performing for them. (I) briefly felt out of control’.

Student behaviour is therefore a major concern of teachers, and an important contributor to the learning environment. Student misbehaviour can indeed make or break a class or, at the very least, lead to considerable staff anxiety: conversely, ‘turning around’ such behaviour can be seen as a major triumph to the staff concerned.

Staff behaviour. Whilst students did not share the same degree of anxiety as College staff about student misbehaviour, the majority of students in the College believed that student misbehaviour could be directly caused by the teachers’ themselves.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Megan Russell

260

Being made to feel humiliated by teachers was an important theme amongst their most negative classroom experiences. Comments made by College students included:

being made to feel like a naughty teenager whilst on an adult course – humiliated in front of my peers. when I was first in college I was off in a little world of my own and the teacher asked me for an even number. I panicked and shouted ‘5!’. I have never been so embarrassed in my life. having a teacher make me feel dumb by asking me all the questions I told him I couldn’t answer, in front of a class. when a teacher asked a question and picked on a student for not knowing the answer. having to stand with my nose on the board during Maths at senior school – being humiliated by a teacher in front of everyone.

Conversely, positive experiences involved feeling encouraged by teachers. Specific instances mentioned included:

when my teacher read out a piece of my work to the whole class as he thought it was really good and gave me an ‘A’ for it. being respected by the teacher and being treated like an adult.

A class where:

teacher and pupil relations were very good. Everyone was treated equally. being praised!!!!.

The effect of staff behaviour on that of their students received support from authors who considered teacher behaviour to be a significant contributor to atmosphere and to learning. According to Watkins, ‘for 60 years studies have shown that the teacher’s style of running a group has a major effect on young people’s behaviour’ (Watkins, 1997, p. 16), whilst Muijs & Reynolds link student misdemeanour with ‘classroom factors such as boring, irrelevant lessons and curriculum, or overly lax or authoritarian rules’ (Muijs & Reynolds, 2001, p. 55). It is also accepted that teachers can communicate low expectations to pupils through a wide variety of behaviours, including the failure to praise and by anticipating failure (Brophy & Good, 1974, p. 330), whilst according to Barnes, who complains of the draining effect on others of teachers who only ever complain about their job, ‘if I had to put hand on heart and reiterate the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN IN THE CLASSROOM

261

one feature of classrooms that most improves teaching and learning, it is the way in which feedback is given and used’ (Barnes, 1999, p. 141). Deleterious effects of poor relationships are also attributed to institutions, rather than individual teachers. Although none of the College students commented on such issues, Elliott-Kemp & Rogers suggest that too often we do not see students as individuals, but lump them into categories:

In our country, our educational institutions probably are the most significant factor in reducing the self-esteem of our children. Pupils very often do not feel respected at school. Rather they are made to feel inferior and inadequate. (Elliott-Kemp & Rogers, 1982, p. 11)

McGuiness goes as far as describing the response of some schools to their students as ‘pathogenic’ (McGuiness, 1993, p. 7).

Staff behaviour, whether positive and encouraging or perceived as causing pain and humiliation, is of significance to students and affects the way they feel about the classes concerned. Personal issues. The behaviour of both staff and students has therefore been identified as an important contributor to classroom atmosphere. However, when asked about the causes of such behaviour, most staff and students felt that personal issues brought in from outside the College were an important contributory factor. Although few specific instances were given, the assumption is implicit in many of the comments already mentioned, and other comments, such as a ‘disrespectful, unmotivated, violent student’, and ‘general poor attitude and disruptive behaviour’. A small minority in both groups disagreed that the behaviour of their own group was the result of such issues, whilst having no such difficulty in identifying causal personal issues in the other group. One interesting personal issue that impinged on a College classroom was that of ‘a male student who dressed as a woman’: the teacher concerned felt that their role involved ‘managing the reaction of the students and ensuring the student felt equally welcome’!

There is support in the literature for the view that the affective domain in the classroom is at least partly informed by personal issues. As McGuiness (1993) observes schools do not work in a vacuum, and pupil behaviour can be affected by what he calls ‘social’ and ‘psychogenic’ issues. Muijs & Reynolds (2001) include ‘situations outside school such as students’ psychological development ... (as one of) the main elements that may predispose students to misbehaviour’ (Muijs & Reynolds, 2001, p. 55). According to Goleman (1996) children who lack control over their emotional life are at the highest risk of academic failure, whatever their potential: ‘The extent to which emotional upsets can interfere with mental life is no news to teachers. Students who are anxious, angry, or depressed don’t learn’ (Goleman, 1996, p. 79). Hadfield also feels that ‘all successful classes have one thing in common: the individuals in the class have a positive self-image and a strong sense of identity (as a group)’ (Hadfield, 1992, p. 72).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Megan Russell

262

Teachers are also seen as bringing personal issues into the classroom: ‘many teachers enter the classroom with intense unresolved personal problems of their own’ (Brophy and Good, 1974, p.339). Such issues may be exacerbated by students’ own personal issues, including a process called ‘projection’:

For example, a pupil who repeatedly makes a teacher feel de-skilled, hopeless, furious or confused etc. may be using the transference to ‘put into’ the teacher feelings which the pupil experiences in the learning situation which arouse anxiety and are alleviated by making the teacher feel them in his place ... [this] may set up in teachers interactions which are to do with the experiences of the teachers own past and these become enmeshed in the relationship with the pupil (counter-transference). (Ayers et al, 1996, p. 81)

Responsibility for the relational cocktail of the College classrooms described is discussed next.

The Role of the Teacher

In the College, staff and students saw staff as the people in charge of classrooms. What being ‘in charge’ involved in behavioural terms was a matter of debate, but the need for ‘respect’ and ‘authority’ were both mentioned.

Although there was a variety of opinion, the majority of staff and students felt students should respect teachers, and do as they were told, though curiously staff were more likely to disagree or strongly disagree with this concept. There was no clear age demarcation for a more authoritarian approach in staff responses: older staff did not necessarily hold more traditional views. Respect was also considered a two-way process: respect constituted one of the themes of students’ ‘ideal’ classroom and half of the comments indicated that it should be mutual.

College students also identified teachers’ role as maintaining relational boundaries through the exercise of authority. One student commented that ‘in school we had a teacher who let us do what we wanted. This was not a good idea. Most of the class ran wild and stopped the ones that wanted to learn from doing so’, whilst another described a ‘History teacher driven to a nervous breakdown because he had lost their respect/been stripped of his status as an authority figure. Nothing he said was taken seriously’. Whilst one College staff member noted that some ‘students simply did not obey basic fundamental rules of behaviour which ruined the teaching and learning process’, another described an ingenious way he had coped with indiscipline:

While I was collecting homework a student copied a friend’s homework in class [and] he asked me to wait while he finished. I had to establish some rules on homework and take effective action to control this sort of behaviour. I waited and collected his homework, walked to the front of the class and placed the majority of the homework on my desk. I then carried on to the back of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN IN THE CLASSROOM

263

classroom and placed both homeworks in the bin. I then asked for all homeworks to be done before class and by the individuals. After this I was able to continue the class and felt no further action was necessary.

Although teachers were seen as responsible for exercising authority, their attempts to do so were often seen as unfair by the students concerned. One directly attributed his misbehaviour to the teacher’s perceived inability to maintain authority: ‘at secondary school (I remember) telling an English teacher in phonetics to “piss off”, I was showing off and felt disgusted at myself, why did (I do) it? I don’t know, the teacher in part not controlling the class’. In a secondary science classroom one student described how ‘a certain group of people misbehaved and the teacher sent letters home to all the good students’ parents telling them how naughty they were because the teacher didn’t learn any names, he just guessed. I got badly told off by my parents until they found out the truth for themselves’, whilst another mentioned ‘being shouted at by (a) maths teacher at school (who) always picked on me. I never done anything’. Other teachers were seen as abrogating their role by imposing insufficient authority, for example, ‘the teacher only concentrated on the pupils who misbehaved in the class and didn’t help those who wanted to learn’. The fact that all these comments were remembered instances from secondary school, suggested that, whatever the facts of each incident, the perceived injustice was keenly felt.

In the FE College, although staff were seen as the people in charge, the majority of staff and students felt that acceptable class behaviour should be a matter of negotiation. A substantial minority of staff disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement, but none of the students asked did so. This may be a reflection of their status as adult learners, but a need for negotiation in other areas of education was also recognised in the literature. ‘Rules in classrooms aren’t operative just because the teacher says so. They have to be set up, agreed, used and periodically re-examined. This is not a once-and-for-all process’ (Watkins, 1997, p. 16). On the same theme, Watkins talks of the need for teachers to build up ‘shared meanings’ with their various classes, and the difficulties of not doing so:

When things are going well, the communication between teachers and pupils is complex and reflects shared meanings which have developed between them … But sometimes teachers haven’t built up this shared meaning with a class and their ways of conveying the inappropriacy of behaviour aren’t successful. (Watkins, 1997, p. 9)

Referring to work with student teachers and their pupils, Deas & Dahlbom felt that there was no doubt in the minds of both groups ‘that each side wanted friendly, non-authoritarian relationships with purposeful, interesting work done in a pleasant atmosphere’ (Deas & Dahlbom, 1989, p. 78).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Megan Russell

264

Whether obtained through negotiation or not, this need for a pleasant atmosphere received support from some of the College students. One talked negatively of ‘anything that creates an unpleasant atmosphere’, whilst others mentioned the advantages of ‘a class where everyone got on well’; a class where ‘the teacher was proficient, funny, and knew how to manage the class. Therefore, the teacher was liked and respected’; another class ‘where the teacher manages to act as a friend as well as a teacher and everyone seems to get along with each other’; and a ‘relaxed session where everyone got to have a say and wasn’t made to feel silly’.

The role of staff was therefore seen as providing an environment conducive to learning. To do this, they needed to respect and be respected by their students, and exercise authority to establish and maintain appropriate relational boundaries. The precise nature of these boundaries was a matter of debate: certainly, in the FE classroom, students expected to have a say in their disposition.

The role of staff was seen as facilitating learning, and student ‘success’ featured largely in the staff list of ‘triumphs’. However, no ‘high-flyers’ were mentioned: practically all the comments focused on turning around previously unsuccessful or difficult individuals and groups, including:

conveying the joys of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar to a small group of pupils in a special needs session. a male student who had worked in factories all his life, little or no success at school – his sheer delight at being told he had passed his qualification and his general joy in learning was wonderful. when students that insisted that they would not be able to pass because they felt they were not ‘clever enough’ doing really well. making a student with very bad learning difficulties understand a subject, therefore raising their self esteem. [when] a student says ‘oh, I see!’ [it] makes it worthwhile!! successfully getting students who were previously pretty disenfranchised with learning to succeed in gaining qualifications. when border line students succeed in their aims and do well in their exams I am happy. enabling students to achieve, overcoming their difficulties with the written word and encouraging their strong points. This resulted in increased confidence. D

ownl

oade

d by

[A

dam

s St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:51

15

Oct

ober

201

4

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN IN THE CLASSROOM

265

Teachers’ effects on students outside the classroom were also noted. One College staff member talked of:

setting up an entry level student on work experience (who could neither read nor write) at his chosen placement ATS tyres. When he finished he wished he could continue. I encouraged him to return weekly until they gave him an answer – yes or no. Eventually, they gave in (after 8 weeks!) and gave him a job. He thanked me for encouraging him to go back continually. He’s still there now.

These comments showed that teachers’ triumphs were as much relational as academic. Staff pleasure in student success has also been noted elsewhere: according to Leithwood teachers’ primary source of satisfaction is ‘observing students learning from their instruction and enjoying the process’ (Leithwood, 1999, p. 202).

The role of staff was therefore perceived as establishing and maintaining an atmosphere conducive to learning, through the establishment of appropriate relationships: staff acted as ‘relational gatekeepers’ in their classrooms.

The Opinion of Students

In the College students expressed very strong opinions on the learning environment. Their positive and negative classroom experiences, like teachers’ nightmares and triumphs, were largely affective. College students of all ages from 16 to 60 thought that learning was facilitated by laughter, praise, encouragement, a helpful and cooperative peer group, and by ‘good’ teaching. In turn, learning was harmed by being made to feel uncomfortable or humiliated, by disruptive peers and by ‘bad’ teaching.

When asked to describe their ‘ideal’ class, students identified three main themes. Arranged in order of importance (judged by the number of comments) these were:

• Atmosphere: Three main sets of comments were included in this category. – In the comments that specifically mentioned the word, a facilitative classroom atmosphere was seen as relaxed and friendly, open and co-operative and leavened by humour. – The influence of other students: cooperative and friendly peers were seen as most helpful. – The issue of respect: the need for mutual respect between staff and students was highlighted. • Pedagogy: students held strong views on lesson content and structure, and

had a definite preference for small classes. • Teachers: they identified the need for teachers to possess both professional

and relational skills, and preferred them to be enthusiastic about their subject.

‘Good’ lessons were considered to include a variety of activities and be well planned. One student criticised a course where ‘every lesson followed the same

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Megan Russell

266

format’, whilst another mentioned ‘good teaching – with interesting methods’. Several commented on the good use of time in successful lessons:

the time was used effectively and I came away from the lesson feeling that I’d really learnt and understood a particular topic. just able to get on with everyone and to actually attend a lesson knowing that you’ll achieve and gain knowledge – not time wasting.

‘Good’ teachers were praised. One student mentioned a ‘teacher who was very encouraging and made the lesson enjoyable’, and another a ‘Maths teacher who had a reputation as an ogre, and because of this had authority – he didn’t have to be an ogre though, because no one misbehaved, and he was able to give really interesting and funny lessons’. Enthusiastic teachers were preferred. Laughter was considered particularly important in making the subject accessible and facilitating learning. Students commented on a ‘relaxed atmosphere with plenty of laughter’; ‘having fun while learning’; ‘having a laugh and learning at the same time’, whilst one recollected ‘English lessons when my teacher used to tell jokes linked with work and helped us to remember things’.

It was very clear that College students had strong opinions on their learning and its facilitation, and that many of these views were formed before they entered FE. As an FE practitioner the strength of these views did surprise me, and altered my perspective of my own lessons. That there may be long-term implications of an informed and critical student body is suggested by Macbeath and Mortimore, who feel that as access to learning changes, so does the relationship between teacher and learner. In their opinion when pupils become as knowledgeable as their teachers (IT being an obvious example) the balance of power shifts, and with it the nature of the relationship. ‘In the future there will have to be a greater respect for the pupil voice’ (Macbeath & Mortimore, 2001, p. 196).

Skills Base and Training Implications

Given the importance placed on the affective domain in the classroom, and the role of staff in providing a good learning environment, it is not surprising that interpersonal skills were also seen as a necessary skill for College teachers. The vast majority of staff and students felt that good teachers used interpersonal skills to manage their classes effectively, although staff were more likely to strongly agree. However, whilst the majority of staff and students felt teachers should be trained in interpersonal skills, a minority of staff disagreed. Presumably, staff who did not concur either felt they already possessed the necessary skills, or did not see them as appropriate.

If classroom relationships are an essential contributor to a good learning environment, and teachers act as ‘relational gatekeepers’ in the classroom, then they obviously need the appropriate interpersonal skills. The need for relational competence amongst teachers has been noted elsewhere: ‘how a teacher handles

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN IN THE CLASSROOM

267

her class is in itself a model, a de facto lesson in emotional competence – or the lack thereof. Whenever a teacher responds to one student, twenty or thirty others learn a lesson’ (Goleman, 1996, p. 278). According to Elliott-Kemp & Rogers, teachers who facilitate learning have:

• a more positive self-concept; • are more self-disclosing to students; • respond more to student’s feelings; • give more praise; • are more responsive to student ideas and lecture less often (Elliott-Kemp &

Rogers, 1982, p. 8).

Hadfield takes a long-term view:

Forming a group is relatively easy: the initial stage of group life is usually harmonious as students get to know each other and begin to work together. Maintaining a cohesive group over a term or a year is far more difficult (and involves) establishing trust, maintaining a positive atmosphere, bridging cultural and personality gaps, maintaining contact between all members of the group, encouraging students to participate fully and to listen to each other, developing the ability to compromise and co-operate, encouraging empathy, giving the group a clear sense of direction and a sense of achievement, and developing a sense of cohesion and group solidarity. It should again be stressed that all these elements are interdependent: you cannot neglect one without doing damage to all the others, and the teacher, like a juggler, must try to keep all these concerns in motion as once. (Hadfield, 1992, p. 45)

Watkins sees relational competence as a joint enterprise:

Building classroom community is an important contribution to managing classroom behaviour, and to do this both teachers and pupils need to learn and demonstrate skills of listening, anger control, seeing others’ points of view, and solving problems collaboratively. (Watkins, 1997, p. 17)

A need for relational competence amongst educational practitioners is not confined to the classroom. According to Walton:

We are witnessing a profound transformation in the ways organisations attempt to utilise human resources ... (with) a trend towards flatter organisations with broader spans of control. Jobs and positions are more broadly defined ... team structures are used more ... there is more delegation of responsibilities ... The net effect is to put a higher premium on interpersonal skills, including communication and conflict management. (Crawford et al, 1997, p. 113)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Megan Russell

268

Many of the ‘500 tips for teachers’ proposed by Brown et al (1995) are relational, and includes advice on getting pupils to talk to you, helping pupils who don’t believe in themselves, how to break bad news and cope with emotional pupils. The authors preach values of empathy, sensitivity, self-awareness and even appropriate self-disclosure, that would not be out of place in a counselling handbook: ‘… don’t forget your own feelings. Monitor your own self-esteem, and the contributing factors and circumstances. We never stop learning how our own minds and emotions function’ (Brown et al, 1995, p. 95). However, the extent to which appropriate staff–student relationships should include counselling was a matter for disagreement amongst some staff and students in College. The vast majority of staff felt that students’ personal problems were their concern, whilst the majority of students disagreed. Despite this, a small majority of both staff and students felt that good teachers acted as counsellors to students, and a small majority of staff felt teachers should receive counselling training.

A lack of relational skills amongst teachers also attracts comment in the literature. According to Brophy, teachers ‘lack awareness of their own patterns of classroom behaviour’ (Brophy & Good, 1974, p. 338) due to the hectic pace of classroom life, and the fact that most teachers have not developed contingency conceptual categories for understanding their behaviour as it unfolds. Kutnick observes that ‘effective relationships between teachers and peers do not “happen”’ (Kutnick, 1988, p. 17), and although not talking specifically of interpersonal skills, Jarvis observes that not all teachers learn from experience: ‘it is only through doing something that a fully developed understanding of it can be acquired’ (Jarvis cited in Crawford et al, 1997, p. 35). The difficulty of acquiring interpersonal skills is also mentioned. Muijs and Reynolds note that to avoid the self-fulfilling effect of negative expectation, teachers need to be aware of their own biases. However, ‘changing unconscious beliefs is no easy task’ (Muijs & Reynolds, 2001, p. 65). As Goleman says, emotions have a mind of their own, quite separate from the rational mind (Goleman, 1996, p. 20).

In addition to specific relational training, staff would also need on-going support specifically geared to affective considerations. Given that teachers are frequently uncertain about the merits of their work due to the relative isolation of that work from the scrutiny of other adults, perhaps the most powerful way to make sure teachers have adequate personal support is to build an institutional culture that includes norms of mutual support among teachers, including honest, candid feedback among colleagues (Leithwood, 1999, p. 202). Unfortunately, current educational culture makes it difficult for staff to admit to difficulties (Crawford et al, 1997). Not all staff would be open to such training for a variety of personal and professional reasons, though as has been observed in the literature ‘if teachers, for whatever reason, believe they have nothing more to learn, education is in grave difficulties’ (Macbeath & Mortimore, 2001, p. 192). D

ownl

oade

d by

[A

dam

s St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:51

15

Oct

ober

201

4

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN IN THE CLASSROOM

269

Summary

There is evidence for a link between the affective domain and a facilitative learning environment in both the literature and this research, and considerable congruity of opinion amongst the FE staff and students questioned. Staff and students did not always share the same focus: staff, for example, saw student misbehaviour as a major contributor to a poor learning environment, whilst students were more concerned with the teaching they received. Students in the College expressed strong and considered views on many aspects of good classroom practice. Whilst student behaviour was seen as an integral component of the classroom atmosphere, and the effect of external factors on both staff and student behaviour was acknowledged, teachers were regarded as the people in charge: their role was that of relational gatekeepers in the classroom, maintaining an appropriate balance between all the contributing affective factors in order to provide an environment that facilitated learning. As such the benefit to teachers of strong interpersonal skills is clear, though some teachers may need to be convinced of the need for specific training.

Correspondence

Megan Russell, 11 Stancombe Park, Westlea, Swindon SN5 7AP, United Kingdom (russellclanz@yahoo.co.uk).

References

Ayers, H., Clarke, D. & Murray, A. (1996) Perspectives on Behaviour: a practical guide to effective intervention for teachers. London: David Fulton.

Barnes, R. (1999) Positive Teaching, Positive Learning. London: Routledge.

Bassey, M. (1990) On the Nature of Research in Education, Parts I, II and III, Research Intelligence, 35-37.

Beynon, J. (1985) Initial Encounters in the Secondary School. London: Falmer Press.

Brophy, J. & Good, T. (1974). Teacher-student Relationships: causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Brown, S., Earlam, C. & Race P. (1995) 500 Tips for Teachers. London: Kogan Page.

Crawford, M., Kydd, L. & Riches, C. (Eds) (1997) Leadership and Teams in Educational Management. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Deas, R. & Dahlbom, M. (1989) Rules and Relationships in Teaching Practice. University of Sheffield Division of Education, Publication 12.

Elliott-Kemp, J. & Rogers, C. (1982) The Effective Teacher: a person-centred development guide. Sheffield: PAVIC.

Galloway, D. (1976) Case Studies in Classroom Management. London: Longman.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: strategies for qualitative research. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Glaser, B.G. (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Megan Russell

270

Goleman, D. (1996) Emotional Intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. London: Bloomsbury.

Hadfield, J. (1992) Classroom Dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kutnick, P. (1988) Relationships in the Primary School Classroom. London: Paul Chapman.

Law, S. & Glover, D. (2000) Educational Leadership and Learning: practice, policy and research. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Leithwood, K. (1999) Changing Leadership for Changing Times. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Macbeath, J. & Mortimore, P. (Eds) (2001) Improving School Effectiveness. Buckingham: Open University Press.

McGuiness, J. (1993) Teachers, Pupils and Behaviour: a managerial approach. London: Cassell.

Muijs, D. & Reynolds, D. (2001) Effective Teaching: evidence and practice. London: Paul Chapman.

Newell, S. & Jeffrey, D. (2002) Behaviour Management in the Classroom: a transactional analysis approach. London: David Fulton.

Robertson, J. (1997) Effective Classroom Control: understanding teacher–pupil relationships. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: grounded theory, procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.

Watkins, C. (1997) Managing Classroom Behaviour: a bit like air traffic control. London: Association of Teachers and Lecturers.

Wubbels, T. & Levy, J. (Eds) (1993) You Know What You Look Like? Interpersonal Relationships in Education. London: Fulmar Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ada

ms

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

51 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014