Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
According to statistical results, in a typical college classroom of approximately 30 students, there are 5 or 6 of them to avoid or otherwise resist doing something that the teacher wants them to do (Burroughs, 1990). At first glance, a resistance rate of only 16%-20% may not seem particularly alarming; it may not even appear particularly troublesome. And yet, we all know that it only takes one or two students to ruin an entire class for all involved. Rather than remain helpless to such resistance attempts, rather than “wait them out” and hope for a better group of students next time, teachers chose instead to try to understand how and why students resist to take a more preventative or proactive stance. The literature identifies two methods of resistance: passive and active. Findings (Alpert, 1991) suggest that college students would rather avoid open and aggressive confrontations with their teachers. Active, more public resistance, on the other hand, may force the teacher to engage in abrupt and definitive desist attempts. Second, passive strategies conform to student role expectancies. Passive techniques are less likely to disrupt the entire class, result in contagion effects, and engage the teacher/student in some sort of “power” struggle.
Psychological problems and lack of communication
The major layer of literature underlines that student resistance in the classroom is caused by psychological problems and lack of communication (Miles 2007; Sekayi, 2001). Resistance is endemic to the college classroom. Sekayi (2001) claims that observations of classroom resistance or student misbehavior may obscure the actual number and kinds of oppositional behaviors that normally transpire in the typical college classroom. That is, students may perform as “good subjects” (or good students) under the scrutiny of an outsider. Similarly, teachers themselves may underestimate the actual number and kinds of resistance responses by selectively recalling only their “best” or “ideal” class, or perhaps, these same teachers are oblivious or insensitive to the resistance that does occur in their classrooms.
Following Miles (2007) students themselves, not the teacher, own the problem or reasons for their resistance. Students who select specific strategies are likely to resist by saying, “I forgot,” “I have kids (or other responsibilities). These statements and others suggest that students justify their resistance by holding themselves primarily responsible for their behavior. Students assign blame to themselves. A student may resist if they have a conflict with a teacher or school (college) administration. In reverse, students are likely to perceive their nonimmediate teacher as behaving inappropriately or inconsistently with their expectations of what professors should or should not do. As a result, they feel justified in their resistance to nonimmediate teacher demands and select strategies that place the blame directly on the teacher.
Teacher influence attempts
Another layer of literature states that college students can and will resist teacher influence attempts (Paulsel and Chory-Assad, 2004). These factors lead to silence, anger, avoidance, guilt related to content or subject matter. By the time these students become adult learners, they have learned and practiced a variety of sophisticated resistance techniques. To some extent, teachers themselves can control whether students decide to comply or resist. Moreover, teachers themselves can control how students choose to resist. In this way, teachers can assume a preventative, proactive stance to student control. College students perceive their teachers as responsible for some of their resistance. The results of the research reveal that teachers themselves “misbehave” (Kearney, Plax & Burroughs 1991). College students identified a number of their teachers as incompetent, offensive, and/or indolent. Students reported that some teachers lacked basic teaching skills; others humiliated students and tried to intimidate them; still, others showed up late for class, returned graded papers and exams late, and “underwhelmed” students by making their classes too easy. Following Sekayi (2001) “much of this resistant behavior manifests itself through student-teacher relationships. I observed a variety of behavior from blatant disrespect to indifference. These relationships seemed to depend largely upon the day, the activity and/or the moods of students and/or teachers” (p. 414). In some cases, student resistance is caused by students’ problems and include those in which the students’ needs or includes are interrupted by other students or events (e.g., the student cannot concentrate because others around her or him are talking) (Kearney et al 1988). Silence, anger, and avoidance can be caused by poor emotional climate in the classroom and lack of motivation, lack of communication, and discrimination. And, shared problems are those in which the teacher and student interfere with each other’s needs (e.g., the teacher continues to call on a student who is so apprehensive about communicating that she or he cannot respond, even though she or he knows the correct answer). Students may want to see the teachers become more self-aware of their basic inadequacies as instructors. Some students prefer to confront the teacher directly (active) in their efforts to change the instructor (Paulsel and Chory-Assad 2004).
Conclusion
The results of that investigation suggest that students may have legitimate cause for assigning blame to teachers for some of their resistance. Importantly, teachers should consider carefully the validity of students’ resistance, particularly when the strategies employed define the teacher as the problem source.
References
Alpert, B. (1991). Students’ Resistance in the Classroom. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 22 (4), 350-366.
Burroughs N. F. (1990). The relationship of teacher Immediacy and student compliance/resistance with learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown.
Kearney P., Plax T. G., Smith V. R., & Sorensen G. (1988). Effects of teacher immediacy and strategy type on college student resistance to on-task demands. Communication Education 37 (2), 54-67.
Kearney P., Plax T. G., & Burroughs N. F. (1991). “An attributional analysis of college students’ resistance decisions”. Communication Education 40 (4), 325-342.
Miles, R.D. (2007). Student Resistance in the Classroom. YouthLight, Inc..
Paulsel, M. L., Chory-Assad, R.M. (2004). The Relationships among Instructors’ Antisocial Behavior Alteration Techniques and Student Resistance. Communication Reports 17 (2), 103.
Sekayi, D.N.R. (2001). Intellectual Indignation: Getting at the Roots of Student Resistance in an Alternative High School Program. Education 122 (2), 414-415.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.