DEALING WITH DIFFICULTIES IN THE CLASSROOM

 

By James McNinch, Director, Teaching Development Centre, University of Regina

(This article first appeared in the April 1999 Newsletter of The Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.)

 

Introduction

 

Why is it that the end of the semester can be so difficult for both professors and students alike?  Where does the stress come from and why does it sometimes lead to disengagement or even conflict in the classroom in the grind or the race to the last day of class?  One instructor complained to me that only 2 students in an English class of 35 had read the short story she had assigned for discussion.  Another said that the last few weeks of the semester test the mettle of even the best instructor.  For him, this time is a test of his effectiveness as a teacher.  Is he able to convince students to continue to work with him on the agenda agreed on at the beginning of term?  Others, unfortunately, whether students or instructors, do not always see the end of term as such a challenge.  The semester ends not with a bang but a whimper – cancelled classes, late papers, pleas for extensions, uninspired lectures, and uninspired and uninspiring work handed in.  

 

There is no question that procrastination, poor study habits and skills, financial pressures, part-time (even full-time!) jobs, and for many, home and family responsibilities can make it appear as if students are simply going through the motions of being members of your class.  Similarly, writing final exams, marking term papers, submitting abstracts to journals or proposals to conferences, and applying for grants, (not to mention your own harried personal life), can distance the most dedicated prof. from engagement in the classroom.  The metaphor of the university as a factory stems in part from this kind of alienation. 

 

Putting Problems into Perspective

 

At the annual winter meeting of the Instructional Development Officers in Ottawa this past February, I was asked to facilitate an interactive session entitled “Strategies for Dealing with Difficult Students”.   I started with McKeachie’s (1994) list of different kinds of problem students: angry, aggressive students; attention seekers and those who dominate discussions; silent, inattentive or unprepared students; the flatterer, disciple and con man/woman; discouraged and defeated students; students with a million excuses; students who want the “truth” or even the “right answer”.

 

I also shared with the group a number of critical incidents with difficult students which had occurred here at the University of Regina and for which instructors had sought advice.  Call it pedagogical snobbery if you will, but I once shared the (common) belief that difficulties with students arose simply from poor or inadequate teaching practice.  I now appreciate that even the most effective teacher can have problem students. 

 

What is exciting, however, is that the issue of difficult students, like the issue of instructional technology, soon becomes a discussion about effective teaching and learning.  Whether we regard a problem student as a behavioural or disciplinary issue, or as an issue of motivating students and employing effective pedagogy, usually will depend on specific circumstances, specific instructors and specific students.   Even to use McKeachie’s list to identify different kinds of students is to acknowledge the diversity of learners in our classrooms.

The larger question is ‘how can our teaching discourage inappropriate attitudes and behaviour and encourage maturity, accountability and self-directedness in our students?’  If we ask why one student or a group of students is behaving in a particular way, we may come to see that the responsibility for the problem and the solution is one that can be shared between the teacher and the learner. 

 

Why do things go wrong?

 

There are as many reasons for difficulties as there are students in a class perhaps, but we instructors do have some control over many of the variables.  From my observation of large lectures, including those with multi-media presentations, many students are bored and unmotivated by what Philip Johnson (1999) calls the “I-Know–You-Don’t- I’m-Going-To-Tell–You” school of teaching.  The literature on this subject suggests that undergraduates, particularly younger students, see it as part of our job to motivate them.  See, for example, Chickering & Reisser (1993), MacKeracher (1996), and Perry (1970).  To an undergraduate it is not the content that is intrinsically interesting (as it often is to us); rather it is our own passion for the subject, our own sense of eros (passionate desire for what is true and good) that students find engaging.   Justifiably, professors balk at the idea of having to “entertain” students.  But I am convinced that in order to teach, we need the tacit but willing assent to do so from the learners; to get that we need to intellectually and emotionally entice or seduce our students to join us in this activity called teaching and learning. 

 

In any number of large lecture halls I have observed students attending to their learning in a self-directed way, often by ignoring the professor down at the front.  Yes, some snooze, eat lunch, or visit with friends. My favourite image, however, is of the five students who were collaborating on completing a set of problems for a lab assignment.  They agreed that one student would monitor the lecture for anything “important”; one student would handle the calculator, one would draw the graphs, and the other two would write out the solutions to the problems. Such inattentiveness to the lecture is not merely rude or irritating behaviour (although it is understandable that the prof.  would interpret it that way); it is an explicit response to the structure of the learning environment – the lecture theatre itself.  As learners these students were organized and efficiently engaged in problem-solving; indeed the fellow who was supposed to take lecture notes kept being drawn into the problem-solving because it was more active and engaging.  The lecturer could surely learn something from these students about structuring the activities in his lecture theatre.  

 

Prevention

 

The brain-storming session in Ottawa produced a number of thoughtful and helpful suggestions.  The most important point is the old saw about “an ounce of prevention”.  To achieve this you should:

 

Ø      pay attention to unintended messages conveyed during orientation

Ø      articulate ground rules for classroom discussion and behaviour

Ø      initiate students into civil discourse by modelling this with other profs.

Ø      outline how intellectual debate attacks ideas not individuals

Ø      show students the difference between passion and belligerence

Ø      make it clear your concerns are for all students, not just a few

Ø      write a contract between you and the students to codify expectations

Ø      establish ground rules, or “netiquette”, when students use technology.

 

Classroom climate and teaching behaviours

 

Sharing ideas in small groups, the participants generated the following suggestions about how instructors can be responsive and effective and avoid difficulties:

 

Ø      celebrate diversity and respect for others

Ø      have students engage in self and peer-monitoring

Ø      encourage interactivity and personal contact

Ø      eliminate anonymity by learning names of students

Ø      be explicit and proactive about expectations

Ø      avoid the use of sarcasm or cynicism,

Ø      do not appear to be bored, tired, jaded or world-weary

Ø      set standards high and show students how to meet them

Ø      be fair and consistent in your evaluation methods

Ø      demystify the grading process by providing criteria and benchmarks

Ø      ask for feedback from the class as a whole and make adjustments

Ø      give formative feedback on a regular basis

Ø      share controversy and passion for the subject matter

Ø      “cover less; uncover more”.

 

When things go wrong

Start with prevention then and continue to monitor classroom climate and your own attitude and behaviours.  But what do you do when things do go wrong and the classroom climate turns chilly, sour, or downright ugly?  For the sake of the students and your own sense of integrity, avoid public displays of peevishness, irritation, anger or rage. Your students need to see you as someone with solid communication and negotiation skills with the large group and with individuals. 

 

Remember the unwritten “2 challenge rule”: if an issue has not been resolved after two queries, then the issue is probably best resolved at a later time outside the classroom.  A comment like “I would like to discuss this with you (and perhaps others who feel the same way) immediately after class” will go a long way to prevent a disagreement with one individual degenerating into a “me versus them” power struggle with the whole class.  You may then be able to redirect the discussion for the rest of the period and re-establish the norms of discourse.  This immediately puts the controversy or disagreement into a broader perspective. 

 

Conclusion

 

Stephen Brookfield has written reflectively on this subject in Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher (1995) and offers a suitable conclusion.  Marton (1988) talks about the “phenomenography of learning” and Brookfield connects it to teaching. 

 

“Teaching democratically is not to be confused with creating a laissez-faire atmosphere of intellectual relativism, where anything goes.  Neither does it mean an abdication of a teacher’s responsibility to judge the merits of what students do.  What it does mean is that we make an effort to create conditions under which all voices can speak and be heard (including our own), and in which educational processes are seen to be open to genuine negotiation (pp.44-45).