Abstract
This study investigates the patterns of student–teacher interaction in five elementary public schools in Lebanon along four dimensions of classroom environment: teachers’ expectations, teachers’ feedback, use of the students’ ideas, and students’ attitude toward school using Grounded Theorizing and Symbolic Interactionist approaches. Thirty-three teachers were interviewed about their expectations and feedback to students, and their use of the students’ ideas in class. They were also observed in classes during instruction and feedback delivery; 196 students filled questionnaires about the way they perceive their teachers’ expectations, feedback, and use of their ideas in class, and about their attitude toward their schools. Results indicated interpatterns of interaction common to all of the public schools chosen in this study. They revealed positive students’ attitude toward their schools, and a positive perception of their teachers’ expectations and feedback. In addition, results not only pointed to negative teacher expectations accorded to students but also revealed mismatched accounts of positive types of feedback delivery, this feedback regarded negative from the observer’s perspective. Classroom observations revealed a big discrepancy between what has been reported by the teachers and the students and what has been practiced; it also revealed more points of convergence between the teachers’ accounts and the students’ accounts than between both perspectives and the observer’s. Recommendations for improving the classroom environment in the elementary public schools in Lebanon are made.
Keywords
Introduction
Public schools constituted 45.9% of the total school population in Lebanon in the academic year 2010-2011, accommodating, however, 29.5% of the total student population in Lebanon. In spite of the various reform and development plans that were undergone to improve the educational sector in Lebanon, many challenges continue to haunt the public school sector more than the private sector. Such challenges include the use of unupdated curricula, the shortage of qualified teachers, the lopsided distribution of schools and teachers across these schools, the relatively high dropout rates, and the shortage of inspectors (Lebanese Association of Educational Studies (LAES), 2006) which have implications on students’ learning particularly during the gestation period of their development, that is, the elementary level. Another major factor is political interference that obstructs the work of the Ministry of Education and impairs envisaging a coherent comprehensive evenly applied development project. Because these shortcomings are suspected to influence the way participants in the schools communicate and interact, and because the literature points to “weak student-teacher relationships” in the public schools (LAES, 2006), this study gained rationale. In addition, the limited knowledge about public school environment forms the gap that this study sought to fill. This study, thus, looks into previously unexplored areas of investigation in primary public schools involving students and those who teach them.
Public Schools in Lebanon: An Overview
Public schools in Lebanon are known to be the schools for the poor. Due to financial constraints, parents find in them the refuge where their kids can benefit from a “better than nothing” type of formal education. Others simply enroll their kids in a public school “to keep them off the streets.” For others, it is the only option available in the area, especially if they live in remote rural areas.
The number of public schools in the academic year 2010-2011 reached 1,281 schools to constitute 45.9% of the total school population in Lebanon, leaving a share of 1,509 schools to the private sector (Center for Educational Research and Development [CERD], 2010-2011). Student enrollment in the public schools declined in 2010-2011 by 18.7% to constitute 29.5% of the total student population. In other terms, 45.9% of the schools in Lebanon accommodate only 29.5% of the student population. Principals of these schools are convinced that the state “has turned its back” on them and that they “have become the leftovers of society” (Zablit, 2011).
The percentage of public school students who are over-aged for their classes is 4% in the pre-elementary cycle, 39.2% in the elementary cycle, 57.9% in the intermediate cycle, and 42.6% in the secondary cycle (CERD, 2010-2011).
Teachers in public schools are either tenured or contractors; the percentage of tenured teachers is 73.6% in 2010-2011. Nowadays, with the closure of the teacher preparation institutes, their only role has become one of securing free continuous training workshops, expecting every teacher to attend two to three workshops per year. However, teachers appointed on contractual basis do not really benefit from these workshops as most of them, because of lack of specialization, do not possess the necessary requisite content knowledge to be taught. In addition, Dirani (cited in LAES, 2002) pointed out that these teacher-training programs do not equip the student teachers with the necessary knowledge in educational psychology, child development, or dealing with students with special needs.
In the academic year 2010-2011, only 52.7% of public school teachers were university degree holders, and 47.3% were holders of Bacc II certificate or below (more than one third of all those on tenure). According to the Ministry of Education, the average age of tenured public school teachers (73.6%) is 58 (Lynch, 2010). In the academic year 2010-2011, the Statistical Bulletin published by CERD showed that the teachers’ age group of 51 years and above was the most numerically distributed in public schools (38.06%). In an interview with the General Director in the Ministry of Education, Fadi Yarak, broadcasted on Tele Liban (October 15, 2008), pointed out that these teachers are very often concentrated in “some schools,” cashing salaries and not actually working, while other schools are in bad need for teachers. In this respect, BouZeineddine (cited in LAES, 2002) hypothesizes that “improving teachers’ professional performance necessarily leads to a qualitative improvement . . . and benefits the students, teachers, administrators, the schools and their environment” (p. 342).
However, some surprising, often ironic occurrences do exist: while the student–teacher ratio decreases to two teachers per student in some areas, it increases to reach 45 students per teacher in other, highly populated areas. In addition, it is postulated that there are 44 elementary public schools having just two to 25 students, but are protected by politicians and are, therefore, resistant to closure, while others serve hundreds of students but suffer from neglect mainly because there is no political decision to improve them. These schools, like all other public schools across Lebanon, have to cope with the bare minimum with basics such as heating, school desks, proper playgrounds, toilets, teachers’ lounges, lab equipment, computers, or extracurricular activities. This is coupled with unqualified, sometimes, over-aged teachers and with the absence of counseling services. Such services are highly needed in public schools because of the students’ social, psychological, and academic problems, especially that most of them come from broken families or from orphanages.
All the drawbacks presented in this profile about public schools posed urgent concerns about the nature of classroom environment that is prevailing in these schools, mainly the nature of student–teacher interaction that is taking place, and the quality of life that everybody is experiencing. Hence, a major question arose:
Prepilot and Pilot Studies
The prepilot study involved informal chats with 10 public school teachers, and an interview with a member of the board of specialists at the CERD in the Lebanese Ministry of Education; the pilot study involved spending 2 days in each of five randomly selected elementary public schools where the researcher met the supervisors, organized focus groups with the students, and joined discussions with teachers in the teachers’ lounges.
Results pointed to some frequently encountered problems related to classroom environment leading to excessive drain of the teachers’ emotional strength. A common problem was the presence of “emotionally distant” students. “Some are strangely quiet, shy and withdrawn, just breathing air, while others are unbelievably disruptive.” This is in addition to the frequent use of foul language among teachers, students, supervisors, and administrators, and to the lack of effective administrative support and professional counselors. Meanwhile, the teachers and supervisors admitted that they often find themselves helpless and depressed having to face these situations every day. Some would refer to beating and punishment, “but it doesn’t work all the time,” while others simply ignore the disruptions and sign out. The students’ socioeconomic background and parents were considered to be main causes of such problems, in addition to psychological and emotional defects rooted in the students’ biological makeup. On the contrary, the students complained about the “careless teachers” who do not explain well; “They see us copy from textbooks during exams and ignore it,” some exclaimed; “They keep shouting instead of listening to our concerns,” others added. Consequently, the students mainly praised the teachers who would stop instruction to talk to them and listen to their family and personal problems.
Using Grounded Theorizing principles, data derived from the prepilot study and the pilot study have helped the researchers select the variables, and formulate the objectives and the research questions of the study giving it focus and direction.
Objectives
The objective of this study was to investigate student–teacher interaction in five elementary public school classrooms, namely Grade 6 classrooms, from a symbolic interactionist perspective along three dimensions:
Teachers’ expectations for students;
Teachers’ feedback to students; and
Teachers’ use of students’ ideas.
This study also investigated whether the classroom environment as perceived by Grade 6 elementary public school students had any relationship with their attitude toward their schools.
Research Questions
The research questions of the study are as follows:
Meanwhile, using the principles of Grounded Theorizing has allowed two new research questions to emerge because of their decisive implications and impact on the nature of student–teacher interaction; these are as follows:
The multidisciplinary conceptual framework that overarched the study encompassed a combination of theories and models: symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969; Mead, 1934), grounded theorizing (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998), the multiple case study research design (Yin, 2003), social learning theory (Bandura, 1986), socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky, 1986), and the teacher-expectancy effect: the four factor theory (Rosenthal, 1976). These theories aim at understanding human behavior by accessing the meanings that they assign to them through interaction, in other words, from the perspective of the actors involved.
Literature Review
This section discusses and analyzes the dimensions of classroom environment (“environment” and “climate” are used interchangeably in educational research) investigated in this study, namely, the
Definition of School Environment
A clear-cut distinction between school environment and classroom environment seemed hard to establish in the literature review as it is deemed that classroom-level predictors constitute the predictors of the larger school climate and vice versa. Therefore, classroom-level characteristics and school-level characteristics are interrelated because the school environment is a product of social interactions among students and with teachers. This interaction is influenced by the prevailing educational and social values, and is consequently related to situations within the classrooms and to the school as a whole.
Being one of the most recognized and comprehensive school climate measures today, the Comprehensive School Climate Inventory (CSCI) defines school environment in terms of four aspects: “safety, teaching and learning, interpersonal relationships and institutional environment dimensions” (Cohen, Pickeral, & McClosey, 2009, p. 46).
The indicators chosen in this study specific to these dimensions revolve around the key concepts in the research questions: namely,
Teachers’ expectations
Teachers perceive their students differently based on some social, economic, physical, or academic factors, and consequently, they form differentiated assumptions about their potentials based on these perceptions. This process has a noticeable effect on the students’ achievement, their self-image, and the way teachers behave toward students, evaluate them, and make decisions about them.
Based on Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) book, “the Pygmalion Effect,” a myriad of studies has tested and supported the hypothesis that students tend to internalize the expectations of their teachers. It is considered as a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy when they internalize the beliefs teachers have about their ability (Gonder, 1991). Students tend to form differential self-expectations based on the way they are regarded and treated by their teachers. The teacher-expectancy effect, one of the models overarching the multidisciplinary conceptual framework in this study, explains the students’ belief in their own capabilities as a phenomenon of “success breeding success” (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). Similarly, Tyler and Boelter (2008) suggest that a teacher’s expectations for a pupil may in part determine the pupil’s subsequent behavior and the teacher’s own behavior as well.
If a teacher has high expectations for students, then he or she is likely to secure a more effective climate and thus facilitate academic success. On the contrary, when teachers with low student expectations believe a student may have difficulty on academic tasks, they will be disinclined to offer more challenging work to him or her. Therefore, the teachers’ expectations may be translated through their differential behaviors in class when dealing with the students. Their feedback to students, which is the second indicator of classroom environment to be discussed in this section, is, therefore, affected (Bandura, 1997; Cohen et al., 2009; Good & Brophy, 2000; Jussim & Harber, 2005; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Tauber, 2009).
At some instances, however, students might develop self-concepts based on incorrect perceptions of how teachers see them, an idea coined by Symbolic Interactionism. It is not unusual for individuals to overestimate or underestimate their abilities and suffer the consequences of such errors of judgment. A student, for example, might develop unfounded negative feelings toward his school because he is convinced that he has the reputation of being a low achiever and no matter how hard he works, it will not change what he and others perceive. This phenomenon leads to what researchers call the “intersubjective reality.” Bruner (1996) refers to this “intersubjectivity” as “how humans come to understand each other’s minds” (p. 12). The teachers interviewed and observed in this study tend to form general negative expectations about all their students’ minds, and students come to understand, or sometimes think they understand, what is in their teachers’ minds about their abilities and act accordingly. Reality is, thus, formed for both. Students’ performance, and indeed their future choices, may be determined through the interpretations created. That supports Bandura’s contention in his social learning theory that people engage in self-regulatory and self-reflective processes during their everyday interactions, for example, how a person interprets the results of his actions, pushes him to develop beliefs about his capabilities, and influences the choices he makes and the way he later behaves.
In this study, the indices of teachers’ expectations could be high, average, or low. Having high expectations of students meant that the teachers believed they could do better with more effort and more support. Having average expectations of students meant that teachers expected them to show some improvements some times without being able to go beyond a certain level. When teachers had low expectations of their students, they thought that their students would not improve no matter how hard they worked with them or how hard they tried. They tended to think, “This is how they are, this is how they have always been and this is how they will stay.”
Surely many other factors come into play when expectations and attitudes are formed. Discussing these factors is beyond the scope and objective of this study. Such factors might include the students’ and teachers’ personality and character, gender, and age; the students’ academic competence; socioeconomic attributes; physical attractiveness; previous reputation or peer influence; or the teachers’ qualifications and professional experience. The way teachers’ expectations are translated through their differential behavior in class (i.e., their feedback) will be discussed in the following section; the teachers’ feedback to students is the second indicator chosen in the current study to reflect classroom environment.
Teachers’ feedback to students
Feedback is defined as “information provided by an agent regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 81). A teacher can provide feedback to a student; consequently, the student can reconsider his or her work to check his or her answer. “Feedback thus is a consequence of performance” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). One way through which teachers’ expectations are communicated is feedback to error and success. If we think about our childhood and recall the voices and the looks that our teachers used to give us, we would immediately remember the kinds of words they used, the tone of their voices, the way they looked at us, and the way they reacted to our errors, successes, and jokes. We would also remember how we felt at that time around those teachers: safe, motivated to learn, threatened, insecure, or angry. Students experience many types of feedback in class with different teachers.
On the positive effect of feedback, Viadero (2009) points out to studies showing that less-advantaged students do as well as better-off peers in classrooms where teachers exhibit the following practices: sensitivity, positive emotional support, helpful feedback, and organization. In a study conducted by Reschly, Huebner, Appleton, and Antarmian (2008), it was realized that higher levels of student engagement and better coping behaviors were witnessed when students were exposed to frequent positive emotions during school, like frequent praise, experiences of success, and positive feedback.
In addition, the teachers’ increased use of positive behaviors in class like praise, positive statements, and positive nonverbal behavior was an especially helpful tool in increasing students’ performance and teachers’ classroom management. It has also lead to decreased disruptions during instruction for students with an emotional and behavioral disability (Rathel, Drasgow, & Christle, 2008). Consequently, “to have an effective social and emotional classroom environment, students need opportunities to see skills modeled and to receive feedback and reinforcement” (Johnson, Poliner, & Bonaiuto, 2005, p. 60).
The indices of feedback used in this study in the context of Lebanese elementary public schools were whether feedback is positive or negative, and verbal or nonverbal, given for academic achievement or for social behavior. The factor to which verbal and nonverbal behaviors are most relevant is the “climate” factor in Rosenthal’s theory, and the factor to which positive and negative behaviors and occasion of behaviors is most relevant is the “feedback” factor.
Studies suggest (Viadero, 2009) that teachers who regard their students highly tend to give them expressions of encouragement more frequently, smile more to them, come closer to them, lean forward toward them more, nod their heads up and down more, and look them in the eye more. Other recent literature supports Rosenthal’s claims that teachers carrying lowered perceptions of their students tend to give them less wait-time to answer a question, give them answers to questions rather than provide clues or rephrased questions, praise or give them reinforcement not related to the academic task at hand, and criticize them for failure more often and more harshly (Jussim & Harber, 2005; Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007).
We would add that when students feel that they are treated equally and are offered positive feedback and genuine encouragement, and that their contributions to classroom discussions are equally valued, their perception of the school environment will improve and their attachment to school will increase. While the opposite is equally true, this view is enhanced in Bandura’s
Teachers’ use of students’ ideas
One type of feedback which emerged to be of major significance in public school classrooms during the pilot studies was the extent to which the teachers used their students’ ideas in class. Allen (2008) discusses the key aspects for creating a warm classroom environment. These aspects include student–teacher interaction, teachers’ praise and enthusiasm, and the use of students’ own ideas.
When the students see that the teacher listens carefully to their comments and builds on them, they feel that their ideas are worthwhile and add value to classroom discussions. Conversely, when their contributions are constantly ignored, or ridiculed, they give up any further contribution because of the embarrassment they experience in front of other classmates and teachers. They would compare their performance to the performance of other high achievers and would form the conviction that they are less capable. Knowing that the literature emphasizes the importance of the psycho-social school environment, and by realizing that school interactions impact the way students learn and achieve their goals, it becomes evident, therefore, that negative teacher–student relationships can operate as risk factors for students’ success, whereas positive or warm relationships provide a protective function.
In this study, the indices chosen to reflect the teachers’ use of their students’ ideas were the extent to which they clarified the students’ contributions in class, that is, explained or paraphrased them; developed the students’ ideas, that is, added more details to them and built on them; and referred to the students’ contribution during instruction, that is, reminded the students of what their classmate had previously said or done, as the teacher talked in class.
Meanwhile, it was revealed during the data collection and analyses phases that
Students’ attitude toward school
While the literature review points to the impact of school relationships and environment on the students’ academic achievement and attribution tendencies and motivation to learn, little research was found to highlight the impact of the school environment on the students’ attitudes and attachment to school. Some researchers explain academic achievement as consisting of three factors: behavioral, cognitive, and emotional/affective engagement (Tyler & Boelter, 2008). Therefore, it may be concluded that the classroom environment impacts the affective or emotional engagement of the students, including their attitude toward the school. In this respect, a mixed-method longitudinal research, conducted by Booth and Shehan (2008), found that 11- to 12-year-old students are mostly happy at school when they are satisfied with their relationships with their peers and teachers. Hallinan (2008) also found that students are more likely to like school when they perceive their teacher as caring, respectful, and motivating. Teachers, therefore, may exert a powerful influence on whether students like school or not.
In another vein, Stipek (2006) found that the single quality most frequently associated with effective teachers as described by students was a special attitude toward students. Students in her study focused on their narratives on establishing a caring environment in which each student is valued; “She’s like a mom; she really knows me and keeps an eye on me” (p. 48), one student stated. Another commented, “If there is confusion on my face, I want you to see it. If there is disagreement, I want you to say, ‘You disagree? Why?’” This fact echoes the result of a study done by Pratt (2008) who collected narratives from his fourth-grade daughter, Lina, on what matters most in school. When recalling her previous experience with several teachers, Lina commented “Nobody wants to learn if it means dealing with a mean teacher!” (p. 516). However, she wrote fondly about her current teacher, who cared deeply about each of her students, “She is so nice.” Similarly, middle school students interviewed by Cushman and Rogers (2008) explained that they wanted teachers to “show [them] that [they] like [them] and find [them] interesting” (p. 6).
All the above-mentioned researches are intended to lead to one common conclusion: A classroom learning atmosphere that provides emotional support, positive feedback, encouragement, and mutual respect is conductive to supportive classroom relationships, and to more interest or attachment to the school. These aspects are grouped by Loukas (2007) under the title “school connectedness” which is defined as “student perceptions of belonging and closeness with others at the school” (p. 2). Tyler and Boelter (2008) would confirm the fact that when students feel that they are treated equally and are offered positive feedback and genuine encouragement, and their contributions to classroom discussions are equally valued, their perception of the school environment improves and their attachment to school increases. Extending Barber and Olsen’s (1997) research findings, Loukas, Roalson, and Herrera (2010) indicated that “higher levels of school connectedness protected early adolescent boys and girls from the deleterious effects of negative family relations” (p. 13). Furthermore, it was found that school connectedness not only contributed directly to decreasing conduct problems across time, but it also “buffered” the effects of poor quality family relationships.
Method
This study adopted the Grounded Theorizing and Symbolic Interactionist approaches that study social groups in their natural setting; it had an exploratory nature that aimed toward hypothesis generation. This study used a multiple case study research design; five schools were selected allowing for “replication logic” where data collected from the different cases were compared during the analysis stage, and lines of convergence and divergence were recorded and analyzed. A combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods were used for data collection. The tactics used in the conduct of the study were using multiple sources of evidence, establishing a
Research Methods
Quantitative methods included questionnaire administration to 196 Grade 6 students. It used a combination of open-ended (five questions) and closed questions (60 questions). The questionnaire was designed by the researcher and aimed to investigate the students’ attitude toward their school, their perceptions of their teachers’ expectations, and their perceptions of their teachers’ feedback. Piloting the questionnaire revealed that a big number of students could not read and understand Arabic well, and that some terms were ambiguous to many of them. In addition, when asked about their place of residence, one unexpected option was revealed, namely, in orphanages. To overcome these drawbacks, some words were replaced or added to allow every student taking the questionnaire to clearly read and understand the items.
The qualitative methods encompassed interviews with 33 Grade 6 teachers in five selected public schools, and classroom observations of these teachers during instruction. The teachers were interviewed about three facets of their classroom interaction with the students, the social and academic
Based on the results from a prepilot and a pilot study, the researcher chose the variables, refined the research questions, prepared the interview guide (Appendix A), formed and modified the questionnaire (Appendix B), and formed the observation rubric (Appendix C). All instruments were translated to Arabic.
Sample Selection
Five schools were selected according to criterion sampling techniques to represent dissimilar types of public schools in Beirut, the capital city, along four dimensions: the school geographical location (residential and prestigious areas), its size (big and small), student population (gender and place of residence), and teacher population (tenured and contractors). This provided the greatest coverage and best chance of identifying patterns of differences or similarities that cut across these variations. The biggest school contained 93 teachers, 1,094 students, and 46 classes, and the smallest contained 18 teachers, 81 students, and nine classes. Students’ ages ranged between 11 and 20 years with a mean age of 13.75. Males made up the majority in the sample (60%) and 40% were females. The students’ sample contained 28 students coming from orphanages (14%). Those students were not in fact orphans but coming from broken families.
Data Collection
Data collection proceeded through three phases by one researcher:
Phase 1: Administering the questionnaire to all Grade 6 students in five public schools to investigate the way they view their teachers’ feedback and expectations for them in class, and to examine their feelings toward their school;
Phase 2: Conducting semistructured interviews with all Grade 6 teachers about their expectations for the students and their feedback in class;
Phase 3: Conducting direct and nonparticipant observations of all Grade 6 teachers’ feedback to students during instruction.
Meeting the students, teachers, supervisors, and students throughout the different phases of the study revealed underlying understandings and assumptions which constantly accompanied their accounts, and further investigation frequently proved to be essential. Spending more time in the schools, seeing participants interact, observing teachers in practice, systematically interviewing them about their expectations and feedback for their students, and asking the students about their perceptions as well were crucial to uncover what was happening behind the walls of the schools.
Triangulation
Data drawn from the interviews, observations, and surveys constituted triangulation. Therefore, to answer the research questions, data were gathered from the following:
The comparison between what was reported by teachers (in interviews) and what was practiced (through observations);
The comparison between what was reported by teachers (in interviews) and what the students said about their teachers’ expectations and feedback in class (questionnaire survey);
The students’ accounts about their feelings toward school (questionnaire survey).
Using multiple sources of evidence in this case study research (interviews, questionnaires, and observations) has enabled the researcher using Grounded Theorizing and Symbolic Interactionism principles, to understand some aspects of the public school environment and to interpret them from the participants’ frame of reference. Therefore, triangulation, or “converging lines of inquiry,” was developed, and some facts about the student–teacher interaction in the public schools were presented.
Data Analysis
Because this study uses the grounded theory method which consists of an inductive, comparative, and interactive approach to inquiry, data analysis started in each individual school from the start of data collection. Data were gathered and compared, but the researcher remained open to all possible understandings and emerging explanations. This “within-case analysis” was followed with comparisons between the different sites.
Analyses of interviews
The data collected from interviews were manually coded and categorized. The transcripts from the teachers interviewed in each school were thoroughly decomposed using the Constant Comparative Method, and chunks of coded sections were grouped, according to the theoretically defined variables. Adopting this procedure, detailed case study write-ups were developed for each site.
The following example is presented to illustrate the way the teachers’ responses to Question 8 in the interview guide were manually coded.
Do you expect to hear your students swear and use bad words? Why?
I scanned the teachers’ responses in each separate school, and found out that all the answers said “yes”; however, the reasons were slightly different but at the same time entangled. I was able to draw themes from the teachers’ responses; they included parental influence; life in the street; quotes like “
Example of Coding Interview Data.
A definition that best describes the teachers’ expectations about the students’ use of bad words in the school was made; a similar table was developed for each of the five schools, then cross-case analysis followed.
Analyses of observations
Coding the observation data went through stages. First, the recorded occurrences of feedback and use of the students’ ideas in each observed session were all categorized and combined under the same indicators of feedback chosen in the study. The findings were then tabulated and presented for each individual school. Gathered data from all the schools were then classified by categories or themes. Finally, cross-case analysis was completed and the schools were compared with each other to identify similarities and differences among them.
Table 2 shows the number and kind of feedback occurrences which were collected from one of the schools included in the study, Butter Cup School.
Example of Coding Observation Data.
Analyses of questionnaires
The students’ answers to the open-ended questions were hand-sorted, given response codes, and categorized under titles corresponding to the indicators used in the study of classroom environment. Data from closed questions were entered using the computer software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Frequency tables were developed, and three indices were created for dichotomous variables on three dimensions: pride of school (six questions), negative attitude of teachers (13 questions), and positive attitude of teachers (17 questions). Pearson
Reporting the Findings
Reporting the findings went through two phases: the first phase discussed the findings for each school separately, and the second phase discussed the findings across the five schools along the variables, research questions, and theories in the conceptual framework of the study. The derived theory uncovered the understandings and assumptions underlying the respondents’ practices and attitudes. The following section presents the findings along the variables of the study: teachers’
Teachers’ expectations
As a “translator of the teachers’ words and actions” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, pp. 48-49), my understanding of the events related by the teachers through interviews revealed an astounding commonality of responses. All teachers agreed on shared meanings accorded to subjects, schools, relationships, and behaviors. From a symbolic interactionist perspective, the way they defined situations and behaviors and the meanings that they ascribed to their students through social interaction were clearly translated through their behaviors and reactions in class as they described them. Moreover, many specific definitions of some concepts pertaining to the teachers’ own practices in classrooms emerged from the teachers’ understandings of their students’ social background.
When asked about their expectations for their students’ academic achievement and social behavior, all teachers agreed that the students suffer from overwhelming social and psychological problems, negative parental influence, and meager mental predispositions that hinder their social and academic achievement and make the teachers feel helpless. They did not find any reason why they should raise their expectations of the students. They all blamed the parents, the students themselves, or other teachers for the inconveniences they encounter and always started their accounts with justifications and quotes from the students themselves to back up their claims: “they don’t care about school and education. ‘We don’t like education’ they say’” the teachers noted. They all expected students to use foul language, and the majority expected them not to do assigned homework, to copy in exams, to fail, and not to be able to graduate from school.
This image offered by the teachers reflected the presence of seven major problems that the teachers used to rationalize their low expectations for their students. The goal of Grounded Theorizing prescribed by Glaser (1978) aiming “to generate a picture that accounts for a pattern of behavior which is relevant and problematic for those involved” was therefore achieved. Although they might seem separate, these problems were, in fact, closely related:
The students’ age, because they were not kids anymore but not yet grown-ups. Given their home environment, they were emotionally unstable, and very often, most teachers could not find an effective way to deal with them except by yelling or ignoring.
The parents who did not value their children’s education, which very often defeated the students and the teachers and rendered any effort exerted useless.
The students’ low academic standards because of the automatic promotion regulation. Students first started school in Grade 1 without having to pass through the KG stage; therefore, their beginning was weak. In Grade 1, they had to read words and sentences, yet they did not know the letters. Then, their journey continued and they got automatically promoted till Grade 4 without having to make real effort. In Grade 4, they got stuck and started failing and repeating classes; they passed because of their high grades in sports and arts but not in academic subjects.
The presence of a big age discrepancy among the students as a by-product of the previous problem. In the same Grade 6 class, there existed 11-year-old students and 18-year-old students. This fact constituted a major problem in the schools because the older ones exercised negative effects on the younger ones emotionally, ethically, socially, and academically. Not only did their interests differ, but also their habits and the way they addressed each other. In addition, their ability to grasp the material differed either because they were repeating their classes or simply because they were older.
The presence of the students from orphanages. These students are known to be aggressive and always on the defense. They steal each other’s sandwiches and utensils, although they have their own, to compensate for the lack of affection that they are feeling as the teachers explain it; they fight to prove their point and to defend themselves, because they feel that they have no parents to back them up and to defend them, and they do not hesitate to put each other in trouble just to save themselves, by saying “I didn’t do it! It wasn’t me!” they are always afraid of punishment. On the contrary, the school principals did not always dare to tell the superintendents at the orphanage about their problems because they would either beat them or forbid them from seeing their parents.
The lack of a feeling of responsibility among the students because of the automatic promotion practice which they had been used to, in addition to the parental influence. They were not convinced that studying pays off, they would say, “Why should we?” that is why many teachers kept telling them about the advantages of being educated.
In addition, because they had a strong need for affection, and because they were not used to being treated kindly, the students did not know how to react to a smile or how to deal with good treatment.
Undoubtedly, these understandings emerged from the teachers’ daily interaction with the students; for them, home environment is always the reason. Many narratives included examples of such incidents like the teacher who worked daily with her student during recess and during class time to teach him the letters and letter combinations in Arabic until he was able to read whole sentences; one day he came to school with a burned arm, and sometimes he came with a bruised eye. When she asked him about the reason, he told her that it was his father who did it to him “because he was angry.” Other teachers from many schools talked about their students who would come home but find out that their father was inside, he has locked the door and did not allow them in, and then they would spend the night at their neighbors’ or would go to the street. The students would come to school the next day devastated, not doing their homework, wearing the same clothes, and unable to concentrate, or they would not come at all. Similar incidents were frequently heard from the teachers and they were considered to be important factors to put them down.
However, when the students were asked about the way they perceive their teachers’ expectations, their responses were more positive than negative. An average of 49.2% of the students thought that their teachers never bear negative expectations for their social and academic achievement, while 20.1% thought that they always do and 30.5% thought that sometimes they do. They were more inclined to believe that their teachers expected them to act properly and to achieve better academic results “in order not to end up like [their] parents,” as most of them put it; this means that the way they perceived their teachers’ expectations toward them was undoubtedly more positive than negative. These findings did not conform to the way the teachers described their expectations for their students, academically and socially.
Students’ perceptions of their teachers’ positive expectations (seven questions)
Table 3 shows the way students perceived their teachers’ positive expectations in class. It was revealed that fewer students categorically denied the fact that their teachers actually thought positively about them; at times more students thought that they always regarded them highly and made them feel confident in class. Confusion lied in the students who chose “sometimes” as an answer (45.43%). Although “yes/no” or clear-cut answers offered a clearer stand, “sometimes” was included as a choice for the students who often commented during questionnaire piloting that some of their teachers comply with the item statement while others did not. “Sometimes,” therefore, encompassed a mixture of both “always” and “never.”
Perceptions of Teachers’ Positive Expectations.
Students’ perceptions of their teachers’ negative expectations (10 questions)
An average of 49.2% of the students thought that their teachers never bore negative expectations for their social and academic achievement, while 20.1% thought that they always (Table 4).
Perceptions of Teachers’ Negative Expectations.
As a conclusion, it was realized that the students’ perceptions of their teachers’ expectations are more highly perceived. For instance, 65.1% of the students thought that their teachers appreciate their efforts when they unexpectedly got a high grade on a test or class assignment, while 34.8% thought that the teachers would consider external factors to be the cause for such a high grade like, receiving outside help, or good luck or easy task requirements.
Teachers’ feedback and use of students’ ideas
When asked about their feedback to students, all teachers agreed that the way they reacted to their students’ successes and failures aimed at encouraging them to behave and to perform properly. Even feedback which is usually considered by an outside observer to be negative, the teachers labeled it as positive and as a casual way to approach the students because “this is the language that they understand.” “I would never humiliate them,” many teachers asserted, “at the utmost I would say ‘You donkey! Or ‘Don’t you understand?’ Or ‘Where is your brain?’” “Even such comments are said with a smile,” they noted. “The students are used to such words anyway, even to hearing harsher ones!” the teachers explained.
Other commonly heard, but confusing, justifications centered on the teachers’ perceptions are that the students lack feelings and have meager intellectual capacities. Frequent accounts came as follows, “The problem is that they have no feelings and words don’t affect them,” “We would tell them to stay in the streets collecting garbage instead of coming to school at least they would be of benefit,” “This is when we repeat the same idea many times and still they don’t get it, or when they seem too lazy to take notes so they tend to ask a lot,” “They have problem thinking,” “They memorize and love hands-on activities but they don’t use their brain to come up with new ideas or to elaborate on issues or to think freely,” and “They only like to talk about singers and about their divorced parents.”
However, the teachers also assured that they did motivate their students using words like “Very Good” and “Well-Done,” “although they rarely give valuable input.” They even guided them by saying “We are here for you” and “We are explaining the lesson for your own benefit so you don’t end up like your parents” so “Stop losing time.”
In addition, an important type of reward that the teachers used and admitted to be quite effective was social, including getting physically close to the students and making them feel that they were loved and valued, in addition to joking with them, clapping hands for them, and praising them verbally in front of their classmates. Related comments included the following: “I praise them in front of their friends”; “I give them more attention”; “I value their achievement and show them that I’m happy with what they have done as if we were celebrating”; and “I give them a stroke on the head or a tap on the shoulder, they love it.”
“But the teachers assured that this is less likely to succeed; ‘very often these attempts get barren because of what goes on between the students and their parents.’ The students quickly lose interest and regress which renders the use of any type of positive feedback inefficient.” What is the most efficient type of feedback? The teachers unanimously asserted that because addressing the students in a calm and rational way was inefficient, threatening them with grades has proven to be mostly effective because “it is a scarce commodity.” This is in addition to yelling because the students were used to it. “They are street kids,” the teachers constantly noted. “Sometimes humiliating them is the solution. They will immediately cry and feel hurt. This is how they understand,” they affirmed. Furthermore, interviews with the teachers revealed that they mostly used referrals to the supervisors as punishment, and that the rewards they used were mostly tangible and social in nature. They further assured that their feedback mainly catered to the students’ social behavior referring to their social problems, to the advices that they give them, and to the solutions that they suggested.
On the contrary, the majority of the teachers interviewed (84.8%) reported that they did feel helpless in class at some occasions and did not know how to react mainly when the students were emotionally distant, when they ganged against them, when their home problems became so overwhelming, and when they were academically very weak which made them unable to follow up with the material explained. “We need students who can assist us and interact with us, one hand can’t clap by itself,” many teachers commented. They also noted that “a student can either lift you up or pull you down.” Other teachers did not bother to try from the very beginning to interact with the students, either because the subject they taught did not lend itself to discussions, or because they feared turning the discussion to a session of psychotherapy, or because the students themselves were not willing to talk and to engage in discussions especially about the lesson.
From the perspective of an outsider, classroom observations of the teachers’ feedback showed that the teachers were the ones who did the talking most of the time as the students sat, looked at them, and followed the directions. In addition, observations showed that the students’ mistakes were more frequently recognized than their achievements. They were, therefore, more blamed than praised; sometimes they were given probes to correct their misconception, but less often. The teachers’ feedback mainly reflected sarcasm and surprise, indifference, and no reply incidents and communication with a few.
Sarcasm and surprise
Like saying “Good Morning!” to a student who took his time before giving the correct answer. Or “You’re thinking! Hah?” or “You knew it! How come? It is unusual!” or “Finally he used his brain!” or “Check his forehead! Is he ok? He has just given a correct answer.” Other examples included such dialogues as follows:
“Miss, the nicest lesson is the one about chicken.”
“Yes! That’s why you did well in the exam!” (Sarcastically)
• A student did not know the answer to a simple question. The teacher laughed, and the students laughed.
“Don’t laugh” (laughing)
• “What’s wrong with him? He didn’t take his pill today?” (About a student who was answering out of turn in class).
“Lebanon doesn’t have an area.”
“Yah! It doesn’t!”
“Really?”
“This is what he said! Didn’t you hear?”
In this respect, it happened in an Arabic language class that a teacher was assigning a test for the coming Saturday, the students complained about the big load of homework and tests for that day, and asked her to postpone it for another more suitable day; the teacher replied with a laugh, “You don’t study anyway! It wouldn’t make a difference for you whether it’s on Saturday or on Monday!” and they all laughed.
Indifference and no reply
Incidents where the teachers did not give answers, did not clarify misconceptions, did not explain what had not been understood, did not correct mistakes, and did not give students enough wait-time to respond were frequently encountered.
Listen to Said! He has an important remark to make.
What do we put for the banana tree when we plant it?
Who wants to answer?
(The students gave many answers but all were wrong. The teacher did not clarify and talked about something else).
Give a synonym to the expression “less in number”
Extinct
(No reply)
(As they discussed among each other the way to analyze a word in Arabic.) They were confused. A student asked the teacher.
(No reply)
You have a test for next time
The grade will be on February grade report?
(No reply)
Do we have all the time to do the exercise?
(No reply)
What was unique about the teachers observed was the presence of a big number (of teachers) in every school whom one would consider “expressionless.” Their faces were unusually blank, and very hard to decipher or to cope with. They neither showed satisfaction nor contempt, neither happiness nor anger, or they did not even shout! Another common kind of feedback was noticed and was labeled as neutral revolved around repeating the students’ answers in an automatic way, not to show them satisfaction, nor to appreciate their contributions, but simply because the teachers had nothing else to say. This is in addition to the teachers’ tendency to focus on three or four students during instruction ignoring the rest who were often in the back seats playing, daydreaming, or pathetically silent.
Such incidents showed that very often, the teachers themselves were the cause of the students’ misbehavior, either through their constant sarcasm, demeaning expressions, unclear instruction, or inappropriate jokes. On many occasions, dull teaching methods constituted a problem; for example, the teachers were literally following the book during classroom discussions and did not allow for different but correct ideas to emerge, let alone the wrong or irrelevant contributions. Such incidents were frequently encountered in all the schools visited:
Where do Bedouins live?
In the tent.
WHERE???
In the desert.
(She repeats his answer).
Where are palm trees found?
Saudi Arabia
SAUDI ARABIA??? What does the book say?
In Bahrain!
Yes! In Bahrain.
Another strange practice performed by a teacher was when she came sneaking from behind a student and poked his cheek with her freshly pointed pencil, and shouted in his ear, “Hurry up! Write!” then burst into laughter.
Positive feedback
However, this overview does not mean that instances of positive feedback were not witnessed. On many occasions, the teachers listened to their students, delivered encouraging feedback, and smiles or taps on the shoulder. However, most of this positive feedback was concise, did not exceed two words or a smile, and, most importantly, was not informative, but it was still considered positive because it showed satisfaction and caused positive feelings in the students. Recorded examples of positive feedback were mostly verbal and for academic achievement. A combination of positive occurrences of feedback delivery included the following:
“Very Good! Good Handwriting! Bravo!”
“Did you eat breakfast this morning? Grab your sandwich and eat now. Would you like to go out have some tea?”
When filling the food pyramid, the teacher takes the students’ suggestions and says: “Thank you!”
Teacher: “Wow Jana! Today you’re wearing a necklace and a bracelet!” (smiles)
Gives probes to students to tell them the meaning of “stingy”
In response to the questionnaire items, the teachers’ positive feedback was acknowledged by an average of 72.1% of the students, and the teachers’ negative feedback was acknowledged by 45.9% of the students. It can be concluded that the students were more aware of the teachers’ positive feedback, or to put it in other terms, they interpreted more positively the teachers’ feedback in class.
Students’ attitude toward school
A research question in this study aimed at investigating whether the students’ perceptions of their teachers’
Most students (80.5%) reported that they loved their school. However, when they were asked to rate on a scale of 5 the extent to which they love their school, results differed; 44.6% were above average and 28.2% were below average, at times 27.2% were in the middle. Therefore, the most prominent finding noticed when tabulating the students’ answers was their positive feelings toward their schools. Most of them felt respected at school (82.6%) and were proud to show their school to a visitor and to talk about it. These patterns of responses were constantly met in all the schools included in this study, regardless of their population and geographical location.
This conclusion is further highlighted through the students’ responses to the open-ended survey questions, and consequently, informs many future practices conductive to healthier patterns of student–teacher interaction. Four questions were discussed as follows:
Discussion
To answer the research question that aims at investigating the degree of conformity between the students’ perceptions and the teachers’ perceptions about the teachers’ expectations, collected data revealed divergence between both perceptions. The teachers expressed their low expectations of the students while students perceived these expectations to be high and positive.
In addition, a comparison between what has been reported by the teachers and what has been observed by the researcher revealed that the teachers’ accounts of their own practices in class do not fully conform to the observer’s perceptions of these practices. Different views concerning the most effective feedback, occasion of feedback, types of rewards and punishment used, using rude words with students, causes of disruptions, feedback when disruptions occur, and using the students’ ideas in class were all noted. The only point of convergence was concerning the teachers’ feeling of helpless in class.
The teachers reported knowing their students very well, and they reported giving them the type of feedback that suits and benefits them the most. They also added that their professional practices intended to remedy the gaps reflect their understandings; meanwhile, whenever a certain type of reward or punishment proved to be inefficient, a cause beyond their control was to be blamed. However, classroom observations revealed the opposite in many respects. In fact, it was shown that teacher practices in their classes mostly reflect a lack of interest and professionalism (except in two cases with two teachers observed). All of them worked with few students in class forgetting about the rest. They were either completely “poker faced” showing no emotions, no feedback, no eye contact, or no individualized interaction, or they were outraged and sarcastic. Demeaning words were not considered demeaning rather purposeful and suitable. The students’ answers were rarely taken into consideration unless they conformed to what was written in the book, even their contributions and queries were met with indifference and derision. This is at times the teachers reported engaging the students in classroom discussions and decisions, taking their ideas seriously, and motivating them.
A comparison between the teachers’ accounts and the students’ accounts showed that most students thought that their teachers’ feedback in class was very important, especially when it encompassed calm talk. However, most teachers considered that their feedback goes mostly unnoticed, and is most of the time inefficient. They also considered that their students are better managed with grades. Another contradiction emerged when asked about the students’ reaction to failure; students reported that they would consult the teacher about their results, while teachers claimed that they will not bother to care or ask. Undoubtedly, this comparison shed light on some aspects of the negative image that the teachers give about their students and on some aspects of the more positive image that the students draw about their teachers.
As to the type of feedback delivered, because they were so absorbed by the students’ social problems, the majority of the teachers claimed that most of their feedback caters to correcting the students’ social behavior, while most students’ responses (and observation data) revealed that it mostly caters to academic work. In addition, home factors were shown, according to the teachers’ accounts, to be the main reason for the students’ irresponsiveness to instructions, while students thought that the reason was the noise prevailing in classes.
Therefore, to answer the set of research questions that aims at examining the way the teachers’ accounts of their own feedback in class conform to the students’ perceptions of this feedback and to the researcher’s observations, collected data mainly revealed conformity of accounts between the students and the teachers. As to the researcher’s observations, results showed drastic discrepancy with what the teachers and what the students reported. Results pointed to negative teacher expectations accorded to students but to mismatched accounts of positive types of feedback delivery, this feedback regarded negative from the observer’s perspective and mostly positive from the students’ and teachers’ perspectives. Classroom observations, thus, revealed a big discrepancy between what has been reported by the teachers and the students and what has been practiced.
In addition, it was revealed that the majority of the students attributed positive meanings to their teachers’ practices in class and interpreted them positively as being “for their own benefit,” and their feelings toward their schools were mostly positive. As to whether there exists any interpatterns of communication common to all or some of the public schools chosen in this study, and to the reasons behind the findings, these issues were at the core of this study, and important details were found and presented. Common patterns of student–teacher interaction were found among all selected schools. Therefore, from a symbolic interactonist perspective, those students who are labeled and stereotyped often internalize what is being said about them in a negative way. Their behavior was the mask for underlying fear and shame. Shame reactions were also expressed in facial ways, such as refusing to look the teacher in the eye, showing apathy, playing dumb, avoiding participating in discussions, or talking in short phrases.
The results can be analyzed in light of the discussion undergone in the previous section. Because of their feeling of defeat and their need to belong, the students’ only resort and outlet became the school and people present in the school. Research shows (Hirschi, 1969) that students who feel connected to a group that they identify with, whatever group that may be, are less likely to engage in conduct problems. These groups can comprise teachers or peers in the school, and the student-perceived good-quality relationships which lead to “a sense of community at and belonging to the school, and in this way facilitate a connection to the school” (Loukas, Suzuki, & Karissa, 2006, p. 498). In line with these findings, most students expressed their love for their schools and one reason that they gave was “seeing friends and having fun with them.” Friendships with classmates are presumed to “promote a sense of belonging and school engagement. Conversely, lack of friends or negative peer experiences are expected to be associated with a sense of isolation, alienation, and school disengagement” (Juvonen, 2007, p. 200). In a study done by Booth and Shehan (2008), students were found to be mostly affected in schools by their peers then by their teachers; hence, the importance of school environment, teachers, and peers was promoting the students’ psychological and social well-being.
Therefore, the statistical analyses, the observations, and the interviews in this case study all point to the fundamental importance of establishing a safe and healthy classroom environment in our public schools, student–teacher interaction being one of its most important facets. Literature has shown that supportive classroom environments promote the following in the students:
improved academic outcomes (Cohen, 2007; Doll, Spies, LeClair, Kurien, & Foley, 2010; Dorman, Fisher, & Waldrip, 2006; McMahon, Wernsman, & Rose, 2009; Tyler & Boelter, 2008; Viadero, 2009);
improved social outcomes (Linares et al., 2005; Wilson, Pianta, & Stuhlman, 2007) even to at-risk students;
higher levels of engagement and better coping behaviors (Reschly et al., 2008);
an increase in appropriate behavior (Swinson & Harrop, 2005; Tate, 2006), and a decrease in conduct problems where the effects of poor quality family relationships are buffered (Rathel, Drasgow, & Christle, 2008);
higher levels of school connectedness (Loukas, Roalson, & Herrera, 2010; Rice et al., 2008; Tyler & Boelter, 2008);
better health and academic outcomes (La Roque, 2008; Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2011);
lower stress (Rice et al., 2008).
However, results from the current study revealed the presence of many obstacles in the patterns of student–teacher interaction in the schools selected that hinder development in the above areas. These will be tackled in detail in the following section.
Conclusion
This study’s findings can be minified into two conclusions:
Conclusion 1: Significant Obstacles
The potential for improvement in the public school sector in Lebanon is enormous; however, daunting obstacles should be overcome. Some obstacles, such as regulations and practices pertaining to the teachers’ and administrators’ occupational status, age, qualifications, professional development, and level of productivity, in addition to school enrollment standards, embracing the inspectors’ reports about the different schools, and provision of social workers and psychologists, are considered to be of considerable threats to establishing healthy classroom environments in the Lebanese elementary public schools.
Therefore, results from the current study revealed significant obstacles on the educational, psychological, and social levels. On an educational level, dull teaching strategies and low student involvement proved to be the norm; on a psychological level, low teachers’ expectations coupled with constant put-downs (low-quality feedback), and low student self-confidence were witnessed; on a social level, a distorted, rather exaggerated, image of the students and their parents is formed, and their social problems are considered to be the main problem to be overcome.
Conclusion 2: Significant Opportunities for Progress
The opportunities for progress reside in the efficient use of the existing resources and in the mobilization of additional ones. Areas of progress mainly pertain to boosting the school–parent cooperation, to enhancing the teachers’ professional development, and to the inspection of their practices, which will result in big gains. Improving teacher practices seems to be of primary concern in this respect because of its dire effect on the students’ social, psychological, and academic performance. Progress usually begins with teachers who are in daily contact with the students. What is needed is a clear vision of what the elementary public schools can contribute to the whole public sector of education in Lebanon, and germane strategies to carry out any enacted reform plan.
Strategies for Improvement
The triangulation of perspectives from interviews, surveys, and observations in this study has not mirrored positive relationships. International reports confirm this fact (TIMSS report, 2007, cited in Faour, 2012). Poor quality feedback, low teachers’ expectations, low student engagement, and a failure to boost the students’ interest are vastly detected. Meanwhile, before dealing with the problems and addressing strategies for improvement, their underlying origins have to be uncovered. The researchers believe that classroom environment, specifically student–teacher interaction, in these schools is considerably burdened by three sets of conditions:
On a ministerial level: The absence of a long-term vision to develop the public schools which can be evenly applied away from political interference. This vision should endorse regulations concerning teachers’ and administrators’ recruitment and qualifications, the provision of accountable inspectors, the provision of psychiatrists and social workers, and the introduction of extracurricular activities.
On the teachers’ level: The prejudiced representations that the teachers’ draw of their students which reflect on their practices in class, the defense mechanisms that they use to rationalize their practices and expectations, in addition to their frequent lack of motivation to teach.
On the students’ level: The pervasiveness of devastating social problems and the commonness of weak academic backgrounds; both factors continue to haunt the students’ social and academic practices in school.
What Should Teachers Do?
Interaction is, by its nature, dyadic and subject to reformulation, as symbolic interactionists maintain. It is in this spirit that the recommendations are offered. Because teachers represent one of the “significant others” for the students, they are asked to “read their students” before delivering ungrounded messages, which can be sometimes harmful. A first step is to reconsider the suitability of their practices and their feedback in their classrooms; after all, these overt behaviors reflect the way teachers think about their students. Therefore, the recommendations made for the teachers in this section are supported by the findings collected in the current study, and can be categorized under three, closely related, headings: educational, psychological, and social.
On an educational level, the teachers are invited to
use a variety of teaching strategies that call for the students’ active involvement and construction of knowledge through inquiry learning practices and hands-on activities;
not to overwhelm the students with tasks and material which by far exceed their capacities;
reward improvements even if they were minor;
try to understand how the students see the school experience from their own perspective and build on it. They are attached to their schools and more aware of their teachers’ positive feedback; therefore, teachers should foster a situation in which learning is fun;
seek professional help whenever needed, and work on self-development by attending workshops and training sessions.
On a psychological level, the teachers are expected to
6. regard the students as potential learners not as hopeless cases, even if they were often beaten with drastic obstacles, and even if they felt unable to resist the urge to scream or lose temper;
7. not to set up a situation of threat where the children feel the need to go into their defenses. They will either turn out to be aggressive, or cynical, or pathetic.
8. avoid using negative labels (weak, stupid, bad, mean, etc.) even if teachers often coat it with sugared justifications.
On a social level, the teachers are invited to
9. give the students more supportive feedback that is sincere and meaningful for behaving and performing according to expectations. Effective verbal recognition should communicate the feeling that “I care about you. I notice the effort that you are doing. I’m proud of you”;
10. use social rewards that involve affection, emotional support, and parental involvement when feasible.
11. model respect and proper behavior, firmness, and fairness;
12. criticize the students’ actions but not the students themselves when delivering negative feedback;
13. set their own evenly and consistently applied plan of corrective actions (discipline hierarchy) that does not have to be severe or offensive;
14. stress that taking responsibility of one’s own actions is better than blaming others and unduly putting them in trouble;
15. consider the effective use of punishment and reward.
16. call the parents as a last resort, and also to communicate good news and success stories about the children.
All these recommendations need extensive formation and teacher-training to equip the teachers with the necessary requisites and tools to undertake the above tasks. Furthermore, because of the students’ overwhelming social problems, school supervisors and administrators have a role to fulfill as well. They are expected to establish more rapport with the students’ parents and guardians. Keeping them informed about the children’s social and academic performance, listening to them and taking their opinions into consideration, inviting them to meetings and to activities held in the schools, and involving them in decision making and in helping prepare for exhibitions and games are all important steps to make them feel more connected to the schools. Of course, this is not as easy as it is said, as many of them are reluctant or careless about such practices, as the teachers and administrators assured; however, other parents whom we met expressed their eagerness to establish more respectful relationships with the schools, and called for enhanced cooperation with their staff and administrators. Such practice, if boosted, will reflect positively on the students’ well-being, academically and socially. Furthermore, the school principals have a role in raising the enrollment standards in their own schools, in addition to monitoring the teachers’ performance and the students’ achievement and behaviors in classes.
A Final Word
Undoubtedly, the challenge is big and the bigger burden falls on the teachers because they are the ones who are in direct and daily contact with the students. Of course, teachers are not robots who are emotionless, who never get angry, and who always have good feelings toward all the students. Some students are appealing and some are not; the unappealing ones are generally the ones who cannot find acceptance in their homes. This is the challenge and the opportunity for teachers to work with challenging students living under challenging circumstances. If teachers did not do it, who will? Why should the schools be an extension of the students’ environment at home? Why should students bear the same humiliation outside school and inside school? Why should we always say “It’s them, they don’t study!” or “They are hopeless!” or “They lack the minimum potentials?” If their social problems outside school are big, we (educators) would better make the school a haven for them to rest and achieve. After all, we may be their only and last hope, because once they get into the real adult world (some have already reached it), rarely will they find another person willing to take the time to help them.
Footnotes
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Authors’ Note
This research article constitutes a part of a PhD dissertation done by the author, Mona Hashash, in five public schools in Beirut, Lebanon.