113
either extreme had a direct effect upon the student‟s ability to concentrate (FSW, P2, 3, 4, 5,6,7,8, A). These unmet basic essentials;
―Will disengage the students, classrooms that do not allow sufficient space limit
activities and frustrate outcomes so that incivility almost happens by accident – a warm dark lecture theatre just after lunch for 2 hours can almost promote incivility by the actions of physiology‖ (FLW, P11, B) .
The need to have good quality functional furniture was integral to the delivery of courses and for supporting learning (SLW, Notes, see appendices). There were “chairs that have tables that fall off during lectures‖ (FSW, P4, B) this being an obvious distraction, having a disrupting effect on the group. More significantly, if the decor and furnishings were ―old and dilapidated then it devalues the learning
experience‖ (FSW, P4, B). Students reported that teaching aids, such as projectors ―were not always effective‖(FSW, P2, B) and this was exacerbated by poor lighting
and cramped slides, which was seen to reflect the lecturer‟s lack of preparation and planning.
The ―proximity‖ (FLW, P8, B) of the students caused frustration, either through
―overcrowding‖ or being ―too far away‖ from the lecturer (FLW, see appendices).
There was a reciprocal student frustration, where overcrowding created opportunities for alternative conversations causing a distracting “noise” often seemingly unnoticed by the lecturer.
Wider practical factors included not having “enough space for eating in the cafes” (FLW, P1, B) thus students were delayed whilst they waited in queues. Similarly car parking could be problematic, with long queues behind parking meters and a lack of spaces causing both students and lecturers to be late. At particularly busy times, e.g. at the beginning of the university day, these can be a “nightmare for all” (FLW, P1, B).
As for the causes of the lateness, students highlighted the uncertainty as it could reflect “traffic jams, public transport, children and life in general‖ (FSW, notes, Append.). Equally it could be ―self inflicted‖, possibly a hangover, ―fresher‘s flu‖ or just laziness. (FSW, notes, Append.). There was a consensus amongst all the participants that these basic essentials required urgent action, with the following lecturer capturing this consensual frustration;
―I think I have managed undesirable environments too often and I feel I have to be more assertive about this, as this is often the main reason for disruptive behaviour in my experience‖ (FLW, Eval. Append).
114
Pivotal basic essentials are fundamental to the teaching and learning process and are often overlooked. They can have a slow insidious effect and play an obvious role in causing incivility.
7.6.6 Getting the Pivotal Basic Essentials right (D&A)
All participants perceived this to be a major issue, lecturers believed these basic essentials were “pivotal‖ and played a ―significant role" in engaging the student (FLW, P6,B; P7, B). If the environment is well furbished and the teaching aids work well, then it can have a motivating effect upon the student, demonstrating how they are valued by the institution (Bayer 2004; Clark and Springer 2007a, 2007b; Suplee et al 2008).
The ODE (2010) defines the word pivotal as being ―of crucial importance in relation to
the development or success of something else‖ and this reinforces the integral role of
the basic essentials. If left unattended, then something as straightforward as poorly maintained equipment can devalue the learning experience causing incivility (FSW, P4, B). As reinforced by Schneider (1998), Mann (2001) and Gannon Leary (2008) the fixed environment of the classroom can have a direct effect on ―how learning
occurs‖ (FLW, Notes, Append.). “Tables falling off chairs” can be extremely noisy,
intrusive and whilst it may well be a unique situation, pertinent to one institution, it reinforces the importance of the students feeling valued by the university. At the institutional level, a glossy prospectus espouses the benefits of coming to the university, whilst within the immediate context, the decor and furniture gives a contrary message.
Participants were frustrated and tired of tolerating these issues and this was highlighted by a lecturer who had ―managed undesirable environments too often‖ and assertive action was necessary to change the situation (FLW, Eval. Append). Maslow‟s Hierarchy of Needs (1943, 1954) was suggested as a model to capture how important it was to get these basic essentials right. Issues pertaining to temperature control and lighting are sited at the foundational base of the teaching- learning process. This is exemplified in students arriving directly from lunch to a lecture; anecdotal evidence suggests that this “graveyard shift” is well known as a soporific inducing time with the physiological effects of full stomachs interacting with hot classrooms.
115
The exponential increasing size of student cohorts minimised the opportunities of developing engaging relationships, where discussion could be nurtured (FLW, P10, B). Gannon-Leary (2008) highlighted this negative effect and warned against students becoming alienated and isolated from their educational experience (Mann 2001, 2008; Trowler 2010). Conversely, small groups in large overbearing rooms created spatial problems, where the distance had a detrimental effect upon the student-lecturer relationship, creating a literal gap. Equally factors external to the immediate context e.g. car parking, had a role to play in causing incivility, primarily lateness.
There were valid reasons for being late, such as family problems and traffic issues. Non valid reasons reflected student hangovers e.g. “fresher‟s flu” or “laziness”. There is a common perception, from both groups, that late arrivals are synonymous with incivility. However, more significantly it highlights the importance of contextual interconnectedness and fluidity, reinforcing the awareness and understanding of how these disruptive contexts have a bearing upon behaviour within the immediate one. In practice this is about ascribing meaning to contextualised behaviour (see contextual fluidity later in the chapter).
7.6.7 Rules and pushing the boundaries(F)
The institutional context includes university rules, regulations and policies and the bearing these can have upon the teaching and learning experience. Reflecting this, a systemic perspective was taken by a lecturer who clearly recognised that he was;
―...part of a system that has rules and responsibilities and regulations... It's not just the person in the room with the students and that's what I mean by the system, there's lots of other influences and relationships that... bring that to the here and now‖ (L2, Int: 129-134).
Here he explicitly sees the university as systemic framework of “rules and regulations” and also acknowledges other contextual elements which interplay and influence one another. The application (or lack of) these rules and regulations plays a role in causing incivility, creating confusion and a perceived lack of parity.
116
7.6.7a Confusion through inconsistent rule application (F)
The inconsistency in applying rules and regulations reflected the ―array of complex
systems/policies‖ (FLW, P2, C) which caused confusion for lecturers. This potentially
leads to a state of misinformation (FLW, Notes, Appendices), and the associated lack of continuity caused frustration and bad feeling in the student cohort;
―..if we're talking about giving students the same kind of respect, similar experiences, if we are managing students' expectations then there does need to be certain directives that are applied consistently‖ (L1, Int: 160-162).
This inconsistency was recognised by the students who in the first two weeks of their programme were indoctrinated with the ―50 ways to be chucked off the course‖ message (FSW, Notes, Append.). However in reality these rules were rarely applied, as certain students, being seen as problematic by their peers for their lack of engagement and high absence rates, were still on the course. The students in attendance were frustrated by the apparent lack of parity, it was common knowledge that some were habitually missing sessions, yet no action was being taken50. It was a
public message that you could ―get away with things‖ (FSW, Notes, Append.). Students were clear about the need for the lecturer to take responsibility as it was;
―Important because there needs to be some conformity‖ (SSW, P2. C).
Whilst recognising the need for consistency and conformity, it was still important to:
―...apply the family-friendly policies; I think at university we need to look at that as well. Why do we have a nine o'clock start when the students are queuing up for car parking spaces, or rushing to get children off to school and then expecting them to be engaged in whatever they're doing immediately...‖ (L1, Int: 181-187).
This focus upon lateness reflected the controversial “ten minute rule” where any student coming in late after ten minutes was not allowed into the lecture. This was perceived as divisive and unfair, as a student could have invested time and energy in getting into class, being late by ten minutes, whilst another just “dawdled‖ along being five minutes late (FSW, notes, Append.), the latter acting in a more disrespectful and uncivil way than the later student. This was a rule that was not consistently applied, undermining their importance and consequently students would
―play the game‖ and push the boundaries (FSW, notes, Append.), seeing how far the
rules could actually be stretched.
50 It has to be noted that these “problematic” students could have individually met with their guidance tutors and programme leaders with action taken accordingly, unknown by the student cohort.
117
7.6.7b Breaking rules and pushing the boundaries (F)
Students experienced their course as a ―mixing bowl‖ (FSW, P1, A) with many factors playing their part. Identifying the different years, the first ―was about rules and
regulations‖ and occasionally there was a:
―Breaking of the 'rules', but who sets them and does everyone know them?‖
(FSW, P1, A).
Not being certain about the rules and boundaries could lead to inadvertent rule breaking. This could be manifested in student frustration, turning into disinterest and disengagement leading to;
―Talking in lectures by other students who do not want to listen to the lecturer talking‖ (FSW, P5, C).
This sense of interference, for the wider group, can negatively affect the process of learning. This can be both obvious and passive, based upon:
―Actions or lack of it which causes a change in the dynamics of the situation‖. (FLW, P1, A)
The inference being that uncivil behaviour can shift the dynamic within the given context. This perspective is developed where a participant asks whether the perceived behaviour is actually “'purposeful' or not?‖ (FLW, P1, A). This is developed when a lecturer comments;
―DB may be considered as a challenge or deliberate.... to test the boundaries of the lecturer/student relationship and student/student relationship‖. (FLW, P11, A)
It was important to hold true to any negotiated rules as any ―boundary slippage― could lead to incivility, as ―give an inch and they take a mile‖ (FJW, Notes, Append.). Students felt that there was a degree of inevitability to this;
― people are always going to, it doesn't matter what level you're at, what rules are introduced ... People are always going to break the rules, and push the boundaries‖. (S2, Int: 64-67)
Contrary to this, a more rigid and authoritarian view from the students, was clear that with regards to inappropriate talking, there was;
―No need for it unless stating a valid comment or fact‖ (FSW, Eval. Append).
Inappropriate talking had ―to be nipped in the bud‖ and it was “up to them (lecturers)
118
was seen to challenge these, whereas the “good” one complied, although this passivity did not actually signify meaningful engagement (SSW, Eval. Append.). However as they progressed through their course, in the second year there was a developing awareness that the individual student needed to “get their finger out‖, whilst the third year was about focusing, reflecting and qualifying, realising that the three year ―jigsaw puzzle‖ was finally coming together (FSW, Notes, Append.). There was an understanding that over the duration of the course, rules were likely to be broken, whether intentionally or not. “Playing the game” through passive acceptance or the challenging of the status quo, would eventually lead to some form of conformity, recognising the need to qualify as registered nurses.
7.6.8. Consistency in delivering the same agreed message (D&A)
Rules and regulations or “codes of behaviour" are constructed by individuals in positions of authority and when these are threatened or “broken”, these individuals reinforce the importance of civility to control the perceived “rule breakers”. This enforcement is obviously relative to an individual‟s position of contextual power. Callaghan (2011, p12) argues “that incivility is often an indicator that there are
structural problems of power and inequity that need to be resolved at the organisational level‖. Being contextually significant, it reminds us that the causes of
incivility are not only predicated upon behaviour, but can be wider and deeper rooted. A systemic perspective (L2, Int: 129-134) acknowledges the different contexts and influences upon relationships. The immediate context of the “here and now” is where the teaching takes place, yet this is governed, to a greater or lesser extent, by the university‟s rules and regulations. There was uncertainty associated with the origins of these rules and equally, how do students know which rules are being broken if there is inconsistency in their application? (FSW, Notes, Append.) This was seen by both groups as disruptive, being especially problematic for students, whose vulnerability due to a lack of awareness and understanding, was exacerbated by the lecturers‟ ignorance of the same regulations. Clark (2008b) refers to “hoop jumping” where the students' compliance is based upon a fear of both being failed and perceived as trouble makers. Consistency had to be established, it was about delivering the same message, reflecting respect for the students (Keashly & Neuman 2010; Clark and Springer 2010).
Wacquant (2005) and Altmiller (2012) both reinforce the importance of a negotiated agreement when developing boundaries, involving a collaborative process, reflecting
119
mutual understanding. Lecturers perceived this as a strategy which minimised the possibility of uncivil behaviour as ―give them an inch and they take a mile‖ (FJW, Notes, Append.). Here there appears to be apparent reluctance to move beyond the set parameters of the lecturers‟ agenda, yet were students “fighting back‖ when they were breaking rules, asserting themselves when feeling disempowered? (FJW, Notes, Append.).
Lecturers were reminded that they had certain responsibilities and their teaching relied as much on intuition as being well informed (SLW, Eval, Append.). An ability to empathise (internal context) and engage with the students was seen as being more important than having an authoritarian teaching style. Lecturers had a sense of responsibility to shape the immediate context, creating a conducive environment for teaching and learning. Students were less tolerant and with respects to uncivil behaviour there was ―no need for it‖ (FSW, Eval. Append). This authoritarian view reinforced student frustration and it was clear that the responsibility of nipping this behaviour ―in the bud‖ fell at the feet of the lecturers. Albeit that any intervention had to be carried out in a “diplomatic way”, founded upon an understanding of what actually caused incivility (FSW, Eval. Append).