Types Of Student Behavior Research Articles

Students’ Proactive Aggressiveness, Mental Health Problems and Perceived Classroom Interaction

ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to explore how students’ reports of proactive aggressiveness and mental health problems are associated with their perception of classroom interaction when controlling for socioeconomic status, gender and grade level. Classroom interaction is understood in terms of teachers’ emotional support, monitoring and instructional support. Proactive aggressiveness and mental health problems represent common types of student behaviors teachers encounter in the classroom. Students in 85 classrooms in ten schools in Norway completed a web-based questionnaire. A total of 1,571 students in grades 5–10 (ages 10–15) participated. Multilevel modeling revealed that proactive aggressiveness and mental health problems were negatively related to teachers’ emotional support, monitoring and instructional support. Implications for teachers’ practice are discussed.

Measuring Student Engagement in the Online Course: The Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE)

Abstract
 
 Student engagement is critical to student learning, especially in the online environment, where students can often feel isolated and disconnected. Therefore, teachers and researchers need to be able to measure student engagement. This study provides validation of the Online Student Engagement scale (OSE) by correlating student self-reports of engagement (via the OSE) with tracking data of student behaviors from an online course management system. It hypothesized that reported student engagement on the OSE would be significantly correlated with two types of student behaviors: observational learning behaviors (i.e., reading e-mails, reading discussion posts, viewing content lectures and documents) and application learning behaviors (posting to forums, writing e-mails, taking quizzes). The OSE was significantly and positively correlated with application learning behaviors. Results are discussed along with potential uses of the OSE by researchers and online instructors.

School and County Characteristics as Predictors of School Rates of Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco Offenses

Despite evidence that school factors are associated with differences in various types of student behavior, little research has explored the predictive utility of school factors for school-level substance offense rates. Using data from the State of Florida Department of Education and the Census, we explore the associations between school climate and school substance offense rates, controlling for county level characteristics. Results from a multilevel analysis show that school culture, school organization, and social milieu predict variation in school substance incident rate. We interpret the findings as consistent with research utilizing the "school culture/school effectiveness" model.

Variables Predicting Students' Problem Behaviors

Data from the 1988 National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS:88) were analyzed to identify variables related to five types of student behavior: misbehavior, violent behavior, substance abuse, pre...

Teacher Ratings of Students in Relation to Ethnicity of Students and School Ethnic Balance

Presently, in order to identify more gifted minority students, alternative identification techniques are being employed in many school districts. One common technique has been the use of teacher checklists on which the teacher rates various types of student behaviors. The Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS) are some of the most popular checklists; however, there is little research which indicates how culturally different children are rated on these scales in comparison to their Anglo peers. This study attempted to answer the following question: does the social and cultural milieu of a school influence teachers’ ratings of culturally different children on the SRBCSS? In a large southwestern school district, three categories of schools were selected, and performance of Hispanic and Anglo students on the SRBCSS were compared. The findings were mixed, but indicated no significant difference on the Creativity scale, with some significant differences, related to school type and ethnicity of students, on the Learning, Motivation, and Leadership scales.

A comparison of the affect of two types of student behavior with manipulatives on the development of projective spatial structures

AbstractThe primary problem investigated was whether examining materials from a variety of perspecitives enhances the development of projective spatial abilities more than examining materials from a single perspective. A secondary consideration dealt with gender effects. One hundred and five (56 females and 49 males) fifth grade students were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Two teachers taught two classes apiece‐one receiving instruction encouraging examination of materials from a single perspective, the other from multiple perspectives. All four groups received instruction consisting of access to manipulatives‐SCIIS, 2nd edition, Level 5. Instruction occurred twice a week, 45 minutes per session, for 6 weeks. The experimental design was the Solomon Four Group Design. A Battery of 8 Piagetian‐type tasks were used to assess possession of the projective groupings. The main and interactive effects of pretesting were determined to be negligible, while the treatment was determined to have a statistically significant effect on the development on projective spatial abilities. Gender was determined to have no direct effect on the dependent variables.

Reply to Stodolsky's Review of Student Characteristics and Teaching

disappointed, however, that Stodolsky finds the presentation overly complex and inadequately integrated, especially because I thought we had made good progress in this regard in developing the book from the technical report of the study. I suspect that the problem resides at least in part in the complexity of the study itself: the technical report has 750 manuscript pages, of which several hundred are devoted to complex tables. In contrast, the book is 206 pages of which only twenty-three are devoted to tables, and these tables are simplified considerably from the originals. Furthermore, the last four chapters (of eighteen) are devoted to summary and discussion of the material. Thus, considering the scope and complexity of the study, the book is a summary of the important findings rather than a detailed presentation of all of the findings. I believe that the data presentation is as streamlined as it can be without omitting or distorting the results. Integrative explanation of the results is another matter, however. Stodolsky is correct in noting that the large sample size and other innovative design features of this study did not succeed in enabling us to resolve all of the issues we set out to investigate and that more analytical work and theory development are needed. Again, part of the problem here is the complexity of the study: the sheer number and variety of findings defy integration or analysis with a few theoretical concepts. On the other hand, we made real progress in resolving some of the ambiguities of earlier research. The combination of the large sample with finer distinctions in types of student behavior considered, attention to stability of student behavior across 2 school years as reported by two teachers, and coding of initiationreaction sequences in teacher-student interaction enabled us to determine that teachers' expectations and attitudes are based mostly on students' academic performance, classroom conduct, and response to the teachers, and not on physical or status characteristics. We also show that teachers' patterns of interaction with students labeled as objects of teacher indifference are actually due to the passivity of those students and their failure to respond to persistent teacher efforts to reach them, and not to any genuine teacher indifference. Similarly we show that students who misbehave frequently but do not become alienated from their teachers are different from rejection students who share a pattern of mutual hostility with their teachers (the latter students, whether or not they misbehave often, persistently treat teachers with hostility and rejection, which eventually are reciprocated). These and other resolutions of issues raised in earlier research are discussed in the summary chapters, although perhaps not as thoroughly as they should have been. Stodolsky's criticism has some merit in that, although the issues stressed in the early chapters describing the rationale for the study are discussed in the summary chapters, they are not treated systematically in ways that the early chapters might lead the reader to expect. In trying to figure out why, I have become aware that a gradual shift over time occurred in how we (the authors of Permission to reprint this reply may be obtained only from the author.

The consultative merits of praise-ignore versus praise- reprimand instruction

The present study compared the effects of two behavior management strategies on three types of student behaviors (appropriate, off-task, and disruptive). One strategy involved the teacher's verbally praising appropriate behaviors while concomitantly ignoring disruptive behaviors. The other strategy involved verbally praising appropriate behaviors while concomitantly issuing soft reprimands for disruptive behaviors. Six junior high school students in two general science classes were selected for the study on the basis of their frequent disruptive behavior. College-trained observers recorded target student and teacher behaviors daily. A multiple baseline design with reversals was usedto ascertain the effectiveness of the treatments. The results showed that both the praise-ignore combination and the praise-soft reprimand combination were substantially superior to baseline conditions. However, more rapid and slightly greater improvement was achieved under the praise-soft reprimand combination than under the praise-ignore combination. In contrast, improvement in behavior diminished less rapidly in the reversals following the praise-ignore phases than in the reversals following the praise-soft reprimand phases.