When students feel respected, they are more motivated, committed to the course, and likely to learn. And most faculty aspire to treat students with respect. The rub revolves around how respect (and its counterpart disrespect) ends up being defined behaviorally. What do faculty do that conveys that they value students, and what do they do that communicates disrespect?

E. Holly Buttner asked 228 undergraduate students to respond to these two, open-ended questions: “Tell us about a time when an instructor behaved toward you or another student in a way that you thought showed respect. What did the instructor do?” “Now tell us about a time when an instructor behaved toward you or another student in a way that you thought was disrespectful. What did the instructor do?”

Using a qualitative approach involving a systematic content analysis of responses, Buttner identified seven categories in which respectful behaviors could be grouped and six categories of disrespectful behavior. They are listed below along with the percentage of responses for the category. The article also contains sample student responses illustrating the various categories which we do not have space to include.

• Recognition of student perspectives (29.6 percent) -- asking for students’ opinions and taking their responses into account when making decisions, listening to students’ concerns, getting to know students individually, and thanking students for their input
• Treatment of students (23 percent) -- demonstrating kindness and concern for the student and showing sensitivity to the students’ concerns
• Task-related help (13.9 percent) -- responding to questions and providing help for students having difficulty
• Responsiveness to unusual situations (12 percent) -- making exceptions for students with special needs, such as family emergencies, illness, personal problems, or changing employment schedules
• Affirmation of students (10.2 percent) -- confirming the value of students’ contributions to class discussions and other class activities; how instructors respond to incorrect answers
• Nondefensiveness ( 7 percent) -- responding nondefensively to questions and challenges
• Class integrity (4.4 percent) -- being honest and truthful with students, demonstrating trust in students, fair and impartial treatment, concerns for students’ rights and providing justification for decisions.

• Insensitive treatment ( 53 percent) -- instructor rudeness, arrogance, condescension, ridiculing, sarcasm, cutting students off, and putting students down in front of classmates
• Lack of help (16.3 percent) -- ignoring students’ questions, refusal to provide assistance with assignments or missed class work, not being available during office hours, not responding to e-mails
• Defensiveness (11.4 percent) -- reacting angrily to student questions or concerns
• Failure to recognize student concerns (6.9 percent) -- ignoring students’ perspectives and failing to learn students’ names
• Classroom integrity (6.9 percent) -- being treated unfairly, lack of truthfulness, lack of justification for instructional decisions
• Failure to respond to students (5.4 percent) -- not responding to class concerns including making exceptions and altering assignments.

 
Buttner found plenty of evidence in this data that students react when they feel they and other students are being disrespected in class. They don’t come to class, don’t make an effort to participate, and often feel motivated to return the disrespect.

Clearly disrespect doesn’t just go in one direction. Students can and do act toward professors in ways that are disrespectful. Someone needs to ask faculty these same questions and similarly analyze their results. Buttner suggests that it might “be useful for instructors to collaboratively develop ground rules with the students at the beginning of the semester about respectful behavior for all members of the learning process, the instructor and students.” (p. 332)

Reference: Buttner, E. H. (2004). How do we “dis” students?: A model of (dis)respectful business instructor behavior. Journal of Management Education, 28 (3), 319-334.