Does the teacher’s pet phenomenon inevitably cause classroom conflict? Comparative viewpoints of three pet-student groups

Abstract

Although most studies reveal a relationship between the teacher’s pet phenomenon with classroom conflict, it does not necessarily cause classroom conflict. This study confirms the model fit for teacher authority, the existence of the teacher’s pet phenomenon and its relationship to classroom conflict and students’ self-adjustment, as well as testing the different viewpoints of three pet-student groups. Participants in the study comprised 407 5th through 8th grade students from 12 schools in Taiwan. The findings indicate that the estimated model fits the observed data; teacher authority directly affects the teacher’s pet phenomenon and indirectly affects classroom conflict and students’ self-adjustment. Non-pet students, popular-pet students, and unpopular pet students have different viewpoints of the variables. Three sub-models reveal different path effects; the inclusion of popular-pet students does not lead to classroom conflict. Implications for theory, practice, and research are discussed.

Keywords

Classroom conflict classroom management multi-group structural equation modeling peer relationship self-adjustment teacher authority teacher’s pet phenomenon

Classroom management has always been a serious issue both for novice and experienced teachers (Arends, 2004). The more frustration and conflict that teachers face while handling student affairs and problems, the more likely they are to experience overwhelming pressure and feel uncomfortable in classroom management, implementation of ‘rules’ and their teaching procedures (Kyriacou, 2001; Ritter & Hancock, 2007). Classroom management problems are the main source of work pressure faced by teachers, no matter how different the working environment or salary in different countries.

The main focus of recent studies in classroom management has been on how to manage classrooms well, and the relationship between classroom management and teaching effectiveness (Manning & Bucher, 2006; Marzno, Pickering, & Pollock, 2004). However, teachers are likely to show their preferences toward students intentionally or unintentionally in the process of dealing with and punishing students (Brown & Dobbins, 2004; Tirri & Puolimatka, 2000). Teachers may show certain preferences towards some students just as they show affection towards their pets— ‘the teacher’s pet phenomenon’ (Babad, 1995; Tal & Babad, 1990). Tal and Babad estimated that the teacher’s pet phenomenon can be found in over 80% of classrooms, with the least helpful classroom climate existing in exclusive-pet classrooms (where there is only one pet student). Teachers often treat academically-strong and polite students better than others (Babad, 1996); yet, students are sensitive to thisdifferential treatment (Tirri & Puolimatka, 2000). Babad (1995) found that if students notice the teacher’s discriminating behaviors, it not only leads to jealousy and anger but also shows the highest negative correlation for students’ evaluation of their teacher (Babad & Dinah, 2003). While this phenomenon is commonly seen in most classrooms, the teacher’s pet phenomenon probably is a cause of classroom conflicts and impairs classroom morale. Currently there is insufficient evidentiary support from empirical studies of this phenomenon.

Teacher’s authority is a variable that has received much attention in classroom management research. Many students and parents recognize that teachers should be endowed with disciplinary authority; however, it is frequently controversial (Yariv, 2009). Upholding appropriate authority can facilitate a teacher’s leadership and maintain classroom order (Baker, Clark, Crowl, & Carlson, 2009; Martin & Baldwin, 1997; Tirri & Puolimatka, 2000). However, pressure from administrative work and teaching can increase the possibility of the misuse of a teacher’s authority (Kyriacou, 2001). Once teachers misuse their authority or show inconsistency in disciplinary attitude, students tend to notice that some students are especially favored by teachers, and this can lead other students to ignore or resist the teacher’s leadership (Gregory & Ripski, 2008; Pace & Hemmings, 2007). Tal and Babad (1990) found that in an elementary school in Israel, teachers who showed preferences towards certain students exercised more authority than teachers without such preferences, and class morale was poorer. Tirri and Puolimatka (2000) explain that the most common moral dilemmas that teachers and students identify are related to teacher behavior. Teachers view themselves as figures of authority and experts who can solve complex issues quickly; yet, teachers usually have an inadequate concept of teacher authority, and fail to exercise their authority consistently based on explicit rules. Teachers who exercise authority arbitrarily may downplay the expression of student opinion, exercise differential treatment of students, and cause student perception of unfair teacher discipline (Chambers, Henson, & Sienty, 2001). This study hypothesizes that some expressions of teacher authority may not only be harmful to classroom climate but also may lead to the teacher’s pet phenomenon in classrooms.

Teachers who exercise unfair discipline and who show preferences for their petstudents can cause classroom conflict (Somersalo, Solantaus, & Almquist, 2002). Others have also shown that classroom conflict can negatively affect student self-esteem, interests, motivation and adjustment to school, and increase the probability of bullying in the classroom (Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, 2000). Russell and Russell (1996) have found that such a negative classroom climate can cause students to experience depression and cause student emotional and behavioral problems (Somersalo et al., 2002). However, peer support and positive classroom morale can help students adapt to school life (Elias & Haynes, 2008). The current study further hypothesizes that the teacher’s pet phenomenon may lead to classroom conflict, which itself can cause a negative effect on student self-adjustment in class.

Recent studies have not paid sufficient attention to the psychological adjustment and the perceptions of non-pet students in the classroom. By caring more for pet students, teachers neglect the feelings of non-pet students; this may be a potential causative factor for conflict between pet students and non-pet students. Moreover, do all teacher’s pet students inevitably cause classroom conflict? Babad (1995) indicated that if teacher’s pet students were popular in class, classroom climate would not be negatively impacted. Popular pet-students may, in fact, be helpful in eliminating non-pet student jealousy, hatred, or even negative views. Pet students may not be an absolute factor causing classroom conflict; it probably depends on whether or not the teacher’s pet students are themselves popular. Therefore, this study further divides students into three groups: Non-pet students, popular-pet students, and unpopular-pet students and hypothesizes that popular-pet students and unpopular-pet students hold similar perceptions toward teacher authority, the teacher’s pet phenomenon, and self-adjustment.

Studies incorporating the classification of teacher’s pet classrooms remain unclear. Tal and Babad (1990), and Babad (1995) categorized teacher classrooms into three types according to how many pet students the teacher has: Non-pet classrooms, exclusive-pet classrooms (there is only one pet student), and non-exclusive-pet classrooms (more than one pet student). The results of their studies showed that the exclusive-pet classroom was the most detrimental to classroom morale. Since these studies were analysed in terms of classrooms as units, they tend to ignore the psychological feelings between pet students and non-pet students. Another problem is that Tal and Babad (1990) applied the trichotomy (i.e. non-pet classroom, exclusive-pet classroom, and non-exclusive-pet classroom) to classify teacher’s pet classrooms; however, it is difficult to distinguish whether teacher’s pet students are themajority or the minority of a class in non-exclusive-pet classroom. Tal and Babad (1990) found that a classroom with teacher’s pets in the majority might not necessarily result in a harmful classroom climate; however, if in the minority, it is likely to induce classroom conflict because it is easier for non-pet students to identify the unfairness. The current study continues the research completed by Babad (1995, 1996) and Tal and Babad (1990) but investigates classrooms based on the number of teacher’s pet students. Further, our study investigates the degree to which students perceive the teacher’s pet phenomenon in the classroom. This study can improve on the limitation of classifying by the number of teacher’s pet students, and measure the extent to which the teacher’s pet phenomenon actually exists in a pet classroom.

The dual purposes of this study are: (1) investigate the relationships between teacher’s authority and the teacher’s pet phenomenon, classroom conflict, and student’s self-adjustment using path analysis; and (2) examine the differences among non-pet students, popular-pet students, and unpopular-pet students’ perceptions on teacher’s authority, the teacher’s pet phenomenon, and classroom conflict by multi-group structural equation modeling.

Methods

Participants

The sample for this study was selected through stratified sampling from the northern, middle, and southern parts of Taiwan. The sampling included 24 5th through 8th grade classrooms, and 407 elementary and junior high school students. Students reported on the number of teacher’s pet students in each class, nominated one or more of their classmates as pet students; and their classes were categorized according to the trichotomy (non-pet student classroom, exclusive teacher’s pet classroom and non-exclusive teacher’s pet classroom). Then, the non-pet student classrooms were subtracted leaving the exclusive- and the non-exclusive teacher’s pet classroom for further analysis. The valid sample included 407 students consisting of 135 5th graders (33.2%), 107 6th graders (26.3%), 88 7th graders (21.6%), and 77 8th graders (18.9%). There were 206 male students (50.6%) and 201 female students (49.4%) in the sample.

Instrumentation

Teacher’s Arbitrary Scale (Lee & Liang, 2007)

This is a 13-item self-report assessment of the degree of teachers’ arbitrary management and authority trait from the students’ viewpoint. Responses are indicated on a five-point Likert Scale; items include, for example, ‘The teacher would scold students to prevent chatting and quarreling in the classroom’, ‘The teacher thinks he/she is always right’. Lee and Liang (2007) report that the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of this scale is 0.78.

Classroom Conflict Scale (Lee, 2002)

This is a seven-item self-report measuring the frequency of classroom conflicts. Scale questions include, for example ‘There are some students who will argue with the teacher’, ‘There are some students who disobey the teacher’s instructions’, ‘There are some students ignored by other students’, ‘Classmates often quarrel about trivial matters’. Lee (2002) reports that the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for this scale is 0.87.

The Teacher’s Pet Phenomenon Scale (Lee & Liang, 2007)

This is an eight-question self-report measuring the extent to which minority students are teacher’s pets in the classroom. Scale questions include, for example, ‘The teacher pays special attention and concern to certain students’, ‘The teacher is unfair when dealing with student issues’, ‘The teacher’s disciplinary standards are different for different classmates’. Lee and Liang (2007) report that the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of this scale is 0.81.

Psychological Adjustment scale (Chiu, Lee, & Shiue, 2002)

This is a nine-item self-report evaluating student psychological adjustment in the classroom. All items are negative responses, for example, ‘I feel a lot of pressure in the classroom’, ‘I’m not interested in classroom activities’. Chiu et al. (2002) report that the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of this scale is 0.87.

Procedures

Participants completed these four instruments in Chinese in a classroom setting. The social relationships of teacher’s pet students were calculated and categorized into popular-pet students and unpopular-pet students according to the social quantitative techniques of Coie and Dodge (1988) (students not belonging to popular/unpopular groups were considered as ‘other-pet’ groups). This study applied Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to determine a suitable model. Students were classified into popular-pet student group, unpopular-pet student group, and non-pet student group. One-way ANOVA was employed to examine the differences among these three groups, and multi-group structural equation modeling was employed to test the invariance of the three sub-group models. Maximum Likelihood was the method of estimation used for model estimation.

Results and discussion

A path model was constructed to test the fit of the estimated model, and we examined the hypothesized direct and indirect paths (see Figure 1). For the standard of overall model fit, the estimated model shows the χ² value is 0.14 (€p > 0.05); the estimate model can approximately fit the theoretical model. The model fit of GFI and AGFI in the estimated model are 1.00 and 0.99, respectively, which is much higher than the standard of 0.90 and approximates 1.00. RMSEA is 0, suggesting that there is almost no difference between the theoretical model and estimated model. Overall, the estimated model of the research has no negative error variance, with all estimate parameters reaching 0.05 significant levels. In addition, the overall correlation between estimated parameters is not too high, strongly indicating that the model does not follow the standard of preliminary fit criteria. For the internal structure model fit, allthe estimated parameters reached 0.001 significant levels. The average squared multiple correlation of observed variables is almost 0.50, revealing the internal validity of this model. These data combine to show that this estimated model has acceptable model fit.

Figure 1.

Significant path coefficients (standardized beta) for the estimate model.

The standardized path coefficients for the estimated model are presented in Table1 and Figure 1. First, the results show that teacher’s authority had direct positive impact on the teacher’s pet phenomenon and classroom conflict (γ₁₁ = 0.53, p < 0.001 and γ₂₁ = 0.64, p < 0.001). Second, the teacher’s pet phenomenon in the classroom also had direct impact on classroom conflict and student’s self-adjustment (β₂₁ = 0.10, p < 0.05 and β₃₁ = -0.53, p < 0.001). The more the teacher’s pet phenomenon existed in classrooms, the higher the classroom conflict and thepoorer the student self-adjustment. Classroom conflict also had a direct negative impact on student’s self-adjustment (β₃₂ = -0.42, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the teacher’s pet phenomenon and classroom conflict seemed to mediate a part of theimpact from teacher’s authority on student’s self-adjustment (γ₁₁ × β₃₁ = −0.28, p < 0.05 and γ₂₁ × β₃₂ = -0.27, p < 0.05). Either a perception of high teacher-authority or the existence of the teacher’s pet phenomenon in the classroom increased classroom conflict—which in turn was reflected in poorer student self-adjustment in the classroom.

Table 1.

Parameters estimated and standardized regression weights

Parameters	Estimate	SE	T-value	Standardized regression
TA→TP	0.62	0.05	12.15***	0.53
TP→CC	0.09	0.04	2.18*	0.10
TA→CC	0.70	0.05	14.58***	0.64
TP→SA	−0.56	0.04	−15.81***	−0.53
CC→SA	−0.47	0.04	−12.37***	−0.42
Error→TP	5.37	0.20	27.60***	0.85
Error→CC	4.29	0.16	27.60***	0.72
Error→SA	3.95	0.14	27.60***	0.59

*p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.

CC = Classroom conflict; SA = Self-adjustment; TA = Teacher authority; TP = Teacher’s pet phenomenon.

Tal and Babad (1990) indicated that the authoritative teacher tends to adopt routine regulation management, with a lack of student participation and discussion, and his/her classroom tends to have the teacher’s pet phenomenon and a negative classroom climate. The expectation theory explains that the teacher’s special attention paid toward students may lead to self-satisfaction and student’s outstanding performance (Jussim & Eccles, 1992). However, in the process of attaining such achievements, the more the teacher is rigid and authoritative, the more the non-pet students will be aware of it and become dissatisfied (Riley & Ungerleider, 2008; Tirri & Puolimatka, 2000). Teacher’s authoritative behaviors often emphasized the teacher’s reward/coercive power and lead to inconsistent management behaviors. However, if the teacher cannot deal with student issues fairly it causes detrimental impact to student learning motivation, and to students’ self-adjustment in the classroom (Levin & Nolan, 2000).

This study examined the group differences in the variable means; one-way ANOVA compared the differences among the unpopular pet student group, popular-pet student group, and non-pet student group (see means in Table 2). The F-test shows statistical difference in teacher’s authority (F_(2,379) = 11.14, p < 0.001), theteacher’s pet phenomenon (F_(2,379) = 132.404, p < 0.001), classroom conflict (F_(2,379) = 10.842, p < 0.001), and self-adjustment (F_(2,379) = 16.781, p < 0.001) among the three groups. Furthermore, the post-hoc Bonferroni test was applied to confirm the group difference in pairs. For the unpopular-pet student group and popular-pet student group, the post-hoc test shows no statistical difference in teacher’s authority, the teacher’s pet phenomenon, and self-adjustment. However, it does show statistical difference in classroom conflict, and reveals that the unpopular-pet student group experienced higher classroom conflict than the popular-pet student group (22.50 and 17.19). Although this shows that both groups of unpopular-pet students and popular-pet students belong to the total group of pet students, their popularity status mediates a difference in the degree of classroom conflict.

Table 2.

TA, TP, CC, and SA scores for three pet student groups

	Unpopular-pet student		Non-pet student		Popular-pet student
	(n = 38)		(n = 313)		(n = 31)
Variable	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
TA	48.97	5.48	52.67	5.37	49.93	3.64
TP	19.13	1.54	29.30	5.32	18.32	1.40
CC	22.50	5.19	18.02	6.02	17.19	3.56
SA	27.29	5.50	23.67	6.65	29.80	4.77

CC = Classroom conflict; SA = Self-adjustment; TA = Teacher authority; TP = Teacher’s pet phenomenon.

For the non-pet student group and unpopular-pet student group, the post-hoc test shows statistical differences in teacher’s authority, the teacher’s pet phenomenon, classroom conflict, and self-adjustment. The non-pet student group reports a higher level of teacher authority and the teacher’s pet phenomenon, but a lower level of classroom conflict and self-adjustment. Inversely, the unpopular-pet student group reports a higher level of classroom conflict, and self-adjustment. For both the non-pet student group and popular-pet student group, the post-hoc test shows statistical differences in teacher authority, the teacher’s pet phenomenon, and self-adjustment, but not classroom conflict. The non-pet student group reports a higher level of teacher authority and the teacher’s pet phenomenon, a lower level of self-adjustment, but an equal level of classroom conflict with the popular-pet student group. This means that even traditional pet-students more easily cause classroom conflict with non-pet students or teachers, but if these pet-students are popular among their peers, it reduces the likelihood of conflict in the classroom.

Interestingly, pet students did not have a strong perception of the teacher’s pet phenomenon. Both unpopular-pet students and popular-pet students benefited by being in the teacher’s pet phenomenon classroom. By comparison to non-pet students, they did not perceive a teacher-authority imbalance, nor were they alert to the teacher’s pet phenomenon; they had better self-adjustment. These data indicate that non-pet students and pet students have different psychological feelings about the phenomenon. Tal and Babad’s research into classroom conflict (1989, 1990) had previously found that non-pet students were very aware of the existence of pet students. Non-pet students not only kept their distance from pet students and viewed them differently, but also experienced a tense classroom atmosphere (see also Babad, 1995, 1996; Babad & Dinah, 2003). These viewpoints were partially supported by this study; this study further supports that if pet students are popular with other students they do not cause classroom conflict (see also Li & Zhang, 2008).

This study even found that the popular-pet student average of class conflict is marginally lower than non-pet students (17.19 and 18.02 respectively). This suggests that if pet students are not popular with other students, the teacher’s pet phenomenon is definitely a potential factor leading to classroom conflict. This is concordant with previous studies (Tal & Babad, 1989, 1990). Moreover, if teacher’s pet students are popular with other students, classroom conflict can be reduced; this relationship was seldom explored by previous studies.

To compare the group differences in the path coefficient, multi-group structural equation modeling was implemented to estimate parameters and test hypotheses for the three groups simultaneously. The χ² test showed statistical difference in the three unconstrained models (χ²₍₁₂₎ = 40.37, p < 0.05). This presented pattern differences among the three sub-group models. On the invariance evaluation of structural parameters, results show the differences concerning structural weights (χ²₍₂₀₎ = 177.23, p < 0.001) and structural covariance (χ²₍₂₁₎ = 179.22, p < 0.001). This shows different path parameters of the three sub-group models (see parameters in Table 3).

Table 3.

Standardized regression weights of three sub-group models

Parameters	Unpopular-pet student group		Non-pet student group		Popular-pet student group
TA→TP	0.83	***	0.52	***	0.37	*
TP→CC	0.46	**	0.41	***	0.15	n.s.
TA→CC	0.41	**	0.56	***	0.45	**
TP→SA	-0.69	***	-0.48	***	0.01	n.s.
CC→SA	-0.10	n.s.	-0.39	***	-0.57	***

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

CC = Classroom conflict; SA = Self-adjustment; TA = Teacher authority; TP = Teacher’s pet phenomenon.

All reported paths were found to be significant for non-pet student group, butonly partly significant for the popular-pet student group and unpopular-pet student group. Moreover, the strength of path parameters was different. In the non-pet student group model, the relationships among the four observed variables are the most similar to the estimated model constructed in this study. Obviously, theestimated model is better fitted to non-pet students. In the unpopular-pet student group model, the teacher’s pet phenomenon not only causes more intensive class conflict, but causes them greater self-maladjustment and pressure (see Figure 2). Itreveals that teachers should reduce the teacher’s pet phenomenon in the classroom with unpopular-pet students (Simon, 1998). Most interestingly, in the mode of path relationships of popular-pet students, the teacher’s pet phenomenon does not causeclassroom conflict nor cause them psychological self-maladjustment. If the pet students are popular with their peers, the negative effects of the teacher’s pet phenomenon on classroom conflict or psychological adjustment are not found. It is helpful for educators and counselors to further understand the substance of the teacher’s pet phenomenon and its effect on classroom conflict and student self-adjustment.

Figure 2.

Three sub-group models (Standardized path coefficients). ^aUnpopular-pet student group; ^bNon-pet student group; ^cPopular-pet student group.

Implications

This study aimed at describing classrooms with the teacher’s pet phenomenon andconstructing a path model comprising of teacher authority, the teacher’s pet phenomenon, classroom conflict, and student self-adjustment. Subjects were furtherclassified into the popular-pet student group, unpopular-pet student group, and non-pet student group. First, one-way ANOVA was employed to examine the differences of variables among these three groups. Then, simultaneous analysis of themultiple groups was employed to test the invariance of each two-group model. The results indicate that teacher authority can increase the teacher’s pet phenomenon and classroom conflict. We found that the teacher’s pet phenomenon indirectly increases classroom conflict and student maladjustment. F-tests (ANOVA) show that non-pet students are more sensitive to teacher authority and the teacher’s pet phenomenon, but are less sensitive to classroom conflict and self-adjustment. Popular-pet students and unpopular-pet students perceive higher psychological self-adjustment; however, unpopular-pet students tend to cause classroom conflict more than popular-pets.

It is worth noting that the psychological adjustment for non-pet students whoare neglected by the teacher is not good. In the popular-pet student group model, theteacher’s pet phenomenon does not lead to class conflict nor negatively affect these students’ self-adjustment. The typically-identified negative effect of the teacher’s pet phenomenon on classroom climate or on students’ psychological adjustment was not found in the current study. Conversely, this study suggests that teacher and school authority promotes teacher self-adjustment, and adjusts the physical and mental discomforts stemming from teaching pressure. In the current situation of a lack of disciplinary penalty power, and the rise in student self-awareness, teachers should continue to enhance their skills in classroom and emotional management and help students recognize the true meaning of teacher discipline while eliminating inappropriate authoritarian behaviors. Moreover, teachers should frequently reflect and ponder on their unhelpful verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Asian teachers, particularly, should encourage students to express opinions and change the traditional (oriental) culture where the teacher is the main authority figure in the classroom. On the other hand, unpopular-pet students tend to cause the most class conflict, and non-pet students have the poorest psychological self-adjustment. Both features will affect the ability of these students in their learning adjustment in theclassroom. Therefore, the teacher should listen to these students’ opinions more frequently, modestly accept different opinions and voices of different groups in theclassrooms in order to reduce the degree of the teacher’s pet phenomenon, and reconcile the estrangement between these pet and non-pet students in a role of a friendly mediator (Ziv, 1979). From a professional-competence viewpoint, teachers should probe the causes of student psychological maladjustment and make fair and just judgments in classroom management, as well as in the process of giving praise and exerting penalties. This will not only cause students to learn underlying democratic concepts of fairness and justice, but it can also eliminate possible teacher-student conflicts resulting from teacher authority or disciplinary differences (Craiget al., 2000). Finally, teachers should pay attention to the reaction of non-pet students and their emotional feelings in class, and actively converse with students who seldom talk in class in order to reduce misunderstandings between teacher and students, and increase trust in one another.

In addition to verifying these issues, further research can explore the effects of the teacher’s pet phenomenon on student participation in classroom affairs, teacher-student relationships, and student performance at school. However, Dreikurs, Pepper, and Grunwald (1998) point out that some teachers will pay more attention to troublesome students. It has not been verified whether this kind of teacher’s pet phenomenon will cause class conflict or not. Some teachers will adopt pet students with low social status or special disability. This kind of adoption of pet students may attract praise from other students and may not cause resentment of non-pet students, nor necessarily cause conflicts in the classroom. Further research should examine whetherthe teacher’s pet phenomenon can have positive effects on class morale and student self-adjustment when minority students are pet students. Further research should further validate the research values of the teacher’s pet phenomenon in practice.

The limitation of this study is that it only investigated students’ viewpoints through self-reports—instead of teachers’ viewpoints. That is, the results of this study only represent students’ viewpoints. Different perceptions may exist between teachers and students toward the teacher’s pet phenomenon. Also, this study was conducted in two phases of sampling of classrooms with the teacher’s pet phenomenon, so the results are not representative of the differences within classrooms without the teacher’s pet phenomenon. Finally, student participants were all from urban schools, limiting the application to students from other settings.

Footnotes

Note

Author biographies

Shao-I Chiu, EdD, PhD, is Associate Professor at the Taipei College of Maritime Technology of Center for General Education. He was previously the Dean of Academic Affairs, and Dean of Research and Development at TCMT. He has long directed and executed research projects funded by the National Science Council andthe Ministry of Education of Taiwan. His research focus includes adolescent behavior, addiction behavior, educational psychology, quality management, quality model development, and vocational education. Address: No. 212, Sec. 9, Yanping N. Rd, Shilin Dist., Taipei City 111, Taiwan (R.O.C.). Email: shaoi.chiu@msa.hinet.net

Jiezhi Lee, PhD, is Associate Professor at the Chung Chou University of Science and Technology. He has executed several research projects funded by the National Science Council of Taiwan. His research interests include classroom management, educational psychology, health psychology, and child development. Address: 6, Lane 2, Section 3, Shanjiao Road, Yuanlin Township, Changhua County 510, Taiwan. Email: lje6422@gmail.com

Tsanglang Liang, PhD, is Associate Professor at the National Changhua University of Education. He was previously the President of the Department of Industrial Education and Technology at National Changhua University of Education. His research interests include educational policy, behavior analysis, and teaching leadership. Address: 1, Jin-De Road, Changhua City, Taiwan 500 (Bao-Shan Campus), Taiwan. Email: ietll@cc.ncue.edu.tw

References

Arends

R. I.

(2004) Learning to teach, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Babad

(1995) The ‘Teachers Pet’ phenomenon, students’ perceptions of teacher differential behavior, and students morale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 361–374.

Babad

(1996) How high is ‘high inference’? Within classroom differences in students perceptions of classroom interaction. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 31, 1–9.

Babad

Dinah

A. B.

(2003) Teachers’ brief nonverbal behaviors in defined instructional situations can predict students’ evaluations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 553–563.

Baker

J. A.

Clark

T. P.

Crowl

Carlson

(2009) The influence of authoritative teaching on children’s school adjustment: Are children with behavioural problems differentially affected? School Psychology International, 30(4), 374–382. doi: 10.1177/0143034309106945.

Brown

L. M.

Dobbins

(2004) Students of color and European American studentsstigma-relevant perceptions of university instructors. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 157–175.

Chambers

S. M.

Henson

R. K.

Sienty

S. F.

(2001) Personality types and teaching efficacy as predictors of classroom control orientation in novice teachers. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 452184.

Chiu

S. I.

Lee

J. Z.

Shiue

S. P.

(2002) A study on the relationships among family function, parent-adolescent conflict, coping strategies, and life adjustment. Hong Kong Journal of Social Sciences, 22, 141–177.

Coie

J. D.

Dodge

K. A.

(1988) Multiple sources of data on social behavior and social status in the school: Across-age comparison. Child Development, 59, 815–829.

10.

Craig

W. M.

Pepler

Atlas

(2000) Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21, 22–36.

11.

Dreikurs

Pepper

F. C.

Grunwald

B. B.

(1998) Maintaining sanity in the classroom, New York, NY: Harper and Row.

12.

Elias

M. J.

Haynes

N. M.

(2008) Social competence, social support, and academic achievement in minority, low-income, urban elementary school children. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 474–495.

13.

Gregory

Ripski

M. B.

(2008) Adolescent trust in teachers: Implications for behavior in the high school classroom. School Psychology Review, 37, 337–353.

14.

Jussim

Eccles

(1992) Teacher expectations II: Construction and reflection of student achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 947–961.

15.

Kyriacou

(2001) Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53, 27–35.

16.

Lee

J. Z.

(2002) The relational study of the teacher’s pet phenomenon and classroom climate. Secondary Education, 53, 116–129.

17.

Lee

J. Z.

Liang

T. L.

(2007) The effect of the teachers pet phenomenon on classroom morale and mental adjustment. Journal of Pingtung University of Education, 28, 101–128.

18.

Levin

Nolan

J. F.

(2000) Principles of classroom management: A professional decision-making mode, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

19.

Zhang

(2008) Factors predicting rural Chinese adolescents’ anxieties, fears and depression. School Psychology International, 29, 376–384.

20.

Manning

M. L.

Bucher

K. T.

(2006) Classroom management: Models applications and cases, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

21.

Martin

N. K.

Baldwin

(1997) Validation of an inventory of classroom management style: Differences between novice and experienced teachers.. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED359240.

22.

Marzano

R. J.

Pickering

D. J.

Pollock

J. E.

(2004) Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

23.

Pace

J. L.

Hemmings

(2007) Understanding authority in classrooms: A review of theory, ideology, and research. Review of Educational Research, 77, 4–27.

24.

Riley

Ungerleider

(2008) Pre-service teachers discriminatory judgments. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54, 378–388.

25.

Ritter

J. T.

Hancock

D. R.

(2007) Exploring the relationship between certification sources, experience levels, and classroom management orientations of classroom teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1206–1216.

26.

Russell

T. T.

Russell

D. K.

(1996) The relationships between childhood depression perceptions of family functioning and perceptions of classroom social climate: Implications for school counselors.. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED396197.

27.

Simon

(1998) Teachers pet. Campus Life, 56, 8–9.

28.

Somersalo

Solantaus

Almqvist

(2002) Classroom climate and the mental health of primary school children. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 56, 285–290.

29.

Tal

Babad

(1989) The teacher’s pet phenomenon as viewed by Israeli teachers and students. Elementary School Journal, 90, 97–108.

30.

Tal

Babad

(1990) The teacher’s pet phenomenon: Rate of occurrence, correlates, and psychological costs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 637–645.

31.

Tirri

Puolimatka

(2000) Teacher authority in schools: A case student from Finland. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26, 157–165.

32.

Yariv

(2009) Student’s attitudes on the boundaries of teacher’s authority. School Psychology International, 30, 92–111.

33.

Ziv

(1979) The teacher’s sense of humor and the atmosphere in the classroom. School Psychology International, 1, 21–23.