Measuring Adolescent Attitudes Toward Classroom Incivility

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a scale that measures adolescents’ attitudes toward classroom incivility and determine whether items would reveal subscales. A sample of 549 adolescents between ages 11 and 18 (53.1% boys; M_age = 13.90, SD = 1.41) completed items written to measure attitudes toward classroom incivility. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used on one half of the randomly split sample and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the remainder. Results from both analyses suggested that two factors representing unintentional and intentional incivility might be the best factor solution. In addition, evidence for concurrent validity was found in correlations with four additional scales. Results suggest that attitudes toward classroom incivility are heterogeneous and that adolescence may be an important developmental period to address this construct. Future studies should continue psychometrically developing this scale and exploring this measure with additional antisocial beliefs and behaviors.

Keywords

classroom incivility intentional unintentional adolescence scale development

Introduction

The decline of civility in the classroom has recently been a concern in education (Bjorklund & Rehling, 2009). Civility is defined as “polite behaviours that maintain social harmony, or demonstrate respect for the humanity of an individual, important in maintaining a society” (Wilkins, Caldarella, Crook-Lyon, & Young, 2010, p. 37). To conceptualize civility, two aspects must be examined. The “civic” aspect focuses on citizenship (i.e., being aware of the others’ well-being) and the “civil” aspect focuses on creating “learning relationships” to ensure others’ well-being (Marini, Polihronis, & Blackwell, 2010). The opposite of civility, however, is incivility, which is the focus of this article. Andersson and Pearson (1999) defined incivility as “low intensity, deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to cause harm” (p. 457). These uncivil attitudes and actions include a general disregard for others (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Furthermore, what differentiates incivility from other antisocial behaviors such as aggression and bullying are the aspects of low intensity and ambiguous intent.

Multidimensional Model of Incivility

To better understand the concept of incivility, a clearer distinction should be made between acts and methods of incivility. Marini (2009) described the major continuums of incivility: the form (ranging from indirect to direct) and function (ranging from reactive to proactive). Indirect incivility would be negative actions carried out covertly, whereas direct incivility would be implemented overtly (Marini, 2009). On the opposing continuum, proactive incivility includes uncivil actions used to attain a resource (i.e., stealing notes), whereas reactive incivility includes uncivil actions used as retaliation (Marini, 2009). Thus, incivility encompasses both attitudinal and behavioral aspects.

Along with these distinctions, incivility can also be conceptualized as being intentional or unintentional. Intentionally uncivil actions are planned with a clear intent to harm, similar to proactive incivility (Marini et al., 2010). An example includes spreading rumors about a classmate (Marini, 2009), as this action is done with intent to hurt that individual. Unintentional incivility is done through inattention or thoughtlessness, rather than with intent to harm (Marini et al., 2010). An example includes checking your email during class, as this is done without intentions to harm but could be perceived as disrespectful.

Research has generally focused on higher intensity antisocial behaviors such as aggression instead of lower intensity behaviors such as incivility (Eggertson, 2011; Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008). However, antisocial attitudes and forms of aggression should be examined to see if they have similar origins (Marini, 2007). In addition, research on incivility primarily focuses on adult workplace incivility or college classroom incivility. Within the workplace, incivility can affect the attitudes and behaviors of employees (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Pearson & Porath, 2005). Considering the negative outcomes associated with workplace incivility and the lack of research on incivility among younger samples, the present study will focus on adolescent classroom incivility.

Classroom In/Civility

Adolescence may be a crucial time to address incivility before behaviors become more serious. Thus, it is increasingly important to focus on classroom incivility as it may affect both academic and personal development (Marini, 2009). Feldmann (2001) defined classroom incivility as “any action that interferes with a harmonious and cooperative learning atmosphere” (p. 137). Classroom incivility has the potential to disrupt the learning environment and teaching capabilities of the institution (Feldmann, 2001). Educators may often ignore uncivil behaviors to have more instructional time and may believe these behaviors may disappear on their own. However, not addressing uncivil behaviors may signal to students that these behaviors are acceptable, which may encourage repetition (Feldmann, 2001). Therefore, it is important to understand adolescent attitudes about uncivil behaviors to understand the origins.

Boice (1996) found classroom incivility was common, where two thirds of classes showed such behaviors. Thus, it is important to address classroom incivility as there are many associated negative outcomes. For instance, a short-term consequence includes limited class engagement, whereas a long-term outcome includes not reaching educational goals (Hirschy & Braxton, 2004). Moreover, incivility may reduce student commitment to current and post-secondary education (Hirschy & Braxton, 2004). Therefore, it is important to address this phenomenon during adolescence, a period when social ties are forming and community building is fundamental (Schaefer, 1995). Furthermore, addressing these behaviors early may prevent development of more serious antisociality in post-secondary institutions or in the workplace (Boice, 1996).

Previous Measures of Classroom Incivility

To explore incivility, a valid and reliable measure relevant for adolescents is needed. Although research suggests classroom incivility has increased, there are limited measures that exist to examine adolescent thoughts on incivility (Wilkins et al., 2010). One known measure created by Indiana University (Royce, 2000) assesses faculty perceptions of classroom incivility. In this measure, faculty members are asked what behaviors they consider to be uncivil, the frequency, and associated demographics (Royce, 2000). Thus, this measure does not assess students’ perceptions of incivility and targets older university students. However, several researchers have adapted this scale to assess university students’ perceptions.

For example, a study by Nordstrom, Bartels, and Bucy (2009) adapted the Indiana University (Royce, 2000) survey to assess college students’ perceptions of incivility. This scale included items about negative (i.e., using cell phones in class) and positive or neutral (i.e., raising hands in class) classroom behaviors. Students were asked the appropriateness and frequency in engagement of each behavior. Similarly, researchers have developed scales on student perceptions of classroom incivility by creating 10 (Boice, 1996) to more than 20 (Al Kandari, 2011; Bjorklund & Rehling, 2009) items compiled from existing research (e.g., Caboni, Hirschy, & Best, 2004). All studies asked students to rate how uncivil they thought each item was. According to Boice (1996), the most commonly reported uncivil behaviors by students included starting class early, stopping class late, and disruptive students. Furthermore, the study found that as classroom incivility increased, students were more likely to engage in additional disruptive behaviors and were less involved in learning. Taken together, these studies demonstrate that although a few measures of classroom incivility exist, they measure the attitudes of students in college and university instead of middle and high school. These young adults are developmentally different from adolescents. Furthermore, the structure of classrooms and lessons are different for colleges and universities, in comparison with middle and high schools. Therefore, it is evident that a scale is needed to measure similar uncivil attitudes with items that are relevant specifically for adolescents.

Current Study

Most research on attitudes on incivility has been conducted on young adults in post-secondary institutions or adults in the workplace. Although these scales may be valid and reliable for their target sample, the items may not be developmentally relevant to incivility specifically for adolescents in a secondary school classroom. To our knowledge, there are no scales that measure adolescents’ attitudes toward classroom incivility. As a result, there were two main goals of the present study: (a) develop a Classroom Incivility scale with items that are relevant to adolescents’ attitudes and (b) determine whether subscales of incivility would emerge in this scale. We hypothesized that subscales would emerge based on behavior intentionality (i.e., intentional or unintentional). Finally, to provide evidence for concurrent validity, we correlated emerging subscales of incivility with three measures of antisociality (antisocial beliefs, friend antisociality, and conduct problems) and a measure of prosocial behavior. We predicted significant positive correlations between all types of incivility and measures of antisociality and a significant negative correlation between incivility and prosocial behavior.

Method

Participants

Adolescents between the ages of 11 and 18 (N = 549, 53.1% boys; M_age = 13.90, SD = 1.41) were recruited from extracurricular activities in Southern Ontario, including sports teams and youth groups. Participants were recruited for a larger study on adolescent relationships. Self-reported ethnicities included Caucasian (70.9%), Asian (2.9%), Hispanic (1.8%), African-Canadian (1.8%), Mixed (1.8%), Indigenous peoples (1.1%), and Other (9.0%). The remainder did not report ethnicity (10.7%). For self-reported perceptions of socioeconomic status (SES), the majority of adolescents reported his or her family to be “about the same” (66.4%) in wealth as the average Canadian, whereas fewer reported “more rich” (21.4%) and “less rich” (10.9%). The remainder (1.3%) did not report SES.

A subsample of participants completed measures for scales added during a later phase of data collection, which were used to assess concurrent validity. These subsamples include antisocial beliefs (n = 278, 51.1% girls; M_age = 13.79, SD = 1.34), friend antisociality (n = 191, 51.8% boys; M_age = 13.92, SD = 1.49), conduct problems (n = 313, 53.4% boys; M_age = 13.87, SD = 1.34), and prosocial behavior (n = 319, 52.0% boys; M_age = 13.79, SD = 1.32).

Measures

Incivility

Questionnaires were presented in random order. Participants completed 11 items written to measure a variety of attitudes toward incivility relevant to adolescents. Items were selected from a pool of 20 items written for previous work on developing an Adolescent Classroom Incivility scale (Marini, 2007). Although this study was unpublished, we narrowed down the number of items we thought were most relevant to reduce the length of the scale. The questionnaire asked, “Please circle the answer that best describes your belief about each of the following situations.” A sample item for unintentional incivility is “Packing up books before a lesson is over.” A sample item for intentional incivility is “Calling a classmate names because they did not agree with your opinion.” Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = definitely wrong to 5 = definitely okay).

Antisocial beliefs

Participants completed a modified 11-item version of the Attitudinal Intolerance of Deviance Scale (α = .86; Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa, & Turbin, 1995). The questionnaire asked to check the box that best fit how wrong they thought it was to behave in the way described in each item. A sample item includes, “To take little things that don’t belong to you.” Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = very wrong to 5 = not at all wrong). An average score was computed.

Friend antisociality

Participants completed a modified seven-item version of the Delinquent Peer Exposure Scale (α = .82; Mazerolle & Maahs, 2000). Participants were asked how many of their friends have engaged in delinquent activities. A sample item includes, “Skipped school without an excuse?” Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = none of them to 5 = all of them). An average score was computed.

Conduct problems

Participants completed a five-item version of the Conduct Problems subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (α = .40; Goodman, Meltzer, & Bailey, 1998), which asked to check the box that best described their opinion for each statement. A sample item includes, “I get very angry and often lose my temper.” Items were rated on a 3-point scale (0 = not true to 2 = certainly true). An average score was computed.

Prosocial behavior

Participants completed a five-item version of the Prosocial Behavior subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (α = .60; Goodman et al., 1998), which asked to check the box that best described their opinion for each statement. A sample item includes, “I try to be nice to people and care about their feelings.” Items were rated on a 3-point scale (0 = not true to 2 = certainly true). An average score was computed.

Procedure

After university ethics approval, extracurricular activity leaders were contacted for consent to approach adolescents. Once consent was obtained, the researchers went to the activities and invited adolescents to participate in a study on adolescent relationships. Interested participants were given two envelopes: one with a parental consent form and the second with an assent form and questionnaires. Participants were informed that both forms needed signatures for questionnaires to be used and to complete the questionnaires in private. Approximately 1 week later, researchers returned, collected completed packages, and debriefed participants. Participants were given C$15 in compensation.

Data Analysis

After missing data and plausible values were assessed, the sample was randomly split in half. For the first half, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring with promax rotation (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Norris & Lecavalier, 2010; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013) was conducted with the 11 items using SPSS 22 software. We decided to conduct an EFA first because our study was exploratory in nature, and to our knowledge, no studies exist on developing adolescents’ attitudes toward incivility. Therefore, we did not specify the number of factors in our model. We used a promax rotation as we expected subscales would be oblique. We used multiple oblique rotations and found that all yielded similar factor solutions and loadings. Item loadings were assessed to determine which factor each item should be assigned to, and items with poor loadings were excluded. EFA was then rerun with remaining items to determine whether the number of factors and loadings changed as a result of the exclusion.

Following the EFA, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 22 software on the second half of the randomly split sample. The CFA was conducted to determine whether our hypothesis that subscales based on intentionality would be supported and to see whether results similar to the EFA would be found. Therefore, we assigned the items to two factors based on the item loadings from the EFA. Finally, to assess concurrent validity, composite scores of the two subscales were created and correlated with antisocial beliefs, friend antisociality, conduct problems, and prosocial behavior for a subsample of participants who had completed these four scales.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Assessment of missing data revealed that three items had one missing case, two items had two missing cases, four items had three missing cases, and two items had 100 missing cases. Expectation–Maximization (EM) Estimated Statistics with a criterion of p < .05 revealed that the data may not be missing completely at random, χ²(127) = 174.10, p = .004, although there were no age and sex differences. Missing data were likely due to the fact that the two items with the most number of missing cases were added to the questionnaires at a later point in the data collection. Missing cases were not replaced to prevent any biases. Pairwise deletions were used for subsequent analyses, reducing the sample size to 247 for the EFA and 246 for the CFA. All descriptive values were plausible (see Tables 1 and 2). Six items had univariate outliers outside of the |3.29| cutoff for standardized scores (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013), and there were three multivariate outliers outside the χ²(10) = 29.59 cutoff. However, outliers were expected as some items measuring incivility are often considered more antisocial than other items. Therefore, all outliers were kept in subsequent analyses. Interitem correlations ranged from small to moderate (.16-.65), reflecting no issues with multicollinearity. All items met the assumptions of multivariate normality and linearity.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics, Factor Loadings, Communalities (h²), and Percentage of Variance for EFA With Promax Rotation on Final Incivility Items.

Item	Factor 1	Factor 2	H ²	n	M (SD)
Posting nasty notes	0.86	−0.21	0.74	247	1.27 (0.75)
Calling classmate names	0.78	0.04	0.60	247	1.28 (0.68)
Fighting with student	0.77	0.02	0.59	247	1.41 (0.84)
Spreading rumors	0.69	−0.02	0.48	199	1.47 (0.86)
Making fun of classmate	0.57	0.22	0.32	247	1.59 (0.87)
Eating during class	−0.04	0.77	0.59	247	3.06 (1.17)
Packing up books	−0.31	0.72	0.52	247	2.55 (1.28)
Online during a lesson	0.08	0.69	0.48	247	2.38 (1.31)
Sending a text in class	0.04	0.66	0.43	247	1.98 (1.14)
Sleeping in class	0.26	0.56	0.31	246	1.80 (1.04)
Percentage of variance	42.03	11.41

Note. Loadings more than 0.45 (20% variance) are bolded to facilitate interpretation. EFA = exploratory factor analysis; Factor 1 = intentional incivility; Factor 2 = unintentional incivility.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Standardized Factor Loadings for CFA on Final Incivility Items (N = 246).

Item	Factor 1	Factor 2	M (SD)
Posting nasty notes	0.77		1.22 (0.63)
Spreading rumors	0.88		1.30 (0.64)
Calling classmate names	0.75		1.39 (0.74)
Fighting with student	0.80		1.39 (0.83)
Making fun of classmate	0.68		1.60 (0.94)
Packing up books		0.53	3.04 (1.26)
Eating during class		0.70	2.36 (1.22)
Sending a text in class		0.74	2.34 (1.32)
Online during a lesson		0.80	1.89 (1.10)
Sleeping in class		0.76	1.76 (1.08)

Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; Factor 1 = intentional incivility; Factor 2 = unintentional incivility.

EFA

After conducting an EFA with promax rotation on the 11 items, we decided on a two-factor solution, which accounted for 52.72% of the variance in incivility. We decided on this solution because two factors had eigenvalues that were greater than 1, and the greatest jump in eigenvalues occurred after Factors 2 and 3. After exploring the items and loadings on the pattern matrix and using a cutoff value of 0.45 (20% variance; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013), the first factor reflected intentional incivility and consisted of five items. The second factor reflected unintentional incivility and consisted of six items. Both factors had good internal-consistency reliabilities (intentional: α = .86, unintentional: α = .84) and a large correlation between the two factors (r = .59). After exploring the structure matrix, one item representing unintentional incivility had relatively equal correlations to both factors, despite a higher loading on unintentional. To maximize the differences of the two factors and maintain consistency in the number of items for each factor, a second EFA was conducted after removing this item.

The second EFA with 10 items demonstrated a similar factor solution with the greatest jump in eigenvalue after Factor 2, and therefore, we retained two factors accounting for 53.44% of variance. After exploring the items and loadings on the pattern matrix, the first factor reflected unintentional incivility, whereas the second factor reflected intentional incivility. Both factors consisted of the same items as in the first EFA. After removing the one item, the internal-consistency reliability for unintentional incivility was still good (α = .82). There was also still a large correlation between the two factors (r = .56). See Table 1 for rotated loadings on factors, communalities, and percentage of variance. Average scores for each factor revealed plausible means and standard deviations (intentional: M = 1.43, SD = 0.67; unintentional: M = 2.35, SD = 0.91).

CFA

Based on the results of the EFA, we tested how well the items loaded onto a two-factor solution, where five items loaded on each factor and the two factors were allowed to correlate. The results indicated a poor model fit when assessing model chi-square, χ²(34) = 64.274, p = .001. However, a significant model chi-square is often found in larger sample sizes, and therefore, other fit indices should be explored to determine model fit (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Examining these additional fit indices using Tabachnick and Fidell’s (2013) criteria indicated good model fit. The relative chi-square using a cutoff of <0.20 indicated good model fit (χ²/df = 1.890). Using a cutoff of >0.95, both the goodness of fit index (GFI = 0.952) and the comparative fit index (CFI = 0.975), demonstrated good model fits. Finally, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) using a cutoff of ≤0.60 indicated good model fit (RMSEA = .06, 90% CI = [0.41, 0.81]). Therefore, our hypothesized two-factor model was supported by our observed data. Both factors had good internal-consistency reliabilities (intentional: α = .87, unintentional: α = .83), and there was a high correlation between the two factors (r = .69). All standardized factor loadings were larger than 0.53, indicating large loadings (see Table 2). Average scores for each factor revealed plausible means and standard deviations (intentional: M = 1.40, SD = 0.64; unintentional: M = 2.28, SD = 0.93).

See the appendix for a list of the final items for each subscale. In summary, two factors representing intentional and unintentional incivility, with five items each, may be the best solution.

Concurrent Validity

Subscales of incivility revealed moderate correlations with measures of antisociality and small correlations with prosocial behavior. For antisocial beliefs, the correlations with unintentional and intentional incivility were .57 and .43 (ps < .001, n = 278), respectively. For friend antisociality, the correlations with unintentional and intentional incivility were .50 and .49 (ps < .001, n = 191), respectively. For conduct problems, the correlations with unintentional and intentional incivility were .35 and .29 (ps < .001, n = 313), respectively. For prosocial behavior, the correlations with unintentional and intentional incivility were −.19 (p = .001) and −.22 (p < .001, n = 319), respectively.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to develop a scale to measure adolescents’ attitudes on different types of classroom incivility. As hypothesized, the EFA and CFA indicated subscales of incivility based on the function of the behavior (i.e., intentional and unintentional) with similar sizes of item loadings, means, standard deviations, and correlations between the two subscales. These results support previous studies that suggested incivility can be conceptualized along a continuum of intentionality (e.g., Hunt & Marini, 2012). Previous research on incivility has conceptualized the behavior in a number of different ways. However, we believe that the intentional facet of incivility from our scale overlaps with Hunt and Marini’s (2012) proactive facet of their Multidimensional Model, given that both intentional and proactive behaviors are deliberately meant to harm others (i.e., spreading rumors about a classmate you dislike). By demonstrating that our scale measures attitudes on different subtypes of classroom incivility, it may help provide a better understanding of how this construct can be conceptualized.

Factors did not emerge based on the form of the behavior, suggesting that the items had more commonalities based on attitudes of intentionality. Perhaps both intentional and unintentional incivilities may share multiple forms of behavior with the same function (Marini, 2009). For example, intentional incivility can be both direct (i.e., fighting with a student) and indirect (i.e., spreading rumors). In addition, the correlation between the two subtypes was moderate in size, suggesting that although attitudes on intentional and unintentional subtypes may share an overlap in incivility, they may still have independent factors, reflecting differences in function of the behaviors.

Furthermore, based on the item mean ratings for both the EFA and CFA, intentional incivility was more positively skewed. In other words, adolescents rated the intentional items to be more uncivil than the unintentional items. This further reflects previous research suggesting that incivility should be thought of as a continuum ranging from low (i.e., cell phone ringing or packing up books before class is over) to high intensity (i.e., insults or threats made toward other students; Marini et al., 2010). Specifically, low intensity uncivil behaviors are considered minor occurrences, whereas high intensity behaviors are considered more serious, especially if safety becomes an issue (Marini, 2009). Although we did not measure frequency, perhaps the acceptability of minor occurrences may reflect the high frequency of these behaviors found in previous studies (e.g., Boice, 1996) in comparison with more serious behaviors that may occur less frequently.

Finally, the significant correlations between both subtypes of incivility with antisocial beliefs, friend antisociality, conduct problems, and prosocial behavior provide evidence for concurrent validity. As expected, both types of incivility revealed positive moderate correlations with other antisocial variables and negative small correlations with prosocial behavior. However, it is important to note that the Cronbach’s alphas for conduct problems and prosocial behavior were unusually low for the well-established Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, and therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, these correlations provided evidence for concurrent validity.

Implications

Theory

The findings have implications for the conceptualization of incivility. Developing a Classroom Incivility scale to measure the attitudes toward different subtypes of incivility demonstrates adolescents can think of an uncivil behavior as being both intentional and unintentional. Previous research has suggested the heterogeneity of uncivil behaviors, ranging from low to high intensity, active to passive, and part of a Multidimensional In/Civility Identification Model (Hunt & Marini, 2012). In addition to these dimensions, our scale provides support for a continuum ranging from unintentional to intentional.

Furthermore, Marini (2007) has suggested a conceptual link between incivility and other antisocial behaviors. Behaviors exhibited in both classroom incivility and bullying may originate from similar cognitive and emotional structures including problems forming healthy relationships (Marini, Dane, & Kennedy, 2010; Marini, Polihronis, Dane, & Volk, 2010). This suggests attitudes on classroom incivility may be a potential precursor to more serious antisocial behaviors, such as bullying, harassment, or aggression (Eggertson, 2011; Lim et al., 2008; Marini, 2007). Therefore, future studies looking at the link between incivility and antisocial behaviors may want to make distinctions based on intentionality.

Practice

The findings also have implications for interventions. General interventions may want to focus on reducing less severe uncivil behaviors earlier in adolescence to prevent more severe antisocial behaviors later in development (Wilkins et al., 2010). One of the most effective methods previously found may be fostering a classroom environment that promotes civility (Wilkins et al., 2010). However, general interventions may treat incivility as a homogeneous behavior. Considering our results on the subtypes, a general intervention may not be the most effective method for adolescents. In fact, previous research has found antibullying interventions to be largely ineffective (e.g., Ttofi & Farrington, 2011), which may in part be due to treating bullying as a homogeneous behavior (Volk, Camilleri, Dane, & Marini, 2012). If incivility and bullying are conceptually linked, then interventions may also want to treat incivility as a heterogeneous behavior.

For more specific strategies, Marini (2009) suggested that types of uncivil classroom behaviors may first need to be distinguished. Disruptive behaviors can arise from students who are unaware of the rules and expected classroom norms (i.e., unintentional incivility) or can arise from students trying to harm others (i.e., intentional incivility). Because there is a distinction between the different types of disruptive behavior, interventions can be tailored specifically to the needs of those students who fall into one of those subtypes.

According to Feldmann (2001), for students who lack the knowledge of appropriate classroom behavior, teachers can take a proactive approach. For example, at the beginning of a school year, teachers can outline the expectations with a syllabus that includes course instructions and objectives. Feldmann also suggests that throughout the school year, teachers can foster classroom civility by maintaining an open dialogue with students. Meanwhile, for students who participate in uncivil behaviors to harm others, Feldmann suggests that teachers can take an educative approach. For example, Marini (2009) suggested that after a transgression, teachers could calmly discuss civility individually with that student and also remind the class about the importance of harmonious relationships. In addition, teachers can get support from other faculty at the school in promoting civility. For example, Feldmann suggests if a teacher is having difficulty addressing a student, they may ask another faculty member for assistance. Thus, all faculty members may help encourage a positive school climate.

Although school faculty plays an important role in establishing classroom civility, students may also contribute. Uncivil attitudes and actions can disrupt students’ concentration on schoolwork (Hirschy & Braxton, 2004). By encouraging students to take responsibility for their own learning, they may be more focused on their schoolwork, which could reduce their inclination to engage in uncivil behaviors (Lewis, 2001). These strategies demonstrate how students and faculty can work together to maintain classroom civility.

Limitations and Future Directions for Research

There were a few limitations that could be addressed in future research. First, self-report measures were used to obtain intentional and unintentional incivility, and thus, results are limited to adolescent perceptions of classroom incivility. However, this is a first step at developing an Adolescent Classroom Incivility scale. Future studies may want to adapt such items to measure the observations of peers or teachers as have been done with college students (Royce, 2000). Items may also be adapted to measure incivility in younger samples in elementary school to investigate their attitudes on incivility, which may allow for earlier interventions.

A second limitation was that we assessed beliefs on incivility as opposed to the frequency of uncivil behaviors. Thus, we were not able to determine the prevalence of classroom incivility. It is possible that the factor structure of incivility may be different for behaviors in comparison with attitudes. However, exploring perceptions of what is considered an uncivil behavior is the first step in addressing them (Peter, 2011). Future studies may want to incorporate frequency with this scale to compare factor structures.

A third limitation was that we know the subtypes of incivility, but are not yet sure what they are related to. Future studies should explore this measure in the context of additional individual differences and antisocial behaviors. This may help reveal which factors contribute to incivility or how it may be linked to more serious antisocial behavior. For example, as has already been done with other antisocial behaviors such as bullying (e.g., Book, Volk, & Hosker, 2012), future studies may investigate personality traits that may be related to uncivil behaviors.

Seeing as this is the first study on the “Attitude Toward Classroom In/Civility Scale,” there are several future directions for psychometric evaluation and development. First, several studies can examine validity. Considering that we found evidence for concurrent validity, future studies may want to explore predictive validity with other scales of classroom incivility, or additional scales of antisociality, such as aggression or bullying. In addition, researchers may look at convergent and discriminant validity by developing observer reports, such as peer or teacher reports. Second, researchers may want to look at the reliability in other adolescent samples. For instance, researchers may want to replicate our exploratory study with the other samples to determine whether subscales based on intentionality emerge.

In summary, in this study, we developed a Classroom Incivility scale for adolescents and revealed two subscales: Intentional and Unintentional. This suggests that adolescent incivility is heterogeneous, and future studies should explore how these subtypes differentially associate with both individual- and social-level factors, as well as other types of antisocial behaviors.

Footnotes

Appendix

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.

References

Al Kandari

. (2011). The level of student incivility: The need of a policy to regulate college student incivility. College Student Journal, 45, 257-268.

Andersson

Pearson

(1999). Tit for tat? The spiralling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471.

Bjorklund

Rehling

D. L.

(2009). Student perceptions of classroom incivility. College Teaching, 58, 15-18.

Boice

(1996). Classroom incivilities. Research in Higher Education, 37, 453-485.

Book

Volk

A. A.

Hosker

(2012). Adolescent bullying and personality: An adaptive approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 218-223.

Caboni

T. C.

Hirschy

A. S.

Best

J. R.

(2004). Student norms of classroom decorum. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 99, 59-66.

Costello

A. B.

Osborne

J. W.

(2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf

Eggertson

(2011). Targeted: The impact of bullying and what needs to be done to eliminate it. Canadian Nurse, 107, 16-20.

Feldmann

L. J.

(2001). Classroom civility is another of our instructor responsibilities. College Teaching, 49, 137-140.

10.

Goodman

Meltzer

Bailey

(1998). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 7, 125-130.

11.

Hirschy

A. S.

Braxton

J. M.

(2004). Effects of student classroom incivilities on students. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 99, 67-76.

12.

Hunt

Marini

Z. A.

(2012). Incivility in the practice environment: A practice from clinical nursing teachers. Nurse Education in Practice, 12, 366-370.

13.

Jessor

Van Den Bos

Vanderryn

Costa

F. M.

Turbin

M. S.

(1995). Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 31, 923-933.

14.

Lewis

(2001). Classroom discipline and student responsibility: The students’ view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 307-319.

15.

Lim

Cortina

L. M.

Magley

V. J.

(2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95-107.

16.

Marini

Z. A.

(2007). The Academic In/Civility Questionnaire (AI/CQ-V.1): Assessing intentional and unintentional in/civility (Unpublished manuscript). Department of Child and Youth Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.

17.

Marini

Z. A.

(2009). The thin line between civility and incivility: Fostering reflection and self-awareness to create a civil learning community. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 2, 61-67.

18.

Marini

Z. A.

Dane

Kennedy

(2010). Multiple pathways to bullying: Tailoring educational practices to variations in students’ temperament and brain function. In Ferrari

Vuletic

(Eds.), Developmental interplay of mind, brain, and education: Essays in honour of Robbie Case (pp. 257-291). New York, NY: Springer.

19.

Marini

Z. A.

Polihronis

Blackwell

(2010). Academic in/civility: Co-constructing the foundation for a civil learning community. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 3, 89-93.

20.

Marini

Z. A.

Polihronis

Dane

Volk

(2010, June). Towards the development of a civil learning community: Differentiating between intentional and unintentional in/civility. Poster session presented at the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (STLHE) 30th Annual Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

21.

Mazerolle

Maahs

(2000). General strain and delinquency: An alternative examination of conditioning influences. Justice Quarterly, 17, 753-778.

22.

Nordstrom

C. R.

Bartels

L. K.

Bucy

(2009). Predicting and curbing classroom incivility in higher education. College Student Journal, 43, 74-85.

23.

Norris

Lecavalier

(2010). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in developmental disability psychological research. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 8-20.

24.

Pearson

C. M.

Porath

C. L.

(2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 7-18.

25.

Peter

(2011). Fostering social justice: The possibilities of a socially connected model of moral agency. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 43, 11-17.

26.

Royce

A. P.

(2000). A survey on academic incivility at Indiana University: Preliminary report. Bloomington: Center for Survey Research, Indiana University.

27.

Schaefer

(1995). Reinventing civility. NAMTA Journal, 20, 138-147.

28.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

29.

Ttofi

M. M.

Farrington

D. P.

(2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27-56.

30.

Volk

A. A.

Camilleri

J. A.

Dane

A. V.

Marini

Z. A.

(2012). Is adolescent bullying an evolutionary adaptation? Aggressive Behavior, 38, 222-238.

31.

Wilkins

Caldarella

Crook-Lyon

Young

K. R.

(2010). Implications of civility for children and adolescents: A review of the literature. Issues in Religion and Psychotherapy, 33, 37-45.