Middle School Students' Perceptions of Teacher Approachability: A Grounded Theory Study, Slides of Dynamics

Download Middle School Students' Perceptions of Teacher Approachability: A Grounded Theory Study and more Slides Dynamics in PDF only on Docsity! A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY ON MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHER APPROACHABILITY AND THE INFLUENCE OF THOSE PERCEPTIONS ON STUDENT-TEACHER INTERACTIONS by Kathryn Marquette Teston Liberty University A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Liberty University 2017 2 A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY ON MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHER APPROACHABILITY AND THE INFLUENCE OF THOSE PERCEPTIONS ON STUDENT-TEACHER INTERACTIONS by Kathryn Marquette Teston A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA 2017 APPROVED BY: James L. Zabloski, Ed.D., Committee Chair Sandra L. Battige, Ph.D., Committee Member David W. Tilley, Ed.D., Committee Member Scott Watson, Ph.D., Associate Dean, Advanced Programs 5 Acknowledgements Even though this research study reflects my own work during these past six years, the journey has also included a support network of educational professionals, friends, family, and colleagues who cheered from the sidelines. My amazing dissertation chair, Dr. James Zabloski, provided the most consistent guidance from the moment he accepted this role through the oral defense. He is to be commended for his patience and ability to oversee every step of the process. Because of his vantage point of experience, he asked valuable questions to clarify my research and writing. Thank you, Dr. Zabloski, for your commitment to seeing this work through to the end. Thank you for expressing your belief in the value of the study and in my ability to cross the finish line. In addition, I extend my gratitude to Dr. Sandra Battige and Dr. David Tilley for agreeing to serve on my dissertation committee. Their perspectives, refining questions, and interest in my study added a measure of depth to my thinking and writing. In the midst of their own rigorous schedules, I greatly appreciate their commitment to my research study and me. I began this journey the month my son graduated from high school because I knew I would need something to help soften the impact of our empty nest. As an educator, I was committed to lifelong learning and pursuing a doctorate seemed to be the logical next step. With any worthwhile endeavor, a support network of sideline cheerleaders makes everything seem more feasible. I would not have been able to reach this point in my pursuit if not for the consistent encouragement of my three adult children and their spouses, Sara and Evan Morris, Laura and Cliff Welch, 6 and David and Tiffany Teston, my seven grandchildren, Kailyn, Kathryn, Kristian, Genevieve, Landon, William and Ashlynn, and my sisters and their husbands, Jan and Brian Kooiman and Marcia and Alan Russell. They have been faithful to spur me on when the road seemed to be getting longer and the goal more removed. They also sacrificed time together and creating new memories in anticipation that this journey would one day be completed. There is an amazing group of people I call my colleagues and with whom I have the privilege of serving our school together. They have encouraged me, expressed interest in my study, and checked on my progress. Their prayers and words have been invaluable. In particular, I want to thank my fellow sojourner, Joey Morecraft (soon to be Dr. Morecraft) who has provided a sympathetic ear and brilliant mind as we’ve held each other accountable to keep on keeping on. My first administrative assistant, Carol Turner, helped me prepare for each course in the early years and my receptionist, Peggy Yates, protected my time and guarded my door. Thank you both so much. Since becoming the Head of School, my current administrative assistant, Melanie Pager, has been vigilant in relieving as much stress as she could while helping me balance all of my responsibilities. Many of my teaching colleagues have prayed for and encouraged me along the way, including Suzi Harrison who has been one of the most faithful and consistent prayer warriors these six years. My long-time friend, John Woodall, who is responsible for my meeting Jesus as my Savior in London, England in 1969, continues to be my champion and the one who celebrates all the good things from our Heavenly Father. He is also the one 7 who introduced me to my beloved husband. My best friend, Tara Bryant and her husband, Gary, continued to keep tabs on my progress even while being separated by hundreds of miles. We have all continued to spur one another on in love and good deeds these many years. Thank you for your enduring friendships. I am grateful for the Board of Trustees at Fellowship Christian School who has continued to hold me accountable to finish my doctorate without the pressure of a deadline. Their determination to follow hard after God is inspiring and reassuring. I am blessed and honored to serve our school under their leadership. My mother-in-law, Edna Teston’s last words on earth told me how proud she was of my work and me. I felt she was speaking not only for my father-in-law and her, but also for my own parents who are now in Heaven. Without the union of Phil and Veva Marquette in marriage in 1943, I would not have been Kathryn Marquette. Thank you, Mom and Dad, for your examples to Jan, Marcia, and me to pursue our dreams, give everything our best, and stop to listen to people’s stories. Because of you, I’ve heard some of the most amazing stories in my lifetime and learned to treasure the value God places on each person’s soul. You taught me that. I love you and still miss your presence. Perhaps you’ll be in that great cloud of witnesses when this educational pursuit is complete and God alone receives the glory. 10 Axial Coding .............................................................................................................. 85 Selective Coding ........................................................................................................ 86 Trustworthiness ............................................................................................................. 87 Credibility .................................................................................................................. 87 Dependability ............................................................................................................. 88 Transferability ........................................................................................................... 88 Confirmability ........................................................................................................... 89 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................... 89 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 89 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 91 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 91 Selection Process and Descriptions of Participants ....................................................... 92 Phase One: A One-Question Screening Questionnaire ............................................. 92 Phase Two: Participant Selection .............................................................................. 93 Phase Three: Demographic Questionnaire ................................................................ 93 Results ......................................................................................................................... 100 Theme Development ................................................................................................ 100 Research Question Responses ................................................................................. 121 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 127 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 129 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 129 Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. 129 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 131 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................ 131 Related Literature .................................................................................................... 135 Implications ................................................................................................................. 141 Theoretical Implications .......................................................................................... 141 Empirical Implications ............................................................................................ 144 11 Practical Implications .............................................................................................. 149 Delimitations and Limitations ..................................................................................... 152 Delimitations ........................................................................................................... 152 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 153 Recommendations for Future Research ....................................................................... 154 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 156 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 158 Appendix A: Introductory Email to School Administrators ........................................ 168 Appendix B: Step-by-Step Timeline ........................................................................... 169 Appendix C: IRB Approval Letter .............................................................................. 170 Appendix D: IRB Approval Email .............................................................................. 171 Appendix E: IRB Approval to Change School Setting ............................................... 172 Appendix F: IRB Parent Consent Form ...................................................................... 173 Appendix G: IRB Child Assent Form ......................................................................... 177 Appendix H: Office of Accountability and Research Permission ............................... 179 Appendix I: Parent Consent Form – Public School ..................................................... 180 Appendix J: Child Assent Form – Public School ........................................................ 181 Appendix K: One-Question Screening Questionnaire ................................................ 182 Appendix L: Demographic Questionnaire ................................................................... 183 Appendix M: Individual Interview Questions ............................................................. 185 Appendix N: Focus Group Interview Questions ......................................................... 187 Appendix O: Journal/Blogging Prompts ..................................................................... 189 12 List of Tables Table 1: Participant Demographics………………………………………………… 98 15 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Overview During the season of life known as adolescence, students find themselves navigating a seemingly deep ravine between childhood and adulthood, trying to discover their own identity and express their independence while striving for emotional, social, physical, and mental balance at the same time (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Adolescents have moved from a smaller elementary school to a middle school where students converge with classmates from other elementary schools. Adolescent students move from knowing and being known by their teachers to being the proverbial little fish in a big pond. In this transition, adolescents may think they are the only ones who feel they do not belong or experience a sense of inadequacy and lack of normalcy (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Some adolescents’ ease or difficulty in establishing healthy relationships with adults reflects the strength of their relationships with their parents (Bergin & Bergin, 2009; Dykas, Woodhouse, Ehrlich, & Cassidy, 2010). The manner in which adolescents resolve conflict at school carries over from the conflict resolution strategies they have learned at home (Branje, Van Doorn, Van der Walk, & Meeus, 2009; Goldwater & Nutt, 1999). If they are confident to approach their parents to discuss different life matters, approaching teachers with school-related matters may follow suit (Davis, 2003; Karam, 2006; Kauffman, 2013; Sands, 2011; Ubinger, Handal, & Massura, 2013). Research reveals the need for teachers to create emotionally and socially safe environments for their students (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Goldwater & Nutt, 1999; Jackson & Davis, 2000). Additionally, programs that teach self-advocacy strategies to students have experienced a measure of success, particularly for students 16 who are gifted or challenged with learning differences (Lane-Garon, Yergat, & Kralowec, 2012; LaRusso & Selman, 2011; Rajalakshmi, Srividya, & Suresh, 2012; Saha, 2012; Sebag, 2010). Even with the implementation of these initiatives, middle school students still seem to be hesitant or resistant to approach their teachers with questions and concerns, sometimes because of fear (Branje et al., 2009). This grounded theory study investigates how middle school students’ perceptions of teacher approachability influence their interactions with teachers. Background As common as the term is today, before the early 1900s, the word “adolescent” was not a part of Americans’ vocabulary (Sands, 2011). Little people were children, and then they became adults. There was no term assigned to the in-between years. A young person was an apprentice for a trade where skills were gained in order to provide for a family one day. However, there was not a term, or a period of one’s youth, to designate the development and maturity that was taking place. Beginning in the early 1900s, theories of psychology were beginning to emerge and theorists began building an understanding of knowing and learning (Miller, 2011). Such prevalent theories included Bandura’s (1977) social learning, social cognitive, and social modeling theories, Piaget’s (1969) cognitive development theory, Vygotsky’s (1934) social development theory, Skinner’s (1980) operant conditioning theory, and Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs. Sands (2011) provides an impressive synthesis of the history of the middle school model in the American educational system. The recognition of developmental challenges of the adolescent provided the underlying philosophy of the middle school model, which was established in the 1960s for the purpose of creating nurturing environments for 17 adolescents between the elementary and high school years (Sands, 2011). The previous junior high model was more of a pre-high school than designed with the young adolescent’s needs in mind. This newer model included small group mentoring with teachers in order to provide a lifeline for students as they navigated the young adolescent years. However, even with multiple theories for understanding this developmental phase and models to address this acquired knowledge, middle school students continue to deal with their perceptions of teacher approachability. Programs that teach self-determination and self-advocacy have been created in order to teach students how to speak up for themselves (Caldwell, 2011; Douglas, 2004). However, generally self-advocacy and self- determination emphases are developed for students with learning or behavioral challenges. Self-advocacy programs for general education students are not the normal context for such initiatives. Professional development for teachers has been implemented in schools across the nation in order to equip teachers better in meeting the academic, emotional, and social needs of their students (Durlak et al., 2011; Lane-Garon et al., 2012). Yet, even with these initiatives and emphases, students still have their perceptions of teacher approachability that influence interactions with their teachers. The questions that must be asked address the rationale behind students’ beliefs about approaching their teachers. Understanding the rationale of students’ perceptions of their teachers’ approachability is the focus of this research study. Greater awareness of today’s middle school students’ thinking should prompt emphasis in redesigning ineffective programs, challenge irrelevant thinking, and better equip students to navigate their current and future relationships (Feldman, Derdikman-Eiron, & Masalha, 2010). 20 embrace belief systems they view as errant. People hold onto beliefs that are deemed to be accurate and correct. Epistemological. Knowledge is gathered from many different avenues throughout the course of one’s life. Middle school students gather their knowledge through formal and informal teaching and modeling. Knowledge is also acquired and processed through one’s senses, including observation of others. What students perceive and experience about relationships develops their knowledge base and understanding. Generally, students make relational decisions based upon what they understand about themselves and what they perceive they know about others. Alethiological. Whereas epistemology explains the acquisition of knowledge, alethiology is the study of truth. Knowledge and truth are not synonymous as one might suppose. Knowledge acquired about a subject does not necessarily equate to the veracity of that knowledge. For instance, each worldview embodies a bank of knowledge; however, any worldview outside a biblical worldview does not represent truth. One specific challenge with today’s youth is a lack of discernment between knowledge and truth. Information and perspectives that are relayed through media are too often accepted as truth without the verification of such. Even students reared in Christian homes stray from their biblical roots of belief in exchange for the world’s portrayal of truth. This study will explore the participants’ ability to differentiate between knowledge and truth. Rhetorical. Definitions of terms and concepts will be enmeshed within the context of each phase of the research so as not to predispose the reader towards a certain bias in advance. Effective expressive and receptive communication requires a mutual understanding of terms and concepts to ensure both parties, at least, have that shared 21 foundation. The noted phenomenon details their stories and perspectives. Therefore, most importantly, the students’ voices will be heard throughout the research study. Axiological. With values rooted in biblical principles and Judeo-Christian ethics, a measure of subjectivity will be revealed in the process of collecting and analyzing the data during this study. As questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, and journaling/blogging are coded and analyzed, the researcher’s values will influence the interpretation of the data, however, these values will be bracketed from the data collected and analyzed. Middle school students’ perceptions of their relationships and the actions they take in response to those perceptions will emerge through the data. Paradigms Overlaying philosophical assumptions are educators’ beliefs about students’ knowledge acquisition and the learning process (Creswell, 2013). Over the course of time, many theorists have conducted research and proposed theories around the teaching and learning processes. These include Piaget’s cognitive stage theory and Vgotsky’s sociocultural theory (Miller, 2011). Based on their own worldviews, educators embrace those theories, which best align with their own beliefs and experiences. Interactionist. By virtue of the fact this qualitative study focuses on middle school students’ relationships with their teachers, an interactionist paradigm is relevant. Students will describe their interactions with their teachers and their reasoning for withholding interaction when that choice is made. The factors that weigh into their reasoning for whether or not to engage their teachers are expected to be multi-faceted. The strength of a teacher/student relationship reflects the nature of their interactions with one another. 22 Pragmatist. Due to the fact that this study will focus on the practical aspect of middle school student engagement with their teachers, a pragmatic paradigm embodies the goals of the study well. The impetus for this research study is twofold: to acquire more understanding about a perceived issue and to help propose solutions through the voices and stories of the participants. The end goal of this researcher’s study will be the implementation of proposed next steps as identified in the findings. Taking action, based upon acquired knowledge and understanding, is the pragmatist’s motivation for research. Social constructivist. As students strive to make sense of their world, they regularly evaluate and interpret their perceptions and experiences based upon multiple factors (personality, previous experiences, academic successes and challenges, relational strengths and weaknesses, parenting, and conflict resolution practices, to name a few). This study will collect and analyze data to disseminate the various factors that play into the formation of the students’ perceptions. The researcher recognizes the complexity of the study due to the nature of the issue and the demographics of the participants. However, a measure of insight into the thinking of students around this issue is bound to emerge. The strategies implemented as a result of the findings validate the significance of the research study. Problem Statement A far too common response of students, when encouraged to talk to their teachers regarding school-related issues is to respond with an expression of fear or avoidance (Branje et al., 2009). Although many studies have been conducted and programs have been developed around self-advocacy, generally the context is exceptionality – equipping students who are either gifted or have learning differences to find their voices and speak 25 tendencies, and viewpoints of conflict provide context for this study in the pursuit of understanding students’ perceptions of teacher approachability. The investigation will consider if the four proposed theories provide insight, the research study actually extends further understanding of existing theories, or a grounded theory emerges through the data analysis. Through triangulation of data collection and analysis, it is anticipated this grounded theory study will provide helpful information that reveals the participants’ perceptions of teacher approachability. Through individual and focus group interviews as well as journaling/blogging, greater understanding of the students’ reasoning should emerge for why specific teachers, or teachers in general, are considered approachable or unapproachable for discussing school-related matters. Perhaps, as the participants think through their own perceptions and experiences with their teachers, they will gain a greater sense of confidence in their abilities to address matters with their teachers, who were previously viewed as unapproachable. Additionally, maybe the participants will be able to encourage their classmates to overcome perceptions of unapproachable teachers. The researcher is also hopeful the findings of this study will be an encouragement to teachers whose students consider them to be approachable to continue feeding that perception. The significant findings of this study may not impact those teachers who are considered unapproachable by their students simply because the teachers do not even realize they are perceived in this way. Emotional intelligence (EI) or emotional quotient (EQ) measures how well a person recognizes the impact they make on others. The possibility exists that a teacher who is considered to be unapproachable is not cognizant of that perception. 26 Researchers and educators are compelled to examine the factors that comprise a middle school student’s perception of teacher approachability. Although this study will have certain limitations, the current findings will be representative of the greater middle school population. The original philosophical underpinnings of the middle school model may need to be resurrected and programs around this model considered for reinstatement. Redesigning current middle school teachers’ and students’ school days may be required in order to meet the unique social and emotional needs of these young adolescents. Of particular interest will be newer factors in students’ thinking such as social media, social/emotional dynamics, and the perceived approachability of today’s middle school teachers (Lyles, 2014). Certainly, students need the reassurance that their teachers are emotionally safe people and approachable. Research Questions This qualitative grounded theory study will address one central research question: How do general education middle school students’ perceptions of teacher approachability influence the students’ interactions with their teachers? The research study will consider the students’ perceptions of whether or not their teachers are approachable when there are school-related matters to discuss. Perhaps previous personal experiences influence students’ perceptions of teacher approachability (Karam, 2006; Kauffman, 2013; Wagner-Pacifici & Hall, 2012). The study will consider if a student has had positive or negative interactions with teachers that help to determine whether or not teachers are approachable. In addition, students’ perceptions of others’ experiences may influence their own perceptions as well (Williams, 2013). Three sub questions will help guide the research study: 27 1. How, if at all, do social constructs in school affect middle school students’ perceptions of teacher approachability? An effective learning environment, which was focused on adolescents’ needs, was the premise for the middle school versus junior high school model in the 1950s (Board, n.d.; Sands, 2011). The philosophy behind the program design highlighted the value of the middle school model for meeting adolescents’ needs (Bedard & Do, 2005; Dhuey, 2011; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). However, due to lack of follow through in program implementation, larger teacher/student ratios than deemed optimal, and risk management concerns, the positive effect of the middle school model was not fully realized and the students’ perceptions of teacher approachability were developed around busy teachers and packed schedules. Professional development designed to help teachers meet students’ needs are not always geared for the middle school context (Malti & Noam, 2008; Sabol & Pianta, 2012; Saha, 2012). Simply stated, the middle school environment may validate the perception that teachers are unapproachable when it is really programming and inadequate training that confirm students’ perceptions of their teachers (Karam, 2006; LaRusso & Selman, 2011; Sands, 2011). This question explores the role that the school context plays in students’ perceptions of teacher approachability. 2. How, if at all, does home environment affect middle school students’ perceptions of teacher approachability? Research has shown that students emulate their parents’ strategies in relationship development and conflict resolution. Sometimes strategies are intentionally taught and modeled by 30 Summary The purpose for pursuing this research study is two-fold: the researcher’s specific interest in evaluating general education middle school students’ perceptions of teacher approachability and the influence of those perceptions on student-teacher interactions. Understanding the participants cannot represent all middle school students in their perceptions and experiences, the study focuses on common factors adolescents identify in their perceptions of teacher approachability. The study is designed to provide windows of understanding into the adolescent’s experience, personal preferences, life skills, and inherent qualities that form perceptions of teacher approachability. As a grounded theory qualitative study, students’ experiences will be recorded through their stories. As stated previously, the purpose of this study reflects the researcher’s personal and professional interest in understanding middle school students’ perceptions of teacher approachability. Gathering and analyzing data from within three different school models provides understanding of similarities and differences in middle school students’ experiences and perceptions. The students will identify strategies that have been effective in their school contexts and the reasoning why some strategies work and others do not when they have decided to approach their teachers to discuss school-related matters. Conversely, students will provide data that will lend insight into the deciding factors when they choose to avoid seeking help from teachers they perceive to be unapproachable. 31 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Overview Upon first review, one might think the issue of students’ perceptions of teacher approachability has been saturated with research and that effective programs have been developed and implemented to address the findings. However, students’ behaviors continue to reveal a hesitancy, and lack of follow through, in student-teacher interactions. Research supports the need for teachers to create safe learning environments for their students (Diseth & Samdal, 2014; Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2012; Lyles, 2014). The middle school model was originally designed to address the developmental needs of middle school students. However, current trends reveal a gap between research findings, responses to the findings, best practices that have been implemented, and students who continue to perceive their teachers as unapproachable. In essence, response to research has prompted programming that instructs the teacher in creating environments that are effective for teacher-student relationships. Identifying research that explores the students’ perspectives of teacher approachability and, specifically, perceptions that influence student-teacher interactions is the focus of this literature review. The research study will collect data that details the real experiences of its participants in the school context, particularly with the participants’ teachers. Educators and students alike might agree on a shared goal of strong relationships and mutual respect. Programs exist that help bridge the gap between teachers and their students. This journey of literature exploration seeks to reveal how much perceptions of teacher approachability influence the pursuit of student-teacher interactions. 32 Theoretical Framework In a grounded theory, qualitative study, existing theoretical thoughts and ideas are considered at the outset of the new research study. These theories provide a “conceptual guide for choosing the concepts to be investigated, for suggesting research questions, and for framing the research findings” (Corbin & Strauss, 2015, p. 39). The primary purpose of this specific grounded theory study is not to develop a new theory, but to explain the phenomenon of the study’s focus. The driving force behind this model is to identify any common threads of participants’ experiences to determine whether or not a new or blended theory emerges from the research findings. Simply stated, the researcher investigates if the data generates a new theory or if a theory is grounded in the collected data (Creswell, 2013). In this specific research study, four primary theories form the framework through which the participants’ experiences are examined. Comprising the theoretical framework are the approach-avoidance conflict theory, the social conflict theory, the attachment theory, and the social cognitive theory. An explanation for the reasoning why each theory was identified as relevant to this research study is outlined within the context of each theory’s description. Approach-Avoidance Conflict Theory One of the early founders of social psychology, Kurt Lewin (1935) is recognized as the originator of the approach-avoidance conflict theory, which he proposed in the early twentieth century. Other psychologists, such as Bower and Miller (1960) are also identified with Lewin’s (1935) theory. Theorists Whiting and Child (1953) and Sears et al. (1953) developed the approach-avoidance conflict theory further in an attempt to explain aggressive behaviors in humans (Burchard, 1963). Interestingly, cooperation and 35 differences in economic position and resources. Marx’s theory is based on the belief the wealthy naturally tend to oppress the poor, which is at the root of all social conflict. Actually, the biblical writer, Paul, best explains in 1Timothy 6:10 what Karl Marx missed in his view of wealth: “the love of money is at the root of evil.” Marx’s theory (Marx & Engels, 1978) presupposes all wealthy people love money and oppress the poor. Although it may be true that social differences stir conflict, one cannot conclude this is an enduring fact that always holds true. One’s perception of differences can determine if conflict engagement, avoidance, adjustment, or resolution will follow (Ubinger et al., 2013). Although middle school students might experience conflict at school based on economic status, perhaps there are other social dynamics middle school students could encounter resulting in conflict. Marx’s social conflict theory may or may not prove to be a viable theoretical framework for this particular research study, but through the lens of social conflict related to dynamics relevant to the adolescent’s world, the underlying premise of the theory might have viable application (Malti & Noam, 2008). Approaching conflict from a negative stance may be based more on one’s lack of conflict resolution skills than the nature of the conflict itself if students lack understanding that conflict is a natural part of life (Sadri-Damirchi & Bilge, 2014). Differences in perspective can be at the root of the conflict, yet once understanding of the other’s perspective is achieved, the conflict may very well be resolved. The responses to differences of perspective reflect many different factors. Conflict resolution strategies develop across time through life experiences, according to personality tendencies, through the influence of one’s family of origin, and being the recipient of others’ conflict 36 resolution strategies (Ahern, 2006; Branje et al., 2009; Williams 2013). Some strategies are intentionally learned and employed; others are non-intentional and reflect responses acquired through time. Automatic responses to conflict become ingrained strategies. When a person experiences undesirable results in conflict resolution, different strategies are sought sometimes. However, this is not always the case. Albert Einstein’s adage, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” sums up many people’s conflict resolution strategies or lack thereof. Attachment Theory The attachment theory, as proposed by Bowlby (1969), investigates the psychological impact of whether or not babies and young children possess a sense of attachment to significant adults in their early years. The strength of this attachment influences their future relationships, including the methods employed for handling conflict with others (Kiner, 2009; Wei , Heppner, & Mallinckrodt, 2003). Research reveals healthy attachment with caregivers in younger years influences whether or not healthy attachment with others will be probable in later years (Pinata & Harbers, 1996; Wei et al., 2003). Strong attachments in the early years lay the foundation for a sense of security to approach people and situations later on (Davis, 2003 Karam, 2006; Wei et al., 2003). Also, strong attachments produce greater security, which transfers into a sense of confidence in approaching other adults – such as teachers (Davis, 2003 Dykas et al., 2010; Karam, 2006; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). Four types of attachment are proposed by Bergin and Bergin (2009): secure, insecure/avoidant, insecure/resistant, and insecure/disorganized-disoriented. The first type of attachment, secure, should be the goal of every caregiver. A child who feels 37 securely attached to a caregiver will more likely develop secure relationships with others in the future (Sabol & Pianta, 2012). The second type of attachment – insecure/avoidant – usually occurs when the child experiences primary caregivers who are “insensitive, intrusive, angry, and rejecting” (Bergin & Bergin, 2009, p. 143). Since the child does not feel safe, there will be a tendency to avoid interaction with the caregiver. These tendencies usually carry into future relationships, unless the significant adults in a child’s or adolescent’s life can foster a safe and secure environment. Insecure/resistant is the third type of attachment where “children fail to derive feelings of security” (Bergin & Bergin, 2009, p. 143) from the primary caregiver, although the caregiver is attempting to provide that security. Children may be “passive, whiney, fussy, helpless, or immature, or they may be angry, petulant, and resistant” toward the caregiver (Bergin & Bergin, 2009, p. 144). The relationship with the caregiver could be described as enmeshed where the child and adult exhibit their need for dependence upon the other for emotional support. While the child needs to attach to the adult, there is still uncertainty the adult is dependable and in control. The fourth type of attachment is insecure/disorganized-disoriented where the child expresses the desire for attachment, yet exhibits behaviors that are contradictory (Bergin & Bergin, 2009). This type of poor attachment is reflective of the child’s sense that the caregiver is not safe or predictable. The caregivers’ responses to the child can range from aggressive outbursts to extreme insensitivity (Bergin & Bergin, 2009). The child longs for attachment, yet significant adults do not provide safety and security for healthy attachment to occur. 40 Related Literature From the theoretical framework outlined, several factors are proposed which potentially influence middle school students’ perceptions of teacher approachability. Some factors are embedded in the students’ family dynamics including the manner in which conflict is handled in their homes, the student’s personality, natural adolescent needs and distinctions, relevant school programs geared specifically for middle school students, effective professional development for teachers to better equip them in reaching the middle school student’s needs, the health of teacher-student relationships, and the strategies students are taught and encouraged to implement towards self-advocacy, self- determination, and self-efficacy. Origins A student’s self-perception and identity is rooted in one’s family of origin as established during the formative years of childhood. A picture of one’s self is drawn in reflection of the messages received about personality, character, strengths, weaknesses, abilities, appearance, or perceived flaws in any of these components. The student’s home is the first place where learning how to live in community and relationship with others takes place (Danielsen, et al., 2009). A sense of self-worth and capacity to contribute to the family affirms a student’s perception of having something valuable to give. Additionally, a student’s sense of satisfaction, both in life and in school, is reflective of a sense of family, teacher, peer, and community support. As much as a student might long to be the master of one’s own ship and make decisions independently of others, the student still thrives with the support of others. There may be resistance to 41 boundaries and rules, yet it is these same parameters that provide a sense of safety and security, especially in these developmental years. From this study’s theoretical framework, research bears out the impact family conflict holds in shaping students’ perceptions of teacher approachability. Students have observed the strategies their parents and other adults utilize in interacting with others. Not only have students witnessed strategies for addressing issues, but also the responses of the other party. Therefore, students are more likely to imitate their parents’ strategies (Bradford et al., 2007; Feldman et al., 2010; Kiner, 2009) or even avoid approaching others about issues if these strategies do not appear to reap their own desired effect. Research demonstrates this is also true in relationships with siblings (Tucker & Kazura, 2013). The home environment provides the initial stage for students as they choose their own methods for addressing issues (Ahern, 2006; Bradford et al., 2012; Branje et al., 2009; Kiner, 2009). Equally true, adolescent choices and behaviors negatively impact their homes and family dynamics. When a student becomes involved in risky behaviors, not only does potential suffering of consequences for these choices exist, but also relationships and future opportunities become part of the fallout as well (Malti & Noam, 2008). A child reflects a sense of identity and self-worth from what is received from those who should know the student best – family. If the family unit is disconnected or dysfunctional, the student’s bearings become unstable and the journey through the potentially tumultuous years creates mental and emotional instability (Malti & Noam, 2008). Another aspect of family dynamics related to approaching or avoiding issues is . Cultural differences, both within the native cultural context as well as cultural mores 42 expected outside the native context, have been factored into how, or if, students will address issues with their teachers (Feldman et al., 2010). The manner in which family members learn to address issues may reflect their family of origin’s cultural expectations (Feldman et al., 2010). For one to go outside those cultural mores may be considered unacceptable at best and shameful at worst (Feldman et al., 2010). The degree of attachment students feel towards their parents has a direct correlation to how these students handle issues with their teachers (Sabol & Pianta, 2012). If students are more secure in their familial relationships, they are more likely to exhibit confidence in handling matters appropriately (Dykas et al., 2010; Garcia-Ruiz et al., 2013; Kiner, 2009). However, if the primary parent-child relationship is viewed as being disconnected or conflicted, students are more likely to withdraw from other authoritarian relationships, such as those with their teachers. These students lack the confidence and security of relationship in order to handle matters themselves (Garcia- Ruiz et al., 2013). An additional insight about family dynamics and its influence on students’ confidence in approaching their teachers is the parents’ own experiences during their middle school years (Williams, 2013). If parents were negatively impacted by their own memories of middle school years as they interacted with their teachers, then they were likely to communicate, and transfer these experiences to their children (Williams, 2013). Adolescent Needs and Differences In the adolescent stage of development, students can wrestle with social, mental, and emotional feelings of inadequacy they never experienced previously. Socioeconomic factors increase these challenges even further (Malti & Noam, 2008). Whereas these 45 cause loss of footing and an overwhelming sense of confusion about finding one’s place in the world (Malti & Noam, 2008). Doubt can replace confidence in whether or not the adolescent has what it takes to be successful. This life stage presents a critically important time to help students develop resiliency, which is grounded in an accurate picture of themselves and a promising view of their futures. A natural progression of adolescent development is an increasing desire to pursue independence and autonomy (Hamman & Hendricks, 2005). Adolescent students may not realize they are caught in a power struggle with themselves. They are moving towards independence and taking control of their lives at the same time they recognize their dependence upon others to meet their needs. In one sense they want to handle their own challenges, yet, in another, they want someone to handle the challenges for them. So they are faced with the tension of whether or not they can approach their teachers about school related matters, partly due to their quest to be independent. Middle School Model Versus Junior High Model The evolution of grade level structuring has progressed from the one-room schoolhouse where all grade levels received instruction to a kindergarten through eighth grades and high school model followed by the formation of a junior high between elementary and high school model to today’s typical model of elementary, middle, and high school divisions (Board, n.d.). The recognition of specific developmental needs of early adolescents was the underlying reasoning behind the impetus to create the junior high and middle school models (Board, n.d.). The junior high model was focused on equipping students for their high school years – a junior, high school model (Bedard & Do, 2005; Board, n.d.). The underlying belief was young adolescents would achieve 46 greater academic success in high school if they received a more rigorous course of study during the junior high years. However, this model failed to acknowledge and address the specific characteristics and needs of the early adolescent (Board, n.d.; Dhuey, 2011). Educators recognized students in this life stage need environments and people that are safe. The key players in an adolescent’s life need to fully understand the developmental challenges of this period of time as well as best practices for connecting with and supporting young people through a potentially turbulent season (Malti & Noam, 2008; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). The subsequent middle school model paid more attention to the developmental needs of adolescents than its predecessor junior high model (Board, n.d.). “The middle school movement of the 1960s changed schools’ focus to the human development of individuals transitioning from childhood to adulthood” (Sands, 2011, p. 42). Students could thrive in an environment that was designed with their needs and challenges in mind (Bedard & Do, 2005; Board, n.d.). This newer model was designed around a mentor/mentee relationship where each student was assigned to a mentoring teacher who would help the student successfully navigate the middle school years (Board, n.d.; Sands, 2011). In turn, the mentors were trained in ways they could relate to and support their mentees through this developmental stage. With the original middle school model, teachers were trained in mentoring their students and the structure of the daily schedule provided time for mentors/mentees to meet together. Strategies such as block teaching, where teachers teach two subjects; common planning periods for teachers to have time to collaborate together; and looping, where teachers teach the same students for two to three years, were implemented to provide better connections between teachers and students in order to strengthen their relationships with each other (Board, n.d.). The 47 underlying belief was stronger teacher-student relationships would promote greater academic success and social/emotional stability for middle school students. The model was not flawed; however, the ongoing implementation of its design soon began to wane and middle school became just another season in a student’s secondary education. The mentoring model soon gave way to large class sizes and risk- management concerns. Therefore, a model that was specifically designed with the middle school student’s developmental and social/emotional needs, was abandoned in order to accommodate the economic needs of education and litigation bents of society. Of course, not all school districts adopted the middle school model for the reasoning of its proposed inherent value. Some school systems viewed the model as a means to alleviate overcrowding in elementary schools, facilitate better usage of school properties, and reflect the community’s stance on racial segregation/integration (Board, n.d.). Those who opposed the middle school model did so based upon their perception that students’ academic progress would be hindered if programming and structure were adjusted to accommodate developmental needs (Norton, 2000). The common belief held that changing the learning environment compromised the academic rigor. There was not a sense of both being possibile where rigor could be accomplished in a more developmentally sensitive setting. Professional Development for Middle School Teachers In conjunction with recognizing the distinct needs of middle school students, specific professional development is available for educators in order to equip them to understand adolescents’ academic, social, and emotional needs (Karam, 2006; LaRusso & Selman, 2011; Sands, 2011). Although professional certifications are granted for 50 instructional practices became the sticking point for many educators who either did not understand or agree with the developmental needs of adolescents or were reticent to adjust their former pedagogical methods (Board, n.d.). Identifying adolescent needs and best practices to meet those needs is one thing; effecting change is quite another (Heath & Heath, 2010). Professional development for middle school educators is most effective when the leader conveys a sense of stepping into the educators’ shoes, collaborating around possible solutions, and thereby, creating buy-in. The real possibility exists that those who teach may not be as teachable as they expect their students to be. Therefore, effective professional development leaders must have something deemed worthy to reveal and then propose realistic and tangible next steps for implementation. Teacher-Student Relationships Teachers, who understand the significant role they play and influence they possess, can help students gain confidence in their interactions with teachers (LaRusso & Selman, 2011). Research studies confirm that bullying behaviors normally peak during the middle school years coinciding with the social/emotional development of students (LaRusso & Selman, 2011; Sands, 2011). During these critical years, adolescents experience a sense of inadequacy, lack of confidence, and uncertainty about their differences (LaRusso & Selman, 2011). In order to help students successfully navigate these often-tumultuous years, educators should be well resourced to offer support, understanding, and guidance through natural and structured relationships. “Research indicates that positive student-teacher relationships show a direct impact on academic success” (Malti & Noam, 2008, p. 18). Additionally, students are motivated to achieve greater academic success when they perceive their teachers to be caring (Cornelius- 51 White, 2007; Matsumura et al., 2008; Wentzel, 1997). Effective caregiving is noted to include teachers modeling care for others, an engaging communication style of dialogue, relevant classroom rules and expectations, and a nurturing environment (Matsumura et al., 2008; Wentzel, 1997). Even if students do not feel they are well connected to their peers, they draw significant motivation if they feel connected to and cared for by their teachers (Cornelius-White; 2007; Wentzel, 1997). Helping teachers recall the developmental and social/emotional dynamics of middle school students is a significant aspect of resourcing the teachers in their relationships with their students. Research affirms that the parent-child relationship is the primary one of influence in a child’s life; however, other significant adults (such as teachers) have tremendous influence as well (Karam, 2006; Sabol & Pianta, 2012; Smith & Denton, 2009). The underlying premise of the attachment theory affirms adolescents’ critical needs for feeling connected to the primary and secondary people in their lives. Initially, a child’s parents and primary caregivers fulfill the need for attachment. Secondarily, other significant adults in a child’s life, and later in an adolescent’s life, help fulfill the need for attachment and connectedness (Rishel, Cottrell, Cottrell, Stanton, Gibson, & Bougher, 2007). These secondary relationships can be with grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, coaches, youth leaders, neighbors, family friends, and other significant adults (Rishel et al., 2007). Generally, other adults do not overshadow the parent’s primary role for attachment and connectedness; however, secondary relationships can also provide value and confidence to an adolescent’s self-perception. Due to the fact that teachers consistently spend a large amount of time with their adolescent students, the opportunity for providing a sense of connectedness and support is significant (Rishel et al., 2007). 52 Growth, maturation, independence, and development do not preclude the fact that adolescents continue to experience a need for attachment and connectedness (Rishel et al., 2007). Interestingly enough, though, parents may perceive that secondary adult relationships are stronger and more influential in their adolescents’ lives than the students perceive them to be in reality (Rishel et al., 2007). Students’ perceptions of whether or not teachers are emotionally safe people may determine if the teacher is approachable in an adolescent’s mind (Davis, 2003; Danielsen et al., 2009; LaRusso & Selman, 2011; Lyles, 2014; Karam, 2006; Saha, 2012). Middle school students often find their teachers not to be as friendly and supportive as they experienced with their elementary teachers (Board, n.d.; Davis, 2003; Karam, 2006; Matsumura et al., 2008). This seemingly cultural paradigm shift can result in students not feeling connected to their teachers and a loss of motivation to pursue their best academic performance (Matsumura et al., 2008). Effective professional development enables the teacher to enter into the middle school student’s cultural paradigm in order to relate to the adolescent’s perspective and challenges (Saha, 2012). Teachers have a challenging task of extending acceptance to their students, while, at the same time, not accepting inappropriate behaviors (Hamman & Hendricks, 2005). Students, who perceive their teachers to be caring and supportive, are likely to receive guidance in managing the common frustrations and anxieties of the typical adolescent day (Davis, 2006; Karam, 2006; Kauffman, 2013). Teacher-student relationships have an aspect of mutuality and require pursuance by both parties (Davis, 2003; Karam, 2006; Sands, 2011). However, the student is more likely to be the responder as the teacher initiates an appropriate, caring relationship (Davis, 2003; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). 55 The desire for mutuality of relationship between adolescents and their teachers can be fulfilled when adolescents sense their teachers are safe and caring. Students respond well when teachers convey belief in the students’ abilities to succeed. At the same time, teachers need to establish a balance between extending themselves to their students and affording the students the opportunity to take initiative in approaching teachers on the students’ own terms (Davis, 2003). Self-efficacy, Self-determination, and Self-advocacy As noted previously, a person begins to develop self- perception during the childhood years and builds upon or adjusts that perception throughout the course of life. However, it is during the adolescent years that one’s self-perception is particularly challenged. An adolescent has a natural desire to be independent and autonomous, to be in charge of life and making one’s own decisions (Gurland & Evangelista, 2014). A healthy and accurate sense of self-efficacy bids the adolescents well as they move in the direction of autonomy. Self-efficacy is the belief that one has the ability to orchestrate prospective situations and their outcomes (Bandura, 1991; Caprara et al., 2013; Danielsen et al., 2009). When students’ decisions lead them in a foolish, non-productive direction, though, someone needs to help offer guidance so a healthy sense of self-efficacy can continue to flourish as the students experience positive outcomes. Self-efficacy leads to academic success, which leads to satisfaction in school, resulting in satisfaction in life (Danielsen et al., 2009). The converse is true as well when adolescents’ self-efficacy is reduced, resulting in lower academic achievement, leading to diminished satisfaction in both school and life. Parents and classroom teachers hold the keys to adolescents’ level 56 of self-efficacy, which is reflected in the strength of their mutual relationships (Danielsen et al., 2009). Understanding the development of middle school students who are self-learners is the impetus for many teachers as they structure their classrooms. In addition, teachers recognize the importance of transferring the onus of responsibility for academic and behavioral success from dependence upon a set of classroom rules to a sense of personal ownership (Davis, 2003; Karam, 2006; Sands, 2011). “Students who could regulate their academic behaviors and emotions in the classroom generally reported more positive relationships with their teachers” (Davis, 2003, p. 208). When students perceive they hold a sense of control over their personal success they are more likely to feel increased confidence in approaching their teachers about concerns they have (Karam, 2006). Additionally, students who possess an accurate perception of their abilities and accept their responsibility for academic achievement have a greater sense of life and school satisfaction (Danielsen et al., 2009). However, students achieve greater success and sense more significant satisfaction in school if they have a healthy sense of connectedness with and support from their teachers (Danielsen et al., 2009). Striving for autonomy is not at odds with the pursuit of wanting to be connected to one’s teachers. Both desires dwell within the hearts and minds of students and, when fulfilled, help create a sense of well-being and balance in their perspectives (Danielsen et al., 2009). Understanding the cognitive development of adolescents, and thereby adjusting expectations in their exhibiting ownership and responsibility in the academic and behavioral realms is vital in encouraging students’ self-determination and self-advocacy practices (Kauffman, 2013). Generally, though, self-advocacy is connected to 57 exceptionality including both ends of the spectrum. Gifted students, as well as students with learning challenges, oftentimes have been the recipients of programs that teach self- advocacy (Douglas, 2004; Sebag, 2010). The shared belief is that students of exceptionality are the ones who need to find their voices and learn to speak up for themselves. Although this may be true, equally true is the fact that all students need to find their voices and develop skills of self-advocacy. Programs designed to teach self- advocacy to students usually focus on academic issues as opposed to social/emotional matters (Douglas, 2004); however, all students benefit from self-advocacy coaching in all realms of their young lives. This type of coaching provides life skills for students to use in future relationships, careers, and normal challenges they will face. Self-determination is defined as “the belief that all individuals have the right to direct their lives” (Sebag, 2010, p. 22). Helping students embrace this concept is not generally the challenge as much as helping them to understand the responsibility that accompanies what they believe are their rights. Both self-determination and self- advocacy are life skills that equip students with a sense of ownership and responsibility for the direction of their lives. A certain amount of control is within reach for students who recognize the inherent power of self-advocacy and self-determination (Gurland & Evangelista, 2014). Training students in these skills reaps great rewards for the students as well as their teachers. Adolescents develop a sense of owning their present outcomes when they embrace productive choices and teachers benefit when they can spend more time teaching and collaborating with their students than correcting their inappropriate behaviors (Bauer et al., 2009). 60 “When teachers become more willing to take risks and relate to their students, students reciprocate the effort, and dialogue begins, thus the opportunity for a relationship is initiated” (Sands, 2011, p. 45). Such positive teacher-student relationships help ground the student and foster better decision-making and engagement (Karam, 2006). The literature acknowledges potential conflict in the school context as well as programs developed over the years to teach conflict resolution strategies. The approach- avoidance theory helps one understand the tension created when a student perceives a teacher is not approachable, yet has questions or issues to discuss. This tension is not necessarily a matter of conflict as it may be a quest for understanding. So, the focus on helping students navigate matters of conflict has missed the mark in equipping students to know how to address issues before they become conflicts (Saha, 2012). Perhaps the louder voices of conflict have beckoned a response of research and programming, whereas the quieter voices of expressing concerns that pre-empt conflict resolution have gone basically unheard. Lyles’ dissertation (2014) focused on an anticipated factor of this research study, yet from a school counselor’s perspective. Lyles examined the phenomenon of teacher- to-student mistreatment and the repercussions for students of such behaviors exhibited by their teachers (Lyles, 2014). Lyles (2014) pointed out that only three related studies of teacher-to-student mistreatment had been conducted in the United States. Lyles’ (2014) identified gap in the literature review focused on the school counselor’s experiences and perspective. The gap revealed through this literature review exposes the fact that the students’ voices are missing from the research. Researchers have gathered data around the issue of students approaching or avoiding their teachers, but the students’ recounting 61 of their own experiences are sorely lacking. Students’ hesitancy in approaching their teachers is recognized, but responses to the phenomenon have been calculated according to what is deemed best for the students, without actually hearing from the students themselves. Explaining the Gap Students have expressed a tension in wanting to approach their teachers about school-related matters, yet not felt empowered to do so. These feelings result in students becoming reluctant to approach others when needing assistance (Karam, 2006). Understanding the breadth of reasons why students would perceive they are helpless in approaching their teachers is the focus of this research study. The ideal scenario creates environments where student-teacher relationships are so secure, open, supportive, and mutually engaging that conflicts are circumvented or handled expeditiously and effectively (Sands, 2011). Studies have been conducted that help explain the methods implemented by effective teachers in establishing strong and secure relationships with their students; however, research is lacking to explain the factors that weigh in on the students’ perceptions of teacher approachability that influence student-teacher interactions. Programs have been created that focus on teacher development in order to equip teachers in creating conducive environments for establishing appropriate relationships with their students (Durlak et al., 2011; Lyles, 2014). Research is still lacking in order to understand the students’ perceptions of whether or not their teachers are approachable and how those perceptions influence student-teacher interactions. While a gap in the literature has been acknowledged, one must acknowledge the challenges of developing a methodology for gathering the data in such a manner that the 62 students’ voices are heard and the core issues of the matter are identified. Establishing a measure of mutual trust with the students will be crucial in order to produce a research study of merit. Students must feel that their perspectives matter, the recounting of their experiences will be protected, and their participation will result in improvements made for themselves, their classmates and, potentially, middle school students in other places. The participants must be reassured there is inherent value in the research study and their participation will result in appropriate changes from which they and others will benefit. 65 impacts their interactions with their teachers, specifically when the students need or desire to seek their teachers’ help. By following a grounded theory design, specifically with a constructivist approach, a measure of rich data is collected through the stories and recounting of middle school students’ experiences and perspectives (Creswell, 2013). Rather than presuppose the reasoning for students’ perceptions of teacher approachability, a grounded theory design facilitates the participants explaining their own perceptions themselves. Specifically, a constructivist approach in the grounded theory design helps identify or clarify an emerging theory for this research study. The constructivist viewpoint proposes, “concepts and theories are constructed by researchers out of stories that are constructed by research participants who are trying to explain and make sense out of their experiences and/or lives, both to the researcher and themselves” (Corbin & Strauss, 2015, p. 10). Gathering data through the recounting of experiences and detailing of perspectives provides knowledge for the researcher and participants, which leads to understanding of the phenomenon and interpretation through an emerging theory (Creswell, 2013). Research Questions This qualitative grounded theory study addresses one central research question: How do middle school students’ perceptions of teacher approachability influence the students’ interactions with their teachers? The research study considers the factors that comprise a student’s perspective of teacher approachability. Previous personal experiences may influence students’ perceptions of teacher approachability (Karam, 2006; Kauffman, 2013; Wagner-Pacifici & Hall, 2012). The study considers if a student 66 has had positive or negative interactions with a teacher that develop students’ perceptions of teacher approachability, which then influence subsequent student-teacher interactions. Students’ perceptions of others’ experiences may influence whether or not teachers are perceived to be approachable (Williams, 2013). There are three subquestions that help guide the research study: 1. How, if at all, do social constructs in school affect students’ perceptions of teacher approachability? 2. How, if at all, does home environment affect students’ perceptions of teacher approachability? 3. How, if at all, does the student-teacher relationship affect students’ perceptions of teacher approachability? All of these questions and considerations revolve around the central question that seeks to understand how middle school students’ perceptions of teacher approachability influence their interactions with teachers. Setting The administrators of three identified schools were contacted in order to secure their verbal permission to proceed with the study. The schools – one public, one secular private, and one Christian private - are located in three different counties in the metro area. Each administrator was emailed in order to request a brief meeting to present the proposal for the research study (see Appendix A). The precise procedures for approaching the administrators and soliciting participants are explained in the next section. Each step of the research study required prior IRB approval (see Appendices C, D, and E) and Accountability and Research approval from the public school’s county (see 67 Appendix H), along with the permission of administrators, parents of participants, and the participants themselves (see Appendices F, G, I, and J). Schools were selected according to the diversity of demographics. The reasoning for three different models of school lies in the belief that rich data will emerge from three different settings as well as offer a compare/contrast in order to help determine commonalities or differences of students’ perceptions of teacher approachability. In the metro area, a secular private school generally draws a different constituency than a private Christian school. Potential participants were identified after answering a one- question screening questionnaire (see Appendix K) that targeted students who acknowledged perceptions of teacher unapproachability. Students who revealed such perceptions were given a demographic questionnaire (see Appendix L) that helped narrow the purposeful sampling while seeking diversity of participants. The actual names of schools were not identified as the schools were assigned pseudonyms. No formal relationship or supervisory role with any of the schools or their students was a factor in this study. Swensen Middle School (pseudonym) was the public school that participated in this research study. The school has 901 students, 49% males and 51% females. The student body of Swensen is made up of four ethnicities: 5% Asian, 12% Hispanic, 29% Black, 48% White, and 5% two or more ethnicities. The student/teacher ratio is 14:1 with 61 full-time teachers. Thirty-five percent of the students are considered “economically disadvantaged” with 34% receiving subsidized lunches. Founded in 2001, the Alpha Academy is a PK-eighth grade institution of 300 students with 26% minority enrollment. The teacher student ratio is 12:1 with a 70 Procedures This grounded theory qualitative study was conducted in different stages and settings. The administrators from three identified schools were emailed (see Appendix A) to request a brief meeting, in person, with the researcher for the purpose of presenting the research plan (see Appendix B). Once the researcher met in person with each administrator and received a verbal confirmation of participation, an application was submitted electronically to Liberty University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) (see Appendix C) as well as the public school’s Office of Accountability and Research (see Appendix H) in order to receive permission to proceed with formally contacting the identified middle schools. Once each IRB granted permission to proceed with the research plan, a follow up email was sent to each school’s administrator in order to set up a meeting to secure formal, written permission for their schools’ participation in the research study. Once the administrators, from three approved schools, provided written permission and the researcher received their commitment to support the study, the researcher collaborated with each administrator to determine the most effective and efficient strategy for contacting middle school parents in their schools in order to solicit permission for their children to participate in the one-question screening questionnaire (see Appendix K) through a printed form. This question asked the students if they generally felt their current or former teachers were approachable or unapproachable for asking questions or getting help. Once this questionnaire was completed, data collection began in order to help identify students who indicated perceptions of teacher unapproachability. With the administrators’ permission, through the schools’ 71 communication system, the parents of the potential participants were contacted in order to secure signed permission for their children to complete a demographic questionnaire (see Appendix L). Paper copies of the demographic questionnaire were distributed during the students’ homeroom classes for the purpose of determining a purposeful sampling of participants for the study. Diversity within the purposeful sampling was sought through the data provided in the questionnaire (Creswell, 2013). The commonality of the sampling was the shared perceptions of unapproachable teachers. Diversity was reflected in the dynamics of the participants. Saturation of data within the proposed 10 to 15 participants was sought in order to provide a clearer picture of a middle school-aged adolescent (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). If saturation was not achieved through the 10 to 15 participants, the researcher would have added to the number until saturation was reached (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). After four potential participants from each school were identified, permission to be interviewed was solicited from the proposed participants and their parents through paper forms sent home. The participants and their parents were asked to complete the permission form approved by the IRB and specific school (see Appendices F, H, I. and J) and distributed at each participant’s school. Once participation was granted, the researcher proceeded with the proposed data collection process. Students chose their own pseudonyms for the study. The researcher called each school’s administrator in order to determine the best date, time, and on-site location for the individual interviews. A follow-up email confirmed the agreed-upon logistics with the school’s administrator or designee. 72 Following the individual interviews (see Appendix M), the researcher called each school’s administrator to determine a date, time, and on-site location for the participants to be brought together in focus groups within each school in order to further explore the research questions and information already provided in the individual interviews. The individual interviews as well as the onsite focus group interviews (see Appendix N) were audio recorded by the researcher using a secured device. The researcher also personally transcribed all interviews in order to ensure data accuracy. After the focus groups met, students responded to writing prompts in journals (provided by the researcher) or an electronic wiki blog created by the researcher (see Appendix O). Students were encouraged to write in their journals or blog on their wikis when they were away from school, if possible. If participants chose to blog, their identities and responses were password protected to ensure their confidentiality. Participants responded to the researcher’s prompts about their perceptions of teacher approachability and how their perceptions and experiences influenced student-teacher interactions. Subsequently, the transcripts were coded (open, axial, and selective) using Atlas.ti software,(Corbin & Strauss, 2015) and by creating Excel spreadsheets. This data, along with the students’ journal/blog entries, provided the results of the research study. The Researcher's Role In my current role as head of school in a private Christian school in the north metro Atlanta area, I did not have any jurisdiction over any of the administrators, faculty, staff, students or parents in the three middle school sites. Through analyzing the data through questionnaires, individual and focus group interviews, journaling/blogging and analysis of the data, I remained the human instrument in this research study (Corbin & 75 Questionnaire for Gathering Demographic Data (continued in Appendix L). 1. Name of student 2. Grade 3. Age 4. Gender 5. Ethnicity 6. Name the town or city where you were born. 7. Household composition (check all that apply): Mother ____ Father _____ Siblings and ages _________________________________________ Grandparent _____ Aunt _____ Uncle _____ Cousin _____ Diversity of participants within each school in addition to the total group of participants will be sought in order to collect rich data. Diversity includes gender, socio-economical dynamics, racial, ethnic, cultural, and learning differences and disabilities (Silverman, 2010). If additional students are needed to achieve saturation of data, the researcher will increase the number of participants for the study. The need for this increase will probably not become evident until the interview process is near completion (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Creswell, 2013). 76 Interviews Individual interviews were conducted with each of the participants at their respective schools, during their school day, and according to their school schedule. Students and their parents signed consent forms (see Appendices F, G, I, and J) for participation in the interviews (Creswell, 2013). The students’ responses were audio recorded and secured to protect confidentiality (Creswell, 2013). For the purpose of establishing a rapport with the participants, a few minutes was spent with each student in order to build a measure of trust in moving forward. The entire conversation was recorded and transcribed. Since the researcher was unknown to all of the participants, modeling transparency was important if the students were expected to be transparent in return. The participants were provided with an overview of the interview, which was divided into four different categories to coincide with the literature review: family of origin, adolescent needs and differences, teacher-student relationships, and self-efficacy, self-determination, and self- advocacy. Origins 1. Which parent (or family member) do you feel closest to and why? 2. Describe any differences you have noticed between your parents’ cultural upbringing and your friends’ parents. 3. When you were little and got hurt, whom did you typically go to for comfort? 4. What have your parents told you about their middle school teachers? 5. Who makes and who enforces the rules in your home? 6. When your family is together, what struggles or challenges at school do you discuss? 77 Adolescent Needs & Differences 7. In what ways should a student be able to feel safe in your school? 8. What would you recommend to a new student who wants to fit in to your school culture? 9. How are differences (gender, racial, interests, cultural, academic, maturity, preferences, etc.) generally viewed and treated at your school? 10. The word, “resilient” means to be able to recover from problems quickly. How resilient would you say you are in tough times? Can you give some examples of times you’ve had to be resilient? 11. How valued do you feel you and your ideas are when you’re at school? Teacher-Student Relationships 12. If you were a teacher, what would you do to make sure your students knew that you liked them and that you were a safe person for them? 13. Imagine a teacher who you would approach and a teacher you would avoid. Give characteristics of both. 14. Mutual respect means that everyone shows proper respect for everyone else. How can a teacher encourage mutual respect in the classroom? Self-efficacy, Self-determination, Self-advocacy 15. Describe yourself (your personality, your strengths and weaknesses, your friendship style…) 16. As a middle school student, to what extent do you feel you’re in control of daily decisions and your future direction? 17. What encourages you to speak up for yourself and why is it important? 80 Questions twelve and thirteen focused on teacher-student relationships from the students’ perspectives. Teacher approachability as well as student tendencies to approach or avoid their teachers provided the data for this bank of interview questions (Danielsen et al., 2009; Davis, 2003; Karam, 2006; LaRusso & Selman, 2011; Lyles, 2014; Matsumura et al., 2008; Saha, 2012; Wentzel, 1997). The students’ perspectives of the value of modeling mutual respect were explored through question fourteen (Matsumura et al., 2008). Question fifteen explored the participants’ measure of self-awareness and self- perception in asking the student to describe themselves. Question sixteen pursued understanding of the participants’ sense of control over decisions that impacted them (Bandura, 1991; Bauer et al., 2009; Caprara et al., 2013; Danielsen et al., 2009; Davis, 2003; Karam, 2006; Sands, 2011; Sebag, 2010). Question sixteen further clarified the participants’ perspectives of how much their success in school rested in their hands (Danielsen et al., 2009; Davis, 2003; Diseth & Samdal, 2014; Karam, 2006). Question seventeen investigated the participants’ understanding and pursuit of demonstrating self-advocacy (Douglas, 2004). Finding one’s own voice to speak up for oneself or others is the main idea surrounding self-advocacy. Question eighteen was a critically important and potentially pivotal one as it focused on the students’ responses to someone being bullied (Danielsen et al., 2009; Milsom & Gallo, 2006). Document Analysis The only documents that required analysis were those created and authored by the participants. Authenticating the authorship of responses was conducted by receiving handwriting samples from participants prior to journaling data collection. Students, who 81 choose to blog, were given a specific user name and password and asked to keep their credentials confidential. Focus Groups Focus groups within each school setting were gathered together once the individual interviews were conducted for the purpose of extending the discussion with the participants together with their peers. The interviews and the focus group discussions were recorded and later transcribed by the researcher. Interview and discussion questions were grounded in the literature and the purpose of each question was explained in the research study. Even though individual and focus group questions were prepared in advance, the possibility remained that the planned questions would need to be adjusted, dependent upon responses given. This was a clear advantage of a grounded theory qualitative study as the researcher attempted to thoroughly investigate the participants’ perspectives and experiences and continued asking questions until a point of saturation was reached. Focus Group Questions 1. Which has been more fun for you – answering my questions about teacher approachability or getting out of class? Be honest! 2. Other than the interviews with me, can you remember a time when you’ve been interviewed in the past because someone wanted to know what you thought or felt about something? If so, tell me about that time. 3. As you’ve thought through the interview questions and considered the most important factors that make a teacher seem approachable, what do you think most middle school students would list as characteristics or actions? 82 4. Why do you think these specific factors make your teachers seem approachable? What about these factors connect with students? 5. Do you think there are teachers who view themselves as approachable and students would disagree with that perception? What could teachers do to understand students’ perceptions of teacher approachability so that teacher perception and student reality were the same? 6. If you needed to talk to a teacher about an academic or behavioral matter, would you ask your parents to help you know what to say to your teacher? Why would you ask or not ask your parents for help? 7. When a teacher seems approachable, how do you decide whether or not you will interact with that teacher regarding issues that are significant to you? 8. How does your personality type play into approaching or avoiding a teacher? 9. Have there been times when you thought a teacher was approachable, only to discover that wasn’t the case when you tried to enter into a conversation with that teacher? What happened, how did you feel, and how did that interaction impact your perceptions of teacher approachability? The focus group questions were extensions of the interview questions and written for the purpose of expanding the students’ thinking around each of the topics. Providing an opportunity for the students to hear (or read) their peers’ responses was intended to help students better understand their own perspectives in light of others’ experiences. Common concepts and themes emerged through the collected data from the individual and focus group interviews (Creswell, 2013). In addition to recording the participants’ responses in the individual and focus group interviews, the researcher recorded memos of 85 study. Following interviews in each school setting, the researcher transcribed the recordings verbatim and saved the data to a password protected laptop. A printed copy of each transcript was secured in a locked cabinet in the researcher’s office. The transcripts were coded utilizing the Atlas.ti program and using the same laptop previously mentioned. Open Coding The purpose of coding in a qualitative study is to provide guidance in identifying emerging and similar concepts or themes that the data provides. Open coding involves “breaking data apart and delineating concepts to stand for blocks of raw data” (Corbin & Strauss, 2015, p. 195). This type of coding creates broad categories and ideas gathered through the data collection. In particular, the individual and focus group interviews initiated the open coding process. During this phase of analysis, the repetition of words, themes, and concepts communicated by each participant were captured and codes were assigned. Students’ actual words or phrases were coded – in vivo codes (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Considering such a multi-faceted topic as middle school students’ perceptions of teacher approachability, and striving for diversity in the purposeful sample, it was anticipated that a large number of codes would be used in open coding. In fact, eighty-eight different codes of significance were identified. While searching for common words, themes and concepts, uncommon or outlier themes were not negated as unworthy for the study. Axial Coding Axial coding is “crosscutting or relating concepts to each other” (Corbin & Strauss, 2015, p. 195). This coding process was particularly helpful in comparing and 86 contrasting the participants’ stories and experiences around the theme of teacher approachability. Similarities of factors that created a student’s perception of teacher approachability and influenced student-teacher interactions emerged in this stage of coding. From transcribing the interview scripts, using Atlas.ti. and Excel spreadsheets, coding patterns emerged from the collected data. Words, themes, and concepts commonly shared by the participants, were grouped according to their shared values. Selective Coding The third phase of coding in grounded theory data analysis is called selective coding. Creswell (2013) defines this coding as the “intersection of the categories to become a theory” (p. 85). Selective coding gives guidance in identifying the rhyme and reason of the rich data that’s been collected. The researcher’s quest, prompted by a hunch to be explained, leads to a theory, proposal, or hypothesis. Stepping back to analyze the data and codes from a big picture perspective helped in determining if any consistent patterns or perspectives emerged around student perceptions of teacher approachability and the influence perceptions had on student-teacher interactions. The researcher analyzed patterns of rhyme or reason for the students’ shared perceptions, which may have aligned with an existing theory or theories or perhaps pointed to a new or hybrid theory. Open, axial, and selective coding were used to analyze all collected data through Atlas.ti and Excel spreadsheets – the individual interviews, the focus group interviews, and the students’ journal or blogging entries. Journal and blogging entries were coded at the conclusion of this stage of data collection. The students were granted their preference for venue of responding to the journal/blog prompts. The researcher created a Google 87 form that was password protected for those students who preferred this platform. The students were encouraged to enter their responses each evening when they were at home as opposed to during the day when they may have had distractions or others’ weighing in on their responses. Analysis of the data collected provided guidance in assessing saturation of the data to ensure the topic had been explored as extensively as possible, within the scope of the study. In a qualitative study, a search ensues to unearth any part of a participant’s story that adds richness to the data and understanding to the phenomenon. If confidential information had been shared during the data collection process, the students’ confidentiality would have been protected in the manner agreed upon with the school administrator before the data collection process began. Trustworthiness For a qualitative study to be considered trustworthy, values such as credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability must be addressed within the study. For the amount of work required for a research study, clear details for the study’s credibility should be carefully scrutinized and the methods able to be duplicated (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The study should demonstrate the characteristics of trustworthiness enough that evaluation of the work would be received favorably. A lack of authenticity of the data collection and analysis process or authorship of the study would invalidate the worthiness of the study. Credibility Credibility is increased by triangulation of data collection, prolonged engagement if required, member checks, and peer debriefing (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this study, 90 question: How do middle school students’ perceptions of teacher approachability influence the students’ interactions with their teachers? A triangulation approach of data collection through individual participant interviews, focus group interviews, and participant journaling or blogging was implemented (Creswell, 2013). The data analysis for this grounded theory study used three types of coding – open, axial, and selective (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Trustworthiness of the methods employed was validated as credible, dependable, transferable, and confirmable. Ethical considerations were given in order to provide verification of the participants’ stories and voices through privacy of settings, securing of data, and confirming confidentiality and anonymity of the data and participants. 91 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS Overview This grounded theory, qualitative study focuses on middle school students’ perceptions of teacher approachability and resulting actions based upon those perceptions when students want to talk to their teachers about school-related matters. Although previous studies explored aspects of the teacher-student relationship (Sands, 2011), teachers’ perceptions of their own approachability, and best practices of teachers for developing a sense of emotional safety for their students (Durlak et al., 2011; Lyles, 2014), there is a gap in research where the students’ own voices are heard on the subject of teacher approachability (Kauffman, 2013). The focus of the central question for this research study is how middle school students’ perceptions of teacher approachability influence the students’ interactions with their teachers regarding school-related matters? Three research questions guiding this grounded theory study are: (a) how, if at all, do social constructs in school affect students’ perceptions of teacher approachability; b) how, if at all, does home environment affect students’ perceptions of teacher approachability; and (c) how, if at all, does the student-teacher relationship affect students’ perceptions of teacher approachability? This chapter is divided into three major sections: the first three phases of the data collection process, which includes descriptions of the participants in their school contexts; results from the last three phases of the data collection process, which include theme development and research question responses (where students’ responses reflect the emergent themes that answer the subquestions regarding the roles that social constructs, home environment, and student-teacher relationships play in middle school 92 students’ perceptions of teacher approachability); and summary of the findings for this study. Selection Process and Descriptions of Participants Phase One: A One-Question Screening Questionnaire In order to begin determining the pool from whom participants were selected, a one-question screening questionnaire (see Appendix K) was given that asked students if they ever had a teacher they thought was unapproachable, either in the past or at their current school. This questionnaire was given to all sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students in the public, private, and Christian school models. The students in the public school were given the questionnaire at the beginning of their physical education classes. The students in the private school were given the questionnaire at the beginning of a middle school assembly, and the students at the Christian school during their Bible classes. The researcher was given the opportunity to introduce herself to the students and explain the research study to them. Additionally, an overview was provided of what would be expected of them if they were chosen to participate in the study. At that time, it was explained that those who were chosen to participate and who completed all three parts of the data collection would be given a $25 iTunes gift card. After collecting the students’ responses to the one-question screening questionnaire, the students were given consent forms to take home to their parents with the explanation that their parents’ and their own signatures were required in order to be considered as a participant. The consent forms were written for the students’ specific schools and according to IRB and the public school’s criteria (see Appendices C through J). 95 questionnaire (see Appendix L). Table 1 Participant Demographics School Participant Gender Grade Ethnicity Family Dynamics Birth Order Alpha Academy Anna Female 8 African American Parents Married Oldest Claire Female 6 Caucasian Grand- parents Only Maddie Female 6 Caucasian Parents Married Youngest Matthew Male 7 Caucasian Parents Married Only Pharrell Male 6 African American Parents Separated Youngest Stella Female 7 Caucasian Parents Married Only Metro Christian Bobby Male 7 Caucasian Parents Married Youngest Fred Male 7 Caucasian Parents Married Oldest Leigh Female 8 Caucasian Parents Married Youngest Ricardo Male 8 Caucasian Parents Married Middle Swenson Middle Cali Female 6 African American Parents Married Only Elizabeth Female 7 Vietnamese Parents Divorced Only Jack Male 7 Asian American Parents Married Only Sophia Female 7 Caucasian Parents Married Only 96 The Alpha Academy Anna. Anna is an African-American eighth grade female who has attended four previous schools before her current one. She plans to go to public school after she completes this school year. Anna was born in England to parents of South African and English descent. She describes her mother as being strict because Anna’s grandmother was strict as well, having served in the military in South Africa. Anna acknowledges that her parents have very high expectations of her in school performance and behavior. She describes herself as being funny, easy to talk to, and sociable, yet not organized. Claire. Claire is a sixth grade Caucasian female who has been reared by her grandparents since she was two months old. She clearly loves and admires her grandparents and appears to have a very good relationship with them. Claire relates that her grandparents have very few rules for her and she attributes that to her being “a good enough kid.” Claire enjoys the family and community feel in her school and thinks of her teachers like aunts and uncles because of the measure of comfortability that she experiences. Claire exhibits a confidence and self-assuredness beyond her sixth grade years. Maddie. Maddie is a sixth grade female of European descent, with both parents born and reared in Belgium. She states she attended three other schools before her current school, where she has been six years. Maddie is very quiet in her responses, yet seems engaged with the interview process. She has two older brothers under whose shadows she seems to live when it comes to garnering the attention of her parents. Although she has attended The Alpha Academy longer than the other participants, she does not present as well connected to her classmates as the others seem to be. 97 Matthew. Matthew is a seventh grade Caucasian male and has attended only one other school before his current school. His father was born and reared in Scotland and later moved to Ireland and Matthew feels he is judged according to his ethnicity. He did not expound on what he means about students being “racist to my ethnicity.” Generally speaking, he does not feel that he or his ideas are valued by his classmates, but are by his teachers. He also expresses that his classmates do not “understand me,” particularly some girls in his class who he says have uttered hateful words towards and about him. Pharrell. Pharrell is a sixth grade male student who noted his ethnicity as American; however, I would suggest that African-American is also part of his ethnic heritage. He indicated that he has been diagnosed with a learning disability of some kind. Pharrell attended two other schools before his current school and is completing his first year there. He is quite distracted by his parents’ recent separation and impending divorce, even though he states he does not want other people’s pity. Pharrell’s interview was the most challenging of all the participants, potentially reflecting other issues that came into play as he responded to the questions. Through his answers, he gives insight into his home life, his behaviors, his perspective, and his social skills. Stella. Stella is a seventh grade Caucasian female who says she has been diagnosed with ADHD. Her current school is her fourth to attend and she is an only child. She said her parents were reared in very strict home environments and her parents have high expectations of her, but are more reasonable about their expectations and consequences. Stella says she is better friends with the boys in her class than the girls and often feels as though the girls do not like her. She expressed feeling valued because of her ability to work the school sound system and other technical equipment.