Changed perceptions on incivility

Being able to share concerns and experiences had enabled both groups to reflect upon and develop a changed perspective on incivility. The students had valued the opportunity of exploring their perspectives with others;

―Yeah. Gave me a chance to, as I say, start looking at things from a different point of view within the classroom environment. I was always just sitting there as a student, just looking to the lecturer all the time... I do give my opinions and I do join in the sessions, but I kind of look at their role in a different way now” (S2, Int: 96-

99).

Equally lecturers had recognised a change as well;

―I think my perception of incivility had changed... I'm more relaxed about letting students use mobile telephones in the classroom, for policies, because I think there's more trust in that and I think that has come from listening to other people's experiences...‖ (L1, Int: 73-75).

This embracement of technology had been an important theme, although there was a caveat to this;

―...I think you've got to embrace technology because it can enhance the learning experience now... another occasion, again someone was using their phone for you know, to book tickets to go to a concert, during my lecture... and I found out afterwards. And I felt a bit miffed really...‖ (L3, Int: 114-120)

Lecturers were increasingly realising that certain behaviour did not automatically lead to intentional incivility. Mobile phones could be used to enhance a teaching session, yet there was always the chance that they could be used inappropriately. This reinforces the importance of developing mutual trust and respect (Mann 2008). Having this foundation should allow the dialogue to develop and accordingly facilitates jointly agreed “ground rules” (Tippitt et al 2009; Clark and Springer 2010).

There was the realisation that incivility was a much broader subject than had first been envisaged before participating in the programme. The “debate with colleagues” (in the earlier workshop) had enabled a consensus which agreed that there was no black and white answer to the perceived issue and the workshops had uncovered more questions than answers. For some there had actually been a conceptual shift from the thinking to the actual doing;

―So, the stuff that I would've been thinking, say unconsciously, I was actually thinking of in the front of my mind and was acting upon, and that was being more mindful of what the students felt about, incivility can restrict their learning opportunities‖ (L2, Int: 188-191).

153

Relating to the internal context, the “stuff” that had been in the “forefront” was now being acted upon. This involved an increased awareness of how incivility was restricting student learning opportunities. This insight, gained through the process of individual and group reflection, allowed this lecturer to improve this situation for the students (Roberts and Dick 2003; Kemmis 2006; Reason and Bradbury 2008).

The opportunity of sharing concerns and experiences about incivility had been valued by the lecturers;

―it was really interesting, to... have conversations and bring it in to more of a discourse about something I think is probably experienced by lots of people by different contexts in education... but it's a thing that's never spoken about. Because it's somehow a measure of your inability to manage the situation, and I think that's a falsehood that needs to be brought out. Bit like the Emperor's (new) Clothes‖(L2, Int: 25-30).

The conversations had developed into “more of a discourse” and this reflected the dialectical element of the workshop programme. This discourse recognised the perceived unwillingness to talk about incivility and DB within the actual context of higher education, with the story of the Emperor‟s new clothes being used as an analogy to capture this. For this individual everyone knew that incivility occurred but it was “never spoken about” because it reflected a perceived inability to manage. The workshops had been ERS that had allowed this to happen and this obviously had been one of the key objectives of the research approach.

8.6.1 Demonstrable change

It is important to acknowledge that there had been reported demonstrable changes for both groups, occurring as a direct result of participating in the research programme. Students had now challenged perceived incivility within the classroom;

―I can think of one or two occasions where I've challenged what I thought was uncivil, or disruptive behaviour, and that's changed...‖ (S3, Int: 140-141).

―Yeah. In, for instance, if I'm in a class now I know the people I'm with quite well in my lecture now, I'm more likely to say ‗will you be quiet, I'm trying to listen‘ but doing it in a nice way that's quite constructive and they'll just go all right okay sorry"

(S2, Int: 145-148).

Although there can be negative consequences to this course of action;

―I think it alienated people a little bit, I felt a distance between myself and those people....were surprised I'd spoken out so... I feel like, you know, there's been a little dog in the corner and it's never bitten anyone and then it bites someone...‖ (S3, Int: 156-161).

154

The workshops had promoted a sense of power and assertiveness to do something about incivility. The intervention had to be constructive and respectful and consequently the response could equally be respectful, “all right ok sorry‖. Contrary to this, using the analogy of a quiet dog that bites, there had been a sense of alienation and as a result this had created “distance‖ between the individual and protagonists. Having an increased awareness of the immediate context and the basic essentials had led to a positive change in learning;

―...so only last week I went in a room and went this is not good enough, you know it's a small cramped room, looked on the room you know the room opposite, it was a bit bigger, a bit more spacious, took the decision to decamp and go in there and we had a great session‖ (L3, Int: 153-156).

As promoted by Kemmis & McTaggart (2000) and Reason & Bradbury (2006, 2008) these examples demonstrate that participants had acted in response to their changed perspectives and were reflecting in action. There was, to a certain extent, a price to pay for this which had resulted in a sense of alienation. Positively in managing the basic essentials of the immediate context, a lecturer had acted in a way to improve the context and as a consequence the session had been a “great” one.