A Qualitative Study of English Language Students’ Perceptions of Teacher’s Pet Phenomenon in the Iranian Higher Education Context

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
1 Ph.D. Candidate in English Language Teaching- Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.
2 Professor of English Language teaching- Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.
3 Assistant Professor of English Language teaching- Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.
Abstract
Teachers perform a substantial role in students’ learning (Tikly& Barret, 2013). Their relationship with students coupled with the range of emotional factors at play in their behavior can stimulate the development of students’ affective learning (Woolfolk Hoy & Weinstein, 2006). Their status as a prominent figure in the classroom lowers once the students perceive a sense of injustice. Hence, it is well worth looking at instances of injustice in teachers’ behaviors toward students. Regarding the leading role of fairness in teachers’ behaviors toward students and the effect of their fair treatment on students’ learning, the present study aims to qualitatively scrutinize TPP, a unique example of unfairness in educational contexts (Babad, 2009), in the context of higher education in Iran.

To this end, thirty graduate and undergraduate students of both genders were interviewed. They were all majoring in English Translation, English Literature, and English Language Teachingat different universities and institutes of higher education in Mashhad, Tehran, Shiraz, and Ahvaz (e.g., Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Tarbiat Modares, Tehran, Shahid Beheshti, Alzahra, Shiraz, Shahid Chamran, Imam Reza, and Tabarn Universities). They answered five questions which were related to their feelings about a pet and an instructor who has a pet, the characteristics of a pet, the terms they use to call a pet, and the reasons for which a teacher-pet relationship ends. Then, the collected data were analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.

The results showed that the students had negative feelings towards the instructor and his/her pet, and their negative feelings triggered negative and hostile reactions against the instructor and his/her pet. It was also revealed that they tended to use offensive terms to call pets. Moreover, they mostly described pets negatively, and most of them believed that pets are incompetent students who become pets to compensate for their insufficient knowledge of the field of study. The participants also asserted that the teacher-pet relationship can be broken off if both the instructor and his/her pet cannot take advantage of each other. Finally, the reasons underlying the findings were discussed.

Keywords

Subjects


تنهایی، ابوالحسن (1383). درآمدی بر مکاتب و نظریه‌های جامعه‌شناسی. مشهد: نشر بامشاد.
Babad, E. (1990). «Measuring and changing teachers' differential behavior as perceived by students
and teachers». Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 683-690.
Babad, E. (1995). «The teacher’s pet phenomenon, teachers’ differential behavior, and students’
morale». Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 361-374.
Babad, E. (1998). Preferential affect: The crux of the teacher expectancy issue. In J. Brophy (Ed.),
Advances in research on teaching: Expectations in the classroom (Vol. 7, pp. 183-214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Babad, E. (2001). «On the conception and measurement of popularity: More facts and some straight
conclusions». Social Psychology of Education, 5(1), 3-29.
Babad, E. (2009). Social psychology of the classroom. New York: Routledge Research Education.
Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1975). Patterns of the hypnotic techniques of Milton H. Erikson, M.D.
(1st vol). Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.
Berne, E. (1988). Games people play. New York: Grove Press.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). «Counternormative impression management, likeability,
and performance ratings: The use of intimidation in an organizational setting». Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(2), 237-250.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capitals. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education (p. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. M. Adamson (trans).
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Brown, L. M., & Dobbins, H. (2004). «Students of color and European American students stigma-
relevant perceptions of university instructors». Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 157-175.
Chiu, S. I., Lee, J., & Liang, T. (2011). «Does the teacher’s pet phenomenon inevitably cause
classroom conflict? Comparative viewpoints of three pet-student groups». School Psychology International, 34(1), 3-16.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Hellaby, L. (2004). Teaching TA in the primary school. In G. Barrow & T. Newton (Eds.), Walking
the talk, how transactional analysis is improving behavior and raising self-esteem (pp. 5-16). London, UK.: David Fulton Publishers.
Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). «Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings».
Academy of Management Review, 13(5), 572-587.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Lu, H. J., Fung, K. Y., Farver, J. A., Chen, B. B., & Chang, L. (2015). «The influence of teachers’
preferences on children’s social status in schools». Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 5(1), 57-73.
Nagy, B., Kacmar, K.M., & Harris, K. (2001). «Dispositional and situational factors as predictors of
impression management behaviors». Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management, 12(4), 229-245.
Opoku-Amankwa, K. (2009). «‘Teacher only calls her pets’: Teacher’s selective attention and the
invisible life of a diverse classroom in Ghana». Language and Education, 23(3), 249-262.
Rosenfeld, P. R., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression management in
organizations: Theory, measurement and practice. New York: Routledge.
Sadler, G. R., Lee, H. C., Lim, R. S. H., & Fullerton, J. (2010). «Recruitment of hard-to-reach
population subgroups via adaptions of the snowball sampling strategy». Nursing and Health Sciences, 12(3), 369-374.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and
interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Shirai, S. (2006). «How transactional analysis can be used in terminal care». International
Congress Series, 1287, 179-184.
Silberman, M. (1971). Teachers’ actions and attitudes toward their students. In M. Silberman (Ed.),
The experience of schooling. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P. & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory,
research, practice. London: Sage.
Somersalo, H., Solantaus, T., & Almqvist, F. (2002). «Classroom climate and the mental health of
primary school children». Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 56(4), 285-290.
Tal, Z. (1987). Teachers’ differential behavior toward their students: Investigation of the “teacher’s
pet phenomenon” (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.
Tal, Z., & Babad, E. (1989). «The teacher‘s pet phenomenon as viewed by Israeli teachers and
students». Elementary School Journal, 90(1), 99-110.
Tal, Z., & Babad, E. (1990). «The teacher‘s pet phenomenon: Rate of occurrence, correlates, and
psychological costs». Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 637-645.
Tikly, L., & Barret, A. M. (eds.) (2013). Education quality and social justice in the global south:
Challenges for policy, practice and research. Abingdon: Routledge.
Tirri, K., & Puolimatka, T. (2000). «Teacher authority in schools: A case student from Finland».
Journal of Education for Teaching, 26, 157-165.
Trusz, S. (2017). «The teacher’s pet phenomenon 25 years on». Social Psychology of Education,
20(4), 707-730.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Weinstein, C. (2006). Student and teacher perspectives on classroom
management. In C. Everston & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice and contemporary issues (pp. 181-219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.