International Journal of Instruction January 2017 ● Vol.10, No.1 e-ISSN: 1308-1470 ● www.e-iji.net p-ISSN: 1694-609X pp. 219-236 Received: 21/06/2016 Revision: 01/09/2016 Accepted: 12/09/2016 Examining the Stroking Behavior of English, Persian, and Arabic School Teachers in Iran: A Mixed-methods Study Fatemeh Irajzad M.A., Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran, [email protected] Reza Pishghadam Prof., (corresponding author), Language Education, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran, [email protected] Hesamoddin Shahriari Asst. Prof., Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran, [email protected] The quality of teacher-student relationships greatly affects students’ academic life. Students need to be recognized by their teacher. One way through which such need may be fulfilled is receiving strokes (teacher attention). In a broad sense, stroke is known to be a unit of human recognition (Berne, 1988). Accordingly, the current mixed- methods study aims to investigate the differences among English, Persian, and Arabic school teachers in Iran pertaining to their stroking behavior and and see how the three groups of teachers differ in this regard. To fulfill the first aim, 300 eighth-grade female students completed an 18-item questionnaire and the questionnaire data were analyzed through one-way ANOVA. The results revealed that Arabic teachers stroke students more than English and Persian teachers. As for the second aim, nine English, Persian and Arabic teachers were each observed for three sessions. The analysis of the observations demonstrated that English teachers outstroke students. Finally, these findings have been discussed in the context of language instruction. Key Words: stroking behavior, course, female school teachers, female students, language instruction INTRODUCTION Learning occurs best in contexts where students receive emotional support and experience enjoyable learning (Schutz & Pekrun, 2007). Since teacher interaction with students is integral to the fulfillment of students’ emotional needs, researchers have paid increasing attention to the nature and quality of this interaction. Over the years, several scholars have investigated factors contributing to teacher-student relations. Among these factors are teacher care (e.g., McBee, 2007; Mercado, 1993; O’Connor, 2008; Wentzel, 1997), teacher immediacy (e.g., Barclay, 2012; Mehrabian, 1967), emotional URL: http://www.e-iji.net/dosyalar/iji_2017_1_14.pdf 220 Examining the Stroking Behavior of English, Persian … intelligence (Hashemi, 2008), and teacher effectiveness (e.g., Black & Howard-Jones, 2000; Cheung et al., 2008). However, there is a missing piece which has received little attention thus far. The missing piece in teacher-student interactions is stroke. It is an important component of teacher care (Pishghadam et al., 2015) and is defined as every action a human being does to recognize another human being (Berne, 1988). A teacher (stroker) can stroke students (strokees) in many ways such as providing them with feedback, recalling their names, having eye contact with them, encouraging them to think about their academic abilities positively, etc. As stated by Freedman (1993), individuals perform better in stroke-rich settings. Therefore, stroking may contribute to student achievement and success. The concept of stroke has been silently incorporated into the classroom culture. However, on the whole, it has not been given a place among the great theories of motivation. Therefore, inquiry on stroke, outside of a few exceptions (e.g., Pishghadam & Khajavy, 2014; Yazdan Pour, 2015; Rajabnejad Namaghi, 2016; Hosseini, 2016), has been slow to emerge. Researchers have noticed that student recognition is fundamental in cultivating engaged learners (Goldstein, 1999; Goldstein & Lake, 2000). Despite their significance, strokes are scarce and this is due to an economy of strokes which prevents people from freely stroking each other (Steiner, 1997). Both teachers and students are in a continuous state of stroke hunger resulting from a restrictive economy of strokes. Therefore, the researchers abandoned other motivational theories in favor of a theory of stroke which is centered on recognition. The motivation for focusing on language teachers emerged from the researchers’ concerns about the role that language courses play in the amount and types of strokes provided by teachers. Three languages are taught in the educational system of Iran, namely Persian (national language), Arabic (religious language), and English (international language). Considering the role of language teaching in identity construction (Clarke, 2008), it seems that these three languages have an impact on the identity (e.g., gender identity) of teachers, and therefore on their stroking behavior. Gender identity refers to an individual’s perception of his/her own degree of maleness and femaleness regardless of his/her biological sex (Bem, 1974). According to Pishghadam, et al. (2016), the concept of masculinity and femininity of teachers has an impact on the quality of teacher-student relationships. According to them, feminine teachers tend to be more caring and friendly, and put a higher emphasis on their relationship with students. In contrast, masculine teachers are more assertive and corrective. Considering the fact that language teachers are strongly influenced by practices within their field, Pishghadam, et al. (2016) concluded that teachers of Persian, Arabic, and English are affected by national, religious, and western influences in the process of gender identity construction. The results of their study provide evidence for the femininity of English teachers and masculinity of Arabic and Persian teachers in the students’ perceptions. The distinct role of each of the three languages (i.e., English, Persian, and Arabic) in the curriculum has prompted researchers to compare corresponding teachers in different respects including status (Pishghadam & Saboori, International Journal of Instruction, January 2017 ● Vol.10, No.1 Irajzad, Pishghadam & Shahriari 221 2014) and gender identity (Pishghadam, et al., 2016). Since teachers’ stroking behavior stems out of their habitus and identity, investigation of this issue in the Iranian educational context is of particular significance. Accordingly, this research is designed to address two key questions: (1) Do Iranian students perceive any significant differences among their English, Persian, and Arabic school teachers regarding stroke? (2) How do English, Persian, and Arabic school teachers differ in providing strokes? REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Students experience a wide range of positive and negative emotions in the classroom. The kind of relationship teachers have with their students is closely intertwined with student emotions in the educational environment (Frenzel et al., 2009). Accordingly, teachers have a significant role in shaping a positive relationship with students, thereby enhancing their motivation and assisting them in building the necessary interpersonal skills (Pierson, 2003). These interpersonal relationships could be examined by a theory proposed by Eric Berne known as Transactional Analysis (TA) theory (Pishghadam & Khajavy, 2014). ‘‘TA is a theory of personality and systematic psychotherapy for personal growth and personal change’’ (Stewart & Joines, 1987, p. 3). The six basic components of TA theory include: ego states, life positions, life scenario, transactions, time structures, and strokes (Berne, 1988). This method has been extensively used in psychology, communication, education, and counseling (Barrow, 2007; Solomon, 2003). The application of TA in the educational field provides a solid basis for a better perception of the ties between human behaviors, education, and learning (Barrow & Newton, 2015). Moreover, it has the potential to bring about positive changes in the education process and result in a learning procedure which is more interesting and natural (Stuart & Agar, 2011). TA is used in educational settings to help teachers and learners have a clear communication and avoid setting up unproductive confrontations (Stewart & Joines, 1987). As a matter of fact, teachers who are highly aware of the TA method have better chances of fulfilling the needs of their students. Since communication is an inseparable part of language classes, TA may facilitate this process through making conversations more open and straightforward. In this vein, several studies have explored the use of TA in educational settings (e.g., Barrow, Bradshaw & Newton, 2001; Hellaby, 2004). In their study, Barrow, Bradshaw and, Newton (2001) list the advantages of utilizing the TA method in the classroom in particular and the school as a whole. In another study, Hellaby (2004) found that the use of TA in the classroom results in a more favorable learning environment which raises the self-esteem and academic performance of the learners. Stroke is one of the components of TA theory and an important component of teacher care (Pishghadam et al., 2015). According to Berne (1988), all human beings need to be acknowledged by others and this need is fulfilled through receiving strokes. Therefore, every action taken by a human being to recognize another human being is considered a stroke (Berne, 1988). Strokes may be verbal/non-verbal, positive/negative, conditional/unconditional (Stewart & Joines, 1987). Verbal strokes (e.g., having a conversation, saying hello) involve an exchange of spoken words, while non-verbal strokes involve nodding, smiling, and so forth; positive strokes (e.g., I love you) make International Journal of Instruction, January 2017 ● Vol.10, No.1 222 Examining the Stroking Behavior of English, Persian … the receiver feel good and satisfied, whereas negative strokes (e.g., I hate you) make the receiver feel dissatisfied; conditional strokes (e.g., I like your dress; you are not a good singer) relate to what we do, and unconditional strokes (e.g., I love you; I hate you) are given for what we are (Stewart & Joines, 1987). Since the unconditional negative stroke is all about criticizing a person for who s/he is, it can be very destructive. Hence, teachers should avoid giving this kind of stroke in the classroom. Yet, it is believed that “... negative strokes are better than no strokes at all” (Solomon, 2003, p.19). People seek strokes everywhere to satisfy their need for being recognized. They make their best effort to receive positive ones; if they cannot receive positive strokes, they go for the negative ones (Pishghadam & Khajavy, 2014). Francis and Woodcock (1996) claimed that motivating others may be achieved by two methods. The first one is positive reinforcement which is the act of providing positive strokes to reinforce positive behavior; the other one is negative reinforcement which is based on giving negative strokes to reduce errors and encourage better performance. In this view, motivation is directly related to stroke. As Stewart and Joines (1987) have suggested, “stroking reinforces the behavior which is stroked” (p. 74). Accordingly, stroke is closely related to the notion of feedback, especially that which provides positive and negative evaluations directed at the students (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Brophy (1986) argued that since some students may not know that the answer of a student is correct, teachers should acknowledge students’ correct responses because even if the respondent knows that the answer is correct, some onlookers may not. Attempting to find out the correlation between stroke and student motivation, Pishghadam and Khajavi (2014) found that students who receive more strokes are more motivated than those who receive less or no strokes. In another study, Yazdan Pour (2015) constructed and validated a teacher stroke scale (TSS) and examined the relationship between the amounts of strokes received by teachers and teacher burnout. She reported that the more the teachers receive strokes, the less their level of burnout seems to be. Also, Hosseini (2016) conducted a qualitative study to explore English language teachers` conceptions of stroke. The results of her study revealed that teachers are aware of different types of strokes, but fail to stroke appropriately. In another study, Rajabnejad Namaghi (2016) investigated the role of teacher stroke in the willingness of students to attend the classes and found that two of the subcomponents of stroke, namely nonverbal and valuing, significantly predict students’ willingness to attend the classes. METHOD Participants The current study employs both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The quantitative section was conducted with 300 eighth-grade female students at six high schools of Mashhad, Iran. After going through the administrative process and receiving permission to collect data from six female high schools, the researchers started the process of data collection. Since the education department allows researchers to have access only to a limited number of schools, convenience sampling was used. International Journal of Instruction, January 2017 ● Vol.10, No.1 Irajzad, Pishghadam & Shahriari 223 In the qualitative section, the researchers planned to observe the ways through which eighth-grade female teachers of English, Persian, and Arabic languages stroke their students. In order to comply with the sampling rules of the qualitative paradigm, the researchers continued the observations until saturation was reached. Nine English, Persian and Arabic teachers were each observed for three sessions before reaching saturation. In order for the data to be as consistent as possible, the participants of the two phases were from high schools located in the middle-class district of Mashhad. Instrumentation In order to assess teacher stroke, the Student Stroke Scale (SSS) designed and validated by Pishghadam and Khajavi (2014) was used. This scale consists of 18 items which are designed to assess verbal, non-verbal, positive, and negative strokes on a 5 point Likert- type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The SSS has four sub-components including verbal, non-verbal, valuing, and classroom strokes. Verbal stroke consists of six items. Two items refer to naming; three items refer to encouraging, blaming, and complimenting; and one item deals with asking questions. The second sub-component is called non-verbal stroke, which refers to the non-verbal recognition of students by teachers. This factor consists of four items and deals with smiling, frowning, looking, and paying attention. The third sub-component of stroke is known as valuing and it comprises four items. Two items deal with the amount of time a teacher devotes to the students and the other two items measure the amount of students’ personal experience and scientific knowledge being employed in the classroom. The last sub-component is called classroom activities and consists of four items, all of which focus on classroom activities and tasks including doing homework and exercises, participating in class discussions and asking questions. The reliability of the whole set of items is 0.88, and the reliability of the four sub-scales range from 0.75 to 0.89. This scale has been validated through Rasch Psychometric Model (RPM) and Structural Equation Model (SEM). Since the statistical procedures confirmed the validity of SSS as a measure of stroke, this scale can be used in all educational settings. The reliability of the whole set of items in the current study was 0.86. As for the qualitative data collection, the researchers acted as non-participant observers and attended three class sessions for each teacher. Each session lasted for approximately 90 minutes. Procedure The first step in the process of quantitative data collection was to gain the teachers’ permission for distributing the questionnaires in their classes. Before handing out the questionnaires, all necessary explanations were given to the students and they were told not to write their names on the questionnaire sheets because the questionnaires were to remain anonymous. This anonymity was thought to raise the rate of honesty in student responses. In this phase, one-way ANOVA test was used to examine the impact of course on the amount and types of stroke. International Journal of Instruction, January 2017 ● Vol.10, No.1 224 Examining the Stroking Behavior of English, Persian … In the qualitative phase, the behavior of teachers towards students was observed thoroughly and the observation records were analyzed by two independent evaluators in order to assess the data from different viewpoints. The data was then explored for themes related to the concept of stroke. A total of 22 themes were extracted from the transcribed observations. A theme table was drawn for the three groups of teachers to demonstrate the strokes they provided. The three groups of teachers were then compared according to the theme table. FINDINGS Quantitative Phase In order to answer the first research question, a one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted. The descriptive statistics, displayed in Table 1, provide the information required for the analysis of all dependent variables across three levels. Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the dependent variables across the three levels N Mean Std. D Std. E Min Max Nonverbal English 100 3.1025 .68819 .06882 1.50 4.25 Persian 100 2.9300 .66674 .06667 1.50 4.75 Arabic 100 3.2275 .56082 .05608 1.75 4.50 Total 300 3.0867 .65044 .03755 1.50 4.75 Verbal English 100 3.0167 .82555 .08256 1.33 4.67 Persian 100 2.7467 .74063 .07406 1.17 4.33 Arabic 100 3.3067 .60707 .06071 1.67 4.83 Total 300 3.0233 .76274 .04404 1.17 4.83 Classroom English 100 3.8000 .97247 .09725 1.50 5.00 Persian 100 3.4700 1.09883 .10988 1.00 5.00 Arabic 100 4.1500 .74111 .07411 2.50 5.00 Total 300 3.8067 .98596 .05692 1.00 5.00 Valuing English 100 2.7125 1.04045 .10405 1.00 5.00 Persian 100 2.2475 1.08100 .10810 1.00 4.75 Arabic 100 2.8425 1.01108 .10111 1.00 5.00 Total 300 2.6008 1.07205 .06189 1.00 5.00 Total English 100 3.1422 .72014 .07201 1.72 4.56 Persian 100 2.8372 .71627 .07163 1.28 4.50 Arabic 100 3.3733 .59747 .05975 2.17 4.56 Total 300 3.1176 .71284 .04116 1.28 4.56 According to Table 1, the variances for the analysis of all the dependent variables are equal in the three subgroups, except for classroom and verbal variables. Therefore, the Welch test was used to examine the second and third dependent variables, whereas one- way ANOVA was employed for the rest of the variables. Welch Test Based on the results of the Welch test, there are significant differences among the three groups of teachers in terms of verbal F (2,194.662) = 17.273, p<0.05, and classroom F (2,192.329) =13.827, p<0.05 strokes. International Journal of Instruction, January 2017 ● Vol.10, No.1 Irajzad, Pishghadam & Shahriari 225 ANOVA The results of the ANOVA test indicate a significant difference at the p<.05 level among the three groups of teachers in terms of nonverbal (F (2,297) = 5.431, p <.05, η2= .03), valuing (F (2,297) = 8.969, p<.05, η2= .05), and total stroke (F (2,297) = 15.622, p<.05, η2= .09). Having found statistically significant differences, a post hoc test had to be conducted to exactly determine which subgroup means are different from the others. Post hoc Tests Since two of our dependent variables (verbal, and classroom) had unequal variances, the Games-Howell post hoc test was conducted. Since the other dependent variables (nonverbal, valuing and total) proved to have equal variances, the Tukey post hoc test was used. Games-Howell Test As for verbal variable, the results indicate that at the significance level of 0.05, the mean score for English teachers ( = 3.0167, SD = 0.82555) was significantly different from that of Persian ( = 2.7467, SD = 0.74063) and Arabic teachers ( = 3.3067, SD = 0.60707). Also, the mean score for Persian teachers was significantly different from that of Arabic teachers (To summarize: Arabic > English > Persian). As for classroom variable, the results reveal that the mean score for English teachers ( = 3.8000, SD = 0.97247) is significantly different from that of Arabic teachers ( = 4.1500, SD = 0.74111). Also, the mean score for Persian teachers ( = 3.4700, SD = 1.09883) is significantly different from that of Arabic teachers ( = 4.1500, SD = 0.74111). English teachers and Persian teachers did not differ significantly (To summarize: Arabic > English/ Persian). Tukey HSD Test As for nonverbal stroke, the results indicate that at the significance level of 0.05, the mean score for Persian teachers ( =2.9300, SD = 0.66674) is significantly different from that of Arabic teachers ( = 3.2275, SD = 0.56082). The mean score for English teachers ( = 3.1025, SD = 0.68819) was not significantly different from that of Persian teachers. Also, the mean scores of Arabic and English teachers did not differ significantly (To summarize: Arabic > Persian). As for valuing stroke, the results indicate that the mean score for English teachers ( = 2.7125, SD = 1.04045) is significantly different from that of Persian teachers ( = 2.2475, SD = 1.08100). Also, the mean score for Arabic teachers ( = 2.8425, SD = 1.01108) is significantly different from that of Persian teachers. However, the mean scores of English and Arabic teachers did not differ significantly. In other words, Arabic and English teachers value students more than Persian teachers (To summarize, Arabic/English > Persian). As for total stroke, the results reveal that the mean score for English teachers ( = 3.1422, SD = .72014) is significantly different from that of Persian ( = 2.8372, SD = .71627) and Arabic teachers ( = 3.3733, SD = .59747). Also, the mean score for Arabic International Journal of Instruction, January 2017 ● Vol.10, No.1 226 Examining the Stroking Behavior of English, Persian … teachers is significantly different from that of Persian teachers (To summarize, Arabic > English > Persian). Qualitative Phase The themes extracted from the observation of the three groups of teachers are presented in Table 2. Since most of the extracted themes are similar to the questionnaire items, the same groupings have been applied to the qualitative phase. Ten items are classified under verbal category ( 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 20, 21, and 22), the nonverbal theme includes six items ( 7, 8, 13,16, 18, and 19), three items fall under the category of valuing theme ( 1, 5, 14) and three items fall under the category of classroom activities ( 4, 6, and 9). The teachers are compared with one another based on these four sub- categories. Table 2 Themes regarding observation of three groups of teachers 1. Greeting students 2. Knowing students’ names 3. Calling students by their first names 4. Allowing students to ask their questions 5. Answering students’ questions patiently 6. Getting students to participate in the activities 7. Smiling in the class 8. Having eye contact with students 9. Checking students’ homework assignments 10. Motivating students 11. Complimenting students in front of their classmates 12. Appreciating students 13. Punishing students (e.g., changing students’ seats, giving negative marks, etc.) 14. Caring about students’ opinions and suggestions 15. Asking questions from students 16. Discriminating between students 17. Arguing with students 18. Having a smile on face 19. Having a frown on face 20. Yelling at students 21. Insulting students 22. Blaming students Verbal Themes: Knowing students’ names: All the three groups of teachers knew students’ names perfectly and used their names without any effort. One of the teachers looked at the students at the beginning of the class and wrote the names of absentees without calling their names one by one. In another class, when the teacher was calling the roll, she looked at students’ faces with no hesitation. Calling students by their first names: Most of the English teachers addressed their students by their first names. On the other hand, most of the Arabic and all of the Persian teachers addressed their students by their last names. One of the Arabic teachers International Journal of Instruction, January 2017 ● Vol.10, No.1 Irajzad, Pishghadam & Shahriari 227 used last names, except for one student, who was apparently her favorite. One of the Persian teachers sometimes addressed her students with a formal you. Supportiveness: Concerning items 10, 11, 12, 17, 20, 21, and 22, it was found that all the English teachers had a supportive relationship with their students. In fact, these teachers motivated the students by giving bonus marks and appreciated them for asking questions, giving presentations, and expressing their opinions. None of the English teachers argued with students, yelled at them, insulted or blamed them. Regarding Persian teachers, most of them tried to create a supportive classroom environment. For instance, they appreciated questions raised by the students. One of the Persian teachers appreciated students for sharing their holiday stories with the class. However, another Persian teacher blamed her students for minor mistakes. As for the Arabic teachers, most of them seemed to be supportive. For example, they appreciated students for doing their assignments and complimented them in front of their classmates. One of the Arabic teachers frequently yelled at students, blamed them over trivial matters, discriminated among them, and spoke to them disrespectfully. In a particular instance, she asked a group of students asked a group of students to shut up. Asking questions: Most of the Arabic and Persian teachers attempted to ask questions of all students. They went around the room and asked each student one question. One of the Persian teachers only asked questions of less active students and if they could not recite the exact words of the textbook, she either insulted or laughed at them. Most of the English teachers asked questions of volunteer students. Only one of the English teachers attempted to ask questions of all students, regardless of them being volunteer or not. In fact, she grouped students and assigned each group a number of questions. The students were supposed to practice the questions in their groups. She then asked each group to stand in front of the class and answer a question raised by the teacher. Nonverbal Themes: Facial expression and eye contact: Regarding items 7, 8, 18, and 19, it was observed that all the English teachers had a smile on their faces, especially when they were talking to students and answering their questions. These teachers even made one or two funny remarks during class time. Two of the English teachers attempted to maintain eye contact with almost all the students, while the other English teacher mostly maintained eye contact only with the students who were sitting in the front row. As for the Arabic teachers, most of them maintained a normal facial expression, although they smiled from time to time. They mostly had eye contact with students at the front row. Most of the Persian teachers, made eye contact with the majority of the students. If one of the students asked a question, these teachers tried to engage other students with the discussion by looking at them while answering. Most of the Persian teachers had a normal facial expression. Only one of them had a huge frown on her face. International Journal of Instruction, January 2017 ● Vol.10, No.1 228 Examining the Stroking Behavior of English, Persian … Punishing students: It was realized that all of the Arabic teachers punished their students for talking in the class and not doing their assignments. They punished students by giving negative marks, changing their seats, etc. Two of the Arabic teachers warned the students that they have to leave the class if they keep talking. On the contrary, most of the English and Persian teachers did not punish their students. Discriminating among students: Based on the observations, it was found that students were treated fairly in English language classes. Only one Persian and one Arabic teacher discriminated among their students. For instance, they answered the questions raised by certain students. Valuing Themes: Greeting: All of the English teachers and most of the Arabic and Persian teachers greeted students at the beginning of the class. As they entered the class, they greeted students briefly but cheerfully by saying phrases like good morning, hello, how are you doing today. Answering students’ questions: It was realized that all of the English teachers and most of the Arabic and Persian teachers answered students’ questions patiently. For instance, in one of the English classes, the teacher went toward the students to check whether or not they had any question to ask. While answering, she maintained eye contact with the student who had raised the question and explained the answer with great patience. Caring about students’ opinions and suggestions: All of the three English teachers valued students’ opinions and suggestions. For instance, in one of the English classes, students requested their teacher to review the grammar by playing a game. She accepted the idea and they enjoyed ten minutes of playing and practicing the grammatical rules. When the observer later asked about her original lesson plan, it was realized that she had intended to teach the grammar lesson and then do the exercises in the book. However, she ended up playing a game. In fact, she did not follow her lesson plan, but allowed room for flexibility based on the students’ needs. During the observation sessions, it was realized that among the Persian teachers, only one of them cared about students’ opinions. Since the first observation session was the day that students had returned to school from Norooz holidays, the students suggested talking about their holidays. The teacher accepted their suggestion and she was the first to talk about an incident which happened during her vacation. Also, among the Arabic teachers, only one of them cared about students’ opinions during observations. In her class, before the teacher distributed the quiz papers, students suggested to have a group quiz. She agreed and allowed students to complete the quiz in their groups. The teacher then walked around the class and monitored the students who were discussing the questions in groups. Classroom Activities Themes: Allowing students to raise their questions: All of the English teachers allowed students to ask their questions. In one of the English classes, students often raised their hands and could either ask their questions from their seats or go to the teacher’s desk. Whenever the teacher felt that the question might be of benefit to the whole class, she repeated it International Journal of Instruction, January 2017 ● Vol.10, No.1