Attitude as a concept is concerned with an individual way of thinking, acting and behaving. It has very serious implications for the learner, the teacher, the immediate social group with which the individual learner relates and the entire school system. Attitudes are formed as a result of some kind of learning experiences. They may also be learned simply by following the example or opinion of paren’t, teacher or friend. This is mimicry or imitation, which also has a part to play in the teaching and learning situation.
In this respect, the learner draws from his teachers’ disposition o form his own attitude, which may likely affect his learning outcomes. Statement of the Problem 1. What kind of attitude does PCIJ college student do to their professors? 2. How does the attitude of PCIJ college student affect their classroom performance? 3. How does the attitude of PCIJ college student related to their classroom performance? Theoretical Framework Attitudes are usually defined as a disposition or tendency to respond positively or negatively towards a certain thing.
Need essay sample on Effects of Attitude of Students in... ?We will write a custom essay samplespecifically for you for only $13.90/pageorder now
They encompass, or are closely related to, our opinions and beliefs and are based upon our experiences. Since attitudes often relate in some way to interaction with others, they represent an important link Detween cognltlve ana soclal psycnology. As Tar as Instructlon Is concerned, a great deal of learning involves acquiring or changing attitudes. Attitude can alter every aspect of a person’s life, including their education. Student attitudes on learning determine their ability and willingness to learn. If negative attitudes are not altered, a student is unlikely to continue his education beyond what is required.
Changing sstudents’ negative attitudes towards learning is a process that involves determining he factors driving the attitude and using this information to bring about change. Significance of the study This is our topic because lots of student are confused “WHY ARE THEY FAILED? ” and we want to know the root of this problem and to know the attitude to be practice by student and if it has a relation to the classroom performance. Attitude is defined as ones’ feelings or mood toward things, circumstances or people. No matter how we may choose to define attitude, it is one of our priceless possessions.
During these times of changes in our beloved land, it is sometimes easy to allow circumstances to ob us of this possession. So you may ask, how can I choose a positive attitude given the current situation? CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK o PRO DEFINITION OF TERMS Assessment: the act of assessing; appraisal; evaluation. Attitude:manner, disposition, feeling, position, etc. , with regard to aperson or thing; tendency or orientation, especially of themind: a negative attitude; group attitudes. Circumstances:a condition, detail, part, or attribute, with respect to time,place, manner,agent, etc. that accompanies, determines, ormodifies a fact or event; a modifying or influencing factor: ognltlve:oT or pertalnlng to tne mental processes 0T perceptlon,memory, Judgment, and reasoning, as contrasted withemotional and volitional processes. Concern: to relate to; be connected with; be of interest or importanceto; affect: Disposition:the predominant or prevailing tendency of one’s spirits;natural mental and emotional outlook or mood; characteristicattitude: Encompass:to enclose; envelop: The folds of a great cloak encompassedher person.
Immediate: occurring or accomplished without delay; instant: animmediate reply. Implication:something implied or suggested as naturally to be inferred runderstood: to resent an implication of dishonesty. Interaction: reciprocal action, effect, or influence. Mimicry: the act, practice, or art of mimicking. Possession: the act or fact of possessing. Willing: disposed or consenting Chapter 2 The importance of teacher attitudes toward inclusion is reflected by the numerous studies conducted in that area (Pace, 2003).
Teachers must believe that their behaviors can effect the education of their sstudents. They must recognize that they have the capacity and power to make key decisions which will affect their role and their sstudents production. Bandura (1982) posited that even when individuals perceive that specific actions will likely bring about the desired behavior, they will not engage in the behavior or persist after initiating the behavior, if they feel that they do not possess the requisite skills.
Scruggs and Mastropieri’s (1996) meta-analysis of 28 studies conducted from 1958 to 1995 found that, overwhelmingly, teachers endorse the general concept of providing support to sstudents with disabilities. In spite of that, only one third of the teachers felt that they had the time, preparation, resources, and kills needed for successful instruction. Teachers would like classes to be inclusive but the realities of every day school life dictate otherwise (Van Reusen, Shoho, & Barker, 2001). Various studies show how teacher attitudes have a direct bearing on instructional decision.
The shaping of positive attitudes toward sstudents with disabilities is an important aspect of the education of pre-service teachers. Teacher training in the awareness of disabilities and appropriate strategies for teaching sstudents with disabilities has a positive impact on academic success. Teachers who Teel negatively toward sstudents wlt n OlsaDllltles or nave not Deen tralnea In tne appropriate strategies are less likely to be successful. Teachers also influence the facilitation of inclusion programs based on their own philosophies and willingness to include sstudents with disabilities in their classrooms.
Although there is no doubt about the importance of examining the attitudes of teachers, one must be aware of the reality that attitudes are also being formed in the teacher education experiences of pre-service teachers. Teachers’ own cognitions and beliefs, in part, may have their ources in their experiences while they were sstudents. It may be the product of their teacher training (Pajares, 1992), or it may be a combination of their training and falling in line with the prevailing ideas or beliefs within the context of the school (Acker, 1990; D’Andrade, 1981).
Accordingly, if pre-service teachers are appropriately trained in strategies and interventions for working with sstudents with disabilities as well as being exposed to different types of disabilities, they may exhibit more positive attitudes toward inclusion (Cook, 2002 & Coates, 1989). http://findarticles. om/p/ _130†i_n35650920/ The main purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship of study- attitude or the sstudents with their academic-performance. Study attitude is student s viewpoint about study and academic performance is academic achievement of sstudents.
The major objectives of the study were to correlate the study- attitude and academic-performance of sstudents and to compare the study-attitudes of low and high achievers. All secondary school sstudents of govt. boys and girls high schools in Punjab province who appeared in ninth grade examination of Boards of Intermediate nd Secondary Education 2003 were taken as population of the sstudents. The province was divided in to three zones: Northern Punjab, Central Punjab, and Southern Punjab.
Two districts from each zone were selected randomly. The lists of schools located in the selected districts were obtained from the office of educational management and information system, Punjab Lahore. The schools were divided into rural and urban girls: schools and rural and urban boys’ schools. One school was selected randomly from each of the above categories. In this way, twenty-four schools were selected. From each school, all sstudents appearing in ninth grade examination 2003 were iincluded in the sample.
The variable of study-attitude was measured through the scores obtained by the sstudents on study-attitude scale (SAS) consisting of 36 items. The items were divided into eight categories namely attitude toward self, regularity, examination, perseverance, teacher, subjects, school and parent’s’- authority. The study-attitude scale was standardized by checking the validity and reliability of the scale. Items were dropped on the basis of weak correlation with total score and low discriminatory power.
The variable of academic performance was measured through marks obtained by the sstudents in the Board Examination held in March 2003. The academic-performance scores were correlated with study-attitude scores and it was found that study attitude was positively related to the academic performance. The study attitude scores of females were more closely related with academic performance as compared to males; ssimilarly study attitude scores of rural sstudents are more closely related with academic performance as compared to urban sstudents.
Yurtnermore, mean scores 0T low ana nlgn acaaemlc-acnlevers were ompared and it was found that high achievers and low achievers differ in their study attitude and female, male and rural, urban sstudents also differ in their study attitude. http://eprints. hec. gov. pk/323/ Attitudes in the profession towards chiropractic research, infrastructure, funding and oopportunity seems to have increasingly become a subject of discussion.
In perhaps the most detailed evaluation and critique of the topic Flanagan and Giordano discuss the role of the institution in developing clinicians and researchers as well as review the demography of faculty involved in research at chiropractic institutions. Their survey of 1 5 North American chiropractic colleges revealed that only 5% of full time faculty who hold the DC degree were actively involved in research. In addition, the survey revealed that only 10% of PhD and 25% of DC/PhD faculty were engaged in research.
The authors suggest that chiropractic programs have failed to produce opportunities for faculty as researchers, and they advocate for greater institutional and professional support of research within the schools and the profession. In terms of the impact on sstudents they encourage curricular integration of research methods ourses that are directed towards active participation in research and publication of projects. They argue that such aactivity will help the student feel part of the larger academic and scientific community. They encourage the mindset that clinicians “. ust actively participate as an independent researcher, treating every patient as a viable study with an N = 1 . ” Issues of institutional support for the conduct of sscholarship and the role of research, embodied by the missions of chiropractic institutions play a key role in empowering faculty and encouraging a commitment on he part of faculty to engage in the work of the institution. Henkin and Marchiori did a survey to explore empowerment and organizational commitment of chiropractic college faculty and contend that committed faculty will identify with and work towards the mission, values, and goals of the institution. Their paper implies that if faculty believe the institution is promoting empowerment and there is evidence that this is actually happening then faculty will be more inclined to take risks and engage in behavior that is supportive of the institution. In a related paper, Marchiori and Henkin (2003) state: “The chiropractic profession depends on a motivated faculty for continuous quality improvement and innovation in areas of curriculum, sscholarship and practice. 4 Interestingly, the authors report that the most significant empowering factor was where the faculty were assigned. Those involved in administration or research reported greater levels of empowerment. Related to the issue of chiropractic facultys engagement in research activities is that of the 609 respondents to their survey less than 3% of faculty were assigned to research tasks while over half f the respondents were assigned to the area of patient care within teaching clinics.
Certainly, if chiropractic college faculty are not engaged in research, unfamiliar with it, or worse – have negative attitudes towards it – this is sure to be reflected in the attitudes of sstudents. Making matters worse, these attitudes may tend to carry over into their professional careers and feed a vicious cycle. http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pmoarttcles/PMC2528259/ student attltuaes are snapea to some extent Dy tne structures (Tacllltles) tnrougn which they are mediated (Ferreira, 1995).
In fact, building conditions can directly ffect the attitudes of sstudents or the attitudes of teachers and parent’s which in turn affect student attitudes. Proshansky (1970) referred to physical settings and attitudes as follows: Physical settings-simple or complex-evoke complex human responses in the form of feelings, attitudes, values, expectancies, and desires, and it is in this sense as well as their known physical properties that their relationships to human experience and behavior must be understood. (p. 8) There is a body of research in the area of school facilities and their relationship to student and teacher attitudes. Stockard and Mayberry (1992) found that the quality of a physical plant or environment is related to non-cognitive outcomes, such as better attitudes toward school. These outcomes may eventually relate to higher academic achievement. Christopher (1988) coincluded that human nature makes people feel better about themselves when their surroundings are pleasant. Sstudents who have better attitudes usually learn more and work harder.
McGuffey (1972) conducted a study investigating pupil attitudes toward their school buildings in the elementary level. He found that sstudents housed in newer school buildings which ere fully carpeted and air-conditioned showed more positive attitudes than sstudents housed in older buildings. A study completed by Lovin (1972) in Middle Georgia explored the attitudes of elementary children who had moved from a traditional school to an open-space school. It was shown that the children were keenly aware of their school building and responded positively to bright and comfortable surroundings.
In fact, these cchildren’s attltuaes were alrectly related to tnelr pnyslcal surrounalng. cnan (IYB2) compared student attitudes toward the physical environment of a school opened in 1980 and hat of two older schools: one built in 1923 and the other in 1936. The main finding of this study indicated that pupils housed in a modern school building have significantly more positive attitudes toward school than do pupils housed in a much older building. Likewise, Cramer (1976) studied selected Junior High Schools in the Bibb County School District of Georgia.
He contended that pupils housed in newly renovated school facilities showed more positive attitudes. In the area of self-concept, Bowers and Burkett(1989) coincluded that self-concept scores on the Piers-Harris Cchildren’s Self-concept Scale of sstudents in a modern acility were significantly higher than the student scores of those housed in an older facility. Maslow and Mintz (1956) studied student attitudes in “ugly, neutral and beautiful” rooms finding significant differences corresponding to room quality in the responses (p. 66). These researchers revealed that the mean rating given by the subjects in the beautiful room was in the range defined as “energy” and “well-being” while the mean of the ratings given by subjects in both the average and ugly rooms was in the range defined as “fatigued” and “displeased” (p. 466). Furthermore, the students placed in the beautiful room expressed feelings of “comfort, pleasure, enjoyment, importance, energy and a desire to continue their aactivity” (p. 466).
Thus, if children have positive attitudes and look forward to attending school, it stands to reason they will do better in their classes (Christopher, 1988). Teachers’ attitudes are also directly related to the school facility. Several studies have been conducted in the area of open-space classrooms and their effect on teacher attitudes. Lewis (1976) examined the influence of open-space classrooms and closed- pace classrooms on the attitudes of teachers toward the school building. It was found that teachers housed in open-space classrooms showed more positive attitudes.
Likewise, Jones (1974) coincluded that teachers’ attitudes toward their sstudents in open-space classrooms improved significantly. Mills(1972) agreed with Jones’ findings when he coincluded that teachers in open-space areas exhibited behaviors that allowed greater pupil freedom and self-direction. These teachers displayed behaviors which were more permissive, supportive, warm and sympathetic toward sstudents. As one can see, not only does the physical environment of a school ffect children, teachers are also affected by the design of a school building.
And so, school architects, educators and facility planners must take into consideration the impact that the design of school buildings have on student and teacher attitudes. http://www. coe. uga. edu/sdpl/researchabstracts/attitudes. html The relationship between university faculty attitudes concerning student cheating and syllabus statements on academic integrity were evaluated to determine the relationship between faculty attitudes and their actual attempts to deter cheating rates through their syllabi.
No relationship was found between attitudes about student cneatlng ana tne numDer 0T Integrlty-relatea syllaDus statements, D lack of relationship demonstrated an important inconsistency between faculty attitudes and behaviors: the amount of cheating that faculty believed happens does not correspond with written guidelines. In addition, faculty generally underestimated the levels of cheating in their classroom, particularly when faculty was on a non- tenured track. This study represents a preliminary attempt to evaluate the role and effect faculty have on student cheating in higher education.
Cheating is a widespread problem in higher education. Whitley (1998), in a review of over 40 studies on student cheating, found that 70% of college sstudents reported cheating. Of these sstudents, 43% reported cheating on exams, 41% reported plagiarizing, and another 41% reported cheating on homework. In addition, Schab (1969, 1979, & 1989) reports that cheating is on the rise. Schab distributed surveys to college sstudents asking them to report their own dishonest behaviors in school and found a 34% increase in the number of sstudents answering yes to the question, “Have you used a cheat sheet on a test? 33% in 1969, 60% in 1979, and 67% in 1989). Research on student cheating has evaluated many factors related to student cheating, including personality factors (Eisenberger, 1985), motivation (Newstead, 1996), gender (Whitley, 1999) and a host of other factors related to cheating (e. g. , AzJen, Shelton, 1969 and 1991). Little research, however, has focused on faculty roles in student cheating. The present study was designed to evaluate the relationship between faculty attitudes towards student cheating and their actual attempts to reduce it through statements on their syllabi addressing academic dishonesty.
If the large amount of research conducted on student cheating is any indication of academia and professors’ sthrong desire to reduce student cheating, it seemed likely these attitudes would factor into the creation of their classroom guidelines. However, data comparing faculty and student attitudes toward cheating in research demonstrates an apparen’t discrepancy in faculty’s general stated discouragement of cheating and their actual involvement in its limitation. For example, Graham, Monday, O’Brien, and Steffen (1994) surveyed both sstudents and faculty at a private Catholic college to compare attitudes toward heating behavior.
The survey asked sstudents and faculty to rank the severities of various cheating behaviors (e. g. , copying someone else’s term paper versus looking at notes during a test), and to assess other attitudes and behaviors concerning student cheating. Although previous research has shown that sstudents are more likely to cheat when they think there is relatively little risk of being caught (Whitley, 1998), 20% of faculty in Graham et al. reported that they did not watch sstudents while they were taking a test, and 26% of faculty had no syllabus statements regarding cheating.
Furthermore, even though 79% of faculty reported having caught a student cheating, only 9% reported penalizing the student. At the same time, 89% of the sstudents polled in this survey admitted to having cheated in some capacity during their college careers. The discrepancy between faculty attitudes and their actual behaviors to control cheating in the classroom may be sending conflicting messages to sstudents, which may ultimately influence the rates of student cheating.
Whitley and Keith-Spiegel (2002) adopted a global approach (compared to a student-centered approach) to reduce academic dishonesty by examining the relationship between the lassroom environment, the university ppolicy towards cheating, as well as student personallty varlaDles. wnltley ana Keltn-splegel argued tnat Taculty ana otner situational factors may inadvertently foster a pro-cheating environment, particularly for at-risk sstudents.
Furthermore, Whitley and Keith-Spiegel (2002) recommended that faculty clearly express a firm commitment to uphold high levels of academic integrity in their syllabi. Introduced the first day of the course, the syllabus is a crucial component in forming the student’s perception of the class, professor and cceptable classroom behavior, including definitions of cheating and the repercussions of being caught cheating. Whitley and Keith-Spiegel provided eight recommended statements for faculty to incorporate into syllabi as an attempt to reduce academic dishonesty.
These eight statements were used in the present study as the foundation for measuring faculty commitment to maintaining high standards of academic integrity in their classrooms. This study investigated the relationship between faculty’s stated beliefs about student cheating with syllabus statements from those faculty regarding their cheating ppolicy. This relationship was evaluated across several demographic variables to determine if other situational factors like academic discipline, professional rank, and faculty’s gender affected their perceptions of student’s academic honesty.