Faculty perceptions of student incivility in dental hygiene education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Conflict and discourtesy between college students and faculty have become increasingly common in higher education. Fallout from uncivil student encounters can have numerous effects on educators' overall health and has been shown to negatively impact learning environments. This research assessed the severity and frequency of student incivility in dental hygiene education and explored the relationship uncivil behavior has on faculty feelings of confidence, career satisfaction, and longevity. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey research was conducted among dental hygiene educators (n = 601) in the United States and Canada using purposive and snowball sampling. The survey (47-item) was developed based on the literature and validated prior to administration. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship between variables and mean item category scores and thematic analysis was used to identify themes for open-ended questions. RESULTS: Survey completion rate was 78% (n = 469). Behaviors ranked mildly uncivil, such as eating/drinking in class, occurred more frequently, and incivility had less impact on faculty confidence with increased age (r = -.19; P ≤ 0.01). The level of severity of behaviors did not impact educators; however, how often certain behaviors occurred had some effect. Contemptuous behaviors, such as using a disrespectful/sarcastic tone (r = .34, .32, .31; P ≤ 0.01), had the most impact. CONCLUSION: This study determined student incivility exists within dental hygiene education. Day-to-day, minor uncivil behaviors seemingly take a greater emotional toll than occasional, highly uncivil encounter. Understanding how faculty perceive these behaviors may influence development of management strategies, fostering a sense of career satisfaction for educators.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".