Students and Adolescent-Adulthood Transition:

Perspectives from Disruptive Students Workshop

by Cynthia Eaton

 

Wondering why some of your students behave the way they do? “Adolescence in our society can stretch all the way into the early 30s,” asserts Nelly Sta Maria (Psychology). “It’s common to contemporary American society but especially so on Long Island. How do we define the successful transition to adulthood? Financial self-sufficiency? Living on your own? Home ownership? Marriage and children? These traditional markers are all more complicated

now—especially on Long Island.” The idea of our viewing our Suffolk students as still in the transition from adolescence to adulthood was

proposed by Claire Rubman, professor of psychology, one of three presenters for the annual workshop on managing disruptive students. Also presenting were Charles Clarke, psychology professor at Monroe Community College, and Doug Howard, assistant academic chair in the Ammerman English Department.

Held on February 13, the workshop was part of the new full-time faculty orientation professional development series, co-sponsored by the college and the FA. This year’s workshop was open to current faculty as well. Prolonged adolescence/Delayed Adulthood

Rubman argued that it’s useful to look at students from the perspective of developmental psychology. While adolescence is commonly thought of as happening in the mid- to late-teen years, she noted, it can run all the way through to the 20s or even early 30s: “Adulthood sets in much later than we like to think it does. These are our students.” “There’s something unique about being in a community college because [our students] are not children, but they’re not yet adults,” Rubman continued. “We need to help them to transition. Some of the disruptive issues that we experience within the classroom can be the result of our failure to recognize

that they are in this transitional stage.”

The transition stage seems to be prolonged, as

noted in a body of accruing research in sociology on “delayed adulthood” or “prolonged adolescence.” Comparing Census data from 1960 and 2000 reveals that fewer American youth are finishing college, leaving home, getting married, starting families, and

achieving financial independence. In 1960, 77% of women and 65% of men reached these traditional markers by age 30; in 2000, only 46% of women and 31% of men had reached them.

 

Rubman also indicated that some disruptive

behaviors could be addressed if faculty thought of our open admissions policy not as a problem but as a benefit. “We have a very diverse group of students.  By embracing this, we can utilize that in the classroom and create an optimal learning environment.” She attributed disruptive behaviors to phenomena such as the high school mentality, the commuter nature of our student population, and dealing with adolescent

egocentrism in some students. “We need to help

students shift their schema, their expectations, from what was acceptable in high school or other colleges to what is acceptable here.”

Jonathan Brockman (Physical Science) expressed appreciation for this concept. “I assume all students are coming to us as adults. My attitude is typically ‘you’re in my college classroom, and you should know how

to behave.’ However, I need to remember that they’re coming with their own perspectives and it might take a while for them to see it from my perspective.” Ana Menendez-Collera (Foreign Languages) agreed:

 

“I learned a lot from Claire about the high school mentality. It’s more about transitioning from high school to college than about immaturity.”

Focus on the Behavior Itself Charlie Clarke, who has taught at Monroe Community College for nearly 40 years, said that while he doesn’t think about the issue in terms of our students as adolescents, he believes that being mindful

of students’ stages of development is very helpful. He handles issues of disruptive students by focusing on the behavior itself.

First, Clarke noted, we need to understand the

context in which students come to us with all sorts of family and work responsibilities. He said that when he talks to students who express “special” circumstances, he tells them that while he understands where they’re coming from, he will not excuse them from the normal

expectations of all college students. “I will, however, help them modify their behaviors in such a way as to make sure they can participate fully in the course.”  He shared, for example, his approach to the trend of disruptive students who claim that they should be allowed to text on their cell phones or listen to their iPods during his lectures because they claim they can

multi-task. Clarke replies to these students, “Great! I’m glad that you can multi-task, but I don’t want you to. Now turn it off.” Every faculty member has the right to insist that students give them the appropriate attending behaviors.

Eric Bush (Music) says that he liked Clarke’s take on empathy versus sympathy: “You can empathize with your students but still stand firm to your policies. You can understand their situation but it’s not necessary to change policy for them based on their situation.” Practicing Prevention Several faculty expressed appreciation for the focus on preventing disruptive behaviors in the first place rather than solely focusing on what to do after students behave in inappropriate or unacceptable ways.

The question for faculty, then, is how to define your behavioral expectations so as to practice prevention.  Both Clarke and Rubman identified the course outline as a primary method of preventing disruptive behavior.

 

Rubman said, “We need to focus not only

on our students but take responsibility and look at ourselves too.” Both advocate clearly stating your policies—and your exceptions to those policies—on your course outline, and then sticking to them. Now in her second year, Glenda Denicolo (Physical Science) said that she’s learning more about if and when to be flexible. “I love being reminded that

I am a facilitator but I can’t excuse my students from my established standards.” Clarke also feels that all faculty should know their

college’s student code of conduct as well as their rights and responsibilities as a faculty member. He argued for the value of establishing your policies regarding this code of conduct in your course outline as well. Rubman argued the need to get students engaged in their own learning, as some disruptive situations

can be rooted in boredom and disinterest. “Group activities encourage active learning and cooperative learning,” she said, and “Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development suggests that children can, potentially, learn more from each other than from formal classroom instruction. We should expand on this paradigm in

the college classroom. Incorporating collaborative learning techniques into your classes can help students understand that we expect them to be here to learn,

not just to get a grade. Perhaps our lectures aren’t as fascinating as we believe they are.” Sta Maria added, “We faculty have our masters or doctoral degrees and have been teaching for years and really love what we do. But our students have their minds on very different

interests.” Jen Carlson (Biology) believes “setting up requirements and guidelines is the most effective measure for preventing disruptions.” Michelle Cummings Fowler (Coordinator of Instructional   Development) indicated that she’s going to start giving mid-semester grades “so students can have a

better understanding of where they stand” to deal with student misperceptions of their own progress.  Continuing the Conversation

Doug Howard, representing the administrative

perspective, asserted the need for continued dialogue. “There’s not necessarily a definitive answer; it has to be an ongoing conversation about how to handle disruptive students. It’s useful to have general guidelines but there are always different variables that come in, with the faculty member, with the student, with the specific course, so you need to do case-bycase

modifications.” Many participants fully agreed with Howard and expressed appreciation for the workshop. Helene Winstanley (Nursing) said, “There is great value in sharing faculty experiences across the disciplines.”

Debbie Kaufmann (Biology) echoed the sentiment: “I’m not an instructor and as a professional assistant, I haven’t had any major issues yet but it’s all relevant. I think in this day and age you certainly hear about these issues more and more, so it’s important to

have this conversation.” Cathy Kottis (Chemistry) nodded, “I have found that this group as a whole is very supportive of one another because people have similar thoughts about how students can be disruptive

or intrusive.” Bridget Young (Math) and Elisa Mancuso (Nursing) summed it up. Said Young, “Every faculty member needs this. We need to have more of these workshops, such as during All College Day.” Mancuso chimed in, “These workshops are wonderful opportunities to network and hear what colleagues are

doing. The exchange of ideas is so valuable.”

As the debate continues about when and how the transition from adolescence to adulthood takes place, so too will our conversations here at Suffolk.