Paul Gathercoal

1
The Judicious Professor A Learner-Centered
Philosophy for Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education.

• Paul Gathercoal Forrest Gathercoal
• Professor, California Lutheran University
  Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University

2
The proverbial keeper of the gate of knowledge
has long been used as a metaphor

• A metaphor characterizing a professors
  responsibility to maintain standards and as a
  rationale for maintaining rigor and high
  expectations for student performance in specific
  disciplines. The metaphor also connotes the
  professors conscience of academic responsibility
  to the discipline itself as well as to the
  greater society.
• The Judicious Professor is about the importance
  of student perception whether professors appear
  as keepers who are only guarding the gate or
  whether they appear as interested professionals
  who are helping students through the gate.
• We feel the professors responsibility for
  gate-keeping should never be compromised.
  Rigor, quality of performance, and level of
  understanding must be held inviolate. Yet the
  manner with which professors keep the gate can
  be improved to the point that professional
  gate-keeping will dramatically enhance the
  discipline and further intellectual development
  of students.
• When students perceive the gate-keeper as one
  who is sharing responsibility for student
  academic achievement, the number of successful
  students will increase greatly and the
  knowledge-base will be widely distributed
  throughout society.

3
Theoretical Framework

• Gathercoal and Nimmo (2002) studied teachers who
  were using Judicious Discipline in schools, and
  found that those teachers did much to lead
  students toward the autonomous stage of social
  development.
• the teachers were less likely to feel frustrated
  and experienced lower levels of work-related
  stress,
• the teachers were respected by others and they
  taught their students respect by giving them
  respect,
• the teachers felt professional, and
• teachers felt they were using management
  strategies that were legal, ethical, and
  educationally sound.
• Students were empowered with the language of
  civility
• Even students with Downs Syndrome learned the
  language.

4
The Design

• Utilized in-tact course groupings of students and
  the researcher as instructor.
• Employed a pretest, treatment, and posttest.
• The treatment, or independent variable, consisted
  of establishing mutual goals and expectations
  prior to conducting workshops and university
  courses and using a learner-centered philosophy
  for teaching and learning in higher education as
  articulated in the book, The Judicious Professor
  (in press).
• The pretest and posttest results were compared
  for significant differences.

5
The Population

• Conducted over a ten year period with sixteen
  in-tact groups of students who attended workshops
  in Judicious Discipline or who were enrolled in
  the university course, EDTP520 Leadership,
  Management and Law in Diverse Elementary
  Classrooms.
• All students elected to be in the workshops and
  courses with the researcher as the professor and
  the professor was responsible for implementing
  the treatment.

6
The Instrumentation

• A questionnaire developed by The Social
  Development Group, Research Branch of the South
  Australian Department of Education, and published
  in their 1980 book, Developing the Classroom
  Group.
• This questionnaire has been used repeatedly in
  college and university courses to ascertain
  students levels of social development and
  provide professors and students with one measure
  that sheds light on the health and culture of
  relationships with and between students and the
  professor.

7
The Questionnaire Directions For each statement
mark whether it is true or false for this class
with this professor. True
False 1. This professor nearly always tells us
what to do. 2. We have to do what the
professor says in this class. 3. The
whole class helped to make the class rules.
4. I often decide for myself what I will do
and where I will do it in this class. 5. We
are all very friendly together in this
class. 6. When students argue in this
class people get upset. 7. Nearly all
of this class feels warm and friendly toward this
professor. 8. It's okay to disagree
strongly with this professor.
8
The Scoring Rubric
True False 1. This
professor nearly always tells us what to
do. 2. We have to do what the
professor says in this class.
3. The whole class helped to make the
class rules. 4. I often decide for
myself what I will do and where I will do it
in this class.
9
The Scoring Rubric
True False 5. We are all very
friendly together in this class. 6.
When students argue in this class people get
upset.
7. Nearly all of this class
feels warm and friendly toward this
professor. 8. It's okay to disagree
strongly with this professor.
10
Download the Social Development Questionnaire at
this URL http//www.dock.net/gathercoal/socialdev
elopment
11
Stage 1 - Dependent
In Stage 1, the main issue is dependence.
Students are generally dependent and submissive,
and do what the professor says. The students'
interaction is mostly through the professor, so
there is low covert interaction among students.
There is little disruptive behavior, but some
"attention getting." Order is fairly high.
Anxiety levels are high in some students. Some
students are bored. Motivation is extrinsic
approval, praise and encouragement from the
professor and significant others is
important. There is fear of punishment. (Educatio
n Department of South Australia , 1980, p. 31 -
35)
12
Stage 2 - Rebellion
In Stage 2, the main issue is rebellion. The
students test, challenge and try out the
professor. The student group separates into
two camps, one in opposition to the professor,
the other seeking to maintain dependent group
behavior. Some students challenge or ignore the
professors efforts to control the class.
Noise level tends to be high. Trust level among
students is low, and aggressive interactions and
put downs are common. The rebellious sub-group
is extrinsically motivated by peer group
approval, moderated by fear of professor
punishment. The intrinsic motivation is for
autonomy, moderated by dependency
needs. (Education Department of South Australia ,
1980, p. 31 - 35)
13
Stage 3 - Cohesive
In Stage 3, the main issue is cohesion. Students
are friendly and trusting to each other and the
professor. There is very little disruptive
behavior. There is lots of interaction but of an
orderly type. They conform to group norms.
There is little disagreement, as this is seen as
disruptive to the harmony of the group. This
inability to handle conflict results in some
covert bad feeling. Extrinsic motivation comes
from praise and encouragement from peer group and
the professor. Breach of class norms brings
strong group disapproval. (Education Department
of South Australia , 1980, p. 31 - 35)
14
Stage 4 - Autonomy
Autonomy is the main issue at Stage 4.
Individuals are self-directed, able to seek and
give support but function well without it.
Students take responsibility for their own
learning. There is a high level of interaction.
Agreement and discussion are the norm agreement
occurs in the context of disagreement. Feelings
(positive and negative) are openly expressed.
Students work the same with or without the
professor present. Disruptive behavior is
virtually non-existent. Students show
flexibility and adaptability in a variety of
learning situations without demanding conformity
of all members. They utilize self-awareness and
empathy rather than rules to choose behavior.
Motivation is mainly intrinsic. Social behavior
is based on respect for self and others.
Learning is seen as a way of gaining personal
competence and joy. (Education Department of
South Australia , 1980, p. 31 - 35)
15
Statistical Analysis

• The students responses to the social development
  questionnaire were quantified as percentages of
  responses at the four levels of social
  development.
• This yielded pretest and posttest percentages for
  all students in in-tact groups participating in
  this study.
• Percentages were used instead of raw scores for
  each administration of the social development
  questionnaire because there were unequal N
  between and within in-tact groups for pretest and
  posttest administrations of the questionnaire due
  to varying student enrollment, absences and
  students dropping or adding the course after the
  pretest was administered.
• As a result, the number of students completing
  the social development questionnaires at pretest
  and posttest varied for each administration of
  the questionnaire.

16
Hypothesis Testing

• After calculating the percentage of responses at
  the four levels of social development, the
  researcher compared the percentage of responses
  at each level of social development, over time,
  by employing a two-tailed paired-sample t-test
  for pretest and posttest results.
• Alpha was set at .05 for significant () results
  and .01 for highly significant () results.
• It was expected that there would be a significant
  difference between the pretest and the posttest
  results for all four levels of social
  development.
• If The Judicious Professor does indeed help to
  improve the teaching and learning relationships
  between professor and students and students and
  their peers, it is thought that students will
  score a higher percentage of responses at the
  autonomous level of social development on the
  posttest than on the pretest and concomitantly,
  score a lower percentage of responses at the
  other three levels of social development on the
  posttest than they score on the pretest.

17
The Results

• The researcher first began using the
  questionnaire he simply applied it at the end of
  the semester to measure student autonomy within
  courses and workshops.
• While these results are not used in this study,
  it is important to highlight them as incipient
  results that led to a more rigorous application
  of the instrument over time.
• The results of these first social development
  questionnaires are displayed in the next four
  slides.

18
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for four administrations of the
instrument over four years, from 1994 1997, for
ED75 Reading in the Elementary School at Gustavus
Adolphus College.
19
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for two administrations of the
instrument over two years, from 1995 1996, for
ED22 Childrens Literature at Gustavus Adolphus
College.
20
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for two administrations of the
instrument over two years, from 1995 1996, for
ED24 Judicious Discipline at Gustavus Adolphus
College.
21
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for one administration of the
instrument in1995, for ED23 Educational
Technology at Gustavus Adolphus College.
22
Only pretest treatment posttest results were
statistically analyzed in this study

• Pretest - Social Development Questionnaire
  administered at the beginning of the workshop or
  university course.
• Treatment - Mutual Goals and Expectations are
  established and a learner-centered philosophy for
  teaching and learning is employed throughout the
  course of instruction by the research/professor.
• Posttest Sometime between five weeks and five
  hours after the administration of the pretest the
  Social Development Questionnaire is administered
  a second time.

23
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in1996, for a
5-day Judicious Discipline Summer Institute at
Gustavus Adolphus College. The posttest was
administered five days after the pretest.
24
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in Fall Semester
1998, for EDTP520 Leadership, Management and Law
in Diverse Classrooms at California Lutheran
University. The posttest was administered four
weeks after the pretest.
25
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in Fall Semester
2000, for EDTP520 Leadership, Management and Law
in Diverse Classrooms at California Lutheran
University. The posttest was administered four
weeks after the pretest.
26
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in Spring
Semester 2001, for EDTP520 Leadership, Management
and Law in Diverse Classrooms at California
Lutheran University. The posttest was
administered four weeks after the pretest .
27
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in Fall Semester
2001, for EDTP520 Leadership, Management and Law
in Diverse Classrooms at California Lutheran
University. The posttest was administered four
weeks after the pretest.
28
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in Spring
Semester 2002, for EDTP520 Leadership, Management
and Law in Diverse Classrooms at California
Lutheran University. The posttest was
administered four weeks after the pretest.
29
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in Summer 2002,
for a 3-day Judicious Discipline Summer Institute
at California Lutheran University. The posttest
was administered three days after the pretest.
30
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in Spring 2003,
for a 3-day Judicious Discipline Summer Institute
at California Lutheran University. The posttest
was administered three days after the pretest.
31
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in Summer 2003,
for a 3-day Judicious Discipline Summer Institute
at an elementary school. The posttest was
administered three days after the pretest.
32
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in August 2003,
for a 1-day Judicious Discipline Summer Institute
at an elementary school. The posttest was
administered six hours after the pretest.
33
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in Spring 2004,
for a 2-day Judicious Discipline Summer Institute
at California Lutheran University. The posttest
was administered two days after the pretest.
34
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in Spring 2005,
for a 2-day Judicious Discipline Summer Institute
at California Lutheran University. The posttest
was administered two days after the pretest.
35
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in Summer 2005,
for a 2-day Judicious Discipline Summer Institute
at California Lutheran University. The posttest
was administered two days after the pretest.
36
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in Spring
Semester 2006, for EDTP520 Leadership, Management
and Law in Diverse Classrooms at California
Lutheran University. The posttest was
administered four weeks after the pretest.
37
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in Fall Semester
2006, for EDTP520 Leadership, Management and Law
in Diverse Classrooms, Section 1, at California
Lutheran University. The posttest was
administered four weeks after the pretest.
38
Pretest Posttest Results
Percentages of student responses indicated on the
questionnaire at the four levels of social
development (dependent, rebellion, cohesion,
autonomy) for a pretest and posttest
administration of the instrument in Fall Semester
2006, for EDTP520 Leadership, Management and Law
in Diverse Classrooms, Section 2, at California
Lutheran University. The posttest was
administered four weeks after the pretest.
39
Table 1. The Pretest and Posttest Results for
each course or workshop.
40
Hypotheses Testing - 1
It was hypothesized that students responses at
the autonomous level of social development would
be significantly higher on the social development
questionnaire after the instructor implemented
the treatment, establishing and maintaining
mutual expectations and goals with the students
in the course or workshop. This hypothesis was
tested, using a two-tailed paired-samples t-test
that compared the percentage of responses at the
autonomous level on the pretests with the
percentage of responses at the autonomous level
on the posttests. The hypothesis was supported. 
The percentage of autonomous responses on the
pretests (M  51.31, SD  12.42) was less than
the percentage of autonomous responses on the
posttests (M 78.19, SD 9.38), t(15) -12.40,
p .000.
41
Hypotheses Testing - 2
It was hypothesized that students responses at
the cohesive level of social development would be
significantly lower on the social development
questionnaire after the instructor implemented
the treatment, establishing and maintaining
mutual expectations and goals with the students
in the course or workshop. This hypothesis was
tested, using a two-tailed paired-samples t-test
that compared the percentage of responses at the
cohesive level on the pretests with the
percentage of responses at the cohesive level on
the posttests. The hypothesis was supported. 
The percentage of cohesive responses on the
pretests (M   22.44, SD  5.88) was greater than
the percentage of cohesive responses on the
posttests (M 12.06, SD 6.12), t(15) 8.23, p
.000.
42
Hypotheses Testing - 3
It was hypothesized that students responses at
the rebellious level of social development would
be significantly lower on the social development
questionnaire after the instructor implemented
the treatment, establishing and maintaining
mutual expectations and goals with the students
in the course or workshop. This hypothesis was
tested, using a two-tailed paired-samples t-test
that compared the percentage of responses at the
rebellious level on the pretests with the
percentage of responses at the rebellious level
on the posttests. The hypothesis was supported. 
The percentage of rebellious responses on the
pretests (M   9.00, SD  5.10) was greater than
the percentage of rebellious responses on the
posttests (M 6.25, SD 4.37), t(15) 2.14, p
.04.
43
Hypotheses Testing - 4
It was hypothesized that students responses at
the dependent level of social development would
be significantly lower on the social development
questionnaire after the instructor implemented
the treatment, establishing and maintaining
mutual expectations and goals with the students
in the course or workshop. This hypothesis was
tested, using a two-tailed paired-samples t-test
that compared the percentage of responses at the
dependent level on the pretests with the
percentage of responses at the dependent level on
the posttests. The hypothesis was supported. 
The percentage of dependent responses on the
pretests (M   17.25, SD  9.92) was greater than
the percentage of dependent responses on the
posttests (M 3.69, SD 3.82), t(15) 6.97, p
.000.
44
Mean Pretest Posttest Results
Mean percentages of in-tact group student
responses on the questionnaire at the four levels
of social development (dependent, rebellion,
cohesion, autonomy) for all pretest and posttest
administrations of the instrument from 1996 to
2006.
45
Discussion

• The results of this study suggest that professors
  who make use of the ideas expressed in The
  Judicious Professor (Gathercoal Gathercoal, in
  press) can provide reason and language for a
  civil ideology, based on mutual respect and
  trust. This is made manifest in a professors
  professional ethics, respect for principles of
  cognitive psychology and sound educational
  practice, legal precedence, and the biology of
  learning.

46
Mutual Goals, Expectations, and Respect

• The Judicious Professor is actively involved in
  constructing a culture of mutual respect and
  trust between the professor and every student in
  the college or university.

This philosophy will only work well in classrooms
where professors and students alike are actively
involved in establishing mutual expectations and
goals, with guidance and reason from the
professor which is balanced with the input of
ideas from students, and when everyone in the
classroom agrees to be an active participant in
establishing the class culture.
47
Finally, a word of caution and hope.

• The Judicious Professor could be perceived in
  dichotomous ways
• as a threat to the more traditional practices in
  higher education, or
• as a positive force among colleagues.
• The authors hope that it will be the latter, and
  that this philosophy will help colleagues develop
  an awareness of what a dialogical approach to
  teaching and learning, within a democratic
  culture, can do to enhance and maintain mutual
  respect and trust between students and their
  professors.

48
Caution

• Judicious professors, guided by universal
  principles of civility, and operating at the
  highest level of awareness, need to be mindful of
  the effect their professionalism is having on
  colleagues and administrators who only know and
  use a monological approach.

49
Hope

• When professors make that paradigm shift, that
  philosophical and cognitive leap to The Judicious
  Professor, they feel confident and at ease every
  time a student calls out for help Professor!

50
The Judicious Professor A Learner-Centered
Philosophy for Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education.

• Paul Gathercoal Forrest Gathercoal
• Professor, California Lutheran University
  Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University
• gatherco_at_clunet.edu fgathercoal1_at_comcast.net

http//www.dock.net/gathercoal/judiciousprofessor.
html