Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 1

Academic Shaming: Its Legacy, Impact and Implications Annotated Bibliography

EDUC 6326 Educational Research and Scholarly Writing Section KS56
Dr. L. S. Spencer
April 14, 2016
Carolyn Elizabeth Barrette

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 2

Academic Shaming: Its Legacy, Impact and Implications Annotated Bibliography
Frick, W. C., & Faircloth, S. C. (2007). Acting in the collective and individual "best interest of
students": When ethical imperatives clash with administrative demands. Journal of
Special Education Leadership, 20(1), 21-32.
ABSTRACT: This study examined secondary principals' perceptions of the phrase "the best
interests of the student" as a viable professional ethic for the field of educational leadership.
Findings indicate that participants make clear distinctions between the best interest of the student
(one) and the best interests of students (as a group). These findings also indicate that practicing
secondary school leaders are torn between the use of equitable inclusive instructional policies
that meet the differentiated learning needs of all students and provide increased learning and
academic achievement and the more restrictive administrative directives that limit discretion,
judgment, and moral satisfaction involving student disciplinary matters.
Drs. Frick and Faircloth conducted a 2007 qualitative study whose focus was to examine
how secondary principals interpret the experience of leadership decision making as a moral
activity (Frick & Faircloth, 2007, p. 21). They hoped: 1) to identify perceptions of the best
interests of the student, and 2) to clarify distinctions between the best interest of one student
versus the best interests of a group of students. To achieve a meaningful relationship between
leadership and morality, Drs. Frick and Faircloth filtered their results through a specific ethical
lens using two moral models (the Ethic of the Profession and the Model for Promoting
Students Best Interests) (Frick & Faircloth, 2007, p. 22). Choosing a small sample set (n=11),
Drs. Frick and Faircloth interviewed eleven principals of Pennsylvania secondary schools and
posed three key research questions: 1) Are principals duty bound to rules and policies that at
times situations are morally right?, 2) Are there guiding principles that assist school leaders in

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 3

making value-laden decisions?, and 3) How do principals experience the injunction the best
interests of the student? (Frick & Faircloth, 2007, p. 22).
The study revealed that secondary school leaders made clear distinctions between the
best interest of a single student and the best interests of a group of students. They were
simultaneously conflicted about the use of equitable inclusive instructional policies that meet
the differentiated learning needs of all students and more restrictive administrative practices that
restricted using discretion, judgment, and moral satisfaction in addressing student disciplinary
issues (Frick & Faircloth, 2007, p. 21). The Journal of Special Education Leadership has been
published since 1958 by the Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE), a wellestablished and respected national professional organization. The authors acknowledge the small
size of the sample set, though they allowed that Quantitative measurement, correlation,
prediction and causality were not [their] investigative goalsrather the primary concern was
with description rendering an accurate account and interpretation of the experiences of
secondary school administrators. Appropriate qualitative research methodology was utilized.
Their analyses were conducted during the field work stage, coding interview notes, writing
memos during transcription, and roughly formulating central categories and domains of
experience. Final data analysis, coding and reporting followed a modified phenomenologicallike research perspective applied to an educational context (Frick & Faircloth, 2007, p. 24).
This source addresses issues closely related to my topic, though both the research base
and its conclusions are narrow ones. The source is nine years old and was published in a peerreviewed journal. At the time of publication, the authors were both assistant professors: Frick at
the University of Oklahoma; Faircloth at Pennsylvania State University (Frick & Faircloth, 2007,
p. 30). Both have since been promoted to associate professors; indeed, Dr. Faircloth now also

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 4

serves as senior associate editor of the American Journal of Education and an associate editor of
the American Educational Research Journal Social and Institutional Analysis
(http://www.fridayfellowship.org/members/?id=24581198). Both authors assume their three key
research questions provide an adequate research basis from which to discern valid implications
for practice. This source is logical and measured in tone and its qualitative evidence is
summarized well; though qualitative in nature, the research is sound.
I believe this resource will prove useful for my own research. The best interests of the
student is a frequently used phrase, particularly during IEP and RTI conversations. This study,
though limited, provides thought-provoking perspectives on what those interests are and the
implications and limitations therein. The study was made with a very small group; more targeted
special education investigations are needed. I find myself asking if the best interest of the
student is a viable professional ethic? The authors key research questions lead to three
implications for practice; the research helps catalyze: 1) important questions to ask in responding
to inclusion dilemmas, 2) focus questions regarding the use of inclusion tools and models, and 3)
ideas for quantitative research opportunities using a larger, more statistically significant sample
set. Because research participants experience a moral tension between serving the best
instructional interests of eachstudentand the disciplinary policiesthat limit ethical
judgment, the authors conclude that it is crucial that administrators enhance their skills in
balancing the often-conflicting demands between the needs of one student with the needs of all.
Such leadership could favorably influence teachers to strive to do likewise, particularly with
learning different (LD) student populations.

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 5

Mazer, J. P., McKenna-Buchanan, T. P., Quinlan, M. M., & Titsworth, S. (2014). The dark side of
emotion in the classroom: Emotional processes as mediators of teacher communication
behaviors and student negative emotions. Communication Education, 63(3), 149-168.
ABSTRACT: Based on emotional response theory (ERT), recent researchers have observed
connections between teachers' communication behaviors and students' emotional reactions. In the
present study, we further elaborated ERT by exploring the effects of teacher communication
behaviors and emotional processes on discrete negative emotions, including anger, anxiety,
shame, hopelessness, and boredom. Using cross-sectional survey data, we tested a hypothesized
predictive model using structural equation modeling; the model was observed to fit well with the
data. When teachers lack immediacy, are unclear, and/or demonstrate poor communication
competence, students tend to report heightened negative emotional reactions. These effects are
mediated by students' perceptions of social support from their teacher and their perceived need
for emotion work in the class. Practical and theoretical implications of these findings are
discussed.
Drs. Joseph J. Mazer, Timothy P. McKenna-Buchanan, and Margaret M. Quinlan (all
Assistant Professors at Clemson, Ohio and Manchester Universities, respectively) joined forces
with the Dean of the Scripps College of Communication at Ohio University, Dr. Scott Titsworth,
to explore connections between students perceptions of how teachers communicate and their
self-reported negative emotions in a classroom setting (Mazer et al., 2014). The authors state
they had set out firstly to contribute to the growing national discussion of student engagement
by exploring whether a lack of communication effectiveness on the part of teachers can
potentially contribute to a lack of engagement on the part of students (Mazer et al., 2014, p.

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 6

162). They further wished to examine five distinct negative emotions that could be related to
teachers communication behaviors and emotional processes.
The Mazer team used the foundation(s) of emotional response theory (ERT)1 to identify
three communication behaviors (teacher nonverbal immediacy, clarity, and communication
competence) and to study if and what connections existed between them and the five negative
student emotions (anger, anxiety, shame, hopelessness, and boredom). In reviewing studies that
determined the beneficial effects and successful academic outcomes associated with positive
teacher immediacy, clarity and communication, these researchers hypothesized that the opposite
was also valid and statistically significant.
After a detailed literature review which they use as a conceptual starting point, the
authors collectively hypothesize that ineffective teacher communication a lack of nonverbal
immediacy, clarity and communication competence will cause negative emotional reactions
from students. Utilizing a substantial sample set (n=753), Dr. Mazer and team identified students
from three large public universities across the United States. Participants were, on average,
21.64 years old and were spread evenly across years in school[with a] diversity of majors [and
ethnic backgrounds] (Mazer et al., 2014, p. 155). With the blessing and appropriate approval
from the three universities, participants were contacted just after the midpoint of their academic
terms with an invitation to complete an electronic survey[containing] demographic questions,
questions about their target class, and five scales designed to assess variables in the study
(Mazer et al., 2014, p. 156).

1 As developed in:Mottet, T. P., Frymier, A. B., & Beebe, S. A. (2006). Theorizing about instructional
communication. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional
communication (pp. 255282). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 7

The researchers analyzed primary and secondary data using structural equation modeling
(SEM). Metric invariance tests were used to compare measurement across the three institutions
to ensure that combining the three subsamples into an overall sample was legitimate and
properly managed (Mazer et al., 2014, p. 158). A two-step procedure utilizing a confirmatory
factor analysis and a test of all hypothesized regression paths showed the existence of varying
degrees of relationship between emotional support and the three teacher communication test
variables. Emotional support was predictive of anger, anxiety, shame, hopelessness and boredom
(Mazer et al., 2014, pp. 159-160). They found that all path coefficients from emotional support
and emotion work were significant and in the hypothesized direction (Mazer et al., 2014, p.
163). Mazer and his team could reasonably conclude that poor communication from teachers
can potentially lead to negative emotional reactions from students (Mazer et al., 2014, p. 163).
The Communication Education peer-reviewed journal has been published quarterly since
1952 through the National Communication Association, a well-respected professional and
academic organization. As indicated above, all members of Mazers team hail from wellregarded academic institutions. This research is highly quantitative in nature, broad in scope and
number/type of subjects, and detailed in its sound statistics development. That said, as with the
Frick and Faircloth article summarized above, these authors assume their research questions
provide an adequate basis from which to develop appropriate implications for practice.
The authors disclose that their claims must be tempered based on the parameters of the
study, i.e., because of the cross-sectional nature of the data, conclusions pointing to specific
causality were not possible. Furthermore, the data was collected at a particular point in time
and not over the entire semester; thus potential mediating variables that could influence these
relationships could not be assessed (Mazer et al. 2014, p.165). The Mazer teams research

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 8

encourages further investigation into not only the impact of negative teacher interplay upon
student emotions but the effective development of alternative pedagogical techniques and
administrative expectations to reduce the possible/probable incidences of anger, anxiety,
hopelessness, boredom and shame to further understand [the] processes influencing student
engagement, learning and academic success (Mazer et al., 2014, p. 165).
The authors note that [f]eelings of emotional support occur when individuals perceive
the messages of others to promote desirable outcomes, including decreased emotional stress,
adaptive coping strategies, improved emotional health, and generally supportive interpersonal
relationships2 (Mazer et al., 2014, p. 151). They continue, It is probable that students in their
classes will report heightened deactivating emotions like shame, boredom, and hopelessness as
well as heightened activating emotions like anxiety and anger in the face of nonverbally
nonimmediate, unclear, communicationally incompetent instruction/attention (Mazer et al.,
2014, p. 163). Students with learning differences are particularly challenged in terms of selfadministering positive reinforcement, maintaining balance in the face of often heightened
sensitivity and awareness of their differences, and responding effectively to the reactions of those
in their various communities to said differences. I have observed that while sincere
administration of positive reinforcement to these students is especially vital, it is at least equally
(if not more) crucial that negative reinforcement as a teaching device be eliminated insofar as
possible. This source, and others like it3, will be vital in my own continued research.

2 As developed in: Burleson, B. R. (2009). Understanding the outcomes of supportive communication: A

dual-process approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 2138.
doi:10.1177/0265407509105519
3 The authors note that the presumed link between students emotions and learning outcomes has strong
support in interdisciplinary literature (Mazer et al., 2014, p. 164).

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 9

Reichert J. A., M.S.E. (2007). Teacher acceptance of interventions implemented for students with
learning disabilities. Online Submission University of Wisconsin-River Falls, 2-23.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496118.pdf.
ABSTRACT: [T]eachers of students with learning disabilities were asked their opinions on
one of three research-based interventions for learning disabilities: Cooperative Learning, Story
Retelling and School-Home Notes (Rathvon, 1999). The purpose of the study was to measure
teacher acceptance ratings of these interventions and whether teacher demographic information
affected acceptance. Results indicated that teachers were more accepting of Story Retelling and
Cooperative Learning interventions than School-Home Notes intervention. Analysis of the
demographic variables revealed a moderate, statistically significant negative correlation between
years working and acceptance of School-Home Notes. Limitations of the study and future
directions for research are discussed. Included are seven appendices.
In 2005, Jacqueline A. Reichert, M.S.E., carried out a quantitative study at the University
of Wisconsin-River Falls to measure teacher acceptance ratings of interventions made for
students with learning disabilities (LD) and to assess if demographic factors affected teacher
acceptance of such efforts. The study addressed three research-based interventions for learning
disabilities: Cooperative Learning, Story Retelling and School-Home Notes; the contributing
factors used to measure treatment acceptance were: theoretical belief, time, motivation, and
effectiveness of intervention4.
Reicherts sample set (n=100) was composed exclusively teachers of students with
learning disabilities. These individuals were respondents to Reicherts questionnaire sent to 300
4 Based on factors of acceptance outlined by Dr. Natalie W Rathvon, LPC:Rathvon, N. (1999). Effective school
interventions: strategies for enhancing academic achievement and social competence. New York: The Guilford
Press.

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 10

randomly chosen teachers of LD students in Wisconsin (this represented a comparatively robust
33% return rate). Reicherts questionnaire addressed two fundamental research questions:
1) Which of the three intervention approaches listed above would teachers of students with
learning disabilities find most acceptable?, and
2) Do the number of years of educational experience, gender or other demographic
characteristics affect intervention acceptance rates? (Reichert, 2007, p. 7).
Reichert found Cooperative Learning and Story Retelling to be most accepted; however,
her research also revealed that use of the School-Home Notes technique was most disruptive of
classroom life and not as well accepted. Indeed, Reichert found a negative correlation between
the years a teacher had worked and the acceptance level of this method (Reichert, 2007, p. 12).
Reichert concluded:
More success was achieved with positive rather than negative interventions;
More success was achieved with fair, reasonable, and non-intrusive interventions;
Diagnostic labels did not affect bias or choice of intervention; and
Determinants of a teachers belief in an interventions success could be distilled to three
major elements:
o If intervention was consistent with the teachers theoretical and educational beliefs;
o If the intervention could be implemented efficiently; and
o If the teacher believed in the worth of and time necessary for the intervention
(Reichert, 2007, p. 13).
This source is the least robust of the four articles presented herein. It is the product of a
Masters level research project conducted under the auspices of the University of WisconsinRiver Falls School Psychology Program, Department of Grants and Research, and Institutional
Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects. The survey was designed to be completed
in a minimally invasive manner, i.e., Reichert hoped the teachers surveyed would be more likely
to respond if the total completion time was an anticipated 5-10 minutes. She included a means of
returning the survey at no cost to the respondent (via postage-paid return envelope; often a part
of a survey research method). This likely significantly contributed to her strong return rate.

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 11

Reicherts self-acknowledged study limitations included a relatively limited survey group
size and a very limited anecdotal review of options presented to teachers in the survey (teachers
were presented only one vignette scenario to consider in responding to the survey). That said,
the conclusions are consistent with and support other research that is more statistically
significant. The quantitative evidence is summarized well and the research, though rudimentary,
is sound. Reichert did perform both Chi-square tests on demographic variables and a one-way
analysis of variance that lend statistical support to her conclusions. The author further
acknowledges that the study was limited to review of only three interventions yet noted it
further links research on interventions used for students with disabilities to the present use and
acceptance of these interventions by teachers (Reichert, 2007, p. 13). She recommends that
future research be continued along these lines and proposes that more teachers from more states
be canvassed in an effort to create better communication between school psychologists and
teachers[thereby] more effectively help[ing] students with learning disabilities in the future
(Reichert, 2007, p. 13).
Whether Reicherts work proves useful to my own research remains to be seen.
However, it is possible (perhaps even likely) that understanding the whys and whens of teacher
acceptance of LD interventions could offer insight into how to best minimize teacher resentment
that may arise when standard routines are interrupted or disrupted. By extension, under the
hypothesis that teacher resentment can breed subsequent teacher retaliation/bullying (which can
occur without teachers being self-aware of such behavior), this type of research may be of
significant value.

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 12

Zerillo, C., & Osterman, K. F. (2011). Teacher perceptions of teacher bullying. Improving
Schools, 14(3), 239-257. Retrieved from
http://imp.sagepub.com/content/14/3/239.full.pdf+html doi:10.1177/1365480211419586
ABSTRACT: This mixed-methods study examined elementary teachers perceptions of teacher
student bullying. Grounded in previous research on peer bullying, the study posed several
questions: to what extent did teachers perceive bullying of students by other teachers as a serious
matter requiring intervention? Did they perceive teacher bullying as more serious than peer
bullying, and did their perceptions differ by the nature of the bullying incident? Findings indicate
that teachers are aware of isolated and ongoing student bullying by their colleagues; however,
they have a higher sense of accountability for peer bullying and forms of bullying with physical
rather than socio-emotional consequences. Teachers sense of accountability was correlated with
years of experience but unrelated to participation in professional development, despite sustained
anti-bullying initiatives over a 10-year period.
Drs. Zerillo and Osterman conducted a mixed-methods study that focused on how
teachers perceive teacher-to-student bullying. After an introductory literature review (somewhat
sparse, given what the authors noted as little research on the consequences of teacher bullying
per se (Zerillo & Osterman, 2011, p. 239)), the researchers summarized their method and
expectations, hypothesizing that teachers would be more likely to intervene in peer than teacher
bullying incidents and more likely to intervene in physical and verbal incidents than in those
involving relational aggression (Zerillo & Osterman, 2011, p. 243).

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 13

The three-step5 mixed-methods study used a survey and focus group for data collection.
A reasonably sized sample set (n=259) was sent to potential participants, all elementary school
teachers, that addressed the questions of:

Do teachers perceptions of seriousness of incidents differ by bullying type, initiator or

teacher background, and
Does intent to intervene depend on type of bullying, initiator, perceived seriousness or
teacher background?

189 responses were received, an impressive 72.97% return rate. The data collected challenged
the researchers initial assumptions that perceived seriousness and intent to intervene were
separate factors and that perceived seriousness of an incident would predict intent to intervene
(Zerillo & Osterman, 2011, p. 245). They identified five supplemental types of bullying that did
not align themselves with the original bullying characterization types they posited. Zerillo and
Osterman found that 1) teachers gave greater consideration to the consequences rather than form
of bullying to students, and 2) perception of seriousness and intent to intervene were related
rather than distinct factors, which the researchers termed accountability (Zerillo & Osterman,
2011, p. 244).
The article was published five years ago and is logical in tone and structure. In addition
to their degrees, the authors bring decades of experience in the field to their writing. Both in
New York (state), each is now officially retired: Dr. Zerillo from a long career in administrative
leadership and Dr. Osterman as an emeritus professor at Hofstra University. The journal in
which this article appears, Improving Schools, is a peer-reviewed academic publication
established in 1998; it carries respected traction in the field. The researchers have studied the
5 1) Determining reliability of survey and assessment of scale reliability of measurement items; 2) Examining
descriptive statistics to determine response range; and
3) Using inferential statistics to examine the strength of the relationship between the initiator, types of bullying,
teacher experience, and teacher accountability (Zerillo & Osterman, 2011, p. 244).

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 14

works of respected scholars in this (hopefully) burgeoning field, including Drs. J. David
Hawkins, Stuart W. Tremlow, Charol Shakeshaft and Jina S. Yoon, The sample set, though
substantial enough to merit quantitative study requirements, is limited to the elementary
education level only. Though the study had a limited base in terms of age-range, the
interpretation of the studys results is valid. Still, it would be valuable to conduct similar studies
at the middle and secondary school levels to compare and contrast the results.
This article will be integral to my own future research. The authors observe that the factor
analysis suggest[s] a different way of looking at bullying, focused not on the form of the
behavior but the consequences [italics added] for the student; this is intriguing an important
conceptual shift because it reminds us of the rationale underlying bullying prevention and
intervention (Zerillo & Osterman, 2011, p. 252). This is a perspective and approach that will be
brought into my own work. The authors conclude that schools should explicitly address teacher
bullying through policy, professional development initiatives, and supervision (Zerillo &
Osterman, 2011, p. 254), a suggestion that supports my own experience thus far. I hope to also
make this a part of my future research.

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 15

Synthesis
Main idea or claim

Frick & Faircloth

(2007)

Mazer, et al.
(2014)

Reichert
(2007)

Zerillo & Osterman

(2011)

Importance of
teacher acceptance
of alternative
techniques needed
for students with
learning differences

Principals in this
investigation expressed
satisfaction for
equitable response to
student learning needs,
particularly for those
students identified as
requiring special
services. In contrast,
participants reported a
significant
unsettledness with
special class protections
that dismiss, and
thereby limit, the
principals ability to
take fair and just
disciplinary actions.

It is probable that
students in their classes
will report heightened
deactivating emotions
like shame, boredom,
and hopelessness as
well as heightened
activating emotions like
anxiety and angerin
the face of nonverbally
nonimmediate, unclear,
communicationally
incompetent
instruction/attention.

it further links
research on
interventions used for
students with
disabilities to the
present use and
acceptance of these
interventions by
teachers.

Teachers sense of
accountability was
correlated with years of
experience but
unrelated to
participation in
professional
development, despite
sustained anti-bullying
initiatives over a 10year period.

Importance of
enhancing
administrator skills

[I]t is crucial that

administrators enhance
their skills in balancing
the often-conflicting
demands between the
needs of one student
with the needs of all

[need] effective
development of
alternative pedagogical
techniques and
administrative
expectations to reduce
the possible/probable
incidences of anger,
anxiety, hopelessness,
boredom and shame to
further understand [the]
processes influencing
student engagement,
learning and academic
success

These findings
highlight the relevance
of communication
behaviors for scholars
and practitioners
attempting to further
understand processes
influencing student
engagement, learning,
and academic success.

schools should
explicitly address
teacher bullying
through policy,
professional
development initiatives,
and supervision

Importance of the
relationship
between emotional
support and student
behavior

school leaders
[need] to respond justly
and equitably to
increasingly diverse
student needs and
increasingly demanding
societal needs

exploring whether a
lack of communication
effectiveness on the part
of teachers can
potentially contribute to
a lack of engagement on
the part of students

[P]oor communication
from teachers can
potentially lead to
negative emotional
reactions from
students

It is only recently that

teacher bullying has
emerged as an equally,
if not more, serious
problem[teacher
bullying] victimization
is a significant causal
factor in
schoolchildrens
lowered health and
well-being.

Type of research

Qualitative (n=11)

Quantitative (n=753)

Quantitative (n=100)

Mixed-methods:
Quantitative (n=259)
and Qualitative

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 16

In addressing the research topic/question of how academic shaming experiences
negatively affect students in both the short and long term, multiple peer-reviewed journal articles
and dissertations were recommended and perused. Four within this document group emerged as
particularly integral to the research question at hand. These four documents are:
1) Frick, W. C., & Faircloth, S. C. (2007). Acting in the collective and individual "best interest of
students": When ethical imperatives clash with administrative demands. Journal of
Special Education Leadership, 20(1), 21-32.
2) Mazer, J. P., McKenna-Buchanan, T. P., Quinlan, M. M., & Titsworth, S. (2014). The dark side
of emotion in the classroom: Emotional processes as mediators of teacher communication
behaviors and student negative emotions. Communication Education, 63(3), 149-168.
3) Reichert J. A., M.S.E. (2007). Teacher acceptance of interventions implemented for students
with learning disabilities. Online Submission University of Wisconsin-River Falls, 223. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496118.pdf.
4) Zerillo, C., & Osterman, K. F. (2011). Teacher perceptions of teacher bullying. Improving
Schools, 14(3), 239-257. Retrieved from
http://imp.sagepub.com/content/14/3/239.full.pdf+html doi:10.1177/1365480211419586
As the above table shows, the articles highlight similarities in multiple areas, most
notably regarding the importance of:

Teacher acceptance of alternative techniques needed for students with learning

differences;
Enhancing administrator skills; and
The relationship between emotional support and student behavior.

Each document highlights the need for an increased understanding of how a teachers or peers
negative emotions frequently influence and exacerbate resulting negative emotions in students,
particularly those experiencing varying degrees of learning disabilities. Each document
addresses the need for administrators to explicitly address issues concerning diverse student
needs in general and negatively-styled pedagogical approaches. As one could expect, each
document provided distinct emphases as well: Frick and Faircloth concentrated on the need for
administrators to respond justly and equitably to all students; both Mazer et al, and Reichert,

Running head: ACADEMIC SHAMING: LEGACY, IMPACT Barrette 17

gave special focus on the short and long term effects of negative teacher emotions upon their
students, both LD and non-LD; and Zerillo and Osterman termed such behaviors forms of
teacher bullying, calling for increased efforts in developing policy, professional development
initiatives, and supervision to address them.
Zerillo and Ostermans article also addressed the controversy and dichotomy between
teachers who felt negative reinforcement was an acceptable pedagogical method and those who
believed its costs exceeded its perceived benefits. Controversial it is. There exists an ongoing,
often non-verbalized debate between teachers who feel creating a primarily positive learning
environment provides the best hope for graduating well-adjusted students of all learning types
and those teachers who believe doing so is, by definition and extension, simultaneously setting a
lenient tone, resulting in unacceptably lax standards and expectations. All four
researchers/research teams agree these related areas are in significant need of further study,
particularly in addressing the special needs of students with learning disabilities. As noted in the
above summary of Reicherts work, it is possible (perhaps even likely) that understanding the
whys and whens of teacher acceptance of LD interventions could offer insight into how to best
minimize teacher resentment that may arise when standard routines are interrupted or disrupted.
Finding alternatives that all parties involved would find acceptable and attractive is a singular
challenge yet remains a very worthwhile one.