Journal of Undergraduate Research
Volume 7, Issue 2- January/February 2006

The Relation Between Teacher and Peer Perceptions of Aggressive Behavior

Reisha Gocool

Kip Kinkel was a fifteen-year old teen who killed his parents and two students at his high school, in addition to injuring 25, in May of 1998. Kip had exhibited some signs of emotional distress to his teachers, such as menacing notes on the top of work that he turned in. However, he received only a suspension as punishment for his inappropriate behavior rather than receiving needed psychiatric intervention. The notes that Kip left were a cry for help that went unaddressed, even though it was obvious to his peers that he was in distress. The Kinkel case is not an isolated incident. Students with emotional or behavioral problems may sit undetected in general education classrooms. Often, such as in Kip’s case, a student’s peers can help identify troubled behavior, but unfortunately, they are not typically given an opportunity to provide their input.

Extreme behavior like Kip Kinkel’s and other more common aggressive-type behavior in students has become an escalating problem in schools for both students and teachers. Aggressive behavior is not only disruptive to the school environment, but when exhibited at a young age it often develops into more serious behaviors such as theft by force, weapon possession, alcohol and drug use (Farrington, 1989). Teachers usually play a significant role in identifying students who have emotional or behavioral problems that may ultimately require special education or comprehensive intervention programs (Astor et al, 2005). While teacher input has been an effective tool for identifying students with aggression, recent student violence episodes (see Frontline, 2000) are evidence that a more comprehensive selection process may be necessary to identify problem students.

There is some indication that peer relationships may be a significantly better indication of social behavior than teacher ratings of behavior problems (Landau et al, 1984). These findings indicate that more needs to be known about how closely peer and teacher nominations and identification of student emotional and behavioral problems are related. Although a teacher’s input is always a necessary component of evaluating a student, the correlation between teacher and peer ratings and the importance of peer contribution need to be explored further.

It is also very useful not only to identify students with behavioral problems, but to be able to classify their type of aggression so that it can be addressed specifically. Aggression can be divided into reactive and proactive subtypes (McAdams & Lambie, 2003). Matloff (2001) defines reactive aggression as aggressive behavior prompted by skill deficiencies when a child is provoked and proactive aggression as relying on aggressive behavior to achieve manipulative goals. According to social information-processing theory, deficiencies at different stages of informational mental processing result in these two types of aggression; however, a person may exhibit both types (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge & Schwartz, 1997). Being able to classify a child’s aggression type would enable educators to better match an intervention program to a specific student’s needs. In order to do this, it would be helpful to have the assistance of both teachers and peers. Peers have a perspective of what goes on in the classroom that is different from that of teachers. In particular, peers have the opportunity to witness whether a fellow student initiates aggression, which signals proactive aggression, or if student is provoked first, distinguishing reactive aggression. Thus, peers can provide needed input about students with behavioral problems, commonly referred to as “target students,” by possibly shedding light on these issues. This is an additional reason to investigate the connection between teacher ratings of aggression and peer nominations for aggressive behavior.

The purpose of my research, therefore, was to investigate the relationship between teacher and peer ratings for problematic behaviors that indicate a need for intervention. My specific research questions were as follows:

How do teacher ratings of proactive and reactive aggression correlate with peer nominations for disruptive and aggressive behavior?
Is there a relation between teacher nomination for problematic behavior (i.e. anger and aggression) and peer rejection?

METHOD

Participants

The sample in this study is comprised of students from various elementary school classrooms located in North Florida. The research participants consist of fourth and fifth grade students. Participating schools had large at-risk populations (approximately 40-95 percent), according to the number of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. The distribution of males to females was roughly equal, with a total of 119 students from 16 classrooms.

Instrumentation

Target Student Nomination Form. Teachers were given a nomination form that asked them to nominate up to seven students (“target students”) whom they considered to be the most aggressive children in their class. Directions to teachers were as follows:

“Please list the children in your class (no more than 7) who you believe:

1. Have difficulties with the experience, expression, and/or control of their anger and/or

2. Are the most aggressive, either physically or verbally, with other people or objects.”

The results for each child were then recorded as either a “yes,” the child was nominated (yes=1) or a “no,” the child was not nominated (no=0).

Reactive-Proactive Aggression Scale. Teachers were also given the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Scale developed by Dodge and Coie (1987) to determine type of aggressive profile. The part of the scale I used consists of three statements relating to reactive aggression and three statements relating to proactive aggression. These statements were randomly dispersed within a total of 12 items that ask the respondents, in this case the teachers, to indicate how true a statement is, ranging from never true (1) to always true (5), for a particular child (e.g., “This child always claims that other children are to blame in a fight and feels that they started the trouble”; “This child threatens or bullies others in order to get his/her own way”).

How We Relate in the Classroom. To obtain peer nominations about sociometric status and behavioral characteristics, How We Relate in the Classroom was administered to all students in a given classroom, with help from their teacher. Questions were obtained from others who have conducted research on peer rejection (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990). The students were given five questions, and under each question, a roster of their classmates. The students were instructed by their teachers to circle the name of the three classmates whose behavior most closely fit the criteria for each question (e.g., “Circle the names of 3 classmates that you most like to play with”; “Circle the name of 3 classmates that you least like to play with”). Each teacher was given standardized instructions to read to his or her students. They instructed the students that the purpose of completing this task was to help the school learn how students relate to each other. The children were informed that they did not have to put their names on their paper and that only the researchers in the study would see their responses. They were also told not to discuss the information they provided with their classmates.

DATA ANALYSIS

All data were entered and analyzed using the statistical program SPSS. To standardize scores on items from the student survey (How We Relate in the Classroom) across classrooms containing different total numbers of students, I converted number of nominations to percentage of total possible nominations for a given classroom.

To answer the first research question (How do teacher ratings of proactive and reactive aggression correlate with peer nominations for disruptive and aggressive behavior?), four Pearson correlations were run. The first correlation was between scores on item number four from How We Relate in the Classroom (“Circle the names of 3 classmates who start fights, hit other children, or say mean things to them”) and total scores (sum of the three items) on the proactive aggression subscale (teacher report). The second correlation was between scores on item number four and total scores on the reactive aggression subscale. Similarly, the next set of correlations was between item number five (“Circle the names of 3 classmates who upset everything when they get into a group- they don’t share, and they try to get everyone to do things their way”) and scores on proactive and reactive aggression subscales.

To answer the second research question (Is there a relation between teacher nomination for problematic behavior (i.e. anger and aggression) and peer rejection?), I ran a correlation between the teachers’ initial nominations for target status, which is a categorical variable, with scores on item number two from How We Relate in the Classroom (“Circle the name of 3 classmates that you least like to play with”), which is a continuous variable. This requires a point-biserial correlation because one variable is dichotomous (i.e., can take on only two values, in this case either yes or no) and the other is continuous.

PROCEDURES

The data used were collected by the project staff of the Aggression Intervention Research team at the University of Florida as part of a three-year project involving an intervention for aggressive behavior. Participants for the study were solicited through discussions with elementary school principals and faculty, along with the help of a group of district administrators and community members. A subset of students (those with complete data on the measures used in the present study) was selected to comprise the participants in this study.

Participating teachers completed the Target Student Nomination Form and the Reactive-Proactive Scale. Although data were analyzed only on students with parental consent, all students in participating classrooms completed the How We Relate in the Classroom survey as part of classroom activities. Teachers read the instructions to their students before the students completed the survey.

RESULTS

The relation between student responses for How We Relate in the Classroom item number four (starts fights) and proactive aggression had a correlation of .458 (N = 118, p = .000). For the relation between student responses for item number four and reactive aggression, I found a correlation of .516 (N= 118, p = .000). The relation between student responses for item number five (upsets everything) and proactive aggression had a correlation of .509 (N = 118, p = .000). the relation between student responses for item number five (upsets everything) and reactive aggression had a correlation of .565 (N = 118, p = .000). The relation between teacher nomination for target status and item number two (least like to play with) had a correlation of .546 (N = 118, p = .000). Teacher perceptions of proactive aggression and reactive aggression had a correlation of .849 (N = 118, p = .000).

DISCUSSION

To determine whether peer input differed from teacher reports about aggressive behavior on the part of regular education fourth and fifth grade students, I investigated the relationship between teacher and peer ratings for problematic behaviors that indicate a need for intervention.

For both research questions, I found strong correlations between teacher and peer ratings on several measures of behavior. I predicted the relatively strong correlations between peer reports of initiating aggression (item 4, e.g., starts fights, bullies) and teacher reports of proactive aggression and between peer reports of disruptive behavior (item 5, e.g., upset everything) and teacher reports of reactive aggression. The strength of the relationships, however, between (a) teacher reports of proactive aggression and peer reports of disruptive behavior and (b) teacher reports of reactive aggression and peer reports of aggressive behavior on item four were somewhat surprising. Although many children who exhibit proactive aggression also demonstrate reactive aggression (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1996), the strong correlations found between all the different combinations of teacher and peer reports appear to stem from a somewhat global interpretation of aggression on the part of teachers and, perhaps, peers. I also found a high correlation between teacher reports of proactive and reactive aggression, suggesting that when teachers categorize a child as aggressive, they view the student in terms of the general label rather than specific behaviors. This could be troublesome, because in order to select an intervention for a child with aggression, it is very important to be able to classify what type of aggression he or she has.

Overall, the correlations I found support the validity of peer input, since teachers and students seemed to be in sync with their observations of target students. The measures I used in this study were focused only on externalizing behaviors such as disruption and aggression. Peers may be even more valuable when it comes to less obvious, more internalized behaviors. They are privy to actions that teachers usually do not have the opportunity to observe, such as notes that get passed and what take places on the playground. I would suggest, therefore, that future researchers investigate the relation between teacher/counselor ratings of inappropriate or disturbing behaviors that are less external and peer ratings on similar characteristics.

REFERENCES

Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., Benbenishty, R., Marachi, R., & Rosemond, M. (2005). School safety interventions: best practices and programs. Children & Schools (pp. 17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer group behavior and social status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer Rejection in Childhood (pp. 17-59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crick, N. R. & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information- processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development (993-1002). United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social information- processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 1146-1158).
Dodge, K. A., & Schwartz, D. (1997). Social information-processing mechanisms in aggressive behavior. In D.M. Stoff, J. Breling, & J.D. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp. 171-180). New York: Wiley.
Farrington, David. P. (1989). Early predictors of adolescent aggression and adult violence. Violence and Victims (pp. 79-100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
FRONTLINE and Entropy Media. Web site ©1995-2005 WGBH Educational Foundation. Killer at Thurston High. Retrieved November 8, 2000, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kinkel/
Landau, S., Milich R., & Whitten, P. (1984). A comparison of teacher and peer assessment of social status. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology (pp. 44-49) US: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Matloff, R. G. (2001). Peer rejection and perceived social competence among elementary-school children who display reactive and combined reactive and proactive aggressive behaviors. Dissertation for the University of Florida (p. 5)
McAdams, C. R., & Lambie, G. W. (2003). A changing profile of Aggression in schools: its impact and Implications for school personnel. Preventing School Failure (pp. 122).

--top--

Back to the Journal of Undergraduate Research