Clete Bulach was a school superintendent and is currently an associate professor and director of the Administrator Diagnostic Center at the State University of West Georgia.
 

Carolyn Brown was an assistant professor at the State University of West Georgia and is currently an assistant professor at King College.
 

Les Potter was a high school principal and is currently an assistant professor at the State University of West Georgia.
 
 

Students can not be taught nor can learning be fostered until they are convinced the teacher cares about them. Their human need to feel cared about must be met. This is a wide paraphrase of one of the seven habits of effective teachers described by Rich (1997). The concept of "caring" and its relevance for student achievement is receiving increased emphasis. Anfara (1996) wrote "One need only read the work of Beck (1994); Gilligan (1982); Noddings (1992); Sergiovanni (1992); and Starratt (1991) to see that scholars are calling on educators and administrators to be cognizant of and practice an ethic characterized as 'caring'" (p.1). Additionally, the September, 1996 issue of Educational Leadership contains a number of articles dealing with the theme "creating a climate for learning." Kohn (1996 stated that developing a caring community would foster positive student values and a love of learning. Lewis, Schaps, and Watson (1996), described the "caring community of learners" they created at their school. They believe that "creating such a community is crucial to children's learning and citizenship" (p.17). Freiburg (1996) stated that there is a need to create caring classrooms in that issue. Based on some of the articles in this issue, one could conclude that a caring learning community is extremely important if a climate for learning is to be created. Cooper (1996) stated that nothing can replace caring about the well-being of children. Finally, Goodlad (1997) stated that teachers need a reservoir of caring attributes in his article about teacher quality and teacher preparation

When educators talk about caring, what do they mean? Bosworth (1995) defined caring as having feelings for others, having relationships, and demonstrating values of kindness, respect, and faithfulness. He also described behaviors that were perceived as caring. They were the following: helping with school work, valuing individuality, showing respect, being tolerant, explaining work, encouraging students to improve helping with personal problems, providing guidance, and going the extra mile. According to Behrends (1996), caring teachers create and maintain family-like relations, help students with academic and personal problems, challenge students, have high expectations, and encourage students.

The above are some of the leading experts in the field of education and their opinions are supported by research that investigated the concept of caring. Lambert (1995) used a multi-case study with open-ended interviews, and participant observations to identify five basic elements of the caring process. The are the following: faith in the student, respect, trust, perceived sincerity, and attentiveness. Caring teachers were perceived to be fair and placed value on the students as individuals. Further, based on 84 interviews Tarlow (1994) concluded that a caring person has to be sensitive to the needs of others; act in their best interest; be emotionally invested; and do things that are helpful for others.

In addition to research about the concept of caring there is also research that supports the premise that a caring learning community is important. Bulach, Malone, and Castleman (1995) in their work with 611 teachers and 27 schools in Kentucky found a significant positive correlation (r = +.52) between climate and achievement. Two of the climate subscales measure caring behaviors. One subscale measures levels of trust in a school building and the other measures an area called environment. Correlational data for these two subscales with the overall climate scores shows a strong positive relationship (Bulach & Malone, 1994). For example, the relationship for the environment subscale with climate is +.91 and trust with climate is +.45. Since a measure of caring behaviors is part of these two subscales, one could conclude that caring behaviors are important if a climate for learning is to be created.

The research of Brown (1995), in a community college setting, adds further support for the importance of "caring" as an important factor in learning. Her research involved 3264 college students who rated 230 college instructors. She found that "caringness" was identified by students as the most important quality they looked for in an instructor.
 
 

There are many opinions and some research data to support the position that a "caring learning community" is important. There are also a number of descriptions of caring behaviors and a caring learning community. However, more research about those behaviors that create a "caring learning community" might be beneficial for the profession. Lambert (1995) stated that there is a need to do a detailed exploration of the elements/behaviors of caring. Consequently, the purpose of this research was to determine those behaviors used by teachers that create a "caring learning community." A secondary purpose was to determine the usage frequency of these behaviors by teachers in their classrooms.

Determining whether someone cares about you is a first step in the building of a trust relationship between administrators, teachers, and students. Some level of trust is required for students to risk learning, and it is a common belief that all learning contains an element of risk. Consequently, it is important that teachers and administrators become aware of behaviors that create a "caring learning community." The literature describes caring behaviors as showing respect, encouraging students, being tolerant, trusting students, and challenging students, but the specific behaviors that are used to bring about the forementioned outcomes are not mentioned. There is a need to identify the specific behaviors that teachers use to show students that they care about them.
 
 

One hundred and sixteen graduate students in an educational administration preparation program were asked to describe the behaviors used to let students know they cared about them. Based on these descriptions, a list of behaviors was generated. Through use of the Nominal Group Technique, this list was reduced to 30 behaviors. A survey was constructed using a Likert type scale and administered to a second group of 70 graduate students in the program. A principal's component factor analysis was completed on this data and, based on the results, the survey was reduced to 26 behaviors (see Appendix A). The reliability of the survey instrument using a Cronbach Alpha was +.77. The opinions of 116 practicing teachers and administrators were used to determine that the instrument had construct validity.

The final version of the survey consisted of four items that collected demographic data and 26 items that measured caring behaviors. It was administered to a third group of 99 teachers to determine the number of factors measured by the caring behaviors and the usage or frequency of these behaviors as they interact with students.

For scoring purposes a score of "1" was assigned to a response of "Never" and a score of "5" was assigned to a response of "Always." Scores of "2, 3, and 4" were assigned to the responses for the rest of the scale. Two of the 26 items were reverse scored. They were items 24 and 29.

A factor analysis and a rotated factor matrix were completed on the data. Five distinct factors were identified that accounted for 45% of the variance. The five factors extracted and labeled are the following: anxiety, listening, rewards, friends, and criticism.

Factor #1 accounted for 17% of the variance and dealt with an area that was labeled "ability to reduce anxiety." Ten of the 26 survey items loaded on this factor. Factor loadings ranged from .7605 to .3511 (see Table #1). Behaviors in this factor are the following: creating an environment where students feel safe; teaching at their ability level; enforcing the same rules for all students; being positive; reinforcing good behavior; maintaining an orderly classroom; and cueing them when they don't understand. It is interesting that greeting them as they enter the classroom, calling them by name, and maintaining eye contact also loaded on this factor. Apparently, these behaviors provide some assurance to students that they belong and are included in that particular classroom. According to Schutz (1966, the need to feel included is a fundamental interpersonal relations need. He states that this need must be met before other interpersonal needs can be met.
 

Factor #1 Factor Loading Caring Behaviors

#1 .7065 maintain eye contact with students when I talk to them.

#1 .6610 teach students at their ability level.

#1 .5461 give students positive reinforcement for good behavior.

#1 .5268 create an environment where students feel safe.

#1 .4312 am positive with students.

#1 .4089 enforce the same rules for all students.

#1 .3999 give students cues when they don't understand or respond.

#1 .3914 call students by their name.

#1 .3878 provide an orderly classroom.

#1 .3511 greet students when they enter my room.

There were two factors in the factor matrix for factor #1 that did not seem to fit, i.e., inform parents about student progress, and give students opportunities to make decisions. Consequently, a rotated factor matrix was also computed on the data. The rotated factor matrix had "informing parents" as part of the rewards factor and "students making decisions" as part of the listening factor. Consequently, these behaviors were included with those factors instead of factor #1.

Factor #2 dealt with an area labeled "willingness to listen" that accounted for 8 % of the variance. Four behaviors loaded on this factor with factor loadings ranging from .6915 to .2515 (see Table #2). They are the following: letting students make decisions; asking students for their opinion; make time for them before and after school; and taking a personal interest outside the classroom. The factor loading for making time for students was very low, but it did not load any higher on the other factors. It does fit with the other behaviors in this factor even though the loading is low.
 

Factor #2 Factor Loading Caring Behaviors

#2 .6915 give students opportunities to make decisions that affect them.

#2 .6508 take a personal interest in what students do outside my classroom.

#2 .4781 ask students for their opinions.

#2 .2515 make time for students before and after school.
 

Factor #3 dealt with an area labeled "rewarding good behavior" that accounted for 7% of the variance. Four behaviors loaded on this factor with factor loadings ranging from .7380 to .5878 (see Table #3). They are the following: display student work, provide treats and goodies, let students help in the classroom, and inform parents about student progress.
 

Factor #3 Factor Loading Caring Behaviors

#3 .7380 display students' work.

#3 .6707 provide students with "treats" and "goodies" on special occasions.

#3 .5932 ask students to help with classroom tasks.

#3 .5878 inform parents about their student's progress.

Factor #4 dealt with an area labeled "being a friend" that accounted for 7% of the variance. Four behaviors loaded on this factor with factor loadings ranging from .6027 to .3735 (see Table #4) . They are the following: let students have fun at my expense, eat lunch with them, return work promptly, and intervene when they are being picked on.

Factor #4 Factor Loading Caring Behaviors

#4 .6027 eat lunch with students.

#4 .5848 return work promptly with comments.

#4 .4274 allow students to have fun at my expense.

#4 .3735 intervene when students pick on each other.

Table #5. Factor loadings on the factor "appropriate use of criticism."

Factor #5 dealt with an area labeled "appropriate use of criticism" that accounted for 6% of the variance. Four behaviors loaded on this factor with factor loadings of .7125 and .2882 (see Table #5). They are the following: use sarcasm with students; use negative criticism with students; recognize them for extra-curricular achievement, and recognize them for academic achievement. Sarcasm and criticism are reverse scored so that a response of "often" or "always" would result in a low score instead of a high score as was the case with the other two behaviors in this factor. Recognizing students for academic achievement loaded on Factor #1 (.4463), but it seems to fit better with this factor.
 

Factor #5 Factor Loading Caring Behaviors

#5 .7125 use sarcasm with students.

#5 .7034 use negative criticism with students.

#5 .4233 recognize students for extra-curricular achievement.

#5 .2882 recognize students for academic achievement.

Construction of the survey instrument accomplished one purpose of this research, i.e., to identify those specific behaviors educators can use to create a "caring learning community." The next step was to find out how often teachers used these behaviors in their interactions with students. Consequently, the data was analyzed for frequency of usage. The behaviors are ranked from those most frequently used to those least frequently used (see Table #6).
 
 

Frequency Factor Caring Behaviors

4.74 #1 I create an environment where students feel safe.

4.72 #1 I maintain eye contact with students when I talk to them.

4.69 #1 I call students by their name.

4.54 #1 I am positive with students.

4.48 #1 I greet students when they enter my room.

4.45 #1 I give students cues when they don't understand or respond.

4.43 #1 I enforce the same rules for all students.

4.42 #1 I provide an orderly classroom.

4.35 #1 I give students positive reinforcement for good behavior.

4.28 #1 I teach students at their ability level.

4.23 #3 I ask students to help with classroom tasks.

4.17 #5 I recognize students for academic achievement.

4.12 #4 I return work promptly with comments.

4.12 #4 I intervene when students pick on each other.

4.11 #2 I take a personal interest in what students do outside

my classroom.

4.06* #5 I use sarcasm with students.

4.05 #4 I allow students to have fun at my expense.

4.05 #2 I make time for students before and after school.

4.04 #2 I ask students for their opinions.

4.03* #5 I use negative criticism with students.

4.00 #3 I display students' work.

3.97 #2 I give students opportunities to make decisions that affect them.

3.94 #3 I inform parents about their student's progress.

3.80 #5 I recognize students for extra-curricular achievement.

3.55 #3 I provide students with "treats" and "goodies" on

special occasions.

2.88 #4 I eat lunch with students.

*reverse scored, e.g., they are caring behaviors if they are not used
 

The data in Table #6 clearly indicate that behaviors associated with Factor #1 are the ones most frequently used. This is followed by behaviors which show that you are a friend (factor #4). One behavior in this category, however, "eating lunch with students," was used the least. This behavior occurs sometimes, but not frequently. Behaviors that fell into the listening category ranked third with appropriate use of criticism coming in fourth, and rewarding good behavior was used the least.
 
 

Based on the data, five broad categories of behaviors that administrators and teachers can use to create a "caring learning community" have been identified. They are the following:

- ability to reduce anxiety;

- willingness to listen;

- rewarding appropriate behavior;

- being a friend; and

- appropriate use of positive and negative criticism.

Behaviors that reduce anxiety are clearly the favorite among teachers as the frequency of usage scores range from a high of 4.7 to a low of 4.28 indicating that teachers use these behaviors somewhere between often and always. All ten behaviors have a higher ranking than behaviors associated with any other factor. Consequently, in their attempts to create a "caring learning community," teachers utilize behaviors that reduce anxiety levels the most.

The inclusion of the following three behaviors in the "anxiety factor was not expected: "maintain eye contact;" "calling them by name;" and "greeting them as they enter the classroom." Perhaps the importance of these three behaviors in helping to create an overall "gestalt" of feeling safe has been overlooked. Then again, teachers may do nothing towards creating this feeling. They may just group in the area because they make students feel good. It would seem like there would be a strong relationship between feeling good and feeling safe. Maybe that is why they group in this factor.

The factor (#2) identified as "willingness to listen" came as no surprise. People often associate listening with caring, e.g., they say things like "he doesn't care, he is not even listening!" The four behaviors identified as listening behaviors are easily discernible, e.g., if you let students make decisions you have to listen; if you ask questions; if you make time for them; and if you take an interest in their personal lives, you will have to listen.

In addition to the above behaviors, there are two interpersonal communication skills that can be also used to improve listening behaviors. One is paraphrasing or it is sometimes called "active listening" or "reflective listening." The listener uses paraphrasing by stating in his/her own words what the speaker said. The other listening behavior is perception checking. The listener states what s/he thinks the speaker is feeling. Paraphrasing is used to make sure you understand what the other person is saying (the cognitive domain). Perception checking is used to make sure you understand what the other person is feeling (the affective domain). The use of these two interpersonal communication techniques allows the listener to consciously and/or subconsciously convey to the speaker that they care and want to understand what the speaker is saying and/or feeling.

The act of listening is one of the most significant behaviors used in conveying that you care about the other person. It is also one that requires the least effort. Unfortunately, many teachers and administrators are better in the "telling" dimension than they are in the "listening" dimension. Bulach (1994) in his research in the areas of group openness and trust found that openness had a "telling" and a "listening" dimension. Scores on the "listening" dimension have been consistently lower than scores on the "telling" dimension.

Factor # 3, "rewarding good behavior" did not emerge as the most frequently used behavior. Perhaps that is because if these behaviors are overused they lose impact. The frequency reported was often, but most teachers responded "often" instead of "always" to these behaviors. The judicious use of these behaviors in the long run may have greater impact if they are not always used. Student's are more likely to take notice when their work is displayed and when they are asked to help if it doesn't occur too frequently. The old adage "don't overdo a good thing!" may be true here.

Conveying to students that you are their friend (factor # 4) is one more way of showing that you care. Returning work promptly communicates that you value their work enough to review it and that you have put effort forth in behalf of the students. It is our opinion that this type of teacher is perceived as helpful, while teachers who do not return work promptly or who do not return work at all are generally disliked by students. Certainly, a friend would intervene if a student is being picked on. After all what are friends for? Eating lunch with students periodically is another important way of showing that you care. Again as with the reward behavior above, it could lose its impact if it is overdone. This is one behavior that is used the least by teachers. In talking with teachers about their lack of use of this behavior, most responded that, for their sanity, they needed to get away if only for a half an hour.

Teachers who allow students to have fun at their expense was reported more often than expected. It is our opinion that this behavior is often used as a test of friendship. If someone lets you do it, you know that they are either afraid of you or they are your friend. Most teachers are not afraid of their students. Consequently, the use of this behavior by students is often a test of friendship.

The "constructive use of criticism" (factor (#5) had several negative (reverse scored) and several positive behaviors. The score for the two reverse scored behaviors was around a 4.0 which means that they are seldom used. A score of 5.0 would mean they are never used. Consequently, it has to be assumed that they are sometimes used. Teachers can show students that they care by refraining from the use of these two negative behaviors.

Most teachers reported that they avoided the use of sarcasm and negative criticism and that they recognized academic and extra-curricular achievement. The number of teachers recognizing students for academic achievement was much higher than those who recognized students for extra-curricular achievement. That may have been why this behavior loaded higher on factor # 1 than on factor #5. In our opinion, however, it fits better with factor #5.
 
 

A number of behaviors have been identified that can be grouped into five categories of behaviors. If these five categories of behavior are practiced by teachers and administrators a "caring learning community" should be present. While administrators can not use all of the behaviors, e.g., return work promptly, they can support and encourage teachers to use them. The authors concluded that the instrument has great possibilities for use in correlational or causal comparative research. For example, the effect or relationship of caring behaviors on school climate, achievement, absenteeism, discipline referrals, grade point average, and failure rate could be investigated. Also, it would be worthwhile to compare self reported teacher data with students' assessment of teacher behaviors using this instrument.

It is also interesting to note that, with the exception of physiological needs, the use of the behaviors identified by this research effectively operationalizes Maslow's theory of motivation. For example, "reducing anxiety" (factor #1) addresses students' security needs. Students' belongingness needs are met by calling students by their names, greeting them as they enter the room and behaviors associated with "listening" (factor #2) and "being a friend" (factor #4). Students' self-esteem needs are met through "rewarding good behavior" (factor #3) and "appropriate use of criticism" (factor #5). This allows a student to focus on self-actualization needs so learning can occur. The authors conclude that if teachers and administrators practice the five categories of behaviors identified in this research a "caring learning community" will more likely result and hopefully increased learning will occur.

Administrators need to be aware of behaviors that could positively affect student achievement. With this awareness they will be able to help create learning communities where students and staff can experience success and self-actualize. This belief is shared by Noblitt, Rodgers, and McCadden (1995) who stated that there needs to be a balance between caring and the instrumental side of teaching, but that genuine care can raise student achievement. It is the opinion of Lewis, Schaps, and Watson (1996) that schools with high caring ratings have higher academic performance and fewer behavior problems. The use of this instrument could provide research support for a commonly held belief that student performance is better when a caring learning community is present.
 
 

Anfara, V.A., & Miron, L.F. (1996). Beyond caring: A look at practical intersubjectivity as a new paradigm to govern educational reform. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 2(3), 304-330.

Beck, L. (1994). Reclaiming educational administration as a caring profession. New York: Teachers College Press.

Behrends, M.K.P. (1996). Categories of caring in urban minority schools of choice: High School seniors' perspectives. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57 (O6A), 2428. (University Microfilms No. AAI9633925)

Bosworth, K. (1995). Caring for others and being cared for. Phi Delta Kappan,76(9), 686-693.

Brown, C.H. (1995). Instructor concern: How important is it to remedial and developmental students? Research & Teaching, 12(1), 5-14.

Bulach, C.R. (1993). A measure of openness and trust. People in Education,1(4), 382-392.

Bulach, C. R., & Malone, B. (1994). The relationship of school climate to the implementation of school reform. ERS SPECTRUM, Journal of School Research and Information,12(4), 3-9.

Bulach, C. R., Malone, B., & Castleman, C. (1995). An investigation of variables related to student achievement. Mid-Western Educational Researcher,8(2), 23-29.

Cooper, H. (1996). Speaking power to truth: Reflections of an educational researcher after 4 years of school board service. Educational Researcher, 25(1), 29-38.

Freiburg, H.J. (1996). From tourists to citizens in the classroom. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 32-37.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goodlad, J., (1997). Producing teachers who understand, believe, and care. Education Week,XVI(19), 48 & 36.

Kohn, A. (1996). What to look for in a classroom. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 54-55.

Lambert, N.S. (1995). Perspectives of successful teachers reputed as caring: Explanations for connections in the classroom. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(12A), 4651 (University Microfilms No. AAI9610303)

Lewis, C.C., Schaps, E., & Watson, M.S. (1996). The caring classroom's academic edge. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 16-21.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: Alternative approaches to education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Rich, D. (1997). 7 habits of good teachers today. Education Week,XVI(41), 53 & 57.

Schutz, W.C. (1966). The interpersonal underworld. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

Sergiovanni, J.T. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Starratt, R. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 185-202.

Tarlow, B.A. (1994). Caring, a process that varies: A study of caring in families, schools, and voluntary agencies. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(03A), 0754 (University Microfilms No. AAI9417714)