The Rebel

One of my most distinct memories of my childhood was sitting on the curb at recess, pigtails flying in the breeze, pulling blades of grass as I watched my classmates run around the playground. It was a frequent occurrence at my ultraconservative and strict private school. My crime? I loved to talk. I knew the class rules and that I should listen to the teacher and refrain from giggling with my peers, but I just couldn't help myself. My rap sheet was a mile long by the time I entered second grade. I just wish my teachers had understood what Psychological Reactance Theory (PRT) was.

According to Frey et al. (2021), PRT is when "receivers perceive a persuasive message to threaten their autonomy, they experience a reactive state (i.e. reactance), which then drives them to restore their autonomy" (456). So, what is autonomy? Flanigan et al. (2023) describes autonomy as a student's need to feel a sense of control in the things they do and the direction of their lives. PRT supports the idea that controlling or discouraging policies threaten some students' autonomy, which results in an instinctive response of anger and negative cognitions known as reactance. Reactance motivates students to "get back" the freedom that they feel that they have lost. Just as 6-year-old felt the oppression of controlling language, a sense of injustice, and a lack of fairness, college students have similar reactions when facing the language and policies in college classrooms. Some things never change. Use of controlling language is often an attempt to force conformity while low-controlling language is autonomy-supportive, giving students a choice. Use of language and how these messages are perceived directly correlate to students' feelings of fairness and justice. Unfair policies lead to a threat of freedom, increased reactance, and a stronger desire to reestablish autonomy through freedom restoration behavior (Frey et al., 2021, p. 460). It is important to note that reactance can be mitigated through empathetic instructor behaviors, pro-educational policies, transparent policies that are reasonable, supportive, and clear, and by allowing student input. Perhaps, the best policies are those that are able to support students' individuality and needs while providing clear expectations and the rationales for these expectations. Maybe, then, you would have more students motivated to take control of their own learning and fewer students sitting on the curb.

Tom Tong et al., 2025) discussed syllabi language in terms of AI policy development. AI has been debated since it originated due to how it should be used and in how it affects integrity, originality, and creativity. Use of authoritative language can be intimidating to students, while learner-centered language creates a welcoming environment and promotes motivation. Chan (2023) developed the AI ecological education policy framework which outlines the roles of policymakers at universities. Within the analysis of AI policy language, is academic integrity and allowable use. However, linguistic style and HOW they communicate, affects how students perceive messages and policies within course syllabi. Hedging allows for "negotiable space within policies," by establishing which ones are flexible and which are absolute. Use of inclusive pronouns can help build rapport and reduce intimidation, but Baecker (1998) warns that it can give a false sense of security and closeness and can be used a show of power and coercion. If we focus on learner-centered language, it emphasizes a model of shared power, positive perceptions of instructors, increased motivation and willingness to learn, and boosts students' autonomy through trust and shared community. It is considered to be one of the best practices of instructional communication, most likely due to students feeling comfortable enough to engage with their instructor and their peers. Cullen and Harris (2009) noted that shared control and including students as partners in learning and outlining their responsibilities and giving clear and fair rationales for policies boosts autonomy and contributes to a positive learning experience. There is a lot to be said for learner-centered language and syllabi style. When we look at authoritative language in AI policies, it is accusatory in the sense that it assumes that the technology will be used as a cheating mechanism rather than a helpful resource. Many students find that offensive or are fearful that they are going to face consequences that are unfair. It is no wonder that students then feel that their autonomy is threatened, because they are not in control of the direction that the course, or their learning, is taking. If that's not cause for rebellion, I don't know what is.

Last, but not least, is the issue of digital distraction. Students using technology for off-task purposes has been a huge debate in classrooms everywhere. Flanigan et al. (2023) says that many instructors are concerned that policing digital distraction will lead to alienation. The most common strategies for dealing with digital distraction is creating clear and concise policies, collaborating with students on policies, and discussing with students appropriate and inappropriate use. By discussing digital distraction with students and explaining how the distraction affects their learning, instructors can increase student buy in and positive rapport. Healthy rapport between students and instructors leads to a positive classroom environment that promotes learning. Instructor concerns about how their policies about digital distraction are perceived by their students is supported by self-determination theory (SDT). SDT says that social conditions either cultivate or undermine competence, autonomy, and relatedness. When students feel negatively about the classroom environment due to social conditions not being met, they disengage from learning. However, instructors are often faced with a difficult decision when handling digital distraction, because many students do not care, or fear, being caught using devices for off-task purposes and stricter policies have a negative impact on rapport with instructors. Flanigan et al. (2023) suggests allowing students to contribute to class policies, having instructors discuss the how/why that digital distraction can negatively affect student success, by incorporating active learning, and keeping students engaged. I guess Flanigan et al.'s suggestions remind me of a preschool classroom. Little people who have idle hands tend to get bored and do things that they shouldn't. They also require clear rules and understanding of why the rules are in place. This is especially true of littles who have ADHD. They are completely engaged and on-task as long as you allow them to stay in motion-whether they are helping pass out crayons, squeezing a stress ball, or bouncing up and down while practicing their letters. As long as a student cares about their education, they will find ways to be engaged and do their best to follow the policies in place.

Side note: I was over 40 when I was finally diagnosed with ADHD. Just like the kids that I taught, I had to be in motion and my hands needed to be busy. Regardless of age, language matters, positive learning environments matter, and allowing students to feel heard matters. I didn't grow up in the digital age, but I still wonder if my teachers had incorporated active learning and engagement in my formative years if I would have spent less time on the curb and more time soaring on the swings.