Sungil Han

The negative impact of student-to-teacher victimization on teachers’ perceptions of the work environment and their well-being is supported by growing empirical literature. For instance, violence in the classroom can have a negative impact on teachers themselves and hinder teachers from playing crucial roles in students’ classroom experiences, resulting in adverse effects on student performance. However, the research field is limited in understanding the adverse effects on teachers’ perceptions more directly related to student learning, such as teacher neglect. To fill the gap in the literature, the current study analyzes data from a nationwide sample of 1,054 middle and high school teachers in South Korea where teachers are generally treated with high regard and social status, often exerting a strong influence and authority over students in both an educational and parental way. Specifically, we conduct propensity score matching to investigate potential influences that student-to-teacher victimization can have on the following three outcome variables: teacher neglect, commitment, and pride. Results of mean comparisons after accounting for other confounding factors show that when compared with nonvictims, victims of student-to-teacher victimization are more likely to neglect their students; these victims also tend to exhibit less pride as teachers. Yet, the results also showed no significant statistical difference in teacher commitment. The current findings highlight the importance of developing programs to prevent and intervene in students’ aggressive behaviors toward teachers. Particularly, administrators are recommended to consider providing training for teachers, specific to understanding student-to-teacher victimization in order to promote a more positive school environment and better student-to-teacher relationships in classrooms, including improving teachers’ job performance.

Objectives: Accumulating research finds that immigrants are less likely to offend compared to their native-born counterparts in the United States. Less understood are the factors that help account for this disparity in offending. Because there are reasons to believe that immigrants weigh the costs and benefits of crime differently than their U.S.-born peers, we explore the utility of a rational choice perspective to explain the disparity in offending across immigrant generations. Methods: Utilizing data from the Pathways to Desistance Study, multilevel mixed effects models are employed to assess if perceptions of rewards and costs of crime help explain differences in offending trajectories and desistance across immigrant status. Results: Rational choice-related variables emerge as significant predictors of offending and help to explain, in part, why first-generation immigrants are less likely to offend. In particular, the perceived risk of arrest appears to play a key role and interacts with immigrant status. Conclusions: The results from this research suggest that first-generation immigrants with a higher perceived risk of arrest reported lower offending compared to second- and third-plus-generation youth. We consider the theoretical implications of the rational choice perspective to explain the divergence in offending across immigrant generation groups.