Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

102082 Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments

Assessment 1: Report on Why Do Young People

Misbehave in School

The question of why young people misbehave in school, and what we, as

teachers, can do about it, has been the subject of much scrutiny, theory,

and research (Landrum, Lingo, & Scott, 2011; Lyons, Ford & Slee, 2014;

Sullivan, johnson, Owens & Conway, 2014; Maguire, Ball, & Braun, 2010).

With student disengaged, disinterested and disruptive behaviours being

both the most common and the most difficult that teachers deal with,

more and more teachers are experiencing job dissatisfaction and

burnout (Sullivan et al. 2014). Thus the questions, why young people

misbehave, and what this implicates for teaching practice, will be

explored in this report through the review of relevant, contemporary

research literature and interviews with various people as to their

opinions. Furthermore, these findings will be examined through a lens of

Choice theory (Glasser, 1992), in order to highlight that teachers have

the responsibility to influence student behaviour, by meeting their

learning needs, through the ecology of their classrooms.

Students', teachers' and parents' perceptions of the reasons behind

misbehaviour are widely varied (Cothran, Hodges Kulinna & Garrahy,

1
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

2009; Parker, Paget, Ford & Gwernan-Jones, 2016). Students themselves

may attribute student misbehavior to seeking attention from either their

teacher or their peers, questing for social status and popularity or for

attracting the opposite sex (Cothran et al., 2016). Teacher attitudes that

place responsibility entirely on students or their parents may be

counterproductive, for it negates the possibility that they themselves

can effect change (Cothran et al., 2016). Parents' views reveal the

prospect that teachers' tactics for dealing with the more serious

misbehaviours, such as formal or informal school exclusion, may actually

be contributing to their children's behavioural difficulties (Parker et al.,

2016). Yet teacher attitudes certainly have immense influence on the

behaviour of young people in school, particularly those that consist a

school-wide culture of belief; misbehaviour is more likely to occur in

school cultures which attribute low 'teachability' to students (Demanet &

Houtte, 2012). Low expectation of students negatively impacts the

relationship teachers have with them (Lyons et al., 2014). The teacher-

student relationship, in particular, as a "dyadic construct", has been

found to a have a potent influence on student behaviour, much more so

than individual teacher, teaching or environmental qualities (McGrath &

Van Bergen, 2015, p. 2). Of interest here, is that this seems to be a

bidirectional relationship, that is, student behaviour also affects the

student-teacher relationship (McGrath & Bergen, 2015, p. 10). William

Glassers (1992) Choice (or control) theory provides an explanation for all

2
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

of these reasons for misbehaviour, as it posits that all behaviour has

roots in the desire to fulfill a fundamental human need: survival, love,

power, fun, and freedom (p. 43). This has various implications for

teaching practice and dealing with misbehaviour, which will be

discussed later.

The ways in which misbehaviour is dealt with in schools, in general, is

problematic because students are blamed for their behaviour, rather

than looking at the context in which the behaviour occurred for

contributing factors (Kohn, 2006, Maguire et al., 2010, as cited in Sullivan

et al., 2014, p. 45). The most frequent misbehaviors generally observed

are the low-level disruptive and disengaged, such as speaking without

permission and rejection of school work, yet these are the ones that

teachers find the most difficult to deal with, and which often lead to

teacher frustration, job dissatisfaction and burnout (Sullivan et al., 2014).

These behaviours, however, may be predictable and preventable, by

looking at the contexts in which they frequently occur and mainpulating

instruction and the environment (Landrum et al., 2011). Ultimately,

approaching behaviour management in an holistic manner that

addresses the classroom as an ecosystem may prove to a far more

effective approach that will empower teachers to influence positive

behaviour (Sullivan et al., 2014). It is vital that teachers influence the

3
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

factors that they can, in order to counteract factors that they can not,

such as home life, or sleep deprivation, which has also been shown to

affect behaviour (Lin & Yi, 2015). Regardless of what teachers can do

about misbehaviour, the fact remains that the reasons for it are varied

and numerous, as are the individual beliefs people hold regarding

student misbehaviour in school.

For the purposes of this report, six participants have given informed and

signed consent for the data collected from their informal, conversational

interviews to be analysed and compared to research findings and

academic theory regarding student misbehaviour. The interviewees were

aware that they would remain anonymous, that their names would be

changed in the writing of this report, and that they would not be voice or

video recorded. Only written notes were recorded by the interviewer as

data collected for this report. Participants were invited to review these

notes to be satisfied that their views were represented accurately.

Participants were aware that they could withdraw from the interview at

anytime. The six participants are as follows: Beryl, late-50s, recently

retired, was chosen for her life-long career as a primary school teacher;

Andrew, late-30s, with school-aged children, was chosen for his personal

experiences of being wrongfully accused of misbehaviour in school;

Janet, mid-50s, parent to adult-age children, a life-long yoga instructor

and spiritualist, selected for her wide range of work and teaching with
4
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

young children, adolescents, and adults; Joseph, early-60s, recently

retired railway worker, parent to adult-age child, chosen for his

experience in amateur psychology and job training for adult students;

Tahlia, early-20s, chosen for her status as pre-service teacher; lastly,

Rebecca, mid-30s, parent to a school-aged child, chosen for her

experiences as a mother dealing with behavioural issues in her son

(which were in part due to the adverse effects of steroid medications

used to treat asthma).

The theme that arose from the interviews was that students misbehave

because of, or as an expression of, a need that is unfulfilled or an

unresolved problem. However, not all of the participants could articulate

it in this way. Also, the participants' accentuated various aspects of

students' lives and school circumstances as predominant and

contributing factors. The most common was that students' learning

needs were not being met, and that students acted out as the result of

boredom or frustration. Andrew and Janet both criticised the schooling

systems' structure for catering to only academic learning, and not other

types of learning, especially experiential learning (that is, in Andrew's

words, "learning by doing"). Andrew, Janet and Tahlia all expressed that

young people may misbehave because of disinterest and disengagement

with class content and a failure to see the relevance of content to their

5
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

present and future lives. Rebecca and Beryl both discussed inconsistent,

unenforced boundaries and negative home lives as contributing factors.

Rebecca also discussed inadequate or unbalanced diet, diagnosed

behavioural problems, and trauma. Joseph's comments were the least

common, being that young people misbehave mostly as a way of

breaking away from parental authority in order to assert their

individuality. These findings will now be synthesised with relevant

academic research.

Interestingly, the interviews yielded a broader range of reasons for

student misbehaviour than the research reviewed did (ultimately this

may be remedied with the use of more research, but was limited by

scope and space available for this report). This may be because of

participants involved: the interviews spanned teachers, pre-service

teachers, parents and non-teachers, thus yielding a wide array of

opinion; whereas the research studies reviewed used only teachers,

students and parents (Demanet & Van Houtte, 2012; McGrath & Van

Bergen, 2015; Cothran et al., 2009; Sullivan et al., 2014; Parker et al.,

2016). The most common finding across both the interviews and the

review indicated that students misbehave out of boredom when the

content is uninteresting, for example: Andrew stated that kids act up to

entertain themselves. They want something fun to do. This view is

6
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

substantiated by both students and teachers who indicated that when

the content was interesting they were more likely to behave (Cothran et

al., 2009; Landrum et al., 2011). Andrew and Janets criticism of the

schooling system for its capability to cater to a small percentage of

students (Janet), in the academic sense, was not a topic that was

broached in the research. Negative views of schools as wholes were

limited to school-wide cultures of teachers low expectations of students

(Demanet & Houtte, 2012) and parental views on how school-wide tactics

for treatment of misbehavour may actually be escalating it (Parker et al.,

2016). These views were not discussed in the interviews.

Rebecca and Tahlia both discussed the role of the teacher in respects to

the students, indicating the trust students have in teachers and a poor

rapport may lead to misbehaviour, especially if students dont like the

teacher (Tahlia). This view is echoed by the finding that mainstream

students social, emotional and educational outcomes improved

following positive progress in their student-teacher relationships, and

correlated with fewer school suspensions (McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015).

Interestingly, for the most part, the interview findings reflected beliefs

that students behaviour was not, for the most part, conscientious

choice on their part, but had origins in their circumstances, such as the

teacher, learning content or the school. This is expressed in Sullivan et

7
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

al.s (2014) theoretical underpinnings that disengaged student

behaviours have more to do with factors within a teachers control than

with those located within the student (p. 53). Ultimately, Rebeccas

belief that students may not be adequately challenged by content, or

may be unable to meet academic expectations, locates the responsibility

for student misbehaviour with teachers, which they can influence

through appropriate, differentiated instruction (Landrum et al., 2011).

As mentioned above, the theme that arose throughout the interviews

was that of students learning needs not being met, and the teaching

implications of this can be examined through the lens of Choice theory.

As Choice theory contends that all behaviours are needs based, we can

view student misbehaviours in this way (Lyons, Ford & Slee, 2014). Both

the interview findings and the literature research provide various

insights regarding teaching practice. Firstly, they implicate the need for

change in education systems to they way we, as teachers, deal with

difficult behaviours, because students are disengaging and disrupting

more, and teachers experiencing job dissatisfaction and burn out more

(Demanet & Van Houtte, 2012; Cothran et al., 2009; Sullivan et al., 2014;

Parker et al., 2016). A positive and supportive student-teacher

relationship may be considered to address the human needs of love and

survival (in the schooling context) (Glasser, 1992). Thus if teachers are

8
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

unable to overcome their negative attitudes to, and expectations of,

students teachability in order to foster a good student-teacher

relationship, then neglect for students need for love and school survival

may be implicated (Demanet & Van Houtte, 2012; McGrath & Van Bergen,

2015). Content and instructional strategies are also implicated, for they

may be manipulated to fulfill the need for fun, and even freedom, if

students are given some choice in the content (Landrum et al., 2011;

Sullivan et al., 2014). Ultimately, student behaviours must not be

considered in a vacuum, for they are, in nature, inordinately complex

(which has admittedly been inadequately expressed by this meager

report), and inevitably influenced by the classroom eco-system (Sullivan

et al. 2014). Only by considering all the factors in play in the classroom,

can teachers empower themselves and address difficult student

behaviours competently.

While both the interviews and literature review have highlighted varied

possible reasons for student misbehaviour, ultimately these can

generally be interpreted in terms of a need that is unfulfilled. This is not

to over-simplify or generalise or even diminish the numerous causes of,

and reasons for, misbehvaiour. Rather, it offers a framework in which to

consider contributing factors. The writings of William Glasser may offer

useful, further insight in this respect. It must noted that while factors

external to the school context were raised during the interviews, the
9
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

self-limiting nature of this report lended itself better to the discussion of

factors within the teachers control, rather than those without. For

example, the classroom ecology, with its various factors (teacher

factors, student factors, physical setting, and curriculum and resources),

empowers teachers to take responsibility for the goings-on in their

classrooms (Sullivan et al., 2014).

References

Cothran, D.J., Hodges Kulinna, P., & Garrahy, D.A. (2009). Attributions for

and consequences of student misbehaviour. Physical Education and

Sport Pedagogy, 14(2), 155-167. doi:10.1080/17408980701712148.

Demanet, J., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). Teachers attitudes and students

opposition. School misconduct as a reaction to teachers

diminished effort and affect. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28,

860-869. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.008

Glasser, W. (1992). The quality school: Managing students without

coercion (2nd ed.), New York: Harper Collins.

10
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

Kohn, A. (2006). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Landrum, T.J., Lingo, A.S., & Scott, T.M. (2011). Classroom misbehavior is

predicatble and preventable. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 30-34.

Lin, W.-H., & Yi, C.-C. (2015). Unhealthy sleep practices, conduct

problems, and daytime functioning during adolescence. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 44, 431-446. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0169-9

Lyons, G., Ford, M., & Slee, J. (2014). Classroom management: Creating

positive learning environments (4th ed.). Australia: Cengage

Learning.

Maguire, M., Ball, S., & Braun, A. (2010). Behaviour, classroom

management and student control: enacting policy in the English

secondary school. International Studies in Socilogy od Education,

20(2), 153-170. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2010.503066

McGrath, K.F., & Van Bergen, P. (2015). Who, when, why and to what end?

Students at risk of negative student-teacher relationships and their

outcomes. Educational Research Review, 14, 1-17. doi:

10.1016/j.edurev.2014.12.001

11
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

Parker, C., Paget, A., Ford, T., & Gwernan-Jones, R. (2016). .he was

excluded for the kind of behaviour that we thought he needed

support with... A qualitative analysis of the experiences and

perspectives of parents whose children have been excluded from

school. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 21(1), 133-151.

doi:10.1080/13632752.2015.1120070

Sullivan, A.M., Johnson, B., Owens, L., & Conway, R. (2014). Punish them

or engage them? Teachers views of unproductive student

behaviours in the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher

Education, 39(6), 43-56. Retrieved from

http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol39/iss6/4

12