Page |1

What is misbehaviour?

“Misbehaviour is behaviour that is inappropriate. [...] The idea of misbehaviour

requires an explicit or implicit agreement on the desired behaviour. Then, behaviour outside

of that is called misbehaviour” (Lucas-Stannard, 2014). This definition is not from a schooling

context; however, the definition refers to a type of contract, or rule, similar to school policy,

which students would be aware of. Therefore, when the agreement is broken, it is done

knowingly.

Section 1: Literature Review

Alstot & Alstot (2015) discuss the teacher and student perspectives of why students

misbehave. Teachers perspectives fault students’ home life, background, motivation and/or

student’s personalities. Whereas, the student perspective faults student attention seeking,

irrelevance of lesson, or the tedium of the lesson. Other theories for misbehaviour, as cited by

Alstot & Alstot (2015) include, lessons not matched to ability, lack of teacher planning,

students’ behavioural problems, or “peer relationship problems” (p.23). These ideas will be

explored through further research articles.

The teacher’s perspective, explored by Alstot & Alstot, (2015), revolves around

students’ sociocultural aspects. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological framework, similar to a

genotype environment (Conley, et al., 2015, p.96-97), is where students’ parents, peers and

community affect their sociocultural development. (Arnett, 2014, p.307; Cothran, et al., 2009,

p.160). In regards to schooling, the parents attitude towards schooling matters. Families who

have investment in their child’s education will have positive impacts on that student’s

behaviour, and their academic achievement whilst in school (Arnett, 2014, p.307; Bowden &

Doughney, 2009, p.115; Conley, et al., 2015). We must also note that low socio-economic

status, often impacts upon parents’ ability to do what the literature states, due to stresses and

Jessica Hayter PPLE

18139336 Assessment 1
 Page |2

time restraints (Arnett, 2014, p.306; Bowden & Doughney, 2009). In addition, peer groups also

influence student behaviour; “when low-achieving adolescents have high-achieving friends,

over time the high-achievers tend to have a positive influence, so that the low-achievers’ grades

improve” (Arnett, 2014, p.309). Grades and behaviour have been linked through the Pygmalion

Effect (Demanet & Van-Houtte, 2012). The Pygmalion effect is when low-achieving students

receive low expectations from teachers, which further entrenches low achievement, and a

feeling of “academic futility” which leads to misbehaviour (p.866). Jennings & Greenberg,

(2009), agree that teacher support has a “direct effect on [students’] interest and motivation”

(p.500). Therefore, according to literature, impacts on behaviour can be influenced by family,

peers, and teachers.

Section 2: Interview Results

Each of the interviewees in Table 1 were selected for their valuable point of view, and

their availability to be interviewed. An initial email went out to ten potential interviewees, and

the first six to reply were booked in to be interviewed, at desired time, at a mutually convenient

location. Each interviewee was given the consent forms to read and sign before the interview

began. Every interview began with the question: “why do you think young people misbehave

in schools”. Notes were handwritten during the interview, to be thematically analysed at a later

time. Only when the interview prompt of ‘why’ ran dry, was further pre-prepared questions

implemented; such as, “please describe an incident where your own misbehaviour was dealt

with amiably/poorly”. This provided great insights; such as student/teacher communication &

underlying issues, such as, genotype environments. This information became apparent only

because the context of each interviewee was already known by the interviewer.

In undertaking the thematic analysis, key words were taken from the recorded notes,

and tallied; as shown in Table 2. The tallied key words show that the prevalent answer from

Jessica Hayter PPLE

18139336 Assessment 1
 Page |3

each interviewee regarding student misbehaviour was being ‘bored’. Being bored, or

disengaged was the initial response for half the interviewees. Upon further questioning, these

three interviewees gave different reasons for ideas of boredom or disengagement. Person C

stated that students are likely to get “bored” if the teacher only writes notes to be copied off the

board every lesson. In analysing Person C’s interview, I labelled this thematic response

‘teaching practice - pedagogy’. This was not the only response that blamed teaching practice.

Person E said they are probably “disengaged” because they are “too smart for the work, or too

dumb”. This response highlights how teachers can sometimes be out of touch with their

students’ ability levels. For example, Person B said he actually couldn’t do the work set in

class. For him, it was avoidance of work. In answer to the later question on ‘an example of

when his misbehaviour was dealt with well’, he said a teacher for English took the initiative to

offer him a teacher’s aide; which he took and found he was able to do the work. The outliers

appear to be pedagogy, and inability to discipline; which signifies that the interviewees don’t

blame the teacher wholly for their teaching practices, more their inability to see students in

need of further assistance.

This qualitative research has limitations such as, one interviewer, one thematic

evaluator, and the small sample group. There is possible bias in what was held valuable when

taking the initial notes, and their translation to themes. The demographic was chosen to gain

broad opinions; however, the interviewees are friends and family, and may or may not have

similar world-views to the interviewer.

Jessica Hayter PPLE

18139336 Assessment 1
 Page |4

Table 1:

PERSON SEX BACKGROUND AGE CATEGORY

A MALE MIDDLE-EASTERN 25 PRE-SERVICE TEACHER

B MALE AUSTRALIAN 21 NON-TEACHING FRIEND

C FEMALE AUSTRALIAN 17 NON-TEACHING FRIEND

D FEMALE AUSTRALIAN __ TEACHER

E FEMALE AUSTRALIAN 39 PARENT

F FEMALE AUSTRALIAN 24 TEACHER/PARENT

Table 2:
Person: Themes from the Interview - Reasons for Misbehaviour Tally

A, B, C, D, E Bored ||||

C, D Disengaged ||

A, C Home life ||

C Background |

B, D, E Students’ personal characteristics |||

B, C, F Attention seeking |||

D, E Teaching practice - pedagogy ||

B, C, D, E Tedium of lessons ||||

A, B, C, D, E Lessons too hard/too easy ||||

B, C Behavioural problems ||

A, D Peer relationship problems ||

F Lack of discipline |

E School not for everyone |

Jessica Hayter PPLE

18139336 Assessment 1
 Page |5

Section 3: Comparison between results and literature

In examining the thematic analysis, there is no obvious patterns emerging. Seemingly,

the demographic, sex, and stage of schooling does not impact on interview results. Interviewees

all provided a range of responses to why students misbehave. The common link between all

interviewees is their involvement within schooling institutions (with the exception of Person

B). This is not reflected in responses. What the thematic analysis did achieve, was a snapshot

of what the majority, and minority, of the interviewees believed were the key reasons that

students misbehave.

The literature review provides many articles describing how parental involvement is a

good indicator for well-behaved students. Therefore, it is implied that when parents are not

involved in schooling, the students are misbehaved. In contrast with these findings, only two

of six participants agreed that the genotype environment, has a key role in student behaviour.

Specifically, that parental reinforcement, or lack thereof, imbeds bad behaviour. For example,

Person C describes how a male student brought a knife to school, and was expelled. His parents

were in jail. The school didn’t offer any support, before handing out the worst disciplinary

action. Kniveton (1987) states that “children use their parents as models […] violence

displayed in the home encourages violence in the classroom” (p.162). The lack of parental

involvement strengthened bad behaviour. Person A, in comparison, states that parents of

students he tutors, are too strict at home, so when they come to tutoring they muck up. Parental

investment is proven to be a key reason for good behaviour; though, the interview responses

prove that the opposite is not exactly true either. The literature’s key reasons for misbehaviour

do not correspond with the interview responses.

The key reason for misbehaviour from interviews, apparent in the thematic analysis,

was boredom. When broken down by further questioning, boredom can cause misbehaviour

Jessica Hayter PPLE

18139336 Assessment 1
 Page |6

by; lessons being too hard/too easy, or too dull. Person A explained that gifted and talented

students would misbehave, in the event they finish their too work quickly, and be sitting there

with nothing to go on with. In contrast, low-academic-achievers might find lessons beyond

their comprehension, and lose interest and cause classroom disruptions. In addition, Person A

states that “teachers need to implement a differentiated classroom if they know there is a divide

in ability”. In order to implement a successful differentiated classroom, Tomlinson & Imbeau

(2010) stress the need for heavy scaffolding (p.100-104). Sullivan, et al., (2014) states that

“ineffective classroom management leads to detrimental effects, including student resistance

and disengagement, general misbehaviour, and in some cases, school violence (p.43). Not all

teachers have the skill to cater for a diverse classroom (Cothran et al., 2009, p.165); however,

five out of six interviewees believed that lessons mismatched with student ability was a key

reason students became bored, causing misbehaviour. Perhaps this is an area to work on.

A key response has not shown well in the thematic analysis. The interviewees all

valued a good teacher-student relationship. This is reflected in the article by Jennings &

Greenberg (2009), as teachers who are “socially and emotionally competent […] set the tone

of the classroom, by developing supportive and encouraging relationships” (p.492). The

interviews provided insight into when this relationship doesn’t exist. Person B describes how

his rambunctious reputation proceeded him; “the teachers were out to get me”. A small

misdemeanour was punished heavily due to his prior offenses. Communication didn’t exist for

Person B here. A good teacher-student relationship invites balanced communication. Person F

explains that sitting a student down and explaining how they are misbehaving can work in a

child care environment. Furthermore, Person D, a university tutor, advocates this

communication. Students sometimes require one-on-one attention, a personal interview to

discuss the possibility of a teachers’ aide, (as with Person B), or a different behavioural

intervention plan (Killu, 2008) that is agreed upon by both parties.

Jessica Hayter PPLE

18139336 Assessment 1
 Page |7

Section 4: Implications for praxis

The analysis has studied a multitude of perspectives, funnelled through academic

literature, to gain understanding of why students misbehave, knowing there will be

consequences. Implications for practice arise; such as, the need to complete a Functional

Behavioural Assessment (Killu, 2008, p.141), which is a systematic evaluation of triggers that

cause individual students’ misbehaviour. These may include, the teacher-student relationship,

pedagogy, high-expectations, or the students’ home environment, and community.

Teacher training accounts for the pedagogical needs of students in secondary school, as

outlined in the Quality Teaching Framework (NSW DET, 2003). Specifically, students need

“high expectations” to succeed in school (Arnett, 2014; Demanet & Van-Houtte, 2012;

Cothran, et al., 2009; Conley et al., 2015; Bowden & Doughney, 2010). All students of all

abilities require the same level of expectation. Therefore, this needs to be accounted for in

lesson planning and general teaching practices as outlined in the Graduate Standards for

teaching (AITSL, 2014); “Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students

across the full range of abilities” (Standard 1.5). As evidenced by the structural way that

research is implemented in teacher training, the Australian government is taking action in

providing the recommended learning environments for teachers and students.

Little (2010), highlights that behaviour strategies in classrooms is not a ‘one-size-fits-

all’ scenario (p.371). The Functional Behavioural Assessment (FBA) (Killu, 2008), is designed

to find the root cause of misbehaviour and trace it through the process to prevent a

reoccurrence. If the teacher-student relationship is strong, they can engage in communication,

and William Glasser’s ‘Choice Theory’ can be employed, to give the student a say in how their

behaviour will be dealt with. However, if the situation is not primarily within the schooling

environment, but more within the family sphere, as emphasised by Person A and Person C, the

Jessica Hayter PPLE

18139336 Assessment 1
 Page |8

teacher must contact the parents to build a parent-teacher relationship, to better support the

student. This is the primary finding contributed to student’s academic success. It cannot be

avoided. This is also touched on in the Graduate Standards for teaching (AITSL, 2014);

“Engage parents/carers in the educative process” (Standard 3.7). Standard 3 is all about

“[planning for and implementing] effective teaching and learning”. The FBA process must be

followed through for students to gain the most out of their education.

Baloglu (2009) found that “children’s behaviour at school appears to be strongly

affected by ‘within school’ factors” (p.71). Students and teachers coinhabit the schooling

institution, and as discussed above, sometimes it is the teachers’ authoritarian attitude that

impacts on student behaviour (p.76). Arnett (2014) states that this “increased emphasis on

control is especially mismatched with early adolescents’ increased abilities and desires for

autonomy, and consequently undermines their motivation and self-esteem” (p.303). During the

transitional period in early secondary schooling, group work is advocated to increase positive

interdependence (Marsh, et al., 2014, p.141-142). Group work increases students’

interdependence, which in turn reduces the teachers’ position of authority. As students’ Socio-

Emotional Learning increases by working with peers, the student-teacher relationship increases

(Poulou, 2014, p.989). This provides the opportunities highlighted by Person D in their

interviews, to engage in meaningful communication with students about behaviour.

Interviewees provided personal perspectives separate to academics’ literature.

Implications for praxis indicates emphasis on the teacher education, (access to Quality

Teaching Framework, and Standards of Teaching), value of familial engagement, and the

importance of teacher-student relationship in behavioural management.

Jessica Hayter PPLE

18139336 Assessment 1
 Page |9

References

AITSL. (2014). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved Mar 31, 2017, from

Graduate Teachers: www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-

teachers/standards/list?c=graduate

Alstot, A. E., & Alstot, C. D. (2015). Behaviour Management: Examining the Functions of Behaviour.

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 86(2), 22-28.

Arnett, J. J. (2014). Adolescence & Emerging Adulthood. Pearson.

Baloglu, N. (2009). Negative Behaviour of Teachers with Regard to High School Students in

Classroom Settings. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(1), 69-78.

Bowden, M. P., & Doughney, J. (2010). Socio-Economoic Status, Cultural Diversity and the

Aspirations of Secondary Students in the Western Suburbs of Melbourne, Australia. High

Education(59), 115-129.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Harvard University Press.

Conley, D., Domingue, B. W., Cesarini, D., Dawes, C., Rietveld, C. A., & Boardman, J. D. (2015). Is the

Effect of Parental Education on Offspring Biased or Moderated by Genotype? Sociological

Science, 2, 82-105.

Cothran, D. J., Kulinna, P. H., & Garrahy, D. A. (2009). Attributions for and Consequences of Student

Misbehaviour. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 14(2), 155-167.

Demanet, J., & Van-Houtte, M. (2012). Teachers' Attitudes & Students' Opposition. School

Misconduct as a Reaction to Teachers' Diminished Effort & Affect. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 1-10.

Glasser, W. (1998). Choice Theory in the Classroom. Harper Collins Publishers.

Jessica Hayter PPLE

18139336 Assessment 1
 P a g e | 10

Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social & Emotional

Competence in Relation to Student & Classroom Outcomes. Review of Educational Research,

79(1), 491-525.

Killu, K. (2008). Developing Effective Behaviour Intervention Plans: Suggestions for School Personnel.

Intervention in School & Clinic, 43(3), 140-149.

Kniveton, B. H. (1987). Misbehaving Peer Models in the Classroom: an Investigation of the Effects of

Social Class & Intelligence. Educational Studies, 13(2), 161-168.

Little, E. (2005). Secondary School Teachers' Perceptions of Students' Problem Behaviours.

Educational Psychology, 25(4), 369-377.

Lucas-Stannard, P. (2014, Jan 27). Natural Parents Network. Retrieved Mar 27, 2017, from What is

Misbehaviour?: http://naturalparentsnetwork.com/what-is-misbehavior/

Marsh, C., Clarke, M., & Pittaway, S. (2014). Marsh's Becoming a Teacher. Pearson.

NSW DET. (2003). Quality Teaching in NSW Public Schools: A Classroom Practice Guide.

Poulou, M. (2014). The Effects on Students' Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties of Teacher-

Student Interactions, Students' Social Skills & Classroom Context. British Educational

Research Journal, 40(6), 986-1004.

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.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading & Managing a Differentiated Classroom. ASCD.

Jessica Hayter PPLE

18139336 Assessment 1