Running head: STUDENT MISBEHAVIOUR 1

Perceptions of Student Misbehaviour to Inform Educational Praxis: A Qualitative

Examination

Matthew Ashby Cooke, 17299158

Western Sydney University

STUDENT MISBEHAVIOUR 2

Student misbehaviour has a negative effect on students’ learning, affects their later

life chances, and is associated with teacher stress and attrition (Dalgic & Bayhan, 2014). In

order to include non-disruptive misbehaviours that sometimes go ignored, such as

disengagement and absenteeism (Sullivan, Johnson, Owens, & Conway, 2014), the broad

definition of misbehaviour as “the perception by a teacher that a pupil has unacceptably

deviated from the ideal pupil state” is adopted for this study (Kyriacou & Martin, 2010, p.

415).

Broadly speaking, student positive or negative behaviour is a product of its prior

conditions, or antecedent, and the continuation of these behaviours is determined by the

consequences that follow the expressed behaviour (Alstot & Alstot, 2015). Additionally, if

students’ psychological needs for “autonomy, competence, and relatedness” are not met,

students can become frustrated and misbehave (Cheon & Reeve, 2015, p. 100). Therefore,

misbehaviour is a multifactor phenomenon that manifests through the personal capabilities of

the student, home environment factors, the engagement of teaching, and the schooling

environment including interaction with peers (Sun, 2014).

Consequently, students may misbehave due to environmental influences such as low-

socioeconomic status (SES) coping with home life stresses. Attention seeking may also be

reason for student misbehaviour, especially when teacher punishments serve to reinforce the

behaviour by providing students with attention (Alstot & Alstot, 2015), though care should be

taken to avoid externalising misbehaviour before fulling considering the effect of teaching

itself (Sun, 2014). For example, misbehaviour can be due to lack of engagement in class

content, especially when students feel constrained or disinterested in the topic, as it does not

meet the needs of autonomy and relatedness (Patall, Cooper, & Wynn, 2010). The present

study compares and contrasts qualitative interview data with recent literature to examine why

students misbehave, and provides implications for educational praxis.

Matthew Cooke, 17299158

STUDENT MISBEHAVIOUR 3

Method

A total of six participants, three women and three men, with an ages ranging between

27 and 57 (M = 40) were selected to be interviewed. Two of the interviewees are preservice

teachers, and one a full-time teacher, to gain a perspective within the educational sphere. The

other participants consist of a police officer, who comes in contact with young offenders; a

mother of two who, along with two other participants, capture the parental perspective; and

an editor with no direct contact with young people for contrast (see Table 1). All participants

are university educated and fluent English speakers.

Table 1

De-identified Participant Information

Identifier Sex Age Culture background Information

P1 Male 27 Australian Police officer

P2 Male 28 Australian Pre-service teacher

P3 Male 51 Australian Full-time teacher with +10

experience, father of two

P4 Female 35 Indian Pre-service teacher, mother of two

P5 Female 44 Croatian Editor

P6 Female 57 Australian Accountant, mother of two

In accordance with ethics protocols, all participants were asked to read a participation

sheet explaining the aims of the interview, and to read and sign a consent form that formally

permits the de-identified information they share to be included in this study. Interviews were

conducted individually in informal settings and key remarks were noted down. All interviews

Matthew Cooke, 17299158

STUDENT MISBEHAVIOUR 4

began with the question “in your opinion, why do young people misbehave in school?”,

before moving to conversation-style questioning with no formalised direction, in order to

draw out participants’ thoughts without constraint. Data from participant interviews was

collected, and the most prominent emergent themes formed the basis of this paper’s analysis.

Findings

Attention seeking

All participants referenced attention seeking as responsible for student misbehaviour

at some point during the the interview, with four participants (P1, P4, P5, P6) mentioning it

as the immediate and initial response to the interview question. P1, P3, and P6 suggested that

some students may seek out attention, positive or negative, from teachers or peers because of

deficiencies in their home life. The consensus amongst the three was that misbehaviour

occurs when parents do not give their children the attention they need. Alternatively, P2, P4,

and P5 were adamant that students’ attention seeking behaviour was based on a desire for

peer approval, and all described the resultant misbehaviour as the student “showing off” to

their peers. P4 took things further, suggesting that seeking approval from “poor quality

friends” can see students “fall into the wrong crowd”, further exacerbating problematic

behaviours both inside and outside schools.

Home influence

While some thought attention seeking originated from the home, all participants

mentioned home influence to explain misbehaviour at some point during the interview. For

example, all participants suggested low-SES as an explanation for misbehaviour, either

because it created a stressful household, according to P1, P2, P3, and P4, that made focusing

difficult in class, or in the case of P2, P5, and P6, because lack of resources made low-SES

Matthew Cooke, 17299158

STUDENT MISBEHAVIOUR 5

students jealous of others, or caused them to be teased by others, and this friction between

students lead to conflict and misbehaviour. Additionally, P1, P2, and P6 considered lack

appropriate discipline at home can have students seeking attention, as mentioned above, but

also does not instil young people with the knowledge of how to behave properly, or how to

cope with problems as they occur. P1 mentioned that young people may act out with violence

in the classroom because “violence is what they know at home”.

Autonomy

The last emergent theme common amongst all participants concerned the experience

of autonomy amongst younger people. P1, P5, and P6 thought that if students might

misbehave if school interfered with their independence. However, when asked, all three

participants also considered school a good place to manage misbehaviour, as they though the

structures of school meant students weren’t provided with too much freedom that would also

lead to misbehaviour. P5 added that punishments like suspension that exclude students from

school are “giving them [the students] just what they want” and letting their misbehaviour go

unchecked. P1 spoke similarly and considered lack of structure to be, in his experience with

the police, a main reason for deviant behaviour outside of school as well as inside it.

Conversely, P2, P3, and P4 suggested that students’ misbehaviour in regard to autonomy

wasn’t about the institutional structure of the school, but about the lack of choice students had

over their learning. P3 relayed that students can act out or become bored when they are

expected to be “passively learn” for extended periods, and P2 and P3 mentioned “lack of

choice” as reasons students might become disengaged and misbehave.

Discussion

All participants mentioned attention seeking at some point in the interviews, which is

understood to be a cause of student misbehaviour in the literature (Alstot & Alstot, 2015). P3,

Matthew Cooke, 17299158

STUDENT MISBEHAVIOUR 6

the teacher participant, sought to explain the misbehaviour through the students’ home lives,

as reflected in the literature as it is thought teachers seek external explanations for

misbehaviour in order to avoid blame and resist responsibility (Sun, 2014). Nevertheless,

ecological systems theory suggests that students are a product of the environment in which

they develop and support the home environment claim, though attention seeking likely to also

involve student and classroom factors as well (Sun, 2014). Moreover, attention seeking itself

is often a student reported cause for misbehaviour (Alstot & Alstot, 2015), suggesting that

teaching and non-teaching adults may be more familiar with student misbehaviour than the

literature describes.

Additionally, the explanation of home environment was further explored by

participants in the interviews. In regards to low-SES students, the cause of misbehaviour can

be less to do with lack of resources and more to do with perspective. In school settings, low-

SES students judge their worth based on the perceived worth of their peers, meaning that

economically diverse environments can highlight areas of disadvantage, and anti-social

behaviours result (Odgers, Donley, Caspi, Bates, & Moffitt, 2015). Additionally, absent from

the participants discussion was that low-SES neighbourhoods can have a stronger effect on

students more affluent families, meaning that the effect of SES on misbehaviour can be

context specific (Odgers et al., 2015). Stress is also associated with low-SES and can cause

student misbehaviour, but parental conflict is also a potential chronic stressor associated with

behavioural problems. While P1 referenced violence as common in schools, the literature

finds that violence is rare and that minor misbehaviours are usually encountered (Sullivan, et

al., 2014).

The three teaching participants (P2, P3, and P4) mentioned lack of autonomy over

learning as an explanation for student misbehaviour, specifically disengagement. This is

supported in the literature as teachers who are overly controlling do not allow the

Matthew Cooke, 17299158

STUDENT MISBEHAVIOUR 7

psychological need of autonomy to be met, and misbehaviours including lack of engagement

can result (Cheon & Reeve). However, this view simplistic as choice has also been shown to

lead to problematic disengaged behaviours when the choices lack relevancy or aren’t valued

by a particular cultural group (Patall, et al., 2010). Moreover, too much choice can cause

overload or dissatisfaction and also lead to disengaged misbehaviour (Beymer & Thomson,

2015). Conversely, P1, P5, and P6 listed the constraints of school and the freedom outside it

as explanations for misbehaviour. This too has academic support, as transition to an

impersonal and structured secondary school environment is a potential explanation for

increased misbehaviour (Crawshaw, 2015). However, these non-teacher participants may

have focused on disruptive behaviours as they are more visible and receive more attention in

schools, and therefore would be the more memorable misbehaviours, despite the high

prevalence of disengaged misbehaviours in the classroom and the similar negative they effect

on student learning (Sullivan et al., 2014).

Conclusion and Implications to Praxis

The findings of the present study suggest that perceptions of student misbehaviour are

simplistic, but largely supported by literature. Like most behaviours, attention-seeking is a

multifactor misbehaviour that can’t be simply traced to home life, and is often simplified by

teachers to avoid blame and responsibility (Sun, 2014). Violence in schools is overstated

(Sullivan et al., 2014), low-SES explanations for misbehaviour involve perception of

economic disadvantage and low-SES environments can affect more affluent students’

behaviour, and stressors are not limited to low-SES (Odgers et al., 2015). Finally, lack of

autonomy also causes misbehaviour, including less visible kinds (Sullivan et al., 2014), but

simply offering choice may exacerbate behavioural problems (Beymer & Thomson, 2015).

Matthew Cooke, 17299158

STUDENT MISBEHAVIOUR 8

In regards to implications concerning attention-seeking behaviour, teachers can

benefit from understanding the misbehaviour as resultant of multiple factors, including how

and what they teach, instead of focusing on external factors that avoid responsibility (Sun,

2014). Moreover, when managing attention-seeking, it is important not to reinforce the

behaviour in the classroom. Ignoring attention-seeking behaviour and rewarding appropriate

behaviour with attention are some strategies, though it is recognised that ignoring

misbehaviour is not feasible if it is especially disruptive to others (Alstot & Alstot, 2015).

Non-verbal directions and punishments are also means to avoid encouraging attention

seeking behaviour (Alstot & Alstot, 2015).

Additionally, although low-SES was an identified reason for misbehaviour, reason

provided in interviews were simplistic. Schools with a mixture of SESs should bear in mind

that low-SES are not the only ones at risk of exhibiting problematic behaviour. Moreover,

given that perception of disparity between students can lead to low-SES misbehaviour

(Odgers et al., 2015), creating fair and equitable schooling environments that place all

students on the same level may hope to reduce the perception of socioeconomic difference. In

schools, this may manifest as selecting low cost excursions to include all students. It is

recognised that schools have limit resources and money, but perhaps whole-school

fundraising can offset some of the costs.

And finally, while teachers may attempt to provide students with choice to address

disengaged misbehaviours, this is potentially problematic. In practice, teachers should allow

students some decision making over the nature of their learning, but only with measured and

varied selections of equally complex options that have some relevance to students’ interests

and learning (Patall et al., 2010). This could include providing students with a selection of

texts in English, or allowing them to select their own with the teacher’s approval, when

planning assessments. However, this approach may have limited success with Eastern

Matthew Cooke, 17299158

STUDENT MISBEHAVIOUR 9

cultures, as they do not place the same values on independence as Westerners (Beymer &

Thomson, 2015). Moreover, a limitation of this approach is the extra time and work teachers

must take in order to facilitate student choice. Networking to pool resources with other

teachers in the same KLA, and perhaps even between schools and over the internet, could

lessen some of this additional load (Patall et al., 2010).

Matthew Cooke, 17299158

STUDENT MISBEHAVIOUR 10

References

Alstot, A. E. & Alstot, C. D. (2015). Behavior management: Examining the functions of

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

10.1080/07303084.2014.988373

Beymer, P. N. & Thomson, M. M. (2015), The effects of choice in the classroom: Is there too

little or too much choice?. Support for Learning, 30, 105–120. doi:10.1111/1467-

9604.12086

Chappel, A. M., Suldo, S. M., & Ogg, J. A. (2014). Associations between adolescents’ family

stressors and life satisfaction. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(1), 76–84. doi:

10.1007/s10826-012-9687-9

Cheon, S. H. & Reeve, J. (2015). A classroom-based intervention to help teachers decrease

students’ amotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 99-111. doi:

10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.004

Crawshaw, M. (2015). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of student misbehaviour: A

review of international research, 1983 to 2013. Australian Journal of Education,

59(3), 293–311. doi: 10.1177/0004944115607539

Dalgic, G., & Bayhan, G. (2014). A meta-analysis: Student misbehaviors that affect

classroom management. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(2), 101-116.

Retrieved from http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/

Kyriacoua, C. & Martín, J. L. O. (2010). Beginning secondary school teachers’ perceptions

of pupil misbehaviour in Spain. Teacher Development, 14(4), 415-426. doi:

10.1080/13664530.2010.533481

Matthew Cooke, 17299158

STUDENT MISBEHAVIOUR 11

Odgers, C. L., Donley, S., Caspi, A., Bates, C. J., & Moffitt, T. E. (2015). Living alongside

more affluent neighbors predicts greater involvement in antisocial behavior among

low-income boys. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied

Disciplines, 56(10), 1055–1064. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12380

Patall, E.A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The Effectiveness and Relative Importance

of Choice in the Classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology 102(4), 896–915. doi:

10.1037/a0019545

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. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2014v39n6.6

Sun, R. C. F. (2014). Teachers’ and students’ causal explanations for classroom misbehavior:

Similarities and differences. International Journal of Social, Management, Economics

and Business Engineering, 8(2), 409-415. doi: 10722/201374

Matthew Cooke, 17299158