Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments Assignment 1: Why Do

Young People Misbehave in School?

Misbehaviour in school is a pervasive, culturally transcendent issue (Crawshaw,

2015). Firstly, De Nobile, Lyons and Gordon (2017) define misbehaviour as:

“behaviour that interferes with a students own learning or the learning of other

students.” These behaviours are passive or active and range from talking out of

turn (TOOT), to challenging behaviours such as bullying (De Nobile et al.,

2017). The origins of such behaviour are inter-relational and complex, needing a

variety of inventions and research shows commonalities in causes and solutions,

which are multifaceted (Mcgrath and Van Bergen, 2015).

Crawshaw (2015) analysed studies from 1983 to 2013 highlighting this

complexity. By analysing 4,086 secondary teachers across 10 countries,

Crawshaw found that serious misbehaviours were vandalism and stealing. The

most frequent and highest concern was TOOT (Crawshaw). Little (2005)

estimated that ten minutes of teaching-time managed TOOT. Vitally, Crawshaw

acknowledges that pinpointing student misbehaviour is complex: “the ability to

manage antecedents – that is the events that precede misbehaviour – is a

function of individual teacher skill” (Crawshaw, p. 309).

A clear antecedent of misbehaviour is the perception and quality of student-

teacher relationships. One study by Demanet and Van Houtte (2012) found

that students misbehave if they perceive their teachers’ view them negatively.

Furthermore, Demanet and Van Houtte indicated that teacher perceptions of

the students affected teachers’ attention. For example, a student perceived to

have “teachability” received more teacher time and favourable interactions

(Demanet and Van Houtte). Teachers’ assessment of student ability also

impacted on student behaviour, especially academically (Rosenthal and

Jacobson, 1968). This is articulated by Rosenthal and Jacobson, as the

Pygmalion effect where higher expectations lead to better performance.

Therefore, behaviour in the classroom can be dependent on teacher attitudes, to

reinforce this, teachers who had positive regard for their students tended to

have students perform above their perceived ability (Demanet and Van

Houtte). It is suggested then, that teachers should be aware and conscious of

how they interrelate with their students (Demanet and Van Houtte).

A study by Mcgrath and Van Bergen (2015) displayed the complex nature of

misbehaviour. Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz, Criss, and Ullman (2015) states it is

essential to understand the origins of misbehaviour and that, culturally; schools

need to become less punitive in solutions. Mcgrath and Van Bergen shows the

intersection of risk factors can escalate misbehaviour, including: gender- boys

being more likely to misbehave than girls; student ethnicity- if a students feels

out of place culturally and socio economic status (SES). The study underlines the

need to break the “cycle of disadvantage” in the classroom Mcgrath and Van

Bergen.

Finally, biological theories applied to misbehaviour are prescient. Goddings,

Mills, Clasen, Giedd, Viner and Blakemore (2014) highlights that adolescents

develop their limbic system (emotional functioning), faster than the cognitive

control network which enables decision-making. Therefore, students cannot

always assess the consequences of their actions. Smith, Chein and Steinberg

(2013) assert this creates an increase in risk-taking. Furthermore, Prinstein,

Brechwald and Cohen (2011) highlight, peer influence and belonging is

particularly important, meaning adolescent behaviour is peer influenced. Yi and

Lin (2015) noted that lack of sleep tended to have correlation to increased

student misbehaviour. To conclude, De Nobile, Lyons and Gordon (2017)

stresses that theories and strategies for misbehaviour do not need to operate in

isolation in order to address it.

The Interview Process:

Data was collected through interviews. Interviewees were made to feel

comfortable and power imbalances were in checked (Kervin, Vialle, Wilma,

Howard, Steven, Herrington, Jan, Okely and Tony, 2016). The interviews

were individual and semi structured with an open question: “In your opinion

why do young people misbehave in school?” From this point participants were

encouraged to give their opinion and the interview acted like a “professional

conversation” (Kervin et al). The interviews lasted fifteen minutes and were

recorded by note taking. For triangulation, participants’ member-checked notes

to eliminate inaccuracies (Cohen, Manion, Lawrence, Morrison and Keith,

2007). Finally, participants were briefed on the purpose and signed consent

forms to ensure data was ethically collected (Shank, Brown, Launcelot and

Pringle, 2014). Gender of participants was on parity; ages ranged from 22-68

and were from diverse professions and SES.

Gender, Age and Occupation of Participants:

M1: Male, 27, pre-service teacher studying a Masters of Teaching at Western

Sydney University (WSU)

F1: Female, 54, Head Teacher English at Ashfield Boys High School, 31 years

teaching experience

M2: Male, 22, student, studying International Relations and Data Science at

Sydney University (SU)

M3: Male, 68, parent of two and retired secondary English Teacher

F2: Female, 36, pre-service teacher studying a Master of Teaching at WSU

F3: Female, 44, Learning Support Teacher, Ashfield Boys High School

Findings:

Data collected from the participants’ was broken down into four categories:

home life, school factors, identity and peer relations and biology. The

participants highlighted the complex nature of student misbehaviour, its origins

and management strategies.

M1 stated student misbehaviour is categorised by external (home) and internal

(school) factors. Internal factors ranged from curriculum disengagement to rainy

days. Teacher impact in the classroom was seen as significant, which correlated

with F1’s and F2’s view that “teachers have to make the content engaging and

relevant to students.” This was further supported by F3 who stated, “Curriculum

needs to be modified and adjusted relevant to students’ ability.” M1 stated that if

a student doesn’t like a subject they could “act out.” Both F2 and F3 identified
that a schools’ approach to behaviour management influenced how students

behaved. F3 further identified that schools as a whole have a “punitive culture

towards misbehaviour but more restorative approaches would be effective.”

With Home life M1 and F1 identified parental attitudes were crucial. For

example, if parents did not respect teaching seeing it as “baby sitting” students

were likely not to respect teachers’ authority. M1, F1 and F3 highlighted the

impact of low SES on student behaviour: other elements such as abuse and

domestic violence negatively impacted. Further, M1 noted, “even not having

breakfast can make a kid challenging.” F1 identified that parental expectation

was important. For example, students from certain cultures, in her experience,

tended to act out at school, as it was a “freedom from restraint.”

All participants acknowledged that adolescence was a time of defining identity.

M3 inferred it evolved through peer influence: “It sometimes may not be peer

pressure but peer prestige, students are trying to define themselves in the

group.” Young people could either find negative or positive identities, which

supported F3’s assertion that students are looking for reinforcement “either

negative or positive.” F1 highlighted identity seeking as “tribal and

confrontational.” M2 iterated one’s identity “Is a time to test social boundaries, to

see what they can get away with and what is an appropriate way to act and be.”

F1 also identified sexual identity as a factor when students misbehave.

Biology was also highlighted by F1 and M2. F1 noted, “behaviour is contextual, it

could depend on their age and stage. The quiet kid becomes the provocateur
because of hormones.” M2 supported this idea stating: “Hormonal and

developmental effects have triggers, increased testosterone in boys make them

more aggressive”. Cognitive developmental factors were asserted F3 who stated

that disabilities could play a role in misbehaviour. M2 also indicated that gender

interaction between males and females change.

Ultimately, all participants said misbehaviour was complex. Respondents such as

F1 and F3 stated reasons to be “numerous” or “multiple”. F1 noted that all these

factors intersect in the classroom and that it can be a “butterfly effect”. This

correlated with M1’s statement that “the core thing is, you have 25-30 students

in your class with different scenarios.” Therefore, as F3 stated, “finding the origin

of the behaviour is important, the reason why” because if the ‘why’ is ascertained

then effective behavioural plans can be implemented.

Analysis:

The respondents reinforced the academic literature. One difference was student-

teacher relationships. Some stated indirectly (such as F2) “the teacher has to

make the content engaging.” However, both Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968)

and Demanet and Van Houtte (2012) highlight how important student- teacher

relationships are - affecting, student behavioural outcomes and academic

achievement. Further, Mcgrath and Van Bergen (2015) indicate that student

teacher-relationships can have lasting effects, noting kindergarten students with

negative student-teacher relationships had similar relationships by grade five.

Students perception of teacher expectations have effects on performance, F1 did

note this saying that teacher expectations is important for classroom

management, as supported by Amosa, Ladwig, Griffiths and Gore (2009).

Demanet and Van Houtte indicated that students’ perception of how their

teachers saw them corresponded with their academic performance. For example,

students with more helpless perceptions of their relationships with teachers

usually acted out more in the classroom.

M1, M3, F1, F2 and F3 noted that curriculum delivery had an impact on

behaviour. Gross, Macleod, and Prestorius (2001) states content has to be

relevant and differentiated to suit student ability. Gross et al., support

differentiation as a key to mitigate student misbehaviour. Further, F1 and F2

highlighted the need to enable every student to interact in the classroom and feel

that it is a safe space. Côté-Lussier and Fitzpatrick (2016) indicate students

who feel connected and safe in the classroom report lower levels of

misbehaviour.

Biological elements corresponded. M2 said sensation seeking was prevalent in

adolescence with increased risk-taking. Supporting this, Smith, Chein and

Steinberg (2013) and Arnett (2014) identifying a peak in mid-adolescence. No

participant mentioned the limbic system maturing faster than the cognitive

control network, as mentioned by Goddings, Mills, Clasen, Giedd, Viner and

Blakemore (2014). Peer influence was highlighted as a factor for students to

define their identities, which is supported by Prinstein, Brechwald and Cohen

(2011) who posits peer relationships are relational to identity. Sleep patterns

was mentioned by F1 however, only in passing. Lin and Yi (2015) found a

correlation between low sleep hours and student misbehaviour. There was also
in increase in defiance, compared to students who slept well. Lin and Yi posited

that some young people might be misbehaving due to lack of sleep.

Finally, M1,M3, F1 and F3 noted that behavioural causes and reasons are

multifaceted. This is backed by De Nobile, Lyons and Gordon (2017) who state

that although behavioural origins and solutions may be diverse, interventions

need to be adaptable, ongoing, and overlap. Demographic and cultural

backgrounds highlighted by F1 have been corroborated with Mcgrath, & Van

Bergen (2015) findings that reasons for misbehaviour range from their SES,

gender and ethnicity. This is cemented by Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz, Criss and

Ullman (2015) i.e. in student behaviour, teacher relationships and beliefs are

impactful. Thus, reasons for misbehaviour are multiple, therefore so are the

solutions.

Implications for Praxis:

The literature and interview data clarifies that student behaviour is complex,

needing a suite of strategies. Student-teacher relationships are foundational for

setting up positive behaviour. As Demanet and Van Houtte (2012) state

“students would like school more when they could live up to the expectations of

their teachers.” Therefore, for teachers, it is important to set clear expectations

that are agreed and formed with students so students have an understanding of

context, its relevance and what is expected of them (Demanet, & Van Houtte).

Further, understanding the impact of student perceptions of relationships with

teachers is pivotal for pedagogy (De Nobile, Lyons and Gordon, 2017). Student
misbehaviour serves a need. Students seek connectedness with both peers and

adults (Côté-Lussier and Fitzpatrick. 2016). Teachers understanding this can

show a student that they value their relationship by greeting them warmly,

knowing their names and interests. Additionally as Mcgrath and Van Bergen.

(2015) highlighted, whole school culture and strategies such as giving students a

sense of achievement beyond typical areas can create a high expectation school

environment that promotes positive relationships between students and staff.

Further, curriculum content must be engaging and differentiated to serve

students. (Hattie, 2012; Gross, Macleod, and Prestorius, 2001). One way to

enable this is through the Quality Teaching Model. Through its guidelines such

as, of Deep Knowledge, Substantive Communication and Intellectual Quality,

teachers are able to guide their lessons to have the highest impact on their

students: “the strongest positive results for Aboriginal students came from tasks

where students were given clear criteria for the quality of work required, when

expectations were high and when they had some choice in their work” (Amosa,

Ladwig, Griffiths and Gore, 2009, p. 13). QTM empowers teachers and students to

work together towards objectives and as Hattie surmises: “a student in a high-

impact teacher’s classroom has almost a years’ advantage over his peers in a

low-effect teacher’s classroom” (Hattie, 2012, P. 23). Differentiation is also

important for gifted and talented students (GAT) who often present as

misbehaving underachievers (Gross et al., p. 16). Teachers who identify GAT

students can differentiate the curriculum to their needs. Curriculum can be

compacted so content is not repeated (ref). In doing this “these students are then

able to participate in acceleration or enrichment activities” (Gross et al., p. 16). It

is important to note that differentiation should happen at all levels of the

classroom for the range of students.

Teachers must be aware of issues such as, low SES, abusive or neglectful homes,

sexuality and identity. Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz, Criss and Ullman (2015) state

teachers must be culturally responsive and sensitive as behaviour acts as a

function. For such students it is important for teachers to have awareness of

individual situations and implement more restorative approaches rather than

punishments, as these rarely allow students to reflect upon their behaviour

(Côté-Lussier and Fitzpatrick, 2016). Manner and tone in the classroom is

important, teachers should come with positive approach and address issues

sensitively (Côté-Lussier and Fitzpatrick). Teacher behaviour modelling is

crucial as many students are looking to adults to model behaviour (De Nobile,

Lyons and Gordon, 2017). When students are at risk, there must be a whole-

school approach; a secondary teacher may have to communicate with other

teachers of that student in order to maintain consistency in behavioural

reinforcement (De Nobile et al.,). A teacher needs to enable the student to

intrinsically look at their behaviour using encouraging language and strategies

(Côté-Lussier and Fitzpatrick). For example restorative justice can be helpful

for students with trauma (Roche, 2004).

Thus misbehaviour is complex and teachers have a responsibility to understand

the origins and antecedents. It is important that a classroom teacher is aware of

their relationship with their students and how it affects teaching and learning in
the classroom (Demanet, & Van Houtte, 2012). Therefore, teachers must have

strong interpersonal skills that enable students to feel connected and safe.

Finally, effective teaching ensures quality learning for all students and teacher

compassion, empathy and respect for students with the implementation of

effective classroom strategies creates successful, engaged students (Hattie,

2012; Côté-Lussier and Fitzpatrick, 2016).

References:

Amosa, W., Ladwig, J., Griffiths, T., & Gore, J. (2009). Quality teaching matters.

Side by Side.

Arnett, J. (2014). Adolescence and emerging adulthood (5th ed,). Harlow,

Essex: Pearson.

Cohen, L., Manion, Lawrence, Morrison & Keith (2007). Research methods in

education (6th ed.). London, New York: Routledge.

Côté-Lussier, & Fitzpatrick. (2016). Feelings of safety at school,

socioemotional functioning and classroom engagement. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 58(5), 543-550.

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.

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

opposition: School misconduct as a reaction to teachers' diminished

effort and affect. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 860-869.

De Nobile, J., & Lyons, Gordon, author. (2017). Positive learning

environments (1st ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria: Cengage Learning.

Ferfolja, T., Jones-Diaz, Criss, & Ullman, J. (2015). Understanding

sociological theory for educational practices. Port Melbourne,

Victoria: Cambridge University Press.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on

learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

Goddings, Mills, Clasen, Giedd, Viner, & Blakemore. (2014). Longitudinal

MRI to assess effect of puberty on subcortical brain development: An

observational study. The Lancet, 383, S52.

Gross, M., Macleod, B., Prestorius M., (2001). Gifted students in secondary

education: Differentiating the curriculum (2nd ed.). University of New

South Wales, Australia: Gifted Education Research, Resource and

Information Centre.

Kervin, L., Vialle, W., Howard, Steven J., Herrington, J., & Okely, T.

(2016). Research for educators (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria:

Cengage Learning.

Lin, W., & Yi, C. (2015). Unhealthy Sleep Practices, Conduct Problems, and

Daytime Functioning During Adolescence. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 44(2), 431-446.

Little, E. (2005). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of students’

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

Mcgrath, & Van Bergen. (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.

Prinstein, M., Brechwald, W., & Cohen, G. (2011). Susceptibility to peer

influence: Using a performance-based measure to identify adolescent

males at heightened risk for deviant peer

socialization. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1167-72.

Smith, A., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2013). Impact of socio-emotional

context, brain development, and pubertal maturation on adolescent

risk-taking. Hormones and Behaviour, 64(2), 323-332.

Shank, G., Brown, Launcelot, author, & Pringle, Janice, author.

(2014). Understanding education research: A guide to critical reading.

Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers.

Roche, D. (2004). Restorative justice (The international library of essays in

law and legal theory. Second series). Aldershot, Hants; Burlington,

VT: Ashgate/Dartmouth.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban

Review, 3(1), 16-20.