102082 Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments

Assessment 1: Research on Student Misbehaviour

Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

Table of contents

Section 1 – Literature Synthesis.…………………………………………………………………………………………..2

Section 2 – Interview Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………..…3

Sections 3 – Interview v Literature Comparison……………………………………………………………………5

Section 4 – Implications for Practice…………………………………………………………………………………….7

References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9

1
Section 1 – Literature Synthesis

Student misbehaviour is a serious problem in schools all around the world. It is a costly

distraction that wastes school time and resources. However, it’s important to consider what

‘misbehaviour’ means; for the purposes of this paper we will take ‘student misbehaviour’ to

mean “behaviours that run counter to their role as a student. These behaviours can have a

detrimental effect on the process of learning, motivation, and the overall student

experience” (Johnson, Goldman & Claus, 2018, p.7). This could potentially include rather

minor problems such as calling out and talking in class, right through to violence and illegal

behaviour. Why students misbehave however is difficult to pinpoint, much research has

been conducted on the area, and some of the theories are synthesised here.

Behavioural approaches believe that antecedents contribute to student misbehaviour and

that students are affected by external factors, including classroom climate, the physical

environment, the teacher’s instructional practices, and the presence and behaviours of

other students (Nobile, Lyons & Arthur-Kelly, 2017). However, psychoeducation theories

focus on internal factors, and believe that student misbehaviour is a misguided attempt to

satisfy unmet needs or goals (Nobile, Lyons & Arthur Kelly, 2017). Some see behaviour as

“eco-systemic”, meaning it’s impacted by all environmental, interpersonal and intrapersonal

factors, inside and outside the classroom (Jong, 2005, p.357).

High-school aged students, being teenagers, may misbehave because they find it particularly

difficult to make sensible decisions, as research indicates that their cognitive and rational

brain is not yet developed, and is often influenced by socio-emotional factors (Arnett, 2014,

p.82). Studies also show that diet can affect behaviour, with one study finding that artificial

colours and preservatives resulted in increased hyperactivity in primary age children

2
(McCann et al., 2007). Another found a relationship between short sleeping hours during

the week and conduct problems, but admitted that both could be caused by a third variable

such as low self-control (Lin & Yi, 2015)

Section 2 – Interview Findings

The research for this report involved 6 participants from different backgrounds, their details

are categorised below. In order to gain a wide range of responses, these participants were

chosen specifically for their differing experience with and perspective on the school

environment and student behaviour. With the written consent of the participants and as per

ethical guidelines, interviews were conducted in person and notes were taken on the

responses. The interviews consisted of a single question, “In your opinion, why do young

people misbehave in school?”, and involved the use of small and sporadic prompts such as

“why?”, “what do you mean?” or “what else?” to encourage participants to better explain

their ideas.

Participant Age Sex Category

1 22 Male Non-teacher, non-parent
2 26 Female Non-teacher, parent of school-age children
3 52 Female Non-teacher, parent of adult children
4 23 Male New teacher
5 22 Female Pre-service teacher
6 21 Female Pre-service teacher

From these interviews overarching themes were extrapolated; the nine most frequent

themes and which participants mentioned them are presented in the following table.

3
 Theme P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
Boredom or disengagement X X X X X X
Peer influence or attention seeking X X X X
School isn’t relevant X X X X
Teacher influence X X
Parenting style X X
Diet X X
Sleep X X
Weather X X
Drugs and alcohol X X

The only theme consistently mentioned by all 6 participants was student boredom or

disengagement with classwork; with most stating that this may have been because the

content was too hard or too easy. Attention and approval from peers was also a significant

factor that 4 of 6 participants mentioned, several used the example of the ‘class clown’.

There was also some interesting and relevant outliers in the data, with participant 1

considering being distracted by technology, and participant 3 mentioning developmental

conditions such as ADHD. Participant 4, who is a teacher, stated that students are often

more likely to misbehave after recess and lunch, sport or PE, and believed that students

sometimes (not often) misbehave intentionally to hurt or upset teachers or peers.

Some interesting patterns also emerged from the data, for example, the two parents were

the only ones to consider parenting style, diet and sleep to be significant factors, and where

the only ones not to consider that students might find school irrelevant. From the

atmosphere of the interviews and the evidence in the data, it appears that most participants

detailed their own experience as students or parents (excluding participant 4 who has

unique experience as a teacher) rather than thinking more broadly or considering other

evidence.

4
Section 3 – Interview v Literature Comparison

There are some similarities between the above data and the findings of other investigations.

Research that asked members of the American school community why students misbehave

found several motives, with both students and teachers agreeing that students may

misbehave because they want attention or because class was boring. (Cothran, Hodges

Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009, p.160) Teachers often cited home lives as the reason for

misbehaviour, though students rarely saw this as a major contributor, and some teachers

even admitted that they didn’t know why students misbehave, or that there could be many

factors (Cothran, Hodges Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009, p.160). Boredom and attention seeking

were major themes identified by participants in my study, though few considered parenting

or home lives, and none admitted to not knowing what caused misbehaviour. However,

several acknowledged that there may be many complicated contributing factors “it could be

anything” (participant 3).

In one study, American college students self-identified 28 distinct antecedents for student

misbehaviour, which settle into three categories: Deficiency (personal skill, academic skill

and health), Beliefs (faulty expectations and devaluing) and External factors (instructional

factors, family impact, sociability and non-academic responsibilities) (Johnson, Goldman &

Claus, 2018, p.9). Some of these antecedents were identified by my participants, such as

skill deficiency, devaluing, and sociability. Others, such as health and non-academic

responsibilities where mentioned only by singular participants. Such as participant 1, who

considered that students may misbehave because they are feeling sick themselves or

because they have to take care of someone else at home.

5
We must consider cultural difference as a reason why participant responses varied from

other research, one article from Zimbabwe found that parents believed that misbehaviour

was caused by a lack of corporal punishment, with some describing it as a “necessary evil”

and believing it is “part of the African cultural practice that nurtures good behaviour”

(Goomba, 2016, p. 58). It is likely that corporal punishment did not come up in interviews

due to the \vastly different culture of modern day Australia, in fact lack of punishment

wasn’t mentioned at all, only lack of discipline or respect. However, there are some factors

that are highly significant to the Australian context within the literature on student-

behaviour that are noticeably absent from the participant responses, namely teacher

instruction, puberty and development, and home life factors such as poverty or abuse.

Despite many participants stating that misbehaviour could be caused by boredom and ease

or difficulty of content, many made these statements as if the blame lay within the content

itself, and though it sometimes may, how content is delivered to students can be seriously

impacted by pedagogical design and teacher instruction. The ability of good pedagogical

practice to increase engagement is widely acknowledged, and teachers are actively required

to engage in this, as the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers mandate that

teachers “know students and how they learn” and “plan for and implement effective

teaching and learning” (AISTL, 2011). Yet no participants mentioned how teachers set or

explained work as a factor leading to misbehaviour. At most some participants identified

that students might not like their teacher, but this was considered more in terms of

personality than pedagogy.

6
Section 4 – Implications for Practice

Through the course of my research I have found that there are many conflicting opinions on

what causes student misbehaviour, and that despite their differences, many of them have

grounding in recent research and literature. The wide variety of responses to my interview

question also demonstrates that there are many factors that teachers must consider when

planning for classroom management and administering consequences after misbehaviour;

remembering that poor behaviour is rarely partaken with malicious intent. Nonetheless,

student misbehaviour is a serious drain on teacher time and resources. In one American

study a teacher claimed that classroom management took up 30%-90% of her time, others

commented on the on the extensive administrative procedures and time-consuming paper

work associated with student misbehaviour, and some admitted to taking liberties with

curriculum content that was too difficult to deliver from a classroom management

perspective (Cothran, Hodges Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009, p.162). If this is accurate than it is

imperative that teachers be equipped with knowledge and strategies that help them

understand and prevent student misbehaviour.

Perhaps one of the most important pieces of information pulled from these interviews is

that teachers are not often blamed for student misbehaviour, despite content being seen as

a major contributor. As teachers we need to be aware that what we do in the classroom and

how we deal with curriculum content can have a huge effect on the behaviour of students in

our class. We need to simultaneously understand the influence of outside factors, as well as

take ownership of our own roles in student misbehaviour. I believe that the single most

important factor in preventing, diagnosing and dealing with student misbehaviour is the

teacher student relationship.

7
Having a good relationship with students allows teachers to better understand what they

are doing right or wrong in their classrooms, it can drastically reduce the misbehaviour

caused by boredom or teacher dislike. Though it clearly cannot change certain out-of-school

factors, such as home life problems and poor health, it leaves the door open for all sorts of

communication and students may feel comfortable enough to share with their teacher, who

can than help them put appropriate strategies in place. As such, I would combat student

misbehaviour by trying to build a positive and reciprocal teacher-student relationship from

the beginning. Small steps such as greeting students, acknowledging good work and

behaviour, and allowing students to have some say in their classrooms all work together to

show students that I find our relationship important and that it is my intention to help and

support them. It is also important to make clear what I expect from them in our

relationship, by clearly stating my high, and realistic, expectations of them. I must also have

high, and realistic, expectations of myself in aiming for meaningful relationships with and

positive behaviour from all of my students, while also being able to admit that my strategies

sometimes will not work, and it could be down to something as simple as food or the

weather. Though this particular illustration suggests a one-on-one approach, it would still be

most successful in an environment that promotes positive relationships and foregrounds the

importance of communication school wide.

8
References
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-

source/apst-resources/australian_professional_standard_for_teachers_final.pdf

Arnett, J. J. (2014). Adolescnce and Emerging Adulthood. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Cothran, D. J., Hodges Kulinna, P., & Garrahy, D. A. (2009). Attribution for and consequences of

student misbehaviour. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(2), 155-167. doi:

10.1080/17408980701712148

De Nobile, J., Lyons, G., Arthur-Kelly, M. (2017). Positive Learning Environments. (first ed.) Victoria,

Australia: Cengage Learning.

Goomba, C. (2015). Corporal punishment is a necessary evil: Parents’ perceptions on the use of

corporal punishment in school. The International Journal of Research in Teacher Education,

6(3), 59-71. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312653450

Johnson, Z. D., Goldman, Z. W., Claus, C. J. (2018). Why do students misbehave? An initial

examination of antecedents to student misbehaviour. Communication Quarterly, 0 (0), 1-20.

doi: 10.1080/01463373.2018.1483958

Jong, T. D. (2005). A framework of principles and best practice for managing student behaviour in

the Australian educational context. School Psychology International, 2(3), 353-370. doi:

10.1177/0143034305055979

Lin, W., Yi, C. (2015). Unhealthy sleep practices, conduct problems, and daytime functioning during

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

McCann, D., Barrett, A., Cooper, A., Crumpler, D., Dalen, L., Grimshaw, K., . . . Stevenson, J. (2007).

Food additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the

9
community: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trail. The Lancet, 370(9598),

1560-1567. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61306-3

10