Student misbehaviour is a dominant discourse in the field of education, with a diverse

body of research dedicated towards it, that come from a multitude of theoretical

understandings that underpin the reasons for student misbehaviour. This report will

examine the literature regarding the reasons as to why young people misbehave at

school, with a focus on the developmental, behavioural, and behavioural management

perspectives. This synthesis of literature will serve as a platform to discern the reasons

for misbehaviour, and definitively explicate the factors, situations, and practices that

coalesce to student misbehaviour. This will be followed by analysis of interviews

conducted with a diverse range of people, in order to compare and contrast whether

the opinions that interviewees hold on child misbehaviour correlate with those of the

research in the field. This will be utilised in order to discuss implications for teaching

practice, with regards to pedagogy, attitudes, and programs. The scope of this report

will be confined to adolescent students, and the research into misbehaviour will be

that which concerns high school students.

Literature Review

This literature review examines contemporary research into child misbehaviour in

schools in order to ascertain the predominant arguments that research holds for school

misbehaviour. Through examination of articles pertaining to child misbehaviour, it is

apparent there is an abundance of research. There is however, a paucity of research

investigating the student perspective on misbehaviour, compared with research that

examines teacher perceptions.

The home life of students is raised in the research as a factor for student

misbehaviour, with inadequate support through parent-child relationships having

influence on school behaviours (Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009; Jackson, 1998;

McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015). Interrelated with this are students of low socio-

economic background, as these students are more likely to have an unstable home

environment, as well as have academic deficits (McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015;

Watkins, 2011). Developmental contexts of misbehaviour are raised in the literature as

being of importance in considering why students misbehave, attributable to the fact

that early/late maturation can increase chances of misbehaviour (Arnett, 2014;

Greene, 2011). Adolescence is a period of heightened peer influence, and the seeking

of peer approval can be reasoning for misbehaviour (Cothran et al., 2009; Jackson,

1998; Thornberg, 2008). Coupled with this is hot and cold cognition which may

explain why students misbehave whilst in the presence of peers (Steinberg &

Cauffman, 1999). Bullying from peers is another reason raised in the literature, as

students being bullied disengage from the learning environment (Rovis, Jonkman &

Basic, 2016; Marsh, Clarke, & Pittaway, 2014; Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt &

Hymel, 2016).

Teacher attitudes are raised in the literature as being pivotal as reasoning for why

students misbehave. Aggressive teaching impacts all students in the class, causing

students to disengage from the learning, and thus present off-task behaviours (Roach

& Lewis, 2011; Gable, Hester, Rock, & Hughes, 2009; Demanet & Van Houtte, 2012;

Cothran et al., 2009; Jennings and Greenberg, 2009; Alter, Walker & Landers, 2013;

Tillery, Varjas, Roach, Kuperminc, & Meyers, 2013). These attitudes culminate in

unhealthy student-teacher relationships, which further cause misbehaviour in the

classroom (Cothran et al., 2007, Jennings and Greenberg, 2009). It is apparent there

is an overwhelming voice through the literature that teacher attitudes are inextricably

linked with student behaviour.

 Quality instruction is a factor raised in the literature for why students misbehave.

Poor quality instruction that does not engage all students into the learning

environment causes boredom and disengagement, thus making learning goals harder

to attain and causes misbehaviour (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Demanet & van

Houtte, 2012; Cothran et al., 2009; Jackson, 1998; Dejong, 2005; Landrum, Scott,

Lingo, 2011; Tillery et al., 2013). It is evident that this is another widely held reason

for why students misbehave, with poor instruction opening the avenue for off-task

behaviours to manifest. It is a coalescence of instruction and teacher attitudes that

culminate to whether students belong. It is belonging and not belonging in the

learning environment that is a possible indicator of whether misbehaviour will occur,

as not belonging is associated with a lack of motivation (Tillery et al., 2013). Lastly,

the literature states that unclear or poorly enforced rules are a reason for

misbehaviour, attributable to the fact that students without rules do not have

boundaries for behaviour (Alter et al, 2013; Gable et al., 2009; Tillery et al., 2013;

Trussel, 2008; Thornberg, 2008). Although problem behaviours are varied and

disparate, with the exact causes of misbehaviour not known, it is clear through

research that behaviour occurs “quite predictably in relation to objects or events in the

environment” (Landrum et al., 2011, p. 31). It is these antecedents as well as a

coalescence of factors that are reasons why students misbehave in schools. Greene

(2011) attests to this stating, “Behind every challenging behaviour is a lagging skill

and a demand for that skill” (p.27).

Interviews

Table. 1 (Demographical breakdown of participants)

Age
Participant Bracket Gender Category
A 50-60 Female Non teacher, parent
B 20-30 Female Non teacher
C 20-30 Male Colleague
D 16-20 Female Non-teacher
E 40-50 Male Teacher, parent, colleague
F 30-40 Male Teacher

The table above identifies the specifics of each of the 6 participants interviewed. The

interviews were conducted using open-ended questioning on why the interviewee

believed young people misbehaved at school. Responses from participants were

followed by further open-ended questions to garner an expansive answer. Each

participant was asked why he/she misbehaved at school, to elicit a personal response.

The data gathered from these interviews was coded thematically in order to attain the

results.

All participants raised teacher attitudes, citing aggression and a lack of support from

teachers as being a cause for misbehaviour. This was expanded on by interviewees

(A,B,D,F) who stated a lack of teacher care was a primary cause of misbehaviour.

Participants (A,B,C,E) extended this to teacher mannerisms, with teachers that

appearing to be tired or lacking in enthusiasm, being a cause of misbehaviour.

Interestingly, interviewees (B,C,E,F) mentioned the word ‘abrupt’ in relation to

teachers as being causation for misbehaviour. Interviewees (A,B) stated bias from

teachers based on their home life and siblings as a cause for misbehaviour, due to
assumptions teachers held against them. Another universal reason among participants

was work that was too hard or easy, and content not being interesting. When asked to

expand upon this, every participant cited boredom resulting from this, with boredom

being the most occurring answer to misbehaviour among the interview process, for all

participants. All participants when following up on work being too hard, mentioned

not having adequate skills to complete tasks, as a cause of misbehaviour, as students

give up. All participants mentioned peer influence as a determinative factor over

whether students would misbehave or not, linking this back to feelings of boredom in

class.

Interviewees (A,B,C,E,F) all mentioned students having a lack of freedom and

feeling trapped as being a reason for why students misbehave, with Participants

(A,C,D,F) each mentioned lenient teachers, and unclear rules as being a cause of

misbehaviour, mentioning this encouraged students to engage in off-task behaviours.

Learning difficulties and bullying were raised by the participants in the study as a

cause for misbehaviour, with interviewees (A,B,C,F) all mentioning these as reasons.

Upbringing was raised in the interview process with differing perspectives on its

impact. Participants (E,D,A) cited upbringing as being a cause due to moral values

that some students may not be raised with. An unstable home environment was raised

by participants (A,B,E,F), with all interviewees mentioning low-SES as being a

factor in misbehaviour. Interestingly, Participant (E) mentioned that low-SES students

use their background as an excuse to misbehave. Participants (E,B) mentioned that

some students may simply have a personality that causes them to disrupt.
Synthesis of literature and Interviews

The findings of the interviews corroborate those of the literature review in regards to

the predominant reasons for student misbehaviour being teacher attitudes and poor

instruction. A disparity in this is that the literature notes these factors cause a lack of

belonging, which in turn leads to boredom and presentation of problem behaviours. In

contrast, the interviews attribute boredom as a direct result, without baring mention to

belonging as a factor. Teacher mannerisms are supported through interviews and the

literature, with teacher exhaustion being mentioned through both.

A variance between the research and interviews is evident in the importance of

teacher-student relationships, with the literature inextricably linking this to teacher

attitudes, and consequently behaviour. With the only discernable correlation being

teacher empathy, support, and bias being mentioned in the interview process.

Nevertheless, the importance of these relationships is not emphasised to the same

extent as the literature. Another distinction between the interviews and research is

through home-life factors, with the literature raising this, coupled with low-SES as

being of significance in regards to behaviour. Only half of the interviewees raised

home factors, with one even stating low-SES students self-victimize, using it as an

excuse to misbehave. Interrelated with this, the interviews raise moral values as a

factor, which is not raised in the research. Conversely, developmental contexts to

misbehaviour are given importance through the literature, whereas the interviews are

devoid of this as a reason. Similarly, the literature calls attention to classroom layout,

and antecedents as factors for why students misbehave, yet the interviews bare no

mention of this.
 A concurrence between the literature and interviews is peer influence as a reason for

misbehaviour. The provision of and enforcement of rules is identified through both

literature and interviews as a cause, with the interviews and literature equating this to

unclear rules and lenient teaching as a causation of misbehaviour. The interviews raise

students feeling trapped as a factor for why students misbehave, which is not

explicitly mentioned in the literature. It is however alluded to, with student

engagement in content and curriculum being mentioned in the literature. Bullying as

well as learning disability is raised in both the interviews and the research. The

literature does not however, support the assertion from two participants that some

students simply have the personality to want to misbehave.

Implications for Teaching

Although definitively the reasons for misbehaviour are not known, with each case of

misbehaviour being based on a variety of causes, there are predominant factors that

are raised through the synthesis of literature and interviews that lead to misbehaviour

occurring. The implications these factors have on teaching practice are considerable,

with teachers needing to ensure a learning environment is developed that is

concomitant with positive behaviour. Teacher attitudes are imperative to building

healthy relationships, which have impacts upon student belonging and behaviour in

classrooms. It is thus necessitated for teachers to utilise pedagogies that are geared

toward the building of healthy student-teacher relationships. This in itself mandates

the use of positive classroom management strategies, as aggressive methods are a

detriment to these relationships. Teachers must establish and uphold clear rules,

enforcing them in a way that does not threaten students.

 Another teaching implication is the necessary provision of quality instruction. This

means teachers must differentiate to every student, including low-SES and students

with learning difficulty, so students are engaged in the classroom. Coupled with this,

teachers must make class content engaging and interesting, so that students are not

bored. This is no small task, and requires examination of pedagogical approaches, and

requires consideration at all levels of programming lessons. This task is further

complicated in schools without a culture for fostering healthy relationships, and

belonging. This is attributable to these students being more likely to distrust teachers,

making it harder for relationships to develop.

In order to negate the impacts of peer influence, teachers must create content that is

engaging, increasing the chance of on-task behaviours. This requires differentiating

and considering different methods of teaching to involve students in the learning.

Finally, and most importantly, student misbehaviour is often a result of skill deficits.

This means instruction must be designed to develop deficits into strengths. There are a

multitude of factors to consider in regards to misbehaviour, and the implications to

teaching practice are that it is a core of teaching. Teachers must provide healthy and

supportive learning environments, in order to create a platform for optimal

behaviours, and understand that misbehaviour occurs as a result of teaching that is

failing to engage the student.

 References

Alter, P., Walker, J., & Landers, E. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of students’

challenging behaviour and the impact of teacher demographics. Education

and Treatment of Children, 36(4), 51-69.

Arnett, J. (2014). Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood (5th ed.). Pearson Education

Limited.

Cothran, D., Kulinna, P., & Garrahy, D. (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 efforts and affect.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 860-869. doi:

10.1016/j.tate.2012.030008.

Gable, R., Hester, P., Rock, M., & Hughes, K. (2009). Back to Basics. Intervention in

School and Clinic, 44(4), 195-205. doi: 10.1177/1053451208328831.

Greene, R. (2011). Collaborative Problem Solving can transform school discipline.

The Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 25-29. doi: 10.2307/23048940.

Jackson, T. (1998). Getting serious about school discipline. Public Interest, (133), 68-

83.

Jennings, P., & Greenberg, M. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and

emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review

of Educational Research, 79(1), 491-525.

Landrum, T., Scott, T., & Lingo, A. (2011). Classroom misbehaviour is predictable

and preventable. The Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 30-34. doi: 10.2307/23048941.
Marsh, C., Clarke, M., & Pittaway, S. (2014). Marsh’s becoming a teacher (6th ed.).

Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson.

McGrath, K., & 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.

Roach, J., & Lewis, R. (2011). The carrot, the stick, or the relationship: what are the

effective disciplinary strategies?. European Journal of Teacher Education,

34(2), 233-248. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2010.542586.

Rovis, D., Jonkman, H., & Basic, J. (2016). A Multilevel Analysis of Adverse Family

Relations, School Bonding and Risk Behaviours Among Adolescents, Journal

of Child and Family Studies, 25(2), 647-660. Doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0223-

6.

Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1999). A developmental perspective on serious

juvenile crime: When should juveniles be treated as adults?. Federal-

Probation, 63, 52-57.

Swearer, S., Espelage, D., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done

about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational

Researcher, 39(1), 36-47. doi: 10.3102/0013189x09357622.

Thornberg, R. (2008). ‘It’s Not Fair!’ Voicing pupils’ criticisms of school rules.

Children and Society, 22(6), 418-428. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2007.00121.x.

Tillery, A., Varjas, K., Roach, A., Kuperminc, G., & Meyers, J. (2013). The

importance of adult connections in Adolescents’ sense of school belonging:

Implications for school and practitioners. Journal of school violence, 12(2),

134-155. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2012.762518.

Trussel, R. (2008). Classroom Universals to Prevent Problem Behaviors. Intervention

in School and Clinic, 43(3), 179-185.

Watkins, M. (2011). ‘Complexity reduction, regularities and rules: Grappling with

cultural diversity in schooling . Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural

Studies, 25(6), 841-856.