Gerald Grove-White, 19173027, Word count without references.

=2192
102082 Assignment 1 2018
Why do Young People Misbehave in School?
The dominant public discourse in relation to student misbehaviour in schools is superficial,
attributing misbehaviour, namely any pupil behaviour that adversely disrupts the teaching
environment in the classroom, to a lack of parental discipline and other societal ills. To
elucidate the deeper reasons, a synthesis of current academic research into student
misbehaviour is presented, along with the results of a limited qualitative research study.
These are the examined and analysed to arrive at a more nuanced understanding of student
misbehaviour. This essay will seek to show that whilst the issue is multi-dimensional,
teachers are both a cause, and the remedy.

The literature synthesis’s starting point is De Jong’s research (De Jong, 2005) into “best
practice in managing student behaviour”, both for its findings, but also by enabling an
assessment of what happens if best practice is not followed. De Jong lists 7 key principles
along with 7 themes of best practice, namely “clearly articulated behavioural management
plan”, “health promoting culture”, “a relevant, engaging and stimulating curriculum”,
“effective pedagogy”, “democratic, empowering and positive classroom culture”, “well
established internal and external support structures”, and finally “alternative and flexible
learning environments”. By considering the absence of one or more of these themes one
can infer the consequences of such an absence. For instance, he recommends that there be
“a relevant, engaging and stimulating curriculum”, which he posits will “maximise
engagement and minimise behavioural issues”. In the absence of such a curriculum one can
infer that this will increase disengagement and behavioural issues. Likewise, the absence of
the other recommended themes will lead to similar negative consequences. Sullivan et al’s,
(Sullivan, Johnson, Owens, & Conway, 2014) research found that disengagement was
prevalent and suggested that teachers use ineffective strategies to manage behaviours, and
that a focus on engagement rather than measures aimed at controlling behaviour were
likely to lead to better learning. Sullivan et al (cited as Maguire et al, 2010) argue that
inadequacies in the curriculum, poor pedagogy and marginalisation of some students was
more likely to cause disruption than ineffective disciplinary procedures and policies.
Research into teachers perceptions of misbehaviour, (Crawshaw, 2015),(Alter, Walker,
Nina, & Landers, 2013) show that off-task and other minor harmless behaviours cause most
concern to teachers the world over. Alter et al specifically identify off-task behaviour as a
“gateway behaviour that leads to other more challenging behaviours”. Little… posits that
teachers with skills in behavioural psychology, and that deploy monitoring of behaviour,
consequences and rule setting, achieve increases in on-task behaviour. The paramount
importance of Student Teacher Relation (TSR’s) is widely reported by (Sammons, Lindorff,
Ortega, & Kington, 2016), (Fulcher, K. A. (2016).) and (Way, 2011)) (McGrath & Van Bergen,
2015). McGrath et al examine the risk of experiencing a negative TSR’s on “at risk” students,
however their findings extend to all students. They base their research on attachment, self-
determination and ecological systems theories, and highlight the importance of
“relatedness” and “connectedness” as a source of motivation and its positive impact on
engagement and achievement. They argue that positive TSR’s are beneficial for student
behaviour, peer relationships, attitude toward school, attendance, and academic
achievement and engagement. Fulcher sought to explore the relationship between TSR’s
and student misbehaviour and considered TSR’s as an antecedent to misbehaviour. The
findings confirmed the critical importance of positive TSR’s, and that ethnicity, race, gender
and academic risk, may influence TSR’s. Cothram et al’s research (Cothran, Kulinna, &
Garrahy, 2009) provides an example where negative TSR’s result in both teachers and
students attributing misbehaviour to other than themselves. They argue that both parties
must take “ownership” of the problem if they are to reflect and see a resolution. Borders et
al state (Borders & Huey, 2004) that students have a keenly developed sense of justice and
fairness. Way’s research confirmed that students with good TSR’s had lower disruption
scores. She further found that students who perceived a school’s discipline system to be
fair, were less likely to misbehave than those who believed it to be unfair. Students who
considered the school discipline system to be “illegitimate” displayed a higher level of
defiance in schools with strict codes. Most tellingly, she found that strict codes led to higher
levels of misbehaviour, though noted that other research did not always concur. Borders et
al use expectancy theory to explain peer pressure as a cause of misbehaviour. Whilst
misbehaviour occurs at any school age, biological changes during adolescence are especially
important. Arnett’s book(Arnett, 2014) provides a comprehensive exposition of the
biological and cognitive development of adolescents and explores the range of problems
that they can experience. Arnett identifies, early or late maturation, self -regulation, risk
taking propensities, cognitive development, limits in critical thinking and decision making,
peer pressure, and the lived environment as all having a bearing adolescent development.

The research used a purposive sample of 6 adults: -

Person A M Pre-service
teacher
Person B F Pre-service
Teacher and
mother
Person C F Teacher 25 years’ experience
Person D F Teacher 10 years’ experience
Person E F Mother
Person F F Friend Case Worker

The interviews took the form of an unstructured interviews using the checklist ((Bryman,
2004) p 325) and lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. The interviewer only asked open
questions, after posing the defined question. The interview notes were quickly transcribed
to a computer and subsequently colour coded into 6 different causes/attributions for
misbehaviour. These are discussed below with quotes.

1) Self-Regulation/ Maturity

This cause was attributed by 2 people to students not being sufficiently developed “they
just don’t know how to (self-regulate)” It was suggested that students are exuberant,
and have to test the boundaries “Rules be dammed”, “at their age they haven’t
developed self-control”. Arnett p 56-57

2) Peer influence
Peer pressure was identified as a major cause for acting -up. Students challenge
‘learning’ (teacher) to gain status with their peers. One Mother identified an incident at
her son’s primary school where he was labelled “stupid” by a teacher for not completing
 a piece of work correctly, whereupon he resorted to becoming the “class clown”. “They
join tribes and it depends on the tribal values how they behave”. Arnett p 232-235.

3) Fairness, and consistency

Fixed daily routines, and consistency were reported as important along with perceived
fairness.

4) Emotionally disturbed due to background/home situation

One teacher stated that “External life problems do impact on student behaviour, and
staff react according to their knowledge and understanding of the external issues the
child is facing”. Children who are emotionally disturbed and are in care often display
severe misbehaviour. She believes that they are moved so often that they never form an
attachment to the any school. “They are taking agency in their lives” in the only way
they can. They are showing that they can decide when they are moved to another
school. They do this on their terms”. She stated that “the misbehaviour is planned and
deliberate”.

5) Differential Learning
Differential learning was generally seen as essential to minimise misbehaviour. The most
experienced teacher stated that “For non-emotionally disturbed or traumatised students
the principal cause of misbehaviour is boredom. What is being taught is too hard or not
hard enough. This is teachers fault for not deploying differentiated teaching for students
of differing ability”. One person reported that in her year 12 “she was actively
discouraged from independent thinking”.

6) Teachers behaviour/responses, school discipline

There was broad agreement that teachers were often the cause of misbehaviour by not
setting clear boundaries and expectations, inconsistency leading to absence of certainty.
“No expectation gives children the freedom to misbehave”. There was a common refrain
of “Don’t sweat the small stuff”. One interviewee’s secondary school has a zero-
tolerance discipline regime, where all minor of infringements was punished by be
removal from class, resulting in disengagement. The school attaches no importance to
externalities, and no specific interventions are deployed for students with external
difficulties in their lives, nor proportionality. Lack of experience and confidence in newly
qualified teachers (NQT’s) and their adoption of authoritarian and assertive classroom
management styles were identified as a cause of misbehaviour by at least 4
interviewees. “They don’t misbehave with me, but do with NQT’s”, “NQT’s lack
confidence and end up sweating the small stuff”. Teacher inconsistency and lack of
fairness were identified as a major cause of misbehaviour by the 2 teachers.

De Jong’s 7 themes of best practice are used to synthesise the research literature and
the results of the interviews (the results).

Clearly articulated behavioural management plan,

The results identified the varying approaches of NQT’s in classroom management and its
adverse effects, along with the negative impact of zero tolerance management plans.
The literature also confirmed the need for very clear expectations to be established for
behaviour in schools. However, for such clear plans to be legitimate they must be seen
by students as fair and justified as reported by Way. Sullivan et al noted that plans that
seek to control are likely to lead to more disengagement. The results all confirmed the
negative consequences of “sweating the small stuff”, which is particularly prevalent with
NQT’s and zero tolerance management plans. The research by Sullivan, Way, and Little
confirmed these results.

Health promoting culture,

Health promoting culture did not feature as an issue in the interviews, however its
corollary well-being did in relation to connectedness/relatedness as stated by De Jong.
One can posit that positive TSR’s are fundamental to student well-being. The results
reported the impact of home and environment in relation to the propensity to
misbehave. De Jong and Demanet et al (Demanet & Van Houtte, 2012) reported that a
health promoting culture is a key component in behaviour management.

Relevant, engaging and stimulating curriculum,

The interview results (the results) and the research by De Jong, Sullivan et al, Sammons
et al and Cothran et al, confirm the centrality of appropriate and engaging curriculum as
an essential component of preventing boredom and disengagement.

Effective pedagogy,
In a similar vein the results and the quoted literature confirm that effective pedagogy is
inseparable from management of misbehaviour and student engagement. The absence
of effective and flexible pedagogy leads to boredom, misbehaviour and disengagement.

Democratic, empowering and positive classroom culture,

There were no explicit references by the interviewees to this theme in the results,
suggesting that they took a positive classroom environment for granted. However, the
literature identifies the importance of ecological issues. De Jong reports the key features
of such classroom cultures. Sullivan et al use ecological theory for their findings that
good classroom ecology supports engagement and hence promotes good behaviour.
Similar arguments are presented by (Mitchell & Bradshaw, 2013) in their research.

Well established internal and external support structures,

The results made no specific observations regarding this theme. Surprisingly the
literature that was identified makes little explicit reference to support structures save
for their use in relation to students experiencing emotional disturbance save for De Jong
where referral to profession support is identified. This may be because this synthesis
focusses on the “why” rather than the range of interventions for misbehaviour.

Alternative and flexible learning environments,

The literature and the results are in total congruence with the crucial need for
differentiated learning for students if they are not to become bored, marginalised, and
disengaged in the classroom. Differentiated learning is obviously a fundamental
component of effective pedagogy. Catering for the needs of a diverse range of academic
competencies, ethnicities, and marginalised students necessitates flexibility and a
repertoire of pedagogical methods from teachers.
Praxis demands learning, assessment, refection, and reflexivity in a continuous cyclical
process. This synthesis represents a learning resource for praxis, which together with an
acknowledgement of one’s innate personal dispositions, allows one to articulate key
components of one’s future teaching practice. The centrality of strong TSR’s have been
confirmed as essential to establishing meaningful communications with students, and
lead to less misbehaviour. This is particularly so for ‘at risk’ students. Strong TSR’s allow
an understanding of each student’s abilities, and inform the appropriate differentiated
learning opportunities, along with adjustments to one’s pedagogical approaches.
Assessment and subsequent praxis will lead to continual improvement in one’s
pedagogical approaches. Effective learning requires a meaningful, relevant and
interesting curriculum, based on repeated praxis. Strong and meaningful TSR’s requires
one to show a genuine interest, and care for each student in a non-discriminatory
fashion, thus providing insights into the externalities in the lives of students, thereby
informing any planned interventions to assist in behavioural improvements. Consistency
and fairness must always be shown if students are to accept the agreed limits on their
behaviour. Reflecting on the research has confirmed one’s preference for a non-
authoritarian, non-controlling style of classroom management, where standards of
classroom behaviour are negotiated on a democratic basis with students, and establish
that both teachers and students ‘own’ misbehaviour and its consequences. One would
limit the application of assertive disciplinary methods to major types of misbehaviour
such as violence, vilification and bullying. Sammons et al’s research into “inspiring
teaching” and Pagliaro (Pagliaro, 2011) provide insights into inspirational and effective
teaching that will continue to inform one’s future teaching practice.
In conclusion ones teaching practice will be developed and utilised to be a remedy for
misbehaviour not a cause.

Reference List
Alter, P., Walker, J., Nina, & Landers, E. (2013). Teachers' perceptions of
students' challenging behavior and the impact of teacher demographics.
Education & Treatment of Children, 36(4), 51. doi:10.1353/etc.2013.0040
Arnett, J. J. a. (2014). Adolescence and emerging adulthood (Fifth edition, Pearson new
international edition. ed.): Harlow, Essex Pearson, 2014.
Borders, A., & Huey, S. (2004). PREDICTING PROBLEM BEHAVIORS WITH MULTIPLE
EXPECTANCIES: EXPANDING EXPECTANCY-VALUE THEORY. Adolescence, 39(155),
539-550.
Bryman, A. a. (2004). Social research methods (4th edition. ed.). Oxford ; New York: Oxford ;
New York : Oxford University Press.
Cothran, D. J., Kulinna, P. H., & Garrahy, D. A. (2009). Attributions for and consequences of
student misbehavior. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(2), 155-167.
doi:10.1080/17408980701712148
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
De Jong, T. (2005). A Framework of Principles and Best Practice for Managing Student
Behaviour in the Australian Education Context. School Psychology International,
26(3), 353-370. doi:10.1177/0143034305055979
Demanet, J., & Van Houtte, M. (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.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.008
Fulcher, K. A. (2016). Teacher-student relationships and high school student misbehavior
(Order No. 10163935). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(1844986211). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/1844986211?accountid=36155
McGrath, K. F., & 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. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2014.12.001
Mitchell, M. M., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Examining classroom influences on student
perceptions of school climate: The role of classroom management and exclusionary
discipline strategies. Journal of School Psychology, 51(5), 599-610.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2013.05.005
Pagliaro, M. M. (2011). Educator or bully? : managing the 21st century classroom. Lanham,
Md.: Lanham, Md. : Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Sammons, P., Lindorff, A. M., Ortega, L., & Kington, A. (2016). Inspiring teaching: learning
from exemplary practitioners. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1(2),
124-144. doi:10.1108/JPCC-09-2015-0005
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
Way, S. M. (2011). School Discipline and Disruptive Classroom Behavior: The Moderating
Effects of Student Perceptions. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(3), 346-375.
doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01210.x