102084_Assessment One

Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892

Introduction
The following paper attempts to answer the question “why do young people
misbehave in school?” through primary and secondary research. A literature
review was conducted followed by six individual interviews, which were then
compared and contrasted in an attempt to answer the above question and
determine the implications this has on a pre-service teachers praxis. For the
purpose of this paper, student misbehaviour is defined as behaviour that is
inappropriate in the context in which is it is displayed, socially inappropriate and
impedes the learning of students, including themselves (De Nobile, Lyons &
Arthur Kelly, 2017; De Jong, 2005).

Literature Review
An important finding of Westling’s (2010) paper Teachers and challenging
behavior knowledge, views, and practices, is “a substantial majority” (p.59) of
teachers’ surveyed believed that behaviour is learned and can be improved. The
implication of this finding is the teacher acknowledgement that student
misbehaviour is shaped by a myriad of factors including but not limited to
personal characteristics and environmental influences. This theme is also
evident in Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor and Schellinger’s (2011) article,
The impact of enhancing Students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis
of school-based universal interventions, that found when social and emotional
learning (SEL) programs were effectively implemented in schools fewer student
conduct problems were experienced. An important implication of both articles is
that behaviour is learned as such can be manipulated through skill building. As a
result, misbehaviour in schools can be understood to be influenced by
development.

In saying this Lin and Yi’s (2015) article, Unhealthy sleep practices, conduct
problems, and daytime functioning during adolescence, adds another layer of
consideration to the theme. The article cites poor sleep habits as a contributor to
misbehaviour. Interestingly it is also reported that poor sleep practises correlate
with poor emotional wellbeing. As such, when considering why students
misbehave in school, it may not be enough to address social and emotional

1
 102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892

development through SEL programs if the crux of the issue is poor sleep quality
and not lack of skill.

Stemming from this theme, Roache and Lewis’ (2011) paper Teachers’ views on
the impact of classroom management on student responsibility, found that
coercive teachers incite more instances of misbehaviour. In comparison, teachers
who focussed on building positive relationships with students experience fewer
instances of misbehaviour and students demonstrate higher capability in self-
regulation of behaviour. This is an important implication as it demonstrates how
students react to different teaching styles and therefore misbehaviour is not an
isolated incident but is a response to environment. Covell, Mcneil and Howe
(2009) also established a link between disengagement and lack of rights given to
the student to shape their own learning, again suggesting that teaching style
contributes to behaviour. Similarly, Demanet and Van Houtte’s (2012) article
Teachers’ attitudes and students’ opposition. School misconduct as a reaction to
teachers’ diminished effort and affect, found that students in classroom
environments of low expectations and belief in capabilities demonstrated a
higher likelihood of misbehaviour. An interesting implication of this article is the
finding that misbehaviour can occur despite a students’ actual level of capability,
that is, despite previous academic performance low expectations resulted in low
performance. Therefore students’ self-efficacy is intimately shaped by teacher
expectations and as such teachers need to ensure they provide an environment
in which all students feel they are capable and supported.

Interview process
Six individuals, three male and three female, have been interviewed in order to
gather primary data on the research question, “why do young people misbehave
in school?” Interviews were not conducted until participants read and returned
the information sheet and signed the consent form. Interviews were informal
and conversational, open ended and began by asking, “Why do young people
misbehave in school?” As participants answered, follow up questions were asked
in order to elicit more detailed responses and often provided insights in to
participants’ own experiences as the basis on which their views were shaped.

2
 102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892

Participants were not randomly selected but instead chosen to both fill the brief
and to capture varying demographics in the hope that this would give a plethora
of results. Further information of participants is as follows:

Participant Age Occupation Contextual info.

M1 23 Call centre operator Pre-service teacher
M2 27 Teacher Western Sydney Catholic school; 5
years experience
M3 64 Retired Raised in children’s home in
England; retired at 50 years old
F1 27 Teacher Western Sydney Public school;
New mother
F2 26 Retail associate Vocal about own disengagement
with education system
F3 46 Tax specialist Mother of 3 (25, 22, 13)

Once completed, interviews were coded in to themes and sub-themes. This was
done by reading one interview and colour-coding each distinct reason listed by
the interviewee and then applying the same technique to subsequent interviews.
Should a subsequent interview highlight a new reason, a new colour-code was
created. Once all interviews were coded, codes were compared across interviews
to determine if they could be grouped. For instance, one interview identified
anxiety due to pressure from family as a reason for misbehaviour, however,
another interview identified temperament as a cause of misbehaviour. When
compared, it was concluded that both responses could be categorised as
developmental factors as both interviewees were referring to using
misbehaviour as a mechanism for coping.

Results
The broad themes identified were disengagement, developmental factors and
relationships.

Four out of six interviewees associated disengagement as a contributor to

misbehaviour; however, varying forms of disengagement were provided as
examples. F2 and M1 cited boredom with curriculum as a reason for
misbehaviour with F1 stating that “curriculum was inaccessible or too

3
 102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892

accessible”, however, F3 provided a different perspective by citing a lack of

understanding how the subject matter was relevant to the students’ life was a
cause of misbehaviour.

Developmental factors were cited as a cause of misbehaviour by four out of six

interviewees. F2, F3 and M2 all stated that misbehaviour can be due to students
learning and pushing the boundaries with F2 stating “students have more of a
free run in high school and have to learn where to draw the line” and F2 stating
“it’s a natural reaction to try and find out what they can get away with”.
Emotional development was cited as a cause of misbehaviour by two
interviewees but was touched upon differently. M3 stated in their experience as
a teacher some students misbehave as they want to be excluded due to pressure
to perform either from internal or external factors “some students have so much
pressure on them to do well that they crack in the classroom … sometimes they
put the pressure on themself”. F1 also mentioned emotional development as a
factor for misbehaviour but from the viewpoint that students’ couldn’t cope
when it “didn’t go their way”.

Relationships were another broad theme drawn from the data with all
participants identifying it as cause of misbehaviour. A student’s relationship with
peers was one relationship mentioned by the five participants whom all cited a
need to be accepted as reason students’ misbehaved. M3 and F2 approached
relationships with peers from the perspective of bullying as a cause for
misbehaviour, with F2 citing wagging to avoid peers and M3 citing acting out in
class after encountering a bully. Student-teacher relationships were also cited by
F2 and F3 as a cause of misbehaviour whereby a lack of respect within the
relationship caused misbehaviour, that is, a student who did not feel respected
would misbehave or a student who didn’t respect the teacher would misbehave.
Home life was another form of relationship drawn from the interviews with all
participants mentioning it as a cause of misbehaviour. Home life was considered
a cause of misbehaviour when students were not supported at home and craved
attention, what constituted misbehaviour at home was different to school, lack of
discipline from parents and poor modelling of respectful relationships.

4
 102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892

Analysis
As mentioned previously, developmental factors were highlighted in the
interviews as a reason for misbehaviour in school and this was reflected in the
literature in which teachers’ believed that behaviour was a response to social
and emotional learning (Westling, 2010; Durlak et al., 2011). Interviewees noted
numerous developmental reasons for misbehaviour many of which related to
social and emotional learning including, a response to bullying, peer pressure,
the need for peer acceptance, learning to deal with disappointment and
experimentation with boundaries. Interviewees also cited relationships as a
cause of misbehaviour and although identified as a separate theme, correlates
with the literature in regards to social and emotional learning with every
interviewee creating a link between misbehaviour and a response to dealing
with a relationship in their life be it teacher, peer or home.

The relationship between teachers and students was another theme drawn from
the literature that also emerged in the interviews (Roache & Lewis, 2011;
Demanet & Van Houtten, 2012). F2 provided an anecdote in which they rarely
misbehaved in class but due to one particularly poor relationship with a teacher
was unfairly targeted. F1 did not mention poor relationships as a cause of
misbehaviour, however, did cite that building a positive student-teacher
relationship could help neutralise issues at home that caused misbehaviour.
Interestingly, no male participants cited poor relationships between student and
teacher as a cause of misbehaviour including one pre-service teacher and one
practising teacher.

Four of the interviewees identified disengagement as reason young people

misbehave in school, which was not explicitly reflected in the literature
reviewed, however, Covell et al. (2009) cited disengagement as a by-product of
teaching style. M2 and M3 were the only respondents who did not associate
disengagement as a cause of misbehaviour and in the case of M3 this might be
due to demographic influences.

5
 102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892

The only sub-theme there was consensus on was relationships with peers and
cause of misbehaviour. This was not reflected in the literature reviewed,
however, it correlates with SEL (Durlak et al., 2011) as every participant
identified peer influence, social acceptance or coping with bullying as a cause of
misbehaviour. Should these factors be improved through SEL, students may
learn to engage in pro-social behaviour with peers that in turn may eliminate
misbehaviour in the classroom where peer relationships are the catalyst.

Implication for praxis

By comparing and contrasting the literature with the interview responses, it is
evident trying to determine why young people misbehave in school is a complex
and layered issue. The major themes observed were disengagement,
development and relationships, however, these were all multi-faceted and upon
analysis are layered within one and other. These findings have implications for
my future praxis in respect to my relationships with students, my pedagogical
approach and my understanding of SEL.

The finding that relationships influence student behaviour has in turned shaped
how and to what extent I will build relationships with students. I now
understand how much my own relationships with students can influence their
behaviour. Although I cannot control external factors such as peer relationships
or home life, it is evident to me that knowing my students will have an impact on
how they behave in the classroom. For instance, a cause of misbehaviour is
disengagement and should I encounter a student who is misbehaving due to
disengagement, in order to make the content relevant to them I will need to
know them. In order to build positive relationships with students I would follow
the advice of De Nobile et al. (2017) and do things such as greeting students
using their preferred name, make connections with things that interest them and
share appropriate aspects of my life in order to connect with them. Following
this I would try to build communication between the student and myself by using
open questions such as “how interesting do you find this subject” or “how are
you feeling today?” (De Nobile et al., 2017).

6
 102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892

I also know that my pedagogical approach can be another cause of misbehaviour

in school and this has subsequently shaped my future praxis. I will ensure I have
high expectations of all my students but I will also make sure these expectations
are realistic. I would do this by discussing with students’ what we should
reasonably be able to expect of each other in the classroom and create a class
agreement (De Noble et al., 2017). In doing this I am acknowledging that every
student comes to school with different influences and by establishing rules that
are agreed upon at a class level, I am maintaining high expectations in regards to
behaviour but also acknowledge that what constitutes misbehaviour varies from
person to person. Further, in order to engage students to reduce misbehaviour
(Covell et al., 2017) I would provide students with the opportunity to shape their
own learning. I could do this at the classroom level by allowing students to pick
sub-topics to study or this could be done at a whole year or school level in which
students choose what topics will be studied over the course of the year from the
prescribed NESA list (Gore, 2007).

Upon synthesising the findings of Durlak et al. (2012) and the interviews, it is
evident that SEL is a major factor in why young people misbehave at school. This
knowledge has shaped my praxis as I now understand that misbehaviour does
not occur because a student wants to be disruptive to learning but because they
are learning how to manage their emotions. As a result, I will incorporate SEL in
my classroom as much as reasonably possible. This might occur in the form of a
mindfulness activity or a program such as MindMatters (2014) of which different
parts can be done at different intervals depending on what the students’ are
experiencing. MindMatters (2014) and similar programs are more effective at a
whole year or school level however, so I would advocate for this within the
whole school environment to increase SEL for all students and not just those in
my classroom.

7
 102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892

Reference List
Covell, K., Mcneil, J.K., & Howe, R.B. (2009). Reducing Teacher Burnout by

Increasing Student Engagement: A Children’s Rights Approach. School

Psychology International, 30(3), 282-290. doi:

10.1177/0143034309106496

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

De Nobile, J., Lyons, G., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2017). Positive learning environments:

Creating and maintaining productive classrooms. South Melbourne,

Australia: Cengage Learning Australia.

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

Durlak, J.A., Weissberg, R.P., Dymnicki, A.B., Taylor, R.D., & Schellinger, K.B.

(2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning:

A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child

Development, 82(1), 405-432. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

Gore, J. (2007). Improving pedagogy: The challenges of moving teachers toward

higher levels of quality teaching. In J. Butcher & L. McDonald (Eds.),

Making a difference: Challenges for teachers, teaching, and teacher

education (pp. 15-33). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

8
 102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892

Lin, W., & Yi, C. (2015). Unhealthy sleep practices, conduct problems, and

daytime functioning during adolescence. Journal of youth and adolescence,

44(2), 431-46. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0169-9

MindMatters. (2014). About MindMatters. Retrieved from

https://www.mindmatters.edu.au/about-mindmatters/what-is-

mindmatters

Roache, J., & Lewis, R. (2011). Teachers' Views on the Impact of Classroom

Management on Student Responsibility. Australian Journal of Education,

55(2), 132-146. doi:10.1177/000494411105500204

Westling, D. (2010). Teachers and challenging behaviour. Remedial and Special

Education, 31(1), 48-63. doi: 10.1177/0741932508327466