Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environment Western Sydney University

Why Do Young People Misbehave in School?

Section One: Literature synthesis which is succinct, relevant, and
contemporary

Seven core guiding principles are identified by De Jong (2005) as a foundation for
best practice in student behaviour management. These guiding principles apply and
embrace an eco-systemic perspective, a health-promoting approach, inclusiveness,
student-centred philosophy, quality of the learning experiences, positive
relationships, and school support structures (De Jong, 2005). Fundamentally these
principles encounter student behavioural issues, based on views from interviewees,
which are experienced in the school learning environment and offer strategies to
manage student’s misbehaviour. De Jong (2005) also explains five key models of
student behaviour management known as Choice Theory, Positive Behaviour
Support (PBS) (Applied Behaviour Analysis), Responsible Thinking process (RTP),
Restorative Justice, and Democratic Discipline Model (Goal Centred Theory).

De Jong’s (2005) models of student behaviour management are indicated by Lyon et

al. (2014) as key classroom management theories that are categorised into
psychoeducational, cognitive behavioural and behavioural, three corresponding
groups. These different taxonomies to classroom management theories compare,
contrast and better comprehend understanding of various theories (Lyon et al.,
2014). Psychoeducational theories suggest that students have needs that are
operated by their type of behaviour (or misbehaviour) attempting to meet their needs
determining teachers to develop a suitable learning environment to best cater for
students needs (Lyon et al., 2014). Cognitive behavioural theories convey better-
quality behaviour encouraging attentive and positive participation of students
transforming students thought, emotion and physical actions (Lyons et al., 2014).
Behavioural theories focus on modification of obvious misbehaviour and are greatly
procedural encompassing successful teaching and learning by understanding
student’s behaviour with the ability to strategically employ classroom management
theories (Lyons et al., 2014).

Postholm (2013) establishes that students appear disengaged or unmotivated in the

early stages of secondary school relating to boredom and/or being uninterested in
class content. Reflecting on the main criteria found through interviews suggesting
that students misbehave due to boredom or being uninterested in school content.
External motivators of reinforcement and punishment impacts a student’s
behavioural response and the type of motivation affects whether a student engages
in learning or is more prone to further misbehaving (Postholm, 2013). The teacher’s
incapability to identify and understand student’s emotions can lead to students
misbehaving lacking motivation to gain knowledge in the class environment
(Postholm, 2013). This presents an absence of the student-centred approach in a
teacher’s pedagogy disregards incorporating respect and responsiveness to cater
student’s diverse needs (Dunn & Rakes, 2011).

Teachers enforcing to take a proactive approach by including a student’s home

environment and the affect it may have on school learning is significant for
understanding misbehaviour (Postholm, 2013). A student’s home environment was
another suggestion to potential influences of misbehaving gathered from

Andrew Simpson - 17464824 1

Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environment Western Sydney University

interviewees. The American Psychological Association (APA) (1997) identifies

student-centred principles with a specific principle based on developmental and
social factors. This principle explains developmental influence on learning
emphasising that as individuals develop they differentiate to exposed opportunities
and experiences with constraint for learning (APA, 1997). Otto & Atkinson (1997)
results suggested that parental influence on students did not link to students
misbehaving as interviewees anticipated, however the parental influence did not
provide positive academic achievement.

Influences of misbehaviour differentiated among the perspectives of teachers and

students that revealed no significant problem causing student misbehaviour (Donetta
et al., 2009). The Donetta et al. (2009) study identified teachers assumed unknown
or home factors influenced student misbehaviour, while students exposed
misbehaviour to be a resultant of not meeting student’s attention needs and/or
learning class content. In conclusion of the Donetta et al. (2009) study both teachers
and students portrayed student misbehaviour to be an intrusion to time in the
learning environment, class content, and student attitude. Collectively interviewees
evaluation of student’s misbehaviour was found to be an intrusion of academic
learning affecting future opportunities.

Section Two: Clear and coherent synthesis of main interview findings.

Three males and three females were selected as interviewees with an age range of
22 to 27 and are all currently working in retail, hospitality and education. Person A
(Pre-service Secondary Teacher), Person B (Parent), Person C (Non-Teaching
friend), Person D (Secondary Teacher), Person E (Pre-service Primary Teacher),
and Person F (Non-Teaching Friend). During the interview process, five open-ended
questions were provided to interviewees to provide their personal perspective of the
main question: ‘In your opinion, why do young people misbehave in school?’. The
five open-ended questions correlate and collaborate with each other associating to
individual insight of student (young people) misbehaviour in school.

The five questions inquired in the interview process are: ‘In your opinion, why do
young people misbehave in school?’, ‘Why do you believe they misbehave in that
way?’, ‘What do you think may influence young people to misbehave, and why?’,
‘How can misbehaving in school affect young people?’, and ‘Why is misbehaving in
school a concerning issue for young people?’. These questions encouraged
interviewees to search deeper into their own thought, to identify stimuluses and
features of why young people misbehave in school. Interviewees found that the five
questions were collectively similar, however it was explained that similarity in
questions was employed to encourage a greater understanding of an individual’s
perspective of stimuluses and features that result in students misbehaving.

Common themes were exhibited throughout the interviews, especially a main theme
of boredom, lack of interest and motivation that was viewed as influences of student
misbehaviour. Past experiences of teachers and family home life were concerning
issues too, implying a problem with learning effectiveness from a teacher’s pedagogy
and support of other students. Student misbehaviour significantly related to student
support, revealed by interviewees, with peer pressure, bullying, superiority of
students, imitation, and acceptance were identified as potential influences. Person D

Andrew Simpson - 17464824 2

Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environment Western Sydney University

specified that differentiation of teaching pedagogies in praxis is required to effectively

educate today’s youth, uncovering the view that certain teachers are jaded and/or
focus too much on a teacher-centred approach and not enough on a constructivist
approach.

Person A recognised that a negative learning environment affects learning content

leading to detrimental effects of student disengagement in learning ability and
distraction from grades. Student misbehaviour has been viewed by collaboration of
interviewees to shape a lesson into a negative learning environment affecting
student communication and social factors. Interviewees understanding of the
negative student learning environment related to ineffective teaching to the student,
the absence of a student-centred pedagogy, lack of cognitive stimulation, and the
inexpressiveness of student’s individual interests and strengths due to needs not
being met. Overall the common themes did not suggest a significant issue and justify
who exactly is at fault, they rather labelled the problems that both the teachers and
students are causing that evidently leads to misbehaviour. Person E and Person F
believed that if students misbehave they miss out on academic educational
opportunities to better themselves in future opportunities, burdening future pathways
or experiences for a good career or further academic study.

Section Three: Synthesise findings by comparing and contrasting findings

from interviews and literature review.

The interviewees perspectives displayed similarities and differences to why students

misbehave in school collectively sharing insight into what influences this problem in
the learning environment. Boredom was noted by Person A and Person B as
potential influences of student misbehaviour, while Person D related by stating
students do not get the opportunities to express their individual interest. A Pre-
service Secondary Teacher (Person A), parent (Person B) and a Secondary Teacher
(Person D), three male interviewees, share a connection to the insight of boredom
and lack of interest affecting behaviour. This potential influence identified correlates
to Postholms (2013) study of students being bored and/or uninterested in learning
content due to disengagement or lack of motivation. Disengagement was a theme
portrayed by Person B effecting students learning ability that linked to all the other
interviewees when considering the affect, it has on learning ability and education.

The three female interviewees, a Non-Teaching Friend (Person C), a Pre-service

Primary Teacher (Person E) and another Non-Teaching Friend (Person F), shared
the connection to student misbehaviour being influenced by peer pressure and social
acceptance. Peer pressure is thought to antagonise students to misbehave by
imitation, superiority of powers, and distractions based on views from Person C,
Person E and Person F. Postholm (2013) and Donetta et al. (2009) found external
motivators to encourage a student’s behaviour by imposing the learning environment
and a student’s attitude linking to views of peer pressure. Bullying a characteristic of
peer pressure was recognised by Person A and Person B as a feature of
misbehaviour that was described to induce students leading to poor self-confidence.

A main similar theme gathered from the interviewees, not including Person C and
Person D, was the influence of family and home environment on a student’s
behaviour. The experience of a negative family and home environment are explained

Andrew Simpson - 17464824 3

Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environment Western Sydney University

from interviewees to affect a student’s learning ability linking to the consistent lack of
motivation and support to the student. Assumptions by teachers in the Donetta et al
(2009) study related home factors to student misbehaviour however Otto & Atkinson
(1997) proposed parental influence had no relationship to student’s misbehaviour
opposing interviewees perspective on the topic. On the contrary, Postholm (2013)
stated that teachers should include a student’s home environment to understand
student misbehaviour implying a connection to the collaboration of interviewees
perspective and Donetta et al. (2009).

One specific outcome found with all interviewees was that student misbehaviour
leads to poor education, ineffective learning and lesser future opportunities. Person
C and Person D both stated that there is more of a teacher-centred approach in
praxis and not enough of a student-centred approach to reduce student
misbehaviour. This transmits to ineffective teaching outlined by Person A and
collaborates to Person C, Person D, Person E and Person F’s view of students
missing out on education, better grades and further opportunities. De Jong’s (2005),
Dunn & Rakes’s (2011) and APA’s (1997) studies together discovered that isolating
a student-centred approach manages student behaviour, caters to student’s diverse
needs, and explains student developmental influence on learning.

Section Four: Provide implications for praxis including your personal

awareness and teaching practice.

Insight on theoretical literature and views of interviewees posed various potential

influences that was thought to lead to student misbehaviour. The relationship of
similarities and differences were observed between literature and view of
interviewees that identified common themes representing student misbehaviour. The
suggestion of implementing a student-centred approach was an important
consideration due to ineffective learning from students being disengaged in the
learning environment. An important aspect of teaching is student behavioural
management that is difficult for pre-service teachers to maintain requiring a student-
centred approach (Dunn & Rakes, 2011).

Implied beliefs of interviewees links student misbehaviour to a negative learning

environment functioned by potential external influences shaping a student’s
behaviour. Applying only a teacher-centred approach can manipulate students to
believe teachers are superior, the single source of information, and possess the
most power in the learning environment (Beyhan, 2013). Beyhan (2013)
acknowledged teachers to consider students as negligent and disobedient who
require control through disciplinary authorisations triggering student outbreaks
symbolising student misbehaviour and a negative learning environment. The
teacher-centred approach decreases teachers understanding of student’s
behaviours demanding the application of a constructivist approach sharing a balance
engaging in reflexivity (Beyhan, 2013).

Teacher reflexivity is a technique used to enhance effective teaching by reflecting on

a teacher’s practice and employing strategies to gain improvements by
understanding cause and effects of student behaviour (Lyons et al., 2014). Initiating
student behaviour management strategies present a positive outcome to student
behaviour, which is identified in psychoeducational, cognitive behavioural and

Andrew Simpson - 17464824 4

Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environment Western Sydney University

behavioural theories (De Jong, 2005; Lyon et al., 2014). Teacher reflections on
student behaviour in the learning environment are significant for being attentive of
and analytical against student behaviour (Augustsson, 2010). The interventions of
student behaviour management strategies address problems and issues occurring
with the individual providing guidance and help.

External factors seem to play a major role in how students behave in relation to the
learning environment, social life and home life indicating student’s behavioural
features. The framework of Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
highlights competence and success in adopting needs of student and school
organisations together equally (Upreti, 2010). PBIS is involved in improving a
teacher’s pedagogy to adapting and changing a student’s behaviour creating a
positive learning environment. This framework is perceived to assist student’s
behavioural cues and is a valued intervention that can manage the identified
potential influences of student misbehaviour, recognised by interviewees
perspectives. Freeman et al. found that (2016) School-Wide PBIS (SWPBIS) was
related to positive outcomes in student behaviour, attendance and education.
Conversely, limitations of SWPBIS include the need of the framework to be
manipulated specifically to the type of school and time taken to implement this
framework (Freeman et al. 2016). To conclude, student’s behaviours are subject to
influences experienced through mainly external factors and student behaviour
management is instigated by employing behavioural relevant approaches minimising
misbehaviour to develop a positive teaching pedagogy and a positive learning
environment.

Andrew Simpson - 17464824 5

Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environment Western Sydney University

References

American Psychological Association (APA). (1997). Learner-centered psychological

principles: A framework for school reform and redesign (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC:
Author.

Augustsson, G. (2010). Web 2.0, pedagogical support for reflexive and emotional
social interaction among Swedish students. The Internet and Higher Education,
13(4), 197-205. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.05.005.

Beyhan, Ö. (2013). The correlation of students' views on constructivist teaching

environment and teachers' student control ideologies. Educational Research and
Reviews, 8(9), 553-559. doi:
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.5897/ERR2013.1437

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.

Donetta, J. Cothran., Pamela, Hodges. Kulinna., & Deborah, A. Garrahy. (2009).

Attributions for and consequences of student misbehavior, Physical Education and
Sport Pedagogy, 14:2, 155-167. doi: 10.1080/17408980701712148

Dunn, K. E., & Rakes, G. C. (2011). Teaching teachers: An investigation of beliefs in

teacher education students. Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 39-58.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1007/s10984-011-9083-1

Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., McCoach, D. B., Sugai, G., Lombardi, A., & Horner, R.
(2016). Relationship Between School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports and Academic, Attendance, and Behavior Outcomes in High Schools.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(1), 41-51.
doi:doi:10.1177/1098300715580992

Lyons, G., Ford, M., & Slee, J. (2014). Classroom management: Creating positive
learning environments (4th ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage

Otto, L. B., & Atkinson, M. P. (1997). Parental involvement and adolescent

development. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(1), 68-89. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/211585118?accountid=36155

Postholm, M. B. (2013). Classroom management: what does research tell us?

European Educational Research Journal, 12(3), 389-402. doi:
10.2304/eerj.2013.12.3.389

Upreti, G., Liaupsin, C., & Koonce, D. (2010). Stakeholder utility: Perspectives on
school-wide data for measurement, feedback, and evaluation. Education &
Treatment of Children, 33(4), 497-511. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/815405102?accountid=36155

Andrew Simpson - 17464824 6