102082 Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments

Assignment 1 Research Report

19025777 Jacinta McDowall

Why do young people misbehave in school ?

Section 1

While the articles used in this research agree that young people misbehave in

school, it is crucial to realise the physical and theoretical reasons why they

believe this is.

Student misbehaviour has been generally defined as “any behaviour by pupils

which interferes with the smooth running of a lesson” (Kyriacou & Ortega-

Martin, 2009. pg. 416). It is a problem that has been documented by Sullivan,

Johnson, Owens & Conway (2014) as mostly minor issues which happen

frequently, including idleness, hindering others from learning, and the main

issue being talking out of turn (pg. 44).

Although these behaviours are described as minor, they can have serious

effects on students cognitive, social and emotional development, as well as

create significant issues for teachers stress levels and retention (Clunies-Ross,

Little & Kienhuis, 2008).

These issues are explored in the study conducted by McGrath and Van Bergen

(2014), who discuss the critical importance of the student–teacher relationship

in regards to student behaviour. Drawing on information from empirical studies

over the past three decades, McGrath and Van Bergen (2014) principally

suggest the Attachment Theory as a possible explanation of student

misbehaviour. This theory is explained as the deep emotional bond that

connects a child to their main caregiver, which can determine later emerging

relationships such as student/teacher. This theory suggests an insecure

attachment (relationship) early in life may lead to a student having a reduced

capacity to inhibit appropriate behaviour and self-reflection at school, which

can lead to reduced success in life (McGrath and Van Bergen, 2014). This

concept places a heavy association between a students upbringing and history

and their behaviour in school.

Similarly, Kyriacou & Ortega-Martin (2009) note that the most common cause

of student misbehaviour reported by first year teachers in their 2009 study,

was due to parents not instilling ‘pro-school values’ (p.g 423), leading to a lack

of respect towards the teacher and education system, thus causing students to

become disengaged and troublesome. Although these authors have not

included ‘attachment theory’ in their report, they emphasize the impact that

the parental relationship and home factors have on a students behaviour

(Kyriacou & Ortega-Martin, 2009).

On the other hand, Sullivan et al. (2014), discuss a study that investigates the

nature and extent of unproductive student behaviours and teacher

management, to which they put forward the concept that classroom ecology is

the major factor of student misbehavour, suggesting teachers have more

control over student behaviour than previously insinuated. Their results link the
physical environment, curriculum and pedagogy as having a major impact on

class engagement, suggesting ineffective lesson planning and classroom

management (for example not including differentiation in pedagogies when

required, or ineffective discipline policies) leads to detrimental outcomes,

including student disengagement, resistance and general misbehaviour

(Sullivan et al. 2014).

The juxtaposition of these powerful concepts highlights several possible causes

as to why students misbehave in school, including both teacher centered

attributes compared with a students emotional capabilities and needs. These

concepts will be used as a basis for evaluating the views of the interviewees in

section 2.

Section 2

Interviews were conducted on both male and female participants from various

backgrounds over a one week period in order to identify opinions on the causes

of student misbehaviour in schools. Participants included:

(1F) Female, 64. School teacher, parent.

(2F) Female, 34. Lawyer, parent.

(3F) Female, 28. Early childhood education worker.

(4F) Female, 24. Pre-service teacher.

(5M) Male, 36. Policeman, parent.

(6M) Male, 26. Gardner.

Prior to interview commencement, consent forms were provided to participants

which outlined the purpose and code of conduct. Each interview lasted

approximately 20 minutes and were initiated with the question “In your

opinion, why do young people misbehave in school?”, followed with open-

ended questions, in a conversational and relaxed approach, that was

documented by the interviewer for later evaluation.

The most common theme that emerged from the interviews was the

identification of misbehaviour as a ‘disruption to others’ in the classroom, and

that all participants had experienced it either actively or passively within a

school context.

1F, 3F and 4F outlined a cause of misbehaviour was teacher expectations not

being made explicit thus causing students to have a misunderstanding of

boundaries. These three participants have backgrounds in the field of

education, and used similar terms throughout the interviews such as

‘structure’, ‘guidance’ and most notably ‘expectations’, suggesting a teachers

instruction and attitude were important in relation to the causes of student

misbehaviour. These participants also commented on the benefits of praise for

good behaviour, and spoke less about disciplinary action for negative

behaviour, suggesting these participants value positive attention for desirable

attention as a tool for classroom management.

Another common theme which arose as a cause of misbehaviour was student

boredom. Almost all participants suggested students become bored due to non-

engaging lessons, thus misbehave to create some excitement or simply go off

task because ‘they do not care about the topic’ (5M) e.g. chat to friends, draw

on the table etc. Several of the participants acknowledged that many students

don’t value education because they don’t understand the purpose of the task

or schooling in general, as they may be too young to be thinking about their

future.

Family involvement was also mentioned by half of the participants, who

strongly believed students who came from families that were involved in their

child's education achieved higher outcomes at school, including hiring tutors or

being involved in extra curricular activities. Family socio economic status was

discussed as an influence on behaviour, as was the education levels of the

parents.

Section 3

Why young people misbehave in school is a complex concept drawing on many

different opinions from people depending on their own experience and

education. That said, the interview findings and literature review in section 1

and 2 of this assignment have provided evidence to suggest that a possible

cause of student misbehaviour is due to the individual students basic needs not

being met, resulting in a negative student/teacher relationship.

This concept gains evidence through common threads which arose identifying

both teachers and students as the central cause of student misbehaviour in

varying categories.

An example of this is represented by McGrath and Van Bergen’s (2014)

discussion on Attachment Theory as a possible explanation of student

misbehaviour. They put forward the notion that a students upbringing and

early life relationships directly affects their behaviour and relationships within

the classroom. These authors outline that a student needs to experience a

sense of belonging at school, and have a supportive relationship with their

teacher in order to feel motivated to participate appropriately in the classroom.

This concept of ‘belonging’ was also reflected in the interview findings, in which

several of the participants believed students needed to value education and

understand the purpose of schooling in order to become engaged in a lesson

which they believed stemmed from a students upbringing and family influence,

aswell as the age and maturity level of the student. Several of the interviewees

believed that a negative or limited association between family and school could

result in students becoming disengaged in class and more likely to misbehave.

Kyriacou & Ortega-Martin (2009) affirm this idea in their article, inwhich they

discuss the impact family influence has on student values towards school and

behaviour in class.

The notion that behaviour is pre-determined by a persons background and

character places students as central to the cause of misbehaviour.

Psychoeducation approaches such as ‘Choice Theory’ (De Nobal, Lyons &

Arthur Kelly, 2017), explain misbehaviour is the result of the individuals

attempt to satisfy their basic needs of: survival, power, belonging, freedom and

fun. This theory further establishes McGrath and Van Bergens (2014) idea that

a students need of belongingness must be met in order to feel their quality

world aligns with the class environment. Students emotional need to share

affection, social acceptance and attention from a valued other, can be

established through a good quality student-teacher relationship (De Nobal et

al., 2017).

In contrast, Sullivan et al. (2014) discuss the impact classroom ecology has on

student behaviour, putting forth the notion that the teacher is infact central to

the cause and solution of misbehaviour, placing less importance on a students

underlying emotional needs. The idea that ineffective lesson planning and poor

classroom management can result in student misbehaviour was also discussed

by several of the interviewees who believed a teachers instruction, expectation

and overall attitude was a key factor. The interviewees emphasised that a

teachers inability to maintain explicit boundaries was a major contributing

factor to students going off task.

That said, both Sullivan et al. (2014) and the interviewees also acknowledge

the benefits of a positive student-teacher relationship, suggesting good quality

classroom management of the pedagogies, curriculum and physical

environment can encourage positive relationships, as students become more

engaged in class resulting in more appropriate behaviour (Sullivan et al.,2014).

This concept aligns with Choice Theory in a sense that it depicts teachers as

having the ability to become leaders of the classroom, who by facilitating a

positive classroom environment through quality lesson planning, offer students

the opportunity to make appropriate choices about how they will behave (De

Nobal et al., 2017).

Although the literature and interview findings reveal contrasting elements, the

most notable relationships between them suggest positive student-teacher

relationships are required to establish positive classroom behaviour, thus

students physical and emotional needs must be considered by educators.

Section 4

The conclusions drawn from the interview findings and research articles

strongly suggest that students misbehave in school due to a negative student-

teacher relationship, which is a result of their basic emotional and physical

needs not being met. In saying this, I believe a pschoeducation approach to

prevention and intervention of behavioural issues are likely to satisfy the needs

of the students and thus encourage a positive learning environment inwhich

the student-teacher relationship can flourish.

Proactive discipline plans can be used as a preventative approach to

misbehaviour, including using positive responses when students demonstrate

appropriate behaviour, which can increase on‐task behaviour in classrooms

(Clunies-Ross et al., 2008).   

Maintaining that the student is central to the cause of misbehaviour, as

suggested by McGrath and Van Bergen (2014), Kyriacou & Ortega-Martin

(2009) as well as the implications drawn from several of the interviewees, I

believe the counseling strategy ‘Reality Therapy’ which was created from the

research on Choice Theory (De Nobal et al., 2017), will help to improve the

relationships between teacher and student, which will in turn minimise student

misbehaviour in school. This can be achieved using the five step approach

when a behavioural issue occurs:

Step 1: Establish unmet need

The teacher maintains a positive environment by not placing blame or fault on

the student, but instead asks ‘what has made them upset, or what they are

trying to achieve’. This initial reaction will also assist the students perception of

teacher warmth, trust and low degree of conflict (Jong, Mainhard, Van Tartwijk,

Veldman, Verloop & Wubbels, 2013).

Step 2: Clarify what the student is doing to meet their need

Once the need is apparent, the student is prompted to discuss what they are

doing to solve their problem. This step encourages students to acknowledge

their inappropriate behaviour and establishes grounds for self-efficacy (Jong et.

al, 2013).

Step 3: Help student evaluate their behaviour in relation to their need

The student is asked if his/her actions are helping or hurting the situation. If the

student becomes defiant at this stage the teacher should maintain a non-

judgmental outlook, to maintain a supportive environment, and may prompt

further questions such as ‘is that really what you want’ (De Nobal et al. page

231. 2017).

Step 4: Help student consider other choices

Students are prompted to brainstorm alternative actions that they could have

taken including pros and cons. This step encourages students self-efficacy,

giving them a sense of control and achievement (Jong et. al, 2013).

Step 5: Help student commit to future action

Teacher leads student through a process of decision making for future actions

and consequences. Teachers are encouraged to compromise with the students

to retain a healthy and trusting relationship (De Nobal et al., 2017).

This strategy encourages positive communication practices which is especially

important for pre-service teachers, like myself, who are not as familiar with

students, nor have sufficient time to ‘repair’ a negative relationship in their

professional placement (Jong et. al, 2013).

A risk factor towards these implications would be the heavy reliance and

expectation of student engagement. If indeed a student is unwilling to

communicate effectively then this strategy will be ineffective at promoting

appropriate behaviour. However, I do believe that even in this case, a teachers

ability to maintain a non-judgmental and positive environment will still

strengthen the student-teacher relationship, and hopefully in the future the

student will be more willing to interact with the teacher and create meaningful

changes to their behaviour.

 References

De Nobal, J., Lyons, G., & Arthur Kelly, M. (2017). Positive Learning

Environments. Creating and Maintaining Productive Classrooms. 1st Ed. Vic:

Cenage

Jong, R., Mainhard, T., Van Tartwijk, J., Veldman, L., Verloop, N., & Wubbels, T.,

(2013). How pre‐service teachers' personality traits, self‐efficacy, and discipline

strategies contribute to the teacher–student relationship. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.111/bjep.1202

Kyriacou, C., and Ortega Martin, J.L. (2009). Beginning secondary school

teachers’ perceptions of pupil misbehaviour in Spain. Pages 415-426.

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1080/13664530.2010.533481
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

Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008). Self‐reported and actual use of

proactive and reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship

with teacher stress and student behaviour. An International Journal of

Experimental Educational Psychology. 28:6. Pages 693-710. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1080/01443410802206700

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).

http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n6.6