102082 – Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments

Assessment 1: Report

Jeremy Odang-Rohan

Western Sydney University

The following report will focus on literature reviews of three separate articles covering

adolescent development, behaviour and behavioural management to cover the topic of why

young people misbehave in schools. Each article provides insightful and sufficient

information that contributes to a deeper understanding of the topic, with relevance to both

past and contemporary issue. In addition, interviews were conducted with six separate

individuals ranging from teachers, pre-service teachers, parents and non-teaching person(s)

who were asked to share their opinions on why young people misbehave in an open-ended

interview. Their responses alongside the information provided in the articles paint a clearer

picture as to why young people misbehave in schools.

To understand why young people misbehave in schools, we must look the adolescent period,

more specifically the biological factor of adolescence. Dumontheil’s (2016) article

‘Adolescent brain development’ focuses on the brains development during a young person’s

adolescent period and how difference in development can affect their behaviour during

adolescence. She defines adolescence as a period of transition from childhood to adulthood

associated with significant and region-specific changes in brain structure and function that

lead to unique patterns in the brains responses and behaviours. Due to the brains differential

development between the early maturing sub-cortical regions that deal with emotional and

reward processing, and later maturing front and temporal cortex that controls self-regulation

and social cognition, increased risk-taking and sensation-seeking behaviours are observed in

adolescents (Dumontheil, 2016). Considering misbehaviour is the issue, it appears biological

factors play a key role when analysing why young people misbehave in general, unrestricted

to certain area that students are exposed to. Dumontheil (2016) continues to explain how

social cognitive changes can lead to an increase in social orientation and sensitivity towards

and in the presence of peers in areas such as peer exclusion, which could possibly lead to

misbehaviour due to peer influence, impacting decision making with more risk-taking actions
in this social context; referring to the brains earlier maturation of emotional and rewards

processing and associating it with diminished self-control.

This next article builds on the biological factor of adolescent development by exploring why

student misbehave in a classroom setting by focusing on the attributions of students and

teachers in a physical education class. Attributions are thought as beliefs used to explain

events according to Conthran, Kulinna & Garrahy (2009), who refer to Kelsey (2004) who

summarises three assumptions that underline attribution theory:

 Seek to interpret/understand self/others’ behaviour in terms of causes

 Assign causes systematically

 Causes play important role in determining reactions to behaviours.

The method behind this article involved 23 secondary schools ranging from Year 6-12

teachers with a wide range of experience spanning below 10 years to over 21 years. Students

also participated in this research, with an aged range of 11 to 18-year olds from different

schools in varying socioeconomic neighbourhoods, with eight from low socioeconomic to

five located in lower middle to upper socioeconomic areas. Both students and teachers were

asked to share their opinions on student behaviour, effectiveness of management strategies

and teacher-student relationship to determine the causes behind misbehaviour in an interview

setting. Student answers, for example to look cool or get the teachers attention, were

categorised in a larger category of ‘attention seeking’.

The results of this article provide an interesting insight into perspectives teachers and

students share, with more similarities in responses and only one key difference on the topic of

attribution for student misbehaviour. Teachers generally responded with ‘nobody knows,’

stating there are unlimited and various reasons causing misbehaviour or related it to home

issues. Though, student’s answers stated home played a minimal role in attributions, rather
attributing misbehaviour to attention seeking or subject matter that wasn’t of interest to them.

Both groups however did agree that misbehaviour lead to negative consequences that effected

time, content and teacher attitude and energy. Despite this agreement, further focus is

required to attributions stated by both groups as their opinions contrast, posing the question

of how to overcome the issue of misbehaviour. Conthran et al (2009), believes problem

ownership requires further investigation to provide a solution to misbehaviour, asking “why

both participants attributed student misbehaviour to factors external to themselves.” (p. 164).

Thompson’s (2011) article reviewed focuses on behavioural management and interventions

for students with challenging behaviours. It provides relevant and significant information

regarding behavioural management interventions for students who show challenging

behaviours. A systematic literature review of 2294 articles in 10 journals were conducted to

establish an understanding of why students misbehave, the consequences their misbehaviour

has on themselves and other individuals (e.g. previous research reported student disruptive

behaviour was a major contributor to lost instructional time, impeding other students’ ability

to learn and distract teachers from academic progress for the classroom), and how

intervention strategies can be implemented into the school to help provide both challenging

students and the whole school a more productive and positive school environment and

educational experience. The methods used in this article are drawn form 42 articles singled

from the large review, with a total of 12 evidence-based intervention strategies for schools.

These largely encompass Response to intervention (RTI) evidence-based strategies and

School-wide positive behaviour support (SWPBS) to create a productive school environment.

Upon reviewing the intervention strategies and relating it back to biological factors and

perspectives shared by students and teachers, the interventions can positively impact students

that share wide ranges of challenging behaviours. For example, task modification strategies
that alter levels of student school and homework habits can help students who, in Conthran et

al (2009), participate in misbehaviour due to a lack of interest in subject matter.

Interviews were conducted with six individuals, ranging in age, education level and role in

education. Each interviewee was provided the information and consent sheet to read and

understand before agreeing to conduct the interview. Interviews spanned over a two-week

period and were held in private and disclosed locations to ensure privacy was maintained

when they were conducted. Relevant information regarding the interviewees are provided

below:

When conducting the interviews, similarities and differences in opinion on young people

misbehaving were noted. These similarities were taken and categorised in 5 different sections
that include biological, social, educational, cognitive and responsibility factors. M2 and M3

shared similar views on the biological aspect of adolescent development, stating the frontal

lobe had not fully developed and therefore students are more inclined to act out. This ties in

with responsibility, as they mutually agreed that students were responsible for managing their

own misbehaviour based on their age and level of maturity. As the frontal lobe is associated

with more risk-taking behaviours, the social factor shared similar views on how students act

amongst their peers, with agreement between interviewees that peer influence or the need to

“show off” and “fit it” was a large contributing factor to misbehaviour and risk-taking

actions. In addition, potential problems at home or their general upbringing were mentioned

as factors that could lead to misbehaviour, as the student’s actions could reflect on what

they’ve been taught by parents or through negative experiences at home. This leads to the

cognitive factor of student misbehaviours, as all interviewees mentioned that home factors

contributed to a need for attention from teachers and fellow students, and that students gained

this through their misbehaviour in classrooms. Some interviewees also associated attention

with a lack of engagement to the classroom content, stating that students may be disengaged

due to a lack of interest in the topic or how the teacher is presenting it.

Despite the similarities, differences were found amongst the interviewees as some answers

were more specific on misbehaviour in schools, with the inclusion of personal experience.

For example, F2 spent a majority of the interview sharing from a parental perspective and

was teacher-focused, believing that student misbehaviour was associated with teachers failing

to deliver engaging content and providing students too many opportunities to misbehave. F1

mentioned personal experiences when students would attempt to challenge the teacher’s

authority to gain power over them, essentially “one upping” the teacher as the leader of the

classroom. M4 discussed role models in the students’ lives, and how negative role models

play an essential role in how students are expected to act as active and informed citizens. M2
shed historical insight on why students misbehaved during his school experience, stating it

was largely due to students not caring about their future, instead living in the present and

participating in risk taking behaviours including drugs and alcohol consumption. Despite

these differences, they tie in with the views each participant shared on misbehaviour and

relate to the five factors previously mentioned. The table below shows whether interviewees

mentioned a factor in their answers. Y = Yes, N = No.

Surprisingly, most answers provided by the interviewees correlated with the articles analysed

in the literature review. Comparisons are made between answers provided by M2 and M3

interviewees to Dumontheil’s article on adolescent brain development. Both share similar

opinions on the causes for student’s misbehaviour through the differential of brain maturation

affecting student’s behaviour and risk-taking analysis abilities and actions. Additionally,

Dumontheil (2016) mentions the impact of social contexts regarding misbehaviour similarly

to all interviewees, agreeing that peer influence is a major contributing factor to misbehaviour

in schools. This relates to social learning theory mentioned in Halgunseth (2013) article

proposing adolescents learn behaviour through their experience, observations and interactions

with individuals and their surrounding environment.

The attributions mentioned in Conthan et al. (2009) article by both students and teachers,

though different, strikingly resemble the opinions shared by interviewees. As mentioned in

the article, teachers often responded with a wide range of answers to student misbehaviours at

which students contradicted it with their own reasons for misbehaviour. Despite the
differences, when comparing the six interviewees opinions, their answers covered both the

attributions provided by students and teachers. In addition, it reinforced the notion that both

groups attributed factors external to themselves as F1 failed to mention teachers as an

attribute to student misbehaviour.

The final article proved difficult to make comparisons between interviews conducted and the

information provided. Though the reasons stated in the article for misbehaviour correlate with

the opinions of interviewees, the article highly focuses on intervention and classroom

management strategies for teachers. It appears there’s no contrasting information between the

interviewees and the article, as both share the similar view that misbehaviour in school is a

real problem that requires attention and intervention strategies to help improve the school

environment and student learning.

The analysis of both the articles and opinions shared by interviewees provided an opportunity

to gain a deeper knowledge and understanding behind the various factors and reasons behind

the misbehaviour of young people in schools. This adds unto my own understanding of

student behaviour issues, providing a different scope to view the issue and background to

understanding what causes it. In addition, further research was conducted by different articles

to further enhance my understanding and possible implications for praxis that could be

utilised to help manage challenging behaviour in a classroom. Thompson’s (2011) article

provided a range of results from intervention strategies that are both teacher-centred

(managing content and delivery, differentiation) and student-centred (individual tutoring,

consistent feedback, setting achievable goals).

Price (2016) in her dissertation suggested positive behavioural interventions and supports

(PBIS) that promotes practices informed by behavioural psychology and focuses on positive

reinforcements for students. As mentioned by interviewees and PBIS, misbehaviour can form
from the desire to acquire something, attention for example, or to avoid something such as

classroom work. Using PBIS, we can promote the teaching of positive behavioural norms, so

students are aware of how to behave appropriately. Price (2016) also mentions Social

Emotional Learning as a tool that focuses on the augmentation of student’s pro-social

capacities and self-control, successfully managing daily behavioural challenges through “self-

awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and decision-making.”

De Jong (2005) believes student behaviour need to be understood from an eco-systemic

perspective that focuses on the range of environmental, interpersonal and intra-personal

factors that students and teachers are exposed and influenced by daily. Understanding the

complex “interconnected, interdependent and recursive nature of these relationships” (De

Jong, 2005, p.357) better allows teachers to understand how the behaviour of a student affects

and if affected by these relationships, therefore providing an opportunity for teachers to alter

these relationships advantageously to manage misbehaviour in schools. These additional

articles proved useful upon reflecting on what misbehaviour is and how to manage it within

schools, providing different viewpoints and understandings that generate a range of

implications that can be utilised to improve teaching practice.

All articles analysed provide insightful and contemporary information, through both research

into the issue and scientific aspects on why young people misbehave in schools. This ranges

from effects related to adolescent brain development, social influence, cognitive functioning

and deliverance of educational material. In addition, they provide implications for praxis to

address and solve this issue and create a more positive and engaging school environment.

Interviews conducted shared similarities and differences in opinions related to the issue and

related closely to the information provided in each article. All answers mutually address that

misbehaviour is a relevant and current issue faced by students and teachers and requires

further investigation and solutions beyond what is currently provided to help manage it.
References

Cothran, D.J., Kulinna, P.H., & Garrahy, D.A., (2009). Attributions for and consequences of
student misbehaviour. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(2). 155-167. doi:
10.1080/17408980701712148

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. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1177/0143034305055979

Dumontheil, I. 2016. Adolescent brain development. Current Opinion in Behavioural

Sciences, 10(1). 39-44. doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.04.012

Halgunseth, L.C., Perkins, D.F., Lippold, M.A. & Nix, R.L. (2013). Delinquent-Orientated
Attitudes Mediate the Relation Between Parental Inconsistent Discipline and Early
Adolescent Behaviour. Journal of Family Psychology 27(2). 293-302. doi: 10.1037/a0031962

Price, M. (2016). When Students Misbehave: Student Discipline From The Insight Approach
(Published doctorate’s dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia). Retrieved
from file:///C:/Users/x/Downloads/When_Students_Misbehave_Stude.pdf

Thompson, A.M. (2011). A Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Interventions for Students

with Challenging Behaviours in School Settings. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work
8(3). 304-322. doi: 10.1080/15433714.2010.531220