Monica Sharpe 18795006 PPLE Assessment 1

The following report investigates the reasons young people misbehave in schools

through an exploration of current academic research and interviews with six diverse

participants. A comparison of this academic literature and the interview findings is used

to make some suggestions for teacher praxis. For the purposes of this paper we will

define student misbehavior as any behaviours that disturb or disrupt learning and

teaching within the classroom setting. This definition is appropriate as the purpose of

the paper is to consider a range of attitudes about the causes of student misbehaviour in

a broad sense.

Literature Review

A substantial amount of research suggests that student misbehaviour is caused

primarily by characteristics of the individual misbehaving students. These could be

psychological, social or behavioural factors. Research conducted by Parker, Paget, Ford

and Gwernan-Jones (2016) suggests that student misbehaviour that is likely to result in

exclusion commonly results from a students identifiable psychosocial or mental health

difficulties. These difficulties could include mental illness, learning difficulties,

behavioural disorders or dysfunctional family situations. Although Parker et al. suggest

that school environments and teachers can either assist with or exacerbate these issues,

the research does assume that the initial misbehaviour can be located in difficulties

inherent to the student.

Similarly, research conducted by Lin and Ci (2014) focuses upon the student as the

cause of misbehaviour. However, rather than psychological or social issues, this

research concentrates on unhealthy student behaviour in the form of sleep practices.

Monica Sharpe 18795006 PPLE Assessment 1

Lin and Ci suggest that unhealthy sleep patterns in adolescents can result in low levels

of emotional wellbeing, poor academic performance and a lack of self control, all of

which can then result in misbehaviour.

However, other research focuses upon teacher behaviour, attitudes and classroom

management, rather than student characteristics, as the primary determinant of student

misbehaviour. This research tends to focus on the quality of the relationship between

students and teachers as a determining factor for student misbehaviour. It is argued by

Demanet and Houtte (2012) that teacher attitudes and expectations, when they

manifest in differential treatment of students and a disengaged affect, can result in

student misbehaviour. They suggest this is because students perceive a decrease in time

and effort on the part of the teacher, and interpret this as a lack of care and a lack of

commitment or belief in their ability to learn. This often triggers misbehaviour.

Landrum, Scott and Lingo (2011) similarly suggest that teachers can be a determinant

of student misbehaviour, however they focus on teacher pedagogy and classroom

management. While they suggest that student misbehaviour may always exist to some

extent in classrooms, they argue that it is most likely to occur when the teacher is not

using research-based strategies to construct a physical environment that encourages

behaviour.

Research conducted by McGrath and Bergen (2014) also emphasizes the important of

student-teacher relationships in determining whether students will misbehave in

school. This research suggests that a positive teacher-student relationship can prevent

student misbehaviour, even in cases where misbehaviour was previously likely to occur,
Monica Sharpe 18795006 PPLE Assessment 1

for example with students who have some of the characteristics identified by Parker et

al (2016) such as learning difficulties and behaviour disorders.

Interview Process and Key Findings

The six participants interviewed were chosen for their diversity in terms of age, gender,

education and relationship with the teaching profession. Key characteristics of the

interviewees are recorded below:

P1: Female, 35, mother of four boys

P2: Male, 24, Medical Science graduate

P3: Female, 27, Secondary English teacher

P4: Male, 79, retired, previously NSW Director General of Education

P5: Female, 23, pre-service teacher

P6: Male, 22, Law student and paralegal

In compliance with ethics protocols, participants were provided with adequate time to

read the information sheet and consent forms, as well as to ask any questions before

signing. Names were not used when notes were digitalised. The interviews were in the

form of informal conversations, conducted in participants homes and lasting 15-20

minutes. The initial question, Why do young people misbehave in schools? was posed,

and then open questions for clarification or elaboration were used to continue the

discussion.
Monica Sharpe 18795006 PPLE Assessment 1

I analyzed the interview notes in order to extract themes that firstly, reoccurred most

frequently, and secondly were most frequently considered of the highest significance.

While some participants explicitly expressed which reason they thought was the most

significant, for others an inference was made based on whether the reason was

elaborated upon, or only mentioned.

Four participants mentioned a students cognitive ability as a reason for misbehaviour;

with three believing it was a highly significant reason. P6 proposed that when students

were in the wrong classes for their ability they were more likely to muck up. This idea

was elaborated upon by P4 who reasoned that when this was the case students found

it easier to misbehave rather than do the work. P4 and P5 also suggested that

misbehaviour occurs not only when the work is too challenging for students cognitively,

but also when it is not challenging enough.

Four participants mentioned the teacher as the most significant determinant of

classroom misbehaviour. When participants mentioned the teacher it was either to do

with the teacher relationship with the students, or the way they presented class

content. P4 said that the teachers ability to communicate well with the students, to be

a real person and allow the kids to be real people was highly significant. This was

echoed by P2 who said that sometimes students misbehave to see how the teacher will

react to a new situation. Alongside the ability of the teacher to interact authentically

with students was the idea that teachers must be able to present their content

relevantly and engagingly. P3 for example said that misbehaviour would occur when a

teacher lacks credibility in their subject. P4 went even further saying that when a

teacher was engaging and enthusiastic students would forget about mucking around.
Monica Sharpe 18795006 PPLE Assessment 1

If this does not occur, and students are disengaged or view the content as irrelevant P2

suggested they misbehave simply for something more interesting to do.

Three participants suggested that students peers were a determinant of misbehaviour.

While this was only briefly mentioned by P2 and P3, P1 thought this was the most

significant factor. P1 suggested that peer pressure, and an attempt to conform to the

peers was very significant saying, the biggest determinant of a young persons

behaviour is who that persons friends are.

Although five participants mentioned home environment, in all of these interviews it

was only mentioned and not elaborated upon. P2 for example stated, home

environment does play some role, a small role probably. Both P3 and P4 mentioned

home environment at the beginning of their interview, as an exceptional circumstance

that causes misbehaviour, not the kind of misbehaviour that occurs most frequently in

the classroom.

Comparison of literature and interview findings

There were various points of agreement and disagreement between the literature and

the interview findings. In terms of students cognitive ability as a determinant of

misbehaviour, the literature tended to focus upon diagnosable cognitive difficulties, like

learning disorders and behavioural disorders (Parker et al, 2016; McGrath & Bergen,

2014) Participants, in contrast, focused more upon the content being pitched at the

wrong level for the students, or students being in the wrong class for their cognitive

ability. There was an assumption within the interviews that the teacher or the school
Monica Sharpe 18795006 PPLE Assessment 1

could address this. In terms of home environment, there was a similar assumption in

both the literature and the interviews that home environment had an effect on some

individual students misbehaviour. There was also agreement that this was probably not

the kind of misbehaviour that occurred frequently and persistently in classrooms, but

rather was more unique, and probably significant incidents of misbehaviour. While

research conducted by Lin and Ci (2014) focused entirely on sleep routines as a cause of

misbehaviour, this was not mentioned by any of the participants. There was also no

specific mention of the effect of peers on misbehaviour in the literature, although this

was mentioned by half of the participants.

There was also agreement between both the literature and the interview findings that

the teacher played a significant role in determining misbehaviour. Almost all

participants mentioned teachers presenting content in a boring or irrelevant way, or

lacking an authentic relationship with students as a reason misbehaviour occurs.

Similarly a large amount of the research focused on the teacher, their attitudes,

expectations and practices, as being a cause of student misbehaviour (Demanet &

Houtte, 2012; Landrum, Scott & Lingo, 2011; McGrath & Bergen, 2014). Interestingly,

the participants that focused most strongly on the teacher were the current teacher,

former Director General of Education and the two participants who have most recently

been in high school. Participants who have less recent or substantial personal

experience in classrooms were more likely to mention home environment or peers as

reasons misbehaviour occurs.

From this comparison, a number of conclusions about the reasons for misbehaviour can

be drawn. It would appear that there is a consensus that students inherent cognitive
Monica Sharpe 18795006 PPLE Assessment 1

abilities, background and routines outside the classroom, can be a reason that

misbehaviour occurs. However, I would argue from these findings that the teacher is

more significant in determining misbehaviour that these inherent student

characteristics. The research and interviews seem to suggest that most misbehaviour

occurs when the teacher does not communicate well, lacks authenticity and credibility,

does not present content in a relevant way and does not differentiate material to suit a

range of cognitive abilities. Even in circumstances where misbehaviour is to occur

because of the inherent characteristics of a student, the research suggests that this can

be reduced, or exacerbated, by teacher practices (McGrath & Bergen, 2014).

Implications for Praxis

I have concluded from my research that misbehaviour may be triggered when the wide

range of students cognitive abilities are not addressed or accounted for within the

classroom. Teachers can only address this when they know their students and how

they learn (AITSL, 2014). Once a teacher knows her students and their cognitive

ability, misbehaviour can be managed or reduced through differentiation. Ensuring that

within each class there are activities that are accessible to lower ability students, as well

as extension activities that are challenging to higher ability students will ensure

students do not disengage from their work and therefore misbehave.

While this will work for the majority of students, it was acknowledged by both the

literature and participants that some students misbehave because of diagnosable

learning or behavioural disorders, or issues caused by a dysfunctional home

environment. In order to address or manage the misbehaviour of these students, the

Monica Sharpe 18795006 PPLE Assessment 1

teacher will need to put time and effort into researching and communicating with

students. It is only by getting to know these students that the teacher can apply the

correct interventions, for example a referral to a school counselor or suggesting a Life

Skills program of study, that will help the student cope better in the classroom and

therefore be less likely to misbehave. This approach will only work if there are whole

school systems in place, like learning support and student wellbeing programs that are

committed to addressing these specific student needs.

Even more significantly, I have concluded from my research that misbehaviour can be

managed when a teacher has an authentic and effective relationship with her students. I

believe that this begins with teachers reflecting on their own beliefs and attitudes about

their students. If a teacher holds, maybe even unconsciously, the belief that students

misbehave on purpose and because of an evil intent, it is unlikely she will have an

authentic relationship with those students. However, if the teacher consciously

challenges this belief through reflection, research and communication with students,

she can begin to treat the students as human beings who make mistakes and need

guidance. Once this occurs, the teacher can implement practices to improve her

relationship with the students, for example by consciously working on focusing and

reinforcing positive behaviours in students rather than focusing on negative

behaviours.

Furthermore, I have determined that students misbehave when the teacher is not

passionate about their subject material, and does not make learning relevant and

engaging. Teachers can address this by knowing their subject and how to teach it

(AITSL, 2014) and implementing research-based pedagogical strategies within their

Monica Sharpe 18795006 PPLE Assessment 1

classroom. In my teaching area of English it is well established that students will engage

better with literary texts when they are offered choice in the texts. Therefore, to manage

misbehaviour caused by a disengagement with the subject, English teacher can be

flexible in their programming to allow students choice of texts that they find interesting

and relevant.

This report has compared academic literature and findings from interviews with six

diverse participants exploring why young people misbehave in schools. It has been

concluded that although individual characteristics of students can result in

misbehaviour, teacher practices, attitudes and relationships with students is probably

more significant. Some implications for praxis focused upon this have been given.
 Monica Sharpe 18795006 PPLE Assessment 1

References

Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership. (2014). Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-

standards-for-teachers/standards/list.

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 28 860-869. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.008

Landrum, T.J., Lingo, A.S. & Scott, T.M. (2011) Classroom misbehaviour is predictable and

preventable. Phi Delta Kappan Magazine 93(1) 30-34. doi:

10.1177/003172171109300207

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

functioning during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 44 431-446.

doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0169-9

McGrath, K.F. & Van Berden, P. (2015) Why, 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

Parker, C., Paget, A., Ford, T. & Gwernan-Jones, R. (2016) he was excluded for the kind of

behaviour that we thought he needs support with A qualitative analysis of the

experiences and perspectives of parents whose children have been excluded from

school. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 21(1) 133-151. doi:

10.1080/13632752.2015.1120070
Monica Sharpe 18795006 PPLE Assessment 1