PPLE Assigment 1

Why do young people misbehave in school?

Misbehaviour, as suggested by the Department of Education Victoria is

“something that interferes with the safety or learning of the student or other
students” ("Student Behaviour", 2018). Examples of student misbehaviour
include: withdrawn behaviour such as school phobia, starring, anxiety and
shyness; the other is disruptive behaviours such as being out of their seat,
calling out during the lesson, swearing, refusing to follow instructions, not
raising their hand; violent or unsafe behaviours such as running out of class,
vandalising equipment and fighting; and finally inappropriate social
behaviour such as stealing, inappropriate conversations and being over-
affectionate. To distinguish what the behaviour is and spending time solely on
identifying a misbehaviour is an ill-structured problem, we need to
reconceptualise this idea through reasoning of underlying triggers impacting
on and generating the misbehaviour. This report aims to compare different
literature views on what causes misbehaviour, focusing on the attitudes and
beliefs different people hold regarding the reasons for student misbehaviour
via an interview protocol, then compare these views with academic
literature and finally provide implications for praxis based on my personal
awareness.

Underlying factors of misbehaviour

Through my research I have come to learn that misbehaviour is not a term

that can be easily defined, there is a wide spectrum of underlying causes
contributing to the behaviour (Alter, P., al. 2013). Such as:

 teacher behaviour
 biophysical factors
 psychological factors
 behavioural/ social/cultural and environmental factors
  classroom organisational issues (student behaviour, 2018).

Teachers attitudes and expectations impact on the way young people

behave during class as made mention in an article by Mc Grath & Van
Bergen, ‘Who, when, why and to what end? Students at risk of negative
student-teacher relationships and their outcomes’ (2015) suggesting that
“student- teacher relationship is very important: influencing children’s
academic, social, behavioural and emotional development”. The Social
Control Theory amplifies on the latter suggesting individuals minimise
delinquent behaviour through strong bonds in the following 4 elements;
attachment through the ties a person makes with others, commitment which
is investment in conventional behaviour such as attending to student’s needs,
involvement such as participation in class activities and finally, belief,
associated with the acceptance of rules. The theory, further made mention in
an article by Demanet & Van Houtte (2012), stating the inverse effects of less
teacher support associated with student misbehaviour and learning. Thus,
positive attitudes, such as praising students for their hard work, being
affectionate and caring according to the theory supposes misbehaviour as
less likely to occur.

On the other hand, the report by Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy

(2009),’Attributions for and consequences of Student Behaviours’ examines
both teacher and student attributions, whereby both participants had similar
perspectives on misbehaviour but disagreed on the reasons for misbehaviour.
In this article, interestingly “teachers attributed student misbehaviour to
unknown or home factors” (p.155) which shifts the blame off the teachers, as
opposed to the article by Demanet & Van Houtte (2012) and McGrath & Van
Bergen (2015) making mention that the problem starts at home blaming the
parents for not teaching their children respect or living troubled situations.
Teachers also attributed misbehaviour to attention seeking, a source of
gaining power and popularity among the students. But from the students’
perspectives misbehaviour was used to gain the teachers attention, a need
for acknowledgment and relationship, an ideology supported by Cothran et
al (2003) addressing the importance of positive relationships. Another key
factor was made mention: ‘when its boring’ implying student misbehaved
when they got bored with subject matter and/or the activities. Behavioural
compliances were more likely to occur when students enjoyed the subject
matter, students who are more interested in their learning misbehave less in
class.

My own research : Interview

Method

I conducted my own research to gain personal insight into what literature

proposed, by interviewing six people through open-ended questioning to
draw out views about student behaviour. I followed the ethics protocol,
making sure all my participants were fully aware of the research and
provided consent forms for each participant to sign. I clarified that they may
withdraw from the interview at any time and added that their identity will not
be cited in the report. The interview began with the question “In your opinion,
why do young people misbehave in school?” replies were recorded and later
written. Data was collected from 3 male and 3 female participants, to gain
information equally from both genders and their age ranged between
eighteen and forty-seven. Information about the participants age, gender
and occupation is provided in the table below:

De-identifying codes gender of the participant Age of the participant Occupation of the
participant

M1 MALE 18 STUDENT

M2 MALE 30 TEACHER

M3 MALE 47 PARENT

F1 FEMALE 24 FREIND

F2 FEMALE 37 ACCOUNTANT
 F3 FEMALE 28 PRE-SERVICE TEACHER

Interview results

After having read the literature obtained from the participants, I used word-
based technique (Ryan & Bernard, 2018), to extract common themes, by
looking for repetitions of words and key-words-in-context. I extrapolated 3
common themes ‘boredom’, ‘attention seeking’ and ‘teacher care’.

Three of the six participants believed young people misbehave because they
get bored during class, surprisingly though participants had different reasons
for boredom which enhanced misbehaviour. Participant M3 said “My kids
complain they get bored when the teacher doesn’t let them answer
questions in class, so they turn to their friend and start talking”, while M1
suggested he got bored when the content became too hard to
comprehend, he would “kill time” by socialising with classmates. F1, on the
other hand, believed social constraint was a key factor intertwined with
boredom in class, stating “it wasn’t interesting attending math or science
class, I didn’t want to be there, so I would be bad. Put me in music class all
day I wouldn’t complain”.

Furthemore, the theme attention seeking was mentioned by 83 percent of

the participants. M1 and F1 believe that acting up in class would prove you
cool, gaining the attention of peers through clowning around or making fun
of the teacher. While F3 relates misbehaviour to lack of attention at home
“some students exhibit challenging behaviour because they lacked attention
at home”. M2 and F3 views on why young people misbehave were solely
based on student attributions “they just want to please their friends”.

Finally, some of the participants when asked ‘why do young people

misbehave in school’, their first reaction was “my teacher didn’t care, she just
wanted to mark our papers and fill in reports” a statement made by
participant M1. Another answer on the same wavelength was one given by
F2, associating teacher care to student behaviour “the student knows when
the teacher really cares about their outcomes, they give back what is given,
the teacher is good and caring then the students are good and interested to
learn...they make students like the unit”.

Discussion

It was interesting to review the literature collected from the participants, it

was more interesting to see how each view was impacted by that
participants’ status. For example, both teacher (M2) and pre-service teacher
(F3) had similar views about misbehaviour and neither of the participants
reflected on their own pedagogy as an attribution to misbehaviour, but
rather associated misbehaviour to student attributions. Thus, shifting the
blame off them as made mention in the literature by Cothran et al (2009) and
projecting it onto students. F3 went further to contribute misbehaviour to
issues at home, associating attention seeking to underlying home problems as
cited by Cotheran et al (2009) “when teachers did supply a specific reason
for student behaviour, they most commonly cited students’ poor home lives
as the problem” (p.164). But, on the other hand the article goes further to
suggest, that what teachers perceive as problematic home issues, the
student is unaware of because it’s the lifestyle they have always and “ever
known” (p.164). Yet from a study conducted by Parker et al (2016), it supports
the importance of the parent’s voice in the identification and support of their
child’s needs. So there is a parental impact involved in the students
misbehaviour, but, if teachers do not commit to having part in students’
misbehaviour, and adjust their curriculum and lessons accordingly, the issues
of misbehaviour in a classroom will not be resolved.

The theory on teacher attitudes and expectations impacting on the way

young people behave during class (Mc Grath & Van Bergen, 2015) was also
tapped into by a couple of the participants in my research; M1 and F2. They
made mention how teacher input contributed to student output, as viewed
by Demanet & Van Houtte (2012), stating the inverse effects of less teacher
support associated with student misbehaviour and learning. In addition to
that, it was interesting to see this view was provided by a current student,
once again shifting the blame onto teachers and not coming to terms with
their own contribution to the problem.

Boredom was a common theme, mentioned by half the participants in my

research, whether it be associated to interest in the unit or possible learning
difficulties within the unit, deeming the student incapable to participate in
the activities set by the teacher. These are relevant findings, and coincide
with the literature provided by Cothran et al (2009) on classroom
misbehaviour correlated with what students’ perceive as meaningful subject
matter, “when its boring were more likely to be bad”, as also mentioned by
F1 in my own research.

Attention seeking was highlighted in the interviews, yet in contrasting ways by

different participants on different sides of the spectrum. The views extracted
from F1 and F3 contradicted, the former suggesting being cool in front of
peers by clowning around and making fun of the teacher, thus seeking
attention from peers, while the latter, being the pre-service teacher,
associated misbehaviour to lack of attention at home. Both views amplifying
on students’ attempt to fulfil a sense of attachment and involvement, if such
a need is not fulfilled, as made mention in the Social Control Theory,
delinquent behaviour is observed.

Praxis

Based on the literature I have gathered and the research I conducted, I

believe and hope that I am better equipped at understanding why young
people misbehave and that misbehaviour does not just happen, there are
underlying triggers and factors influencing and impacting on why it happens.
Being aware now that student- teacher relationship is very important in
influencing children’s academic, social, behavioural and emotional
development (Demanet & Van Houtte, 2012; McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015)
and the importance of incorporating all 4 elements in the Social Control
Theory, I will attend to my students ensuring they know that I have their best
interests at heart to reduce and minimise misbehaviour in my practice. As
made mention “individuals minimise delinquent behaviour through strong
bonds”, I will put this in motion through constant positive appraisal and letting
that student know that they are important to me. I could do this by thanking
a student for raising their hand, supporting a student who finds the content
hard and making their sure they are progressing with class activities, if there is
a need to adjust the curriculum and lesson plan to a more simplified version
to accommodate the student at need, it is an approach I am more than
happy to pursue to show my concerns and interests in that student’s learning
outcomes.

One thing for certain, I do not want students reflecting on my lessons as

boring, as made clear to me by the participants I interviewed, a boring lesson
elicits disengaged students which in turn provokes challenging behaviour
(Cotheran et al, (2009). It is now clear to me why students get bored in class,
it is not just because they feel like dissociating themselves from the unit, but
because class content seems uninteresting to them, they would rather do
something fun, than learn something they don’t care about. Therefore, I
could develop an understanding on what interests the students’ and
incorporate these interests in the lessons. Example, it could be they have a
liking to jokes, then incorporating some jokes related to the lesson would
draw on the interests of that student, they have something to relate to then.
This might not immediately see engagement of interest in that student, but it
is a milestone off which other milestones may be achieved. In addition to
that, game-based learning is a strategy I really enjoy incorporating into lesson
plans, students can learn content through playing games relevant to the unit,
I can implement this in my lessons to reduce boredom.

In conclusion, reading through the relevant literature and conducting my

own research has further illuminated my understanding as to why young
people misbehave. It is not a phenomenon solely associated to the student,
but underlying triggers and factors contribute, such as teacher-student
relationships, parents and class content just to name a few. As a pre-service
teacher, I have come to understand these factors and I am aware that I
have a role to play, unlike what the literature has declared about teachers
being in denial to the problem (Cotheran et al, 2009), I aim to own the
problem and work towards minimising it as much as possible within my class.
That doesn’t necessarily mean I wont encounter misbehaviour, it would be
naive to assume that.
REFERENCE LIST

Alter, P., Walker, J., & Landers, E. (2013). Teachers’ Perceptions of Students’ Challenging

Behavior and the Impact of Teacher Demographics. Education And Treatment Of

Children, 36(4), 51-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/etc.2013.0040

Costello, B. (2010). Hirschi, travis: social control theory. In F. T. Cullen & P. Wilcox (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of criminological theory (pp. 452-458). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781412959193.n124

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.008

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

McGrath, K., & 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.12.001

Ryan, G., & Bernard, H. (2018). Techniques to Identify Themes in Qualitative Data.

Analytictech.com. Retrieved 12 April 2018, from

http://www.analytictech.com/mb870/readings/ryan-
bernard_techniques_to_identify_themes_in.htm

Student Behaviour. (2018). Education.vic.gov.au. Retrieved 10 April 2018, from

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/studentmanagement/Pages/stud
entbehaviour.aspx

Wragg, E. C. and Dooley, P. A. (1984) Class management during teaching practice. In E. C.

Wragg (ed.) Classroom Teaching Skills. London: Croom Helm, pp. 21–46.