WHY DO YOUNG PEOPLE

MISBEHAVE
Report

A report submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for Unit, Pedagogies for Positive Learning
Environments (102082), Department of Education, University of Western Sydney.

AUGUST 21, 2015

18300808
Jo-Ann Carder
Contents

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2

Literature Review ..................................................................................................................... 2

Results ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Implications ............................................................................................................................ 10

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 12

Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 14
Introduction

Today, it is not unusual to hear a news report whereby the youth of today are

distinguished by misbehaviour and delinquency. The media claim a variety of

answers and solutions, with frightening little evidence or proof of concept.

The purpose of this report is to explore the common attitudes and beliefs held

by varying individuals on student misbehaviour through a number of

interviews. Additionally it will compare and contrast these attitudes and

beliefs with current relevant theories and academic research on adolescent

development, behaviour and behaviour management.

It will do this in the following ways; Reviewing research and theoretical

literature; Brief description of the interviewing methodology; the identification

and discussion of common themes; Analysis of differences between attitudes

and academic research and lastly the implications of understanding and

improving teacher practice in relation to student behaviour.

Literature Review

Academic interest on the misbehaviour of young people has been rapidly

increasing over the last decade, both locally and internationally. It is being

supported by the belief that misbehaviour is an ongoing and growing issue in

Australias education system (De Jong, 2005, 354) and therefore not to be taken

lightly. Misbehaviour is a term, which has been defined in a number of ways. Some

believe it to be the rebellious and challenging nature of young person (Hameed-ur-

Rehman and Sadruddin, 2012) while others strongly believe it is an external reaction

to something lacking within a positive learning environment. (De Jong, 2005; Clark

and Pittaway, 2014)

De Jong (2005, 358) outlines seven main criteria for understanding

misbehaviour in young people.

(1) Understanding students from an eco-systemic perspective

(2) Embracing a health-promoting approach in creating a positive

environment for students

(3) These programs must be inclusive

(4) and student centred

(5) Behaviour is linked to the learning experience

(6) Positive relationships between teachers and students and

(7) Supportive networks throughout the school and home

Meanwhile, Clark and Pittaway (2014, 212-6) state, that misbehaviour

cohesively fits into five predetermined categories, aggression, immoral acts,

defiance of authority, disruptive behaviour and lastly off-task behaviour. They further

divide certain misbehaviours into gender and culture issues. For example, females

are more likely to have lower self-esteem and efficacy leading to off task behaviour

whilst males are more likely to engage in disruptive behaviour. Males often want to

create a popular self-image to seek attention in front of females and to assert

independence. It can also be a form of boredom and aggression.

In response, Cavanagh and Prescott (2015, 112) have asserted that there are

in fact only four reasons for student misbehaviour.

(1) The student is seeking attention

 (2) The student is seeking revenge

(3) The student wishes to show off their power against authority

(4) The student has a learned helplessness and feels they cannot achieve

what is being asked of them.

Cavanagh and Prescott (2015) continue that students with chronic behaviour

problems often end up in low ability classes where they find the content easy and

continue to disrupt other students leading to further issues of misbehaviour.

Supaporn (2000) undertook a similar research project whereby student

misbehaviour was explored, however, from the perspectives of the students

themselves. Supaporn suggests that even though a misbehaviour free environment

does not guarantee high student attainment, it does give a greater opportunity for

learning to take place (Supaporn, 124). The students themselves outlined four

different types of misbehaviour.

(1) Harassment

(2) Not paying attention

(3) Non - compliance and

(4) Miscellaneous [Anti-social] e.g. Smoking

Of these, students reported that harassment was the least approved of as it

was achieved through hurtful means. The students also highlighted that probability

of misbehaviour was determined by the peer group, the type of activity and the

enjoyment of that activity.

Lastly, Rehman and Sadruddin (2012, 162) facilitated a study on the causes of

misbehaviour among South-East Asian children. This particular study takes into

consideration the importance of understanding the whole child, but focuses namely
on cultural background. The study concludes with five main causes for

misbehaviour.

(1) Family and social life

(2) Lack of attention

(3) Media [the clash of two cultural identities]

(4) De-motivation

(5) Favouritism and discrimination

There have been a number of studies on misbehaviour in young person taken

from a number of perspectives; pre-service teacher, student and specific cultural

backgrounds, together these perspectives create a whole picture view on

misbehaviour.

Methodology

For the purposes of this report, six individuals were interviewed. Each individual

was provided with a copy of the research information sheet and consent form. The

purpose of the interview was clearly explained. During this time, they were given the

chance to ask questions. It was expressly vocalised that the interviewing process was

voluntary and they could withdraw at any time.

The respondents came from varying backgrounds and had an extensive

range of beliefs on misbehaviours. Two teachers were chosen as they have

experienced misbehaviour within the classroom and have created their own models

for explaining and responding to it. Teacher A works in a cultural institution as an

education officer while teacher B has over 30 years teaching experience. These give

two very distinct views of misbehaviour. Two non-teaching friends were also chosen,

as they are a complete juxtaposition of the teachers. Additionally, a parent with two

secondary school aged children and a pre-service teacher currently studying at

Macquarie University were chosen. The pre-service teacher was specifically chosen,

as it is a competing University with a similar program. Further information on

respondents found in Table 1 in the appendices.

Results

Through an extensive compilation of interview responses, three main themes

were found on the topic of misbehaviour in young people. The first of which was

definition of misbehaviour. Four of the six interviewees defined misbehaviour as

children/students acting outside of behavioural expectations of the teacher or

social norms. However, both respondent A and B, in-service teachers had unique

ideas on misbehaviour. Respondent A, an education officer at a cultural institution

openly stated that he was that student in high school that was constantly under

the teachers leash because he was always distracted. He suggested that

misbehaviour was not always a negative experience but rather a chance to learn

something new. He misbehaved at school because he had needs (stimulation) that

were not being met, and therefore, was acting out for extra attention or greater

engagement. This was a motivating factor for working in education in a cultural

institution. It was his wish to give an experience beyond a classroom in a safe

inclusive environment. Respondent B the other in-service teacher had a similar

opinion. She stated that students misbehaviour is a reaction to an internal or

external conflict within themselves, whether that is a distraction or problems at

home.

The second main theme was the reasons for misbehaviour. This time five of

the six respondents believed that misbehaviour was linked to classroom context, with

no irrefutable reason why students may misbehave in a school setting. Respondent

E, the pre-service teacher said she encountered many different types of

misbehaviour on her first secondary practicum and felt ill equipped to deal with it.

Common types of misbehaviour were simple distractions like something out the

window, while others where more complex such as poor differentiation in class work

or expectations of the teachers was too high or low.

The remaining person, respondent D suggested that the students own

personality was the key factor for misbehaviour. Respondent D said that if a student

was not academically minded or had a rebellious nature to begin with they would

automatically be pre-destined for chronic misbehaviour. Upon further questioning

respondent D explained, he experienced this situation when he was in high school.

Certain students did not fit the model student role and therefore were unsuitable

for the school environment. This was interesting, as most people believed that the full

context was important to a positive learning environment while respondent D

believed that it was the students job to behave and fit in.

The last main theme found within the interviews was the way in which

responses on how misbehaviour should be dealt with. Here there were some

significant differences. Respondents A, B (In-service teachers) and F (parent)

purported that the best way to deal with misbehaviour is to prevent it in the first

place. This is done by creating an environment in which a student knows what is

expected of them. Respondent B added that a teacher should also have an

appropriate positive relationship with their students. The parent said that it is

impossible to expect a child to behave 100% of the time, however, there are certain

ways you can prevent misbehaviour such as positive reinforcement.

The other respondents C, D, and F described a number of intervention

practices. Respondent C said that young people are going to act the way they

want, which is usually silly. The only thing you can do is respond to their behaviour

and hope they learnt something from the experience. This response may have

been prompted by respondent Cs recent experience as a nurse in an emergency

room. Overall, there were three main themes found within the interview responses

presenting a variety of attitudes and beliefs.

Discussion

The discussion of this report will compare and contrast both the academic

literature and interview responses to form a persuasive argument on why young

people misbehave at school. Firstly, it will analyse a number of similarities between

the research and the findings. Both the literature and the responses provided by the

interview tend to agree that there is no single definition for misbehaviour but there is

a number of definitions. Two thirds of the respondents agreed that misbehaviour is

when young people act against the expectations or wishes of the teacher or social

norms. Whilst one third of the responders insisted, there was more to misbehaviour

than just acting out.

Likewise, Rahman and Sadruddin (2012, 162) list three separate definitions;

(1) An action that interferes with academic or social learning

 (2) Behaviour, which is inappropriate to a certain setting and

(3) A harmful behaviour

This shows that misbehaviour can mean a wide spectrum of things from

disruption/harassment to violence and aggression. Another similarity between the

academic literature and interviews are the types of misbehaviour. Through careful

analysis and synthesis, there are four main categories of misbehaviour. (Cavanagh &

Prescott, 2015; Hameed-ur Rehman & Sadruddin, 2012; Supaporn, 2000)

1. Harassment

2. 2. Power/non- compliance

3. 3. Disruptive and

4. Anti-social or immoral behaviour

Clark and Pittaway (2014) suggested five categories however; the majority of

academics and the interviewees combined disruptive misbehaviour with off task

behaviour.

Lastly, the most important universal similarity between the literature and

responses was the accord that there is no single cause for misbehaviour. It is

believed that misbehaviour is directly related to the context of the classroom. This

means the student (e.g. had a bad day); teacher (e.g. tired), classroom (e.g. boring

subject) and even school (e.g. cultural influences) can play an important part in

causing and dispelling misbehaviour. Both the literature and interviews suggested

that a safe, inclusive, stimulating environment whereby a teacher has a positive

relationship with their students would help prevent excessive misbehaviour within the

class (Cavanagh & Prescott, 2015; Clark & Pittaway, 2014; Supaporn, 2000).
 Meanwhile there were also a number of differences found between the

interviews and academic research. In particular only one of the six interviewees

focused on the students personal background as the main root of misbehaviour. The

article by Radman and Sadruddin (2012) touch specifically on the cultural

background of students, and how that, affects misbehaviour. The article suggests

the biggest barrier for south east Asian children is the inability of the child and their

family to adjust to new cultural norms as well as discrimination perpetrated by peers.

Interestingly, Clark and Pittaway (2014, 216) also outline how cultural issues may

cloud the classroom as teachers sometimes forget to check their own bias.

Additionally Seals and Young (cited in Clark and Pittaway, 217) states, that in a

multicultural school that gender and grade level is the predominant criteria for

bullying. While Edwards and Watts (cited in Clark and Pittaway, 217) maintain that

ethnic, bullying is both prevalent and violent.

The teaching style is another difference not raised within the interviews at all.

The teaching style of the teacher can also play a significant role on the behaviour of

young people. Cavanagh and Prescott (2015, 192) recognise three main teaching

personalities. The first, being laissez-faire a teacher hoping for compliance. Second is

the democratic who expects compliance and lastly, the autocratic someone who

demands compliance. Of these styles, an autocratic teacher is most likely to have

limited occurrences of misbehaviour.

Implications

Lastly, this report will consider the implications presented by the literature

research and interview findings on the praxis of pre-service teachers, and suggest
strategies and application of personal practice in both classroom and school

contexts. Firstly, the information volunteered by both respondent A and B were

empirically important as these are both qualified with teaching experience. They

both recognised that a number of factors go into the behaviour of their students.

Secondly, they also acknowledged the importance of putting preventative

measures into place rather than intervening practices. This is something strongly

emphasised by Lyons, Ford and Slee (2014). Lyons, Ford and Slee (2014) give a

number of different theoretical approaches to classroom management. These

approaches represent a spectrum of management strategies from Psycho-

education, cognitive behavioural and behavioural. Of this spectrum, most of

literature and the interviewers believed that student misbehaviour could better be

dealt with through Psycho-educational theories. In particular, respondent A

specifically said he was a challenging student because his needs were not being

met.

For a pre-service teacher such as Respondent E who experienced various

examples of misbehaviour psycho-educational theories such as Goal Centred

Theory or Glassers choice theory (Lyons, Ford & Slee, 2014) might give her the

confidence to respond appropriately. On further questioning, she admitted upon

reflection she would have dealt with the misbehaviour differently. Therefore, an

implication can also be said to be experience of dealing with misbehaviour.

Additionally, there needs to be a generally accepted definition of

misbehaviour. Whilst the interviewees not related to the teaching field could identify

ambiguous types of misbehaviour it was only the teachers and to a degree the pre-

service teacher to explain the importance of understanding why misbehaviour

occurs. The literature supports teachers belief that everything from the context of the
student (e.g. culture, economic strata, ability to learn i.e. disabilities, gifted, divorce,

death, drugs and other issues....) impacts on a child's behaviour and needs to be

considered. This is a significant impact and it is essential that the whole child needs

to be known by the teacher. Clark and Pittaway (2014) further emphasise the need

for a whole school approach to misbehaviour.

Furthermore, the three teaching styles need to be considered. To engage in

effective teaching, teachers should be aware of their own impact and relationships

in the classroom. In a TEDX talk by an experienced teacher, Rita Pierson (2013)

declared that children simply do not learn from teachers they do not like. A

democratic teaching style is highly recommended as it promotes positive

relationships within a classroom. Whereas laissez faire or autocratic styles support

and imbalanced classroom with bad relationships.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is clear that additional research and discussion is needed. It is

important to understand young people from many different contexts;

developmentally, socially, culturally etc. It is clear that people who do not engage

directly with children in an educational setting do not understand the causes and

nature of misbehaviour. This often leads to negative portrayal of youths in the media.
Reference List

Cavanagh, M., & Prescott, A. (2015). Your professional experience handbook: A

guide for preservice teachers. Frenches Forrest, NSW: Peasron.

Clarke, M., & Pittaway, S. (2014) Marshs becoming a teacher (6th Ed.). Frenches
Forrest, NSW: Peasron.

De Jong, T. (2005). A framework of principals and best practice for managing

student behaviour in the Australian education context. School Psychology
International, 26(3), 353 370. Retrieved from doi: 10.1177/0143034305055979

Hameed-ur-Rehman, M. & Sadruddin, M. (2012). Study on the causes of

misbehaviour among south-east Asian children. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 2(4), 162 - 175. Retrieved from
http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_4_Special_Issue_February_2012/21
.pdf

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

Pierson, R. (2013). Every kid needs a champion. TEDX. Retrieved from

http://www.ted.com/talks/rita_pierson_every_kid_needs_a_champion/transcri
pt?language=en

Supaporn, S. (2000). High school students perspectives about misbehaviour. The

Physical Educator, 57(3), 124 . Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.uws.edu.au/login?url=http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.uws.e
du.au/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA66106784&v=2.1&u=uwsydney&it=r&p=AONE&s
w=w&asid=aca8a367a5fbae53e80c8ef4634b5966
Appendices

Table 1.

Interviewee Type Background

A Teacher Educator officer at a major cultural

institution. With secondary teaching
background. Undertook the UWS Masters of
Teaching course 6 years ago. 50 year old
Caucasian male.

B Teacher Recently retired Science teacher from half

selective/comprehensive high school in
Sydneys south west. Teacher of over 35
years. Female, aged approx. 60.

C Non-Teaching Registered Nurse. University student.

Friend Applying for entry to Medicine.

D Non-Teaching Student studying law. Double degree in

Friend international studies.

E Preservice Teacher Currently studying a Bachelor of Secondary

Education at Macquarie University. First
year, Female, aged 23. Currently
experienced he first prac. Felt unprepared.

F Parent Parent of two secondary aged children. One

in year 12 (female), one in year 9 (male).
Female, aged 50.