Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Seven core guiding principles are identified by De Jong (2005) as a foundation for
best practice in student behaviour management. These guiding principles apply and
embrace an eco-systemic perspective, a health-promoting approach, inclusiveness,
student-centred philosophy, quality of the learning experiences, positive
relationships, and school support structures (De Jong, 2005). Fundamentally these
principles encounter student behavioural issues, based on views from interviewees,
which are experienced in the school learning environment and offer strategies to
manage student’s misbehaviour. De Jong (2005) also explains five key models of
student behaviour management known as Choice Theory, Positive Behaviour
Support (PBS) (Applied Behaviour Analysis), Responsible Thinking process (RTP),
Restorative Justice, and Democratic Discipline Model (Goal Centred Theory).
Three males and three females were selected as interviewees with an age range of
22 to 27 and are all currently working in retail, hospitality and education. Person A
(Pre-service Secondary Teacher), Person B (Parent), Person C (Non-Teaching
friend), Person D (Secondary Teacher), Person E (Pre-service Primary Teacher),
and Person F (Non-Teaching Friend). During the interview process, five open-ended
questions were provided to interviewees to provide their personal perspective of the
main question: ‘In your opinion, why do young people misbehave in school?’. The
five open-ended questions correlate and collaborate with each other associating to
individual insight of student (young people) misbehaviour in school.
The five questions inquired in the interview process are: ‘In your opinion, why do
young people misbehave in school?’, ‘Why do you believe they misbehave in that
way?’, ‘What do you think may influence young people to misbehave, and why?’,
‘How can misbehaving in school affect young people?’, and ‘Why is misbehaving in
school a concerning issue for young people?’. These questions encouraged
interviewees to search deeper into their own thought, to identify stimuluses and
features of why young people misbehave in school. Interviewees found that the five
questions were collectively similar, however it was explained that similarity in
questions was employed to encourage a greater understanding of an individual’s
perspective of stimuluses and features that result in students misbehaving.
Common themes were exhibited throughout the interviews, especially a main theme
of boredom, lack of interest and motivation that was viewed as influences of student
misbehaviour. Past experiences of teachers and family home life were concerning
issues too, implying a problem with learning effectiveness from a teacher’s pedagogy
and support of other students. Student misbehaviour significantly related to student
support, revealed by interviewees, with peer pressure, bullying, superiority of
students, imitation, and acceptance were identified as potential influences. Person D
A main similar theme gathered from the interviewees, not including Person C and
Person D, was the influence of family and home environment on a student’s
behaviour. The experience of a negative family and home environment are explained
from interviewees to affect a student’s learning ability linking to the consistent lack of
motivation and support to the student. Assumptions by teachers in the Donetta et al
(2009) study related home factors to student misbehaviour however Otto & Atkinson
(1997) proposed parental influence had no relationship to student’s misbehaviour
opposing interviewees perspective on the topic. On the contrary, Postholm (2013)
stated that teachers should include a student’s home environment to understand
student misbehaviour implying a connection to the collaboration of interviewees
perspective and Donetta et al. (2009).
One specific outcome found with all interviewees was that student misbehaviour
leads to poor education, ineffective learning and lesser future opportunities. Person
C and Person D both stated that there is more of a teacher-centred approach in
praxis and not enough of a student-centred approach to reduce student
misbehaviour. This transmits to ineffective teaching outlined by Person A and
collaborates to Person C, Person D, Person E and Person F’s view of students
missing out on education, better grades and further opportunities. De Jong’s (2005),
Dunn & Rakes’s (2011) and APA’s (1997) studies together discovered that isolating
a student-centred approach manages student behaviour, caters to student’s diverse
needs, and explains student developmental influence on learning.
behavioural theories (De Jong, 2005; Lyon et al., 2014). Teacher reflections on
student behaviour in the learning environment are significant for being attentive of
and analytical against student behaviour (Augustsson, 2010). The interventions of
student behaviour management strategies address problems and issues occurring
with the individual providing guidance and help.
External factors seem to play a major role in how students behave in relation to the
learning environment, social life and home life indicating student’s behavioural
features. The framework of Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
highlights competence and success in adopting needs of student and school
organisations together equally (Upreti, 2010). PBIS is involved in improving a
teacher’s pedagogy to adapting and changing a student’s behaviour creating a
positive learning environment. This framework is perceived to assist student’s
behavioural cues and is a valued intervention that can manage the identified
potential influences of student misbehaviour, recognised by interviewees
perspectives. Freeman et al. found that (2016) School-Wide PBIS (SWPBIS) was
related to positive outcomes in student behaviour, attendance and education.
Conversely, limitations of SWPBIS include the need of the framework to be
manipulated specifically to the type of school and time taken to implement this
framework (Freeman et al. 2016). To conclude, student’s behaviours are subject to
influences experienced through mainly external factors and student behaviour
management is instigated by employing behavioural relevant approaches minimising
misbehaviour to develop a positive teaching pedagogy and a positive learning
environment.
References
Augustsson, G. (2010). Web 2.0, pedagogical support for reflexive and emotional
social interaction among Swedish students. The Internet and Higher Education,
13(4), 197-205. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.05.005.
Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., McCoach, D. B., Sugai, G., Lombardi, A., & Horner, R.
(2016). Relationship Between School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports and Academic, Attendance, and Behavior Outcomes in High Schools.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(1), 41-51.
doi:doi:10.1177/1098300715580992
Lyons, G., Ford, M., & Slee, J. (2014). Classroom management: Creating positive
learning environments (4th ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage
Upreti, G., Liaupsin, C., & Koonce, D. (2010). Stakeholder utility: Perspectives on
school-wide data for measurement, feedback, and evaluation. Education &
Treatment of Children, 33(4), 497-511. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/815405102?accountid=36155