PPLE

Assignment one
Chrestin Meina
18926457

Report
“Why do young people
misbehave in school?”

1
What causes misbehaviour in young people? In the context of this discussion, ‘misbehaviour’
refers to any behaviour that interferes with the student’s learning, or the learning of others, as
well as prevents the teacher from doing their work (Beaman, Wheldall & Kemp, 2007 as
cited in De Nobile, 2017). This discussion utilises information taken from interviews with six
participants, as well as current literature on this issue to synthesise the reasons for student
misbehaviour. The information from the literature review and the interviews are used to
suggest possible implications for teaching practice.

Alstot and Alstot (2015), propose that it is environmental factors which influence student
behaviour, including peer and teacher interactions, class set up, the pace and content of the
lesson. They add that the consequences immediately following a student’s behaviour can also
serve to affect their future behaviour, either increasing or decreasing the chance of that
particular behaviour occurring again, in comparable circumstances. This occurs through the
process of reinforcement which increases the behaviour, or punishment which decreases the
chances of the behaviour occurring again (Alstot & Alstot, 2015). Alberto and Troutman,
2006, as cited in Alstot and Alstot, (2015), put forward that all behaviour has a function,
including misbehaviour. They suggest four functions; the first of these is attention; wherein
the student misbehaves as a way to receive attention from the teacher or a peer. A second
function is that the misbehaviour may occur in order to access an activity or object. The
student may also misbehave as a way to escape a particular situation or finally, the
misbehaviour may occur as it is a way for the student to receive sensory stimulation (Alberto
& Troutman, 2006, as cited in Alstot & Alstot, 2015).

De Nobile (2017) on the other hand, summarises the causes for misbehaviour into three
categories; developmental, psychological and environmental. The developmental category
covers the areas of intellectual ability, moral reasoning and social skills that contribute to the
behaviour of the student. The psychological category encompasses disorders, psychological
factors and other issues that may explain the misbehaviour. Thirdly, the environmental
category involves the classroom/school environment, home life and cultural and ethnic
background which are used to explain the student’s misbehaviour.

Cothran, Kulinna and Garrahy (2009) conducted a study which looked at the student and
teacher perspectives on what caused student misbehaviour. They found that teachers often
attributed student misbehaviour to their home lives. The students, on the other hand,
attributed attention seeking as being the main cause of misbehaviour in class. They claimed

2
attention seeing was a way to increases their social status, increase their popularity among the
opposite sex and to receive attention from the teacher (Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009).
Some teachers also named attention seeking as a cause of student behaviour but linked this to
not being given enough attention at home. The students in this study also named boredom in
classes as a reason for misbehaviour. They attributed boredom and a lack of interest in the
class content for misbehaviour, the purpose of which was to create more fun in class.
Teachers and students disagreed on the reasons for misbehaviour and both groups attributed it
to external factors rather than themselves (Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009).

A study by Sullivan, Johnson, Owens and Conway (2014) similarly noted that teachers often
attached blame to the student for their misbehaviour rather than considering other aspects that
may have contributed to the misbehaviour. They based their study around the idea that
student engagement affected their behaviour and noted that classroom environments which
promoted engagement were linked to more productive student behaviours. They drew from
an ecological model of explaining productive and unproductive student behaviours (Conway,
2012, as cited in Sullivan et. al., 2014). This model assumes that the classroom is an
ecosystem which involves interactions between the physical environment, characteristics of
the teacher, the content, pedagogy and resources, and varying student traits, to explain
student behaviours (Sullivan et. al., 2014). They purported that student behaviour depends on
the interactions between these, and external factors such as home lives, socioeconomic,
religious, cultural and racial factors. They concluded that several factors influence student
behaviour and therefore the responsibility for student misbehaviour is not solely on the
students (Sullivan et. al., 2014).

Demanet and Van Houtte (2012) went on a different route and investigated how teacher
expectations of students can affect their behaviour. They suggest that students may
misbehave when they perceive their teachers have low expectations of them. The results of
their study supported this, as they found that in schools where teachers believed the students
to be less teachable, there was a higher chance of self-reported student misbehaviour. It was
also found where teachers had less affect for students and were not supportive; there were
higher incidences of misbehaviour. This study shows that the teachers’ beliefs, expectations
and affect towards the students play a role in their behaviour. Similarly, a study by McGrath,
and Van Bergen (2015) contributes that positive student-teacher relationships are associated
with less misbehaviour. The research suggests that many reasons interrelate to cause student
misbehaviour.

3
The interviews for this discussion adhered to ethical protocols. Before beginning, participants
were given a copy of the participant information sheet and given time to ask any questions.
Once they had read this and agreed to participate, they then signed the consent form. It was
made clear to them that they would not be identifiable and could withdraw from this
interview process at any time. Following this, the interviewer and participant took part in a
one on one open discussion, (in a quiet room) focussed around the question, “Why do young
people misbehave in school?” The interviewer took notes during this process.

There were six participants interviewed, two males and four females. Of the two males, one
was a high school teacher (30 years old) and the other an engineer (31 years old). A 52 year
old pathology collector and mother of five was interviewed, as well as a 50 year old high
school teacher and mother of two. The last two participants were also females, a pre-service
high school teacher (22 years old) and a pre-service primary school teacher (25 years old).

The interviewer analysed the notes from each interview and collated the main themes that
emerged from each discussion and overall. The teachers and pre-service teachers had very
similar views during the discussion. The main themes that emerged were lack of engagement,
not catering to individual student needs, the level of expectations for behaviour and also
issues associated with the students’ home lives. The two teachers in particular mentioned
technology as having a role in student misbehaviour.

For the two participants that had no background in teaching, the answers were a little
different. They suggested that boredom and wanting to look “cool” in front of their peers
caused student misbehaviour. Additionally, they attributed the level of expectations and
values taught at home, and the lack of consequences at school, as playing a part in
misbehaviour. Both participants said that the students’ behaviour had a lot to do with what
their parents have taught them is acceptable. They also mentioned that the misbehaviour was
occurring due to a lack of “punishment” or follow-through with consequences of
misbehaviour. The mother of five stated “Students misbehave because they don’t receive
enough punishment from their teachers and parents when they do the wrong thing.”

All the participants mentioned the students’ home lives in one way or another. The teaching
participants mentioned this in terms of the students having difficult circumstances at home,
whilst the non-teaching participants, however, approached it in terms of parents not setting
high expectations for the behaviour of their children and not having consequences for
misbehaviour. All participants also mentioned the students’ peers as having a role in

4
misbehaviour. The teaching background participants mentioned peer pressure, wanting
attention and fitting in as a cause of misbehaviour. Similarly, the non-teaching background
participants suggested that the students were trying to look cool and funny in front of their
friends. The engineer stated “Misbehaving seems like the easy way to become cool”.

A major similarity between the participant answers and the literature review was that there
was a multitude of reasons that caused misbehaviour. There participants suggested many
reasons that were similar to those found in literature. All of the participants mentioned that a
lack of student engagement, whether a result of boring classes, no interest in the content or
lack of engaging programming, could be a cause of misbehaviour. Sullivan et. al., (2014)
noted the effect of student engagement on behaviour, but also ascertained that many
interrelating factors contributed to misbehaviour.

Peer pressure was also a common theme that emerged, with participants proposing that
students misbehaved in order to look cool or impress their peers. Similarly, the literature
referred to attention as one of the four main functions of behaviour, and suggested that
students misbehave in order to receive attention from their peers (Alberto & Troutman, 2006,
as cited in Alstot & Alstot, 2015). The literature also claims that students’ attention seeking
misbehaviour is a result of them not receiving enough attention at home (Cothran, Kulinna &
Garrahy, 2009), which was addressed in the interviews.

Expectations were another cause of misbehaviour that emerged. The non-teaching

participants suggested that students whose parents did not set clear expectations of behaviour,
tended to misbehave. The other participants, however, referred to teacher expectations, and
how this affected student behaviour. The literature also made reference to teachers having
low expectations of students which could result in student misbehaviour (Demanet & Van
Houtte, 2012). This shows that the teachers are aware, possibly by experience, of the
important role their teaching practice has on student behaviour.

There were some issues that the participants mentioned in the interviews that were not
addressed directly in the literature that was reviewed. The first was not catering to individual
student needs, which was mentioned by the pre-service teachers. The literature took a more
broad approach in regards to this issue. For example, Nobile (2017) categorised misbehaviour
into developmental, psychological and environmental categories which encompassed
individual student needs based on these groupings. This showed that the pre-service teachers’
education and experience had taught them about student needs.

5
Technology was also mentioned by the teachers in the interviews as a cause of misbehaviour,
but was not prevalent in the literature. This is perhaps because the literature in this case
looked at the underlying causes behind the misbehaviour, such as lack of engagement or for
sensory stimulation (Alstot & Alstot, 2015). The teachers may have thought that using mobile
phones in class was misbehaviour in itself and did not consider why it was occurring.

From the interviews and literature, I have become aware that that there is a reason for student
misbehaviour and in order to rectify this behaviour, I must understand what the misbehaviour
is trying to achieve. By identifying the function of the misbehaviour, I can then better address
it. I can do this by asking the student what they are doing and why, rather than just assuming
that they are misbehaving for no reason.

As found throughout the literature and mentioned in the interviews, expectations play an
important part in student behaviour. As part of my teaching practice, I will aim to set high
expectations and make them clear to students. I will also aim to foster positive relationships
with my students, for example by showing interest in their lives and being supportive of
them, as well as being more aware of the needs of individual students and trying to cater to
these, so as to help reduce misbehaviour in my class. This can also be done through a whole
school approach, wherein teachers are taught how to have positive relationships with the
students and how to support them.

Another critical change to my practice would be to reinforce appropriate behaviour. By

consistently implementing class/school rules in my practice and then reinforcing the
appropriate behaviour, for example through verbal praise and reward systems, I can reduce
the amount of misbehaviour in my class. Whole school approaches to this issue would also be
more effective, for example wherein all teachers praised appropriate behaviour and
consequences for negative behaviour were followed through by all teachers.

Lastly, student engagement is also critical in practice regarding behaviour. Students reported
boredom and a lack of interest in class content was the reason for their misbehaviour
(Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009). In order to help students engage in my classes, I would
try to link the learning content to their lives to make it more relatable. I would also vary my
teaching strategies, for example by using educational games, incorporating ICT and making
use of pair or group work tasks, so as to engage the students as much as possible. It is also
important that schools use this approach to foster better learning environments.

6
It is clear from the discussion that there are many reasons for why young people misbehave at
school. This analysis has revealed that misbehaviour is caused by many interrelating factors.
Teachers and pre-service teachers can benefit from being more aware of the causes of
misbehaviour so as to enhance teaching practice in order to reduce the occurrence of
misbehaviour.

7
 References

Alstot, A. E., & Alstot, C. D. (2015). Behavior Management: Examining the Functions of
Behavior. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 86(2), 22-28.

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

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.

McGrath, K. F., & 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.

De Nobile, J. (2017). Positive Learning Environments: Creating and Maintaining Productive

Classrooms, 1st Edition. [CengageBrain Bookshelf]. Retrieved
from https://cengagebrain.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780170280969/

Sullivan, A. M., Johnson, B., Owens, L., & Conway, R. (2014). Punish them or engage
them?: Teachers' views of unproductive student behaviours in the
classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 39(6), 43.