Madeleine Clark Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments

18063631 102082 – Tricia Maidens (TU: Monday, 2pm)

Tsouloupas, Carson and Matthews (2013) describe student misbehaviour as “any
source of student distractibility, disengagement, or disobedience in the
classroom” (p. 164). Using this definition, the following case study examines why
young people misbehave in school. The researcher consulted several research
papers to gain a range of responses. Discussions surrounding this question were
also performed with the researcher engaging in six interviews to gage various
attitudes and perspectives. By considering a selection of contemporary research
papers and conducting interviews, multiple conclusions could be drawn
regarding why young people misbehave in school.

The way by which teachers are able to direct their classroom was a contributing
factor to student misbehaviour. Obenchain and Taylor (2005) state, “One
indicator of successful teachers in…high school is the quality of their behaviour
management skills” (in Nooruddin & Baig, 2014, p. 3). This information can be
used informatively to suggest that a teacher’s professional learning in
management significantly impacts the response of the child within learning.

The nature of discipline imposed by a school was also reason for misbehaviour.
Black (2016) outlined that “…quality of education…is closely connected to its
discipline policies” (p. 1). Stewart (2003) also suggested, “participating in school-
related activities limits adolescents’ free time…” (p. 577-578) to misbehave. The
‘…use of…expulsion to control student behaviour creates a negative learning
environment that incentivizes misbehaviour…’ (Black, 2016, p. 4). Therefore,
misbehaviour is increased or decreased based on the school’s policy regarding
discipline.

In Cothran, Hodges Kulinna, & Gurrahy’s (2009) study, teachers and students
were asked about reasons for misbehaviour. According to students, the
“meaningfulness of the subject matter and class activities was…a key influence
on…behaviour” (p. 161) and therefore affected learning. This is contrasted by
evidence that “teachers never directly attributed student misbehaviour to
curricular offerings” (p. 161). This oversight by teachers provides evidence that
Madeleine Clark Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments
18063631 102082 – Tricia Maidens (TU: Monday, 2pm)
perhaps the focus within the classroom should shift from discipline to
management, in order to avoid misbehaviour.

A separate issue posed by Cothran et al., (2009) was the role misbehaviour
played in “advancing the students’ agenda for fun and social status” (p. 162). In
essence, the cognitive mindset of the adolescent deems misbehaving as a process
of successfully increasing popularity amongst peers. Goodboy (2011) also
uncovered “students dissent for a variety of reasons, including… other students’
actions” (in Johnson, Goldman and Claus, 2018, p.2). Hence, it is evident students
see appeal in misbehaving as a means of gaining friends and entertaining peers.

A concurrent evaluation of the research papers assessed was that misbehaviour

trends in schools are difficult to measure. This is because schools are never
comprised of the same set of students or teachers. Researchers have a
particularly challenging time drawing concrete conclusions surrounding student
misbehaviour when there are major inconsistencies between teaching and
learning practices. This broad assessment means that students behave (or
misbehave) based on their contextual and environmental circumstances.

Tsouloupas’ et al., (2013) definition of misbehaviour was provided to the six

candidates in order to provide an even field for synthesis. The definition was
shared so interviewees understood what was classified as “misbehaviour”.
Through clarification, interviewees provided richer responses to the interview
question and avoided discussing manners that, by this standard, did not
necessarily comprise “misbehaviour”. To maintain privacy, all interviewees were
assured their identity would remain anonymous and interviews took place in
private areas.

Interviewees included:

 F1: Female: 24, high-school Teacher

 F2: Female: 53, child-care worker, parent
 F3: Female, 22, pre-service teacher
Madeleine Clark Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments
18063631 102082 – Tricia Maidens (TU: Monday, 2pm)
 M1: Male, 28, electrician
 M2: Male, 55, accountant, parent
 M3: Male, 24, bank worker

Four themes were extracted from the six interviews based on the frequency in
which the theme/sub-theme was mentioned. The themes and sub-themes are
displayed in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Regularly occurring themes

Excerpts from interviews

Teacher  Attitude toward students

 Presentation
 Management skills
 Preparedness

Disinterest  Engagement

in class  Boredom from subject

 Comprehension of topic
Attention  Annoying teacher for “the sake of it”

seeking  Creating laughter

 “Class clown”
 Looking to increase social status
External  Parental issues

Influences  Problems with boyfriend/girlfriend

 Friendship issues

The role of the teacher was mentioned in all interviews. All participants
reasoned that the teacher was a contributing factor to the behaviour of the class.
M3 stated, “if kids got a hint that he [teacher] was beginning to lose it, they kept
mucking up…it was all a game”. F2 also suggested that preparedness of the
teacher determined the behaviour of students, “a stack of papers sat on her desk,
yet nothing worthwhile to teach”. This allows the researcher to believe that the
attitude and pedagogical style of the teacher affected the process by which
teaching was delivered, therefore creating misbehaviour.
Madeleine Clark Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments
18063631 102082 – Tricia Maidens (TU: Monday, 2pm)
Four participants discussed the theme of “disinterest in class”. While there were
strong links with the role of the teacher, this became a separate theme due to the
nature of the curriculum and structure of the subject. F3 cited, “it offered no
applicability to my life, why should I concentrate?” and M1 stating, “no one
understood and no one could be bothered trying [to understand]”. There was a
prevalent theme of “boredom” as indicated by F1, “it was compulsory yet there
was absolutely no intrigue”. Hence, the structure of the curriculum and nature of
the content negatively impacted students’ attitude, inciting misbehaviour
through boredom and disengagement.

Six interview participants mentioned “attention seeking” as reason for young

people misbehaving. M1, F1, F2 all attributed classmates or students embodying
the role of “class clown” within the classroom as a means of providing
entertainment to the their peers. F3 and M3 both accounted for misbehaving
peers being associated as “popular”. This indicates to the researcher that in the
search for social status students sought to misbehave in class as a means of
gaining validation from peers.

All participants mentioned external influences as a cause of misbehaviour. M1

reasoned, “I was fighting with a mate…I took that anger to class…you take anger
out on the person who tries to tell you what to do…”. The influence of external
factors was reinforced by F3, “you don’t want to tell the teacher how the
argument with your mum is making you act out”. Furthermore, only F1 and F2
mentioned the prevalence of poor home life. F2 stated, “they have no experience
with consistency at home so why accept discipline at school?” and F1 offered
“students experience insubstantial care, neglect…misbehaviour is not corrected.
Who cares? No one.” F1 and F2’s career experience with young people provided
them with insight that other respondents couldn’t access. This shows that
variable external factors cause misbehaviour, regardless of the teacher’s quality.

In comparing the findings it became increasingly apparent that there were more
disparities than similarities in the literature and interviews.
Madeleine Clark Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments
18063631 102082 – Tricia Maidens (TU: Monday, 2pm)
The literature sparingly mentioned the role of the teacher in student
misbehaviour. Crawshaw (2015) specifically constructed his research around
individual characteristics. Through “unsolicited verbal expressions”, “passive off-
task behaviour”, and “explicit articulations of general character traits” (p. 296),
Crawshaw did not mention the teacher as an influence in misbehaviour. The
interviews however suggested that students would take advantage of a “weak”
(M1) or “old” (M3) teacher because it was “easily done” (F2). This evidence was
based on the traits of the teacher, not the student. Interviewees characterised
some teachers as “out-of-touch” (F3) which conflicts with Crawshaw’s
perspective that misbehaviour is directly connected to the student.

The curriculum was another point of disparity. Without prompt, five interview
respondents associated misbehaviour as a reflection of boredom incurred from
the inapplicability of the curriculum. F2 stated “it wasn’t useful so we wouldn’t
concentrate” and M3 reinforced “I was never going to use it again”. Through
literature, Johnson et al., (2018) associated boredom amongst students as
individuals “lacking some sort of personal quality, trait or attribute, which in
turn causes them to misbehave” (p. 10). Shift of causation forces the researcher
to consider the gap between the responses and articles. After searching through
several papers, it appeared there was a significant lack of evidence addressing
this point, and no further interview evidence could be uncovered to continue this
argument. Direction of reason for misbehaviour with regard to curriculum is
contingent based on whose perspective you are seeking to gain.

A theme that was unaccounted for within the literature was the importance of
the teacher’s preparedness. Five out six interview responses accounted for this
subtheme. M2 offered, “the effort was evident – or lack thereof”, and F3 stated,
“she was doing whatever to get by”. This signifies to the researcher that students
do have an awareness of the effort imposed by the teacher. This effort is
imperative to the success of the lesson. Whilst the literature discussed this issue
in terms of classroom management, the researcher would argue that there is a
significant difference between “preparedness” and “management skills”.
Interview respondents were able to differentiate between these two factors and
Madeleine Clark Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments
18063631 102082 – Tricia Maidens (TU: Monday, 2pm)
independently accounted for their presence. The researcher would argue that
teacher preparedness is a significant feature in determining misbehaviour
amongst young people.

As discussed earlier, few participants associated misbehaviour with poor home

life. This perspective complements Ennis’ (1995) idea that “teachers’ blamed
student noncompliance on low student motivation, a ‘condition’ that teachers
sometimes viewed as the result of a dysfunctional home life” (in Cothran,
Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009, p. 157). Particularly in high school, teachers often have
little understanding of the personal situations of each student. This leads to
misbehaviour that the teacher cannot predict or precaution. Both F1 and F2
(who work with young people) insisted that the impact of a difficult home life
infiltrated behaviour within the learning space. F1 offered, “it becomes very
apparent who comes to school with a kiss and a hug and who doesn’t”. F2 also
provided evidence of this, “…they sit down and either assimilate or disintegrate
from their peers”. Poor home life means students unintentionally bring
emotional baggage to school and misbehave due to issues unrelated to the
educational experience.

Another similarity was attention seeking occasioning misbehaviour. The

interviewees saw this as a means of gaining validation from their peers, such as
“he wanted everyone to like him” (M1) and “he kept going until he got a laugh
from the whole class” (F2). This view was shared by Cothran et al., (2009), who
offered attention seeking “advanced…social status” (p. 162). Misbehaviour is
evidently affected by desires to be deemed as worthy amongst those we value
the opinion of. Whilst students may not have a close bond with all classmates,
the desire to have or gain approval was incited through both literature and
research.

Research and literature show that there are consistent patterns in misbehaviour
due to attributes such as teaching quality, external factors and attention seeking.
In terms of praxis, this case study shows that misbehaviour in young people is
multilayered and occasionally unpredictable. Accordingly, a teacher will likely
Madeleine Clark Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments
18063631 102082 – Tricia Maidens (TU: Monday, 2pm)
never be able to immediately isolate why a young person misbehaves without
some knowledge of personal attributes and circumstances.

What I have learnt from the case study is that misbehaviour usually occurs based
on more than one factor. The relationship between the teacher, classroom
environment and characteristics of the student, determines patterns of
misbehaviour. From a pre-service teacher’s perspective, this research indicates
that it is essential for the teacher to be aware of characteristics inherent in their
students and know what measures can be taken to prevent misbehaviour. By
doing so, the teacher will hopefully minimalise the opportunity for misbehaviour
to occur.

An important element for future teaching practice will include the provision of
positive reinforcement. According to De Nobile, Lyons, and Arthur-Kelly (2017)
positive reinforcement is used “to increase the likelihood of appropriate
behaviour and…reduce the power of competing impulses for inappropriate
behaviour” (p. 147). This approach would be practiced consistently in order to
prevent the misbehaviours reoccurring. Alberto & Troutman (2013) define
negative reinforcement as “the removal or reduction of an unpleasant
consequence” (in De Nobile et al., 2017, p. 148). Practicing negative
reinforcement also reduces the need for harsh discipline and as a result of this
case study has become a measure that is valued in personal teaching beliefs.

In order to maintain student engagement, teachers should focus on the

relatability of content for students when designing and planning their lessons.
Evaluation of interview research depicted that students begin to misbehave
when the lesson is no longer considered interesting or important. Therefore
teachers need to be practical in their application of the curriculum. This can be
achieved through ensuring that differentiation is used throughout teaching to
provide students with a rich educational experience. This is a key goal in my
personal teaching praxis.
Madeleine Clark Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments
18063631 102082 – Tricia Maidens (TU: Monday, 2pm)
In considering why young people misbehave, Stewart (2003) outlines that
“misbehaviour encompasses such behaviours as cutting/skipping class, being
late to class…being suspend, cheating on tests…fighting, bullying
classmates…and cursing at teachers” (p. 578). However, in these evaluations, it
became increasingly evident that there is no single cause for the misbehaviour of
students. There are multiple factors that could be correlated with the
misbehaviour of students. It is the responsibility of the teacher and student to be
aware of these triggers in the prevention of misbehaviour.
Madeleine Clark Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments
18063631 102082 – Tricia Maidens (TU: Monday, 2pm)
References

Black, D.W. (2016). Reforming school discipline. Northwestern University Law

Review, 111 (1) 1-74. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfvie
wer?vid=1&sid=9fcc3224-2d88-421c-8ef5-
c8ee6e324343%40sessionmgr4010

Cothran, D.J., Hodges Kulinna, P., & Garrahy, D.A. (2009). Attributions for and
consequences of student misbehaviour. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 14 (2) 155-167. Doi: 10.1080/17408980701712148

Crawshaw, M. (2015). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of student

misbehaviour: a review of international research, 1983-2013. Australian
Journal of Education, 59 (3) 293-311. Doi: 10.1177/0004944115607539

De Nobile, J., Lyons, G., & Arthur-Kelly, M., (2017). Positive Learning
Environments: Creating and Maintaining Productive Classrooms. South
Melbourne, Australia: Cengage.

Guttmann, J. (1982). Pupils’, teachers’ and parents’ causal attributions for

problem behaviour at school. The Journal of Educational Research, 76 (1)
14-21. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/27539934

Johnson, Z.D., Goldman, Z.W., & Claus, C.J. (2018). Why do students misbehave?
An initial examination of antecedents to student misbehaviour.
Communication Quarterly, 0 (0) 1-20.
Doi:10.1080/01463373.2018.1483958

Nooruddin, S., Baig, S. (2014). Student behaviour management: school leader’s

role in the eyes of the teachers and students. International Journal of
Whole Schooling, 10 (2), 1-20. Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/apps/doc/A389646621/A
ONE?u=uwsydney&sid=AONE&xid=e7e770fb
Madeleine Clark Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments
18063631 102082 – Tricia Maidens (TU: Monday, 2pm)

Stewart, E.A. (2003). School social bonds, school climate, and school
misbehaviour: a multilevel analysis. Justice Quarterly 20 (3), 575-604. Doi:
10.1080/07418820300095621

Tsouloupas, C.N., Carson, R.L., & Matthews, R.A. (2014). Personal and school
cultural factors associated with the perceptions of teachers’ efficacy in
handling student misbehaviour. Psychology in the Schools, 51 (2) 164-180.
Doi: 10.1002/pits.21739