PPLE Report – Why do Young People Misbehave in the Classroom?

Over the years there has been widespread interest and attention on exploring
student behaviour/misbehavior within the classroom (Toshalis, 2015, Cothran,
Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009 & Kyriacou, 2010). Countless studies have been completed
that question teachers, pre teachers and students in order to understand the
attributes that cause students to misbehave. This study primarily focuses on cause of
misbehaviour and implications on how maintain a positive learning environment by
understanding misbehaviour.

LITERATURE SYNTHESIS
Misbehaviour can be a form of communication, the endevour to fulfill a basic need for
the student (Toshalis, 2015, pg 1). Evident throughout the literature are common
themes relating to student misbehaviour in the classroom as well as common types
of misbehaviour. These range from students putting heads on tables and not paying
attention, disrupting the teacher and other students and more server cases, although
not as common, such as violence and aggressive behaviour (Toshalis, 2015,
Kyriacou, 2010, Cothran & Kulinna, 2007, Curwin, Mendler & Mendler, 2008,
McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015 & Curwin, Mendler, & Mendler, 2008). The most
common findings in which teachers, pre teachers and students across the globe
attributed to students misbehaviour include family/personal/home life, need for
attention, students level of competence, relevant curriculum and teacher student
relationship (Toshalis, 2015, Kyriacou, 2010, Curwin, Mendler & Mendler, 2008 &
Van Bergen, 2015 & Cabaroglu, 2017). It is worth noting that in these studies the
main reason of misbehaviour was dependent on the interviewees being questioned.
For example, the studies that were conducted on teacher’s and pre teacher’s
opinions outlines that the number one reason for misbehaviour was family/home life
and student competence (Toshalis, 2015, Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009,
Kyriacou, 2010, Curwin, Mendler & Mendler, 2008, McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015 &
Cabaroglu, 2017), although not disregarding attention as a valid attribute however
focusing more so on the other two factors. In contrast even though the findings are
very similar the studies done from student’s perspectives highlighted that the key
factor attributing to student misbehaviour is attention and the need for attention from
peers and teachers (Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009 & Cothran & Kulinna, 2007)
and also add attributes such as teachers failing to engage them in the curricular. In
addition to the most common attributes noted, also mentioned are factors such as
student teacher relationships McGrath, K., & Van Bergen, P. (2015). Demographic
factors (grade level, gender, ethnicity and school setting) (Cothran & Kulinna, 2007 &
Kyriacou, 2010) and technology such as computers, phones and gaming to also
influence students behaviour and attention in class (Kyriacou, 2010 pg 253).
Furthermore the literature emphasizes the importance of classroom management.
Cabaroglu (2017, pg 118) states there has been a shift in how teachers deal with
misconduct in the classroom from the seventies. There is now more focus on how
teachers can identify and prevent factors that cause misbehaviour. For example, the
contribution teachers make to this behaviour through positive or negative
relationships, teachers organizational and management skills, instructions and
communication. This theory is similar to the findings from McGrath, & Van Bergen
(2015), Cothran & Kulinna, (2007) & Curwin, Mendler, & Mendler (2008). Two of the
four main reasons of misbehavior found in the literature relates to the curricular and
content, instructional decisions and teacher student relationship. Therefore it is
important to understand the role a teacher plays in relation to misbehaviour.

INTERVIEW FINDINGS
This qualitative study used semi structured, open interviews of seven participants,
with a diverse range of age, profession, SES and gender. These diverse selections
were to explore the possibility of different perspectives depending on demographics.
Participants are labeled as followed:
 P1 – 23 year old female, pre teacher.
 P2 – 31 year old male, works as a share analyst, went to private school .
 P3 – 62 year old mother of 2, works in a family business, high SES.
 P4 – 42 year old male, math teacher in a very low socioeconomic school.
 P5 – 67 year old father of 3, Artist, moderate SES.
 P6 – 30 yr old male, shop fitter, was a disruptive student, low SES.
 P7 –21 yr old female, events manager. Went to a private school.
All interviewees were asked to sign a consent form and the interviews were taken out
ethically and professionally. Majority of the interviews were carried out in person with
two exceptions of being conducted over the phone. Each interview lasted between
15-20 minutes. The main topic of questioning included (1) Why do you think young
people misbehave in the classroom? (2) What do you classify as misbehaviour? (3)
What do you believe should be or could be done to tackle the incidence of
misbehaviour within the classroom? The final question was to provoke critical
thinking about the interviewees’ statements. In order to maintain the interviewees’
ideas and perspectives, care was taken throughout the interview to not lead with
questioning. Once all interviews were completed, the data was collected and
grouped into common themes. Initially the data was sorted by the most commonly
mentioned factor followed by where it was prioritised in regards to the participant’s
views and finally if it was the main reason they appointed to student misbehaviour.
The findings are as follows. Six out of the seven participants mentioned family and
home life as a key attribute to misbehaviour. However, none of the participants
listed it as the main reason. It is important to note that “home/family life” was also
very vague/diverse in its meaning to the participants. For example P3 stated family
life as, “parents not teaching school ethics and manners”, where P4 described it as,
“poor home backgrounds like abuse, drugs, alcohol and neglect”. Four of the seven
participants mentioned attention being a key factor. Within those four, P2, P6 and P7
stated it to be the main reason for student misbehavour. P7 stated, “When I was in
school the students would play up to make others laugh”. This statement indicates
that she believes students are seeking attention from fellow peers. However P4, the
math teacher, implied that “students feel neglected by the teacher so they try to get
attention, or they are lacking attention from home.” This implies seeking attention
from teachers, not only other students. Another highlighted theme was students
inability to understand content or the content not matching the ability of the child.
Four out of the seven participants stated this to be a key attribute with participants
P3, P4, and P5 listing it as the main reason, all of whom are parents or teachers. P3
stated, “my son struggled to read, so rather than being asked to do something he
couldn’t do, he would just misbehave. I think to get out of doing it, he would rather
be looked at as the bad kid then the dumb kid”. This theme was linked by most of the
participants with such subthemes as boredom, not caring, non-relatable content and
poor teacher instruction/differentiation. While these 3 themes were graded as the
most reliable, other attributes identified were student teacher relationships. P6
commented, “if I didn’t like the teacher or they didn’t like me I would misbehave...” As
well as boring teachers and a very interesting point made by one participant that
having a disproportionate amount of female teachers over male teachers cause
misbehaviour. Although interesting, once questioned further it was linked back to
home/family life. As there was no link between this idea and misbehaviour, further
investigation wasn’t carried out in this study.

SYNTHESIS
The data collected suggests that there are common themes between the literature
and the perspectives of the participants of this study. As highlighted earlier the most
commonly perceived reason for misbehaviour from the interviews was family and
home life. This corresponds with the findings from (Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy,
2009, Kyriacou, 2010 & Cabaroglu 2017). Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy (2009) states
that through their research from all over the globe, family factors play a large role in
influencing the behaviour of students. When analysing the findings from Kyriacous’
(2010) on japanese schooling, there was a relatively high frequency of the perception
that children’s parents who didn’t insist positive school ethics or values for their
children were more likely to misbehave. This correlates with the statements from P3
who believed that parent’s lack of interest in school and neglect to discipline their
children is a factor that could greatly influence a child’s attitude towards education
and teachers. Furthermore McGrath & Van Bergen (2015) discovered that if students
had broken homes or bad relationships with their parents including lack of connection
and attention at home they tended to also struggle to connect and respect teachers.
Therefore it is evident that home and family life induces a relative impact on student
behaviour. Majority of the studies indicated that attention seeking is a key attribute to
students misbehaviour, whether it be needing to gain attention from other students
as P2 stated “its all an attention seeking thing, that’s it, the boys wanting to impress
the girls, to show off and be the cool kid”, which was also supported by Cothran,
Kulinna & Garrahy, (2009) who found that the students interviewed for their study
also attributed misbehaviour as source for attention. Both the student participants
from Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy, (2009) and the student participants in this study
who had only a student view on misbehaviour, heavily suggested misbehaviour is
due to the need of attention from peers. However Kyriacou (2010) argues that
attention from peers is an uncommon factor for students to play up in Japanese
schools, as bad behaviour is viewed as anti social behaviour. It is important for
Japanese students to behave as a “good child” to respect the family and community.
Furthermore the teacher and parent participants who linked misbehaviour to attention
seeking generally linked it to needing attention from teachers or lacking attention at
home. This corresponded with the teachers and pre teachers views throughout the
literature ( Kyriacou, 2010, Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009). Understanding the
students’ needs could aid in tackling this issue.
The literature established that students who do not understand the content or are
behind in their learning abilities create higher incidence of misbehaviour. Generally
they become frustrated and misbehave to avoid the work or avoid looking
incompetent (De Nobile, Lyons & Arthur-Kelly, 2017, pg 120). P4 stated that in his
classroom, “if the students can not do the work they divert to silly behaviour”. This
statement is confirmed by Curwin, Mendler & Mendler, (2008) who revealed that
students who feel incompetent have the mindset of “I feel stupid so why bother
trying”. Therefore are faced with boredom and act out. This highlights the need for
teachers to be diverse in their teaching methods and have appropriate skills in
differential teaching (De Nobile, Lyons & Arthur-Kelly, 2017, pg 120)

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRAXIS

I understand that I cannot avoid student misbehaviour entirely, however there are
clear implications that need to be addressed to support a positive learning
environment within my classroom. Knowing your students individually and having a
healthy professional relationship with them is imperative when trying to understand
why your student may be misbehaving such as knowing if something is going on at
home or understanding their cultural background. Knowing your students and their
abilities also aids in devising work and lessons that can engage, include, and
challenge all students, without making them feel incompetent. Knowing how your
students learn and differentiation skills are key assets to being able to adjust your
lessons to promote inclusivity and student engagement. Matching the curriculum to
the learning levels and abilities to the students is effective practice, which
encourages student engagement (De Nobile, Lyons & Arthur-Kelly, 2017, pg 120). I
believe a solid relationship built on genuine care and interest in the lives of all my
students can assist in understanding their perspectives which in turn can tackle the
attributes to misbehaviour discovered throughout this study, such as, not feeling
competent, not feeling challenged, boredom, unengaged, lack of attention from
teacher and out of school factors. I believe it will also facilitate a positive learning
environment. Furthermore setting high expectations and behaviour standards in
addition to implementing disciplinary policies that are valid to my needs as a teacher
and also the needs of my students will assist in maintaining a controlled functional
classroom. Applying this knowledge and implications should be established not only
in one classroom however throughout the whole school. Students need consistency
therefore these implications should be addressed and a standard should be created
within the school as a whole. I will also implement professional reflection to my
teaching, effective professional teachers who continually reflect know that students
and their behaviours are forever changing because they are developing, learning and
growing and their environment is also always changing. It is important to be proactive
with professional reflection as it can set you apart from the rest, it will encourage you
to be philosophically and pedagogically dynamic and can also aid in developing
suitable classroom management plans to teach and encourage appropriate
behaviours which will in turn prevent many inappropriate classroom behaviours (De
Nobile, Lyons & Arthur-Kelly, 2017, pg 11, 29).

References
Cothran, D., & Kulinna, P. (2007). Students' Reports of Misbehavior in Physical
Education. Research Quarterly For Exercise And Sport, 78(3), 216-224.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5641/193250307x13082490461020
Cothran, D., Kulinna, P., & Garrahy, D. (2009). Attributions for and consequences of
student misbehavior. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 14(2), 155-167.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408980701712148
Curwin, R., Mendler, B., & Mendler, A. (2008). Discipline with Dignity: New
Challenges, New Solutions (3rd ed., pp. 42-53). Alexandria.
De Nobile, J., Lyons, G., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2017). Positive learning environments:
Creating and Maintaining Productive Classrooms (1st ed., pp. 11, 29, 120).
Centagage Learning Australian Pty Limited.
Kyriacou, C. (2010). Japanese high school teachers' views on pupil
misbehaviour. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 18(3), 245-259.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2010.505459
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
Cabaroglu. N. (2017) Prospective EFL Teachers' Perceptions of Classroom
Management and Misbehaviour. Cukorova University Falculty Of Education
Journal, 41(1), 117-132.
Toshalis, E. (2015). Five Practices That Provoke Misbehavior. Emotionally Healthy
Kids, 73(2), 34-40. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/oct15/vol73/num02/Five-Practices-That-Provoke-Misbehavior.aspx