Zachary Mark Harris- 17978675 PPLE 102082 2H 2018

Assessment 1: Why do young people misbehave in school?

Section One: Literature synthesis

The question of “why do young people misbehave in schools?” is one that has been at the

forefront of educational dilemmas for many years. The issue itself is multifaceted and is often

seen to change alongside society. This review aims to provide a snapshot of opinions on this

topic from six individuals, from many walks of life and ages, and compare and contrast it

with recent research. Finally, it aims to discuss the implications these opinions and data holds

for a preservice teacher.

The causes of student misbehaviour have been a focal point to many educational

debates and discussions and is noted as “considerable body of research” behind it

(Crawshaw, 2013, p.294) Despite this wealth of research into this issue, the answer is

unfortunately the causes of misbehaviour remain quite a complex topic and it researchers

won’t likely ever have a single answer. What is also problematic is that the definition of what

constitutes misbehavior is also seen to vary between departments and researchers. For

teachers specifically, NSW department of Education has set out guidelines for appropriate

behaviour they expect from their students within their schools (New South Wales Department

of Education, 2017). These expectations included behaviours that fall under three categories

including safety, engagement and respect (NSW Department of Education, 2017). With this

set of educational guidelines in mind, from an educators standpoint, misbehaviour is any type

of behaviour that falls outside of these guidelines and undermines or impedes teaching and

learning (Crashaw, 2015). Examples of misbehaviours include, but are not limited to, talking

out of turn, unpreparedness for class, fighting, cheating and rudeness to teachers (Crashaw,

1
Zachary Mark Harris- 17978675 PPLE 102082 2H 2018

2015), (Omoteso & Semudara, 2011). With this definition in mind, we can begin to unpack

the potential causes of this misbehaviour.

Noelene L Weatherby-Fell (2015) outlines that some of the reasons that students

misbehave can be linked to “teacher’s poor planning or boring lessons” as well as “a

student’s personal life, learning difficulties” or even “simply due to the weather” (p. 139).

Weatherby-Fell (2015) also links misbehaviour to fear, frustration, anger and a feeling of

lacking control. This kind of assessment of misbehaviour is also supported in the research

article into behavioural management strategies by Omoteso and Semudara (2011). Within this

article, they outline that “m​isbehaviour can arise because students feel frustrated and bored in

schools as well as simply wanting” to push the limits or gain “teachers’ attention” (Omoteso

& Semudara, 2011, p.902)​ What all these factors have in common is how they’re all related

to a certain antecedent that causes level of student disengagement. In a classroom setting,

engagement is how much ​attention they’re paying to the lesson and the effort students put

towards their learning.(​Atherton, Shah, Vazquez, Griffiths, Jackson, & Burgess, 2017)

Without a level of engagement from the students, misbehaviour is almost certain to arise

(​Atherton, et.al, 2017)

Academic engagement aside, another identified cause of misbehaviour is a lack of

emotional connection or care towards school or schooling. Helen Egeberg and Andrew

McConney (2017) reveal that students within their research into misbehaviour “distinguished

between academic and personal caring and believed strongly that they need to feel cared for

before they could care about school.” (Egeberg & Mconney, 2017, p. 197). Both emotional

engagement and educational engagement are important because ​a reduced level of either of

these have been connected with a rise in more severe forms of misbehaviour within a

classroom setting (Wang & Fredricks, 2014). However, it is not about having a teacher who

2
Zachary Mark Harris- 17978675 PPLE 102082 2H 2018

is soft and caring all the time. Students in the Egebeg & McConney (2017) study also reveal

that they believe a teacher ​“who [is] able to maintain order, provide limits for behaviour, and

create a safe environment” would mediate misbehaviour in the classroom ( p.197). The

research from these parties combined suggest that when a student lacks engagement, both

academically and emotionally at school, or do not feel like they have a safe learning

environment, disengagement and subsequent misbehaviour is the expected result.

Section Two: Synthesis of interview findings

Prior to commencement of this interview process, steps were taking to ensure that it was

conducted ethically and followed the guidelines in place. The individuals were all made

aware of the interviewing process, the purpose of this interview and how their data would be

used. They also signed the waivers to give permission for their responses to be used for this

purpose. All participants were made aware of and understood that they had the option to

revoke this permission at any stage.

The structure of these interviews took place in a variety of locations deemed

comfortable to each individual personally. These locations ranged from work or university

meeting rooms to the comfort of the home. Participants were not forced or asked to stick to a

set questionnaire structure nor were they required to conform to an arbitrary time frame in

which they needed to adhere to. The interview was conducted as an open-ended style of

questioning as to allow for a more genuine answer and data set to be collected. The

participants had the power to decide when they had answered the question to their standard

and each participant agreed that they were given ample opportunity to answer. The six

participants who I interviewed for this task varied in age, gender and occupation. Two males

3
Zachary Mark Harris- 17978675 PPLE 102082 2H 2018

and four females were interviewed in total and are listed below. They’re listed without names

for anonymity but their age range, connection to schools and occupation have been provided

as to allow a contrast to occur.

M1= (60-64) Manager of Small Business, no children in school

M2= (25-29) Pre Service Teacher, no children

F1= (30-34) Accountant, Mother of 2 children aged 8 & 11, both special needs children

F2= (55-59) Teacher of 35 years, mother of 3 adult children

F3= (25-29) Medical Student, no children

F4= (20-24) Graphic Designer, no children

When comparing the answers given by participants, the first thing that is of note is the depth

of answers that were provided. Participants M1, F3 and F4, who are distant from the

schooling sphere, were confident in their succinct answers which listed around ten causes of

misbehaviour. The others, who are more involved with schooling or teaching, were more

thorough with an excess of twenty-five potential causes each that addressed a multitude of

scenarios, age groups and settings. These individuals specifically were M2, F1, F2 who are a

preservice teacher, mother of special needs children currently in school and a teacher of over

thirty years. What can be seen from this data is that the level of engagement with schools and

schooling can be linked to an increased level of understanding of or engagement with the

complex nature of student misbehaviour.

The next most common theme is the way in which the causes of misbehaviour are

separated within all participants answers. All participants grouped their answers by

“physical”, “psychological” and “environmental” characteristics. Physical causes were

4
Zachary Mark Harris- 17978675 PPLE 102082 2H 2018

answers like “hunger”, “medical needs”, “hormones” and in F1’s specific case she mentioned

her two sons having “Autism” being a physical cause. Psychological causes included an

internal need to “push the boundaries” of the teacher to "see how far they can go”, being

“disengaged because of work being too hard or too boring” and F2 outlined that in students in

earlier years of school could be suffering from “separation anxieties” and the “fear of the

unknown”. M2 presented the the idea of a “powertrip” whereby a student may have a “false

sense of power” and want to “test the limits of the teacher”. F2 also provided an insight into

the misunderstandings around “expectations” and how that will be a “trigger” for her sons to

misbehave. All participants were similar in their understanding that students may just be

more “interested in talking to their friends”.

Finally, “Environment” or “environmental factors” were used as terms to group the

factors that were present around the student. These factors were not centred on the classroom

alone but also the “community”, “homelife” and “school life”. Specifically, F2 went into

detail about the effect “noises” “distractions”, “time of day”, “temperature” and even how the

school is on that specific “day of the week” can cause misbehaviour. F1, F3 and F4 also

detailed the “Peers that encourage misbehavior”. They also discussed the “school

community” and how it might be renowned for “bad behaviour” which almost creates

misbehaviour because it is expected of the children. On the topic of school culture, M1,F3,

F4 said it might be to do with “gang culture” of that area and needing to prove themselves as

“hard” or “tough”. All participants detailed how much of an affect they believed “home” can

have on a child and their behaviour. Recurring causes the participants linked to homelife

were “abusive parents/siblings”, “parents who don’t respect the education system”, “parental

pressures” and lack of “discipline within the home”.

5
Zachary Mark Harris- 17978675 PPLE 102082 2H 2018

Section three: Synthesis of research findings and literature

When analysing the responses of all my participant’s, it was less about age or gender that

seemed to create the biggest difference in their answers. However, I will acknowledge that

there are more female participants than male and thus it would be hard to gauge the effect

gender has on this issue. What is evident however is that it was the participant’s level of

engagement within a school or school system currently influenced their level of discussion

quite significantly. Though some of the ideas were similar across all the participants, the

complexities such as “temperature”, “being hungry” and “time of day/day of week”, “work

expectations” and “unprepared teachers” were only discussed by those who are connected to

schools. Improper or failure of “pedagogy” suggested by F2 and M2 were unique answers to

them (Teacher and Preservice Teacher). F1, F2 and M2 all discussed the concept of lessons

being “too easy” or “too difficult” and how a teacher’s approach to teaching directly

influences behaviour of students who are struggling or racing through the work.

The causational link between a teacher’s pedagogy and the subsequent student

engagement with the lesson with the overall behaviour of students is something that was

mirrored in the research of Wetherby-Fell (2015), Omoteso and Semudara (2011) and

Crashaw (2015). Put simply, a “teacher’s poor planning or boring lessons” were some of the

most frequently identified causes of misbehaviour but often overlooked (p. 139-150

Omoteso and Semudara (2011) also link “m​isbehaviour” to a feeling of being frustrated

within the lesson which is reflected in F1, F2 and M2 who made note how a poorly

constructed lesson, either too easy or too hard, can cause a child’s “frustration” and

subsequently cause them to misbehave. The final connection that can be drawn was the way

6
Zachary Mark Harris- 17978675 PPLE 102082 2H 2018

in which F2, a teacher of over 30 years, was the only participant to outline the “fear” element

involved in student and their behaviour. This understanding of fear influencing behaviour

was reflected by ​Wetherby-Fell (2015) who also suggests students being afraid of failure,

afraid of the unknown or even just afraid that they’ll never get it right can be a cause for

misbehaviour.

Section four: Implications for praxis

My personal beliefs and expected approaches towards the issue of misbehaviour were based

around treating each student as an individual and likewise treating majority of misbehaviour

on an individual basis as it arises. However, through this study and research conducted

alongside this task, I’ve come to see that misbehaviour is something that not only can be

planned for on a broader scale, it most definitely should be. I’ve become aware that

misbehaviour and the failure to manage it properly is one of the lead causes of “Teacher

burnout” and I should be taking more proactive steps towards it’s mediation (Aloe, Shisler,

Norris, Nickerson, & Rinkler, 2014). Much of the data I’ve seen through the interviewing of

my participants, and the research data of others, suggests a major cause of misbehaviour is

linked to failures or shortcomings in pedagogy. This combined with a lack of clear

expectations within the classroom is almost certain to promote misbehavior. What this means

is that as a teacher you are often the direct cause of the misbehaviour that is “undermining the

teaching and learning process” within your classroom.

As such, a need to understand how each student learns and putting an effort into

ensuring an engaging and inclusive lesson will work to mediate and even eliminate much of

the misbehaviour. By setting out “clear classroom rules” and expectations and trying to

7
Zachary Mark Harris- 17978675 PPLE 102082 2H 2018

“prepare a well-structured and interesting lesson while showing withitness, overlapping, and

group altering”, you as a teacher have the ability to achieve a level of behaviour management

that in fact promotes learning (Ometeso & Semudara, 2011) Despite the potential influences

from outside of the classroom, it is the idea that through a “Positive learning environment”

within your classroom, you have the opportunity to create a space that encourages

engagement and positive behaviour that mediates these outside influences (Weatherby-Fell,

2015). The data of my interviews, as well as the overall data, reveal that the causes of

misbehaviour are complex and ever changing and thus, as a teacher you must be prepared to

change and adapt your pedagogy to combat it.

8
Zachary Mark Harris- 17978675 PPLE 102082 2H 2018

References

Aloe, A. M., Shisler, S. M., Norris, B. D., Nickerson, A. B., & Rinker, T. W. (2014).

A multivariate meta-analysis of student misbehavior.​Educational Research

Review, 12​(1), 30-44.

Atherton, M., Shah, M., Vazquez, J., Griffiths, Z., Jackson, B., & Burgess, C. (2017).

Using learning analytics to assess student engagement and academic outcomes in

open access enabling programmes. ​Open Learning: The Journal Of Open, Distance

And E-Learning​, ​32​(2), 119-136. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2017.1309646

Behaviour code for students | Attendance, behaviour and engagement. (2017). Retrieved

from

https://education.nsw.gov.au/student-wellbeing/attendance-behaviour-and-engagem

ent/student-behaviour/behaviour-code

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

misbehaviour: A review of international research, 1983 to 2013. ​Australian

Journal of Education, 59​(3), 293-311.

Egeberg, H., & McConney, A. (2017). What do students believe about effective

classroom management? A mixed-methods investigation in Western Australian high

9
Zachary Mark Harris- 17978675 PPLE 102082 2H 2018

schools. ​The Australian Educational Researcher​, ​45​(2), 195-216. doi:

10.1007/s13384-017-0250-y

Omoteso, B. & Semudara, A. (2011). The Relationship between Teachers’

Effectiveness and Management of Classroom Misbehaviours in Secondary

Schools. ​Psychology, 2,​902-908. doi: ​10.4236/psych.2011.29136​.

Wang, M., & Fredricks, J. A. (2014). The reciprocal links between school

engagement, youth problem behaviors, and school dropout during

adolescence. ​Child Development, 85​(2), 722-737. doi:10.1111%2Fcdev.12138

Weatherby-Fell, N. (2015). ​Learning to teach in the secondary school​. Melbourne, Vic.:

Cambridge University Press.

10