This report aims to add to the pool of knowledge regarding why students misbehave in Australian

secondary schools. A review of recent literature on the subject was undertaken and a series of six
interviews with individuals who have varying levels of involvement in the field of education were
carried out for straightforward experience based knowledge to contrast the scientific views on the
matter put forward in the literature.

For the purpose of this report, misbehaviour in school will refer to behaviours which disrupt teaching
and learning.

A common theme in the literature is the link between students’ behaviour and the quality of
relationships with adults in their lives–teachers and parents (Gavilda–Payne, Denny, Davis, Francis,
Jackson, 2015, Murray–Harvey, Slee, 2010, Roache, Lewis, 2011). In Children’s self-concept: parental
school engagement and student–teacher relationships in rural and urban Australia, Susana Gavilda–
Payne and her co–authors discuss the quality of the relationships between students and their
parents and teachers in relation to students’ levels of self–efficacy, which is linked to behaviour,
engagement and achievement. The paper compares these factors for children living in rural and
urban settings (Gavilda–Payne et-al. 2015). In School and Home Relationships and Their Impact on
School Bullying, Rosalind Murray–Harvey and Phillip Slee discuss the relationship between the
quality of children’s relationships with adults in their lives specifically in relation to levels of risk for
being involved in bullying behaviour either as a victim or a bully (Murray–Harvey et-al. 2010). In
Teachers’ views on the impact of classroom management on student responsibility, Joel Roache and
Ramon Lewis do not discuss students’ relationships with their parents as making a contribution to
behaviour in school but draw the same conclusion as Gavilda–Payne et-al. (2015) and Murray–
Harvey et-al. (2010) that positive relationships between students and teachers encourage good
behaviour. In this paper, the most conclusive evidence points to classrooms in which the teacher
employs a non-aggressive approach to behaviour management producing self–regulated students
who are more engaged. In contrast, aggressive behaviour management strategies were found to
perpetuate a cycle of bad behaviour (Roache et-al. 2011).

The main points of similarity between these three papers lie in their evaluation of higher levels of
warmth and respect in young people’s relationships with their parents and particularly with their
teachers as a beneficial influence upon students’ lives at school. The fact the papers all come to this
conclusion from different angles suggests some universal truth to this idea. Roache et-al. in
particular found; “(Behaviour) management that combines punishment with aggressive and hostile
behaviour (on the part of the teacher) can exacerbate misbehaviour and increase student
distraction.” (2011, p132). This was even referred to as “teacher misbehaviour” (pages 133 and 142),
highlighting the ill–advised nature of such a management style as an actual cause of misbehaviour
among students. The other papers were testing for phenomena that are indirectly related to
classroom behaviour and do not discuss behaviour management styles, only the quality of student–
teacher and student–parent relationships and the effects of said relationships. Murray–Harvey et-al.
formulate the argument that poor relationships with parents and teachers statistically puts students
at risk of being involved in bullying as a specific form of misbehaviour, but also put children at risk of
becoming a victim of bullying (Murray–Harvey et-al. 2010). Gavilda–Payne et-al. mention low SES as
a risk factor for underachievement in school and “increased rates of delinquency in adolescence”
(p123) but this is not discussed in detail as it is only incidental to the paper’s investigation of the
difference between the “self–concept” of urban and rural school students in Australia (Gavilda–
Payne et-al. 2015).

Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of student misbehaviour: A review of international research,

by Michael Crawshaw presents the change of setting from primary to high school as a possible cause
for misbehaviour among students (Crawshaw, 2015). He cites a shift of responsibility to students and
a shift to a teacher focused model of teaching as well as the tendency for high schools to be more
impersonal than primary school as causes for what teachers in the study perceived as an increase in
misbehaviour when students enter high school years. He also mentions the lack of consistency in
behaviour management strategies amongst the large number of teachers students have in high
school for different subjects in contrast to having one class teacher in primary school as another
cause of this phenomenon. (Crawshaw, 2015). This paper comes at the issue of misbehaviour from a
different angle to the three mentioned previously and does not discuss student–teacher relations or
students’ relationships with their parents as linked to behaviour.

Voluntary interviews were carried out with six subjects. Ethics protocols were followed and all
names are pseudonyms. The interviews were carried out as a conversation around the question;
“Why do young people misbehave in school?” Handwritten notes were taken on their responses. No
recordings were made and all interviewees were aware of how the information would be used and
signed consent to be interviewed. They were made aware they could withdraw participation at any
time, even after the interview was completed. Responses were in no way guided by questioning,
subjects were only prompted for their opinions on aspects of the matter that had not yet been
covered, to give more detail on a response or to clarify responses.

All interviewees attributed misbehaviour in the classroom to many of the same causes but they all
had different insights on these. Variations on common themes were present. All six interviewees
cited aspects of home life as having an influence on students’ behaviour in various ways and five
mentioned engagement (or lack thereof) with schoolwork in one or more manifestations. Most also
mentioned Social pressures and students’ relationships with their teachers as influencing factors.
The closest any interviewee came to blaming students directly for their misbehaviour was John, but
only by saying; “some students feel any attention is good attention” and citing this as a cause of
misbehaviour. This was, however, framed as a response to a need that was not being met rather
than as a fault of the student/s in question.

Interestingly, every interviewee went off track from the original question of “Why do young people
misbehave in school?” and wanted to offer strategies for the prevention of situations in which
students might feel compelled to misbehave, everyone wanted to talk about positive experiences
and ways to encourage students to engage in on-task behaviour and foster positive relationships
with them as constructive strategies for behaviour management.

Following is a brief introduction of the six participants:

Troy: An H.S.I.E. teacher with more than twenty years of experience in secondary schools.

John: An H.S.I.E. teacher with less than ten years of experience.

Isabel: An English teacher with less than ten years of experience.

Mark: Father of three children who attended high school from 1996 to 2010. Former English and
History teacher in secondary schools in the 1970s and 1980s

Sophie: A pre-service teacher studying at Western Sydney University.

Laurel: A science student studying at The University of Sydney.

Troy cited difficult and/or unengaging classwork as a reason why students misbehave in the
classroom. He also noted that this issue compounds itself in the sense that misbehaving instead of
completing work makes the next task more difficult because the scaffolding task was not engaged
with. He posited that parents who do not take an interest in their children’s education have an ill
effect on students’ achievement and this can then lead to misbehaviour. This was cited as true even
if parents tell their children school is important but don’t act like it. Most interesting, however, was
what Troy said about a strategy he has used multiple times, which is seeding marks for
underachieving students who misbehave. The ethics of this strategy are debateable but, according
to Troy, the results are overwhelmingly positive. In the example he explained in detail, he raised a
mark for a year nine student on an assessment task in the first half of the year. Her name was Sandra
(a pseudonym) and she was very passive–aggressive to Troy and other teachers and deliberately
didn’t engage with schoolwork. Troy raised Sandra’s mark from what should have been a fail to a
high pass mark and wrote some encouraging comments. This apparently had fantastic results and
Sandra’s marks rose solidly without any more seeding on Troy’s part, her aggressive attitude
evaporated, she grew in confidence and began helping other students with their work. This is only
one example of a student for whom this strategy has worked, Troy says he has used it successfully
several times. The implications of this strategy’s success are that behaviour is linked closely with
students’ academic achievement and self – efficacy.

John noted the tendency of students to “muck up” when their routine changed, including both on a
small scale, the changeover between activities during a class, for example and large scale disruptions
to routine like school photo day or mufti days, even rainy days. John was the only interviewee to
mention the tendency of students with learning difficulties to misbehave more than their peers. He
then went on, like every interviewee did, to discuss strategies for managing bad behaviour or
avoiding it altogether. He said he has better results treating misbehaviour incidents as an
opportunity for growth and acting as a mentor rather than punishing. He said; “a student who is
engaged is a student who isn’t misbehaving – by definition,” he then simply stated; “If I’m bored,
they’re bored (not engaged).”

Isabel’s most interesting point was her belief that every lesson should involve students standing up
and moving around at some point because she feels teenagers can’t sit still for a whole one hour
lesson and if you try to make them, they will fulfil their need for movement on their own and this
becomes a disruption to the class, thus it constitutes misbehaviour. Isabel came at the whole issue
from a needs-based perspective, saying misbehaviour was a reaction to students’ needs not being
met. She positioned engagement, emotional needs and social pressures as needs which, if not met,
would produce misbehaviour. Positive relationships with teachers and parents and being mentally
healthy were also framed as needs which students would pursue on their own if not met in the
existing classroom environment. Isabel mentioned that parents who are disengaged from their
child’s schooling are a bad influence on behaviour but also mentioned that “helicopter parents,”
who are too involved, are worse.

Mark felt that students who misbehave are a product of bad teaching. If they’re misbehaving
because they’re bored (not engaged), that’s the teacher’s failing, however he still felt there was
some onus on the student not to misbehave in this situation. Despite more recently being one
parent of three children attending high school, it appears most of Mark’s views on the matter
stemmed from being teacher in the 70s and 80s because this was the perspective from which he
framed his responses. He quoted “hormonal problems (sic)” and peer pressure as causes of
misbehaviour because these change how an individual reacts to a situation. He said home life
affected not only the way students reacted in class and their own level of self-efficacy but also the
way their peers treated them and said home life is a multi-faceted influence on behaviour.

Sophie also mentioned elements of adolescent development as contributing factors when students
misbehave in school. She cited home environment as an influence on behaviour as well as cultural
expectations and social pressures. She cited the quality of students’ relationships with teachers as an
important factor in behaviour patterns of students in class and framed the desire for a positive
relationship (on the part of the student) as a need which, if not met, can have unfavourable
consequences.

Laurel’s views were framed from a student’s perspective, unsurprising, given she was a high school
student not very long ago. She placed a large emphasis on the relationship between students and
teachers. Like all interviewees, she preferred to talk about positive behaviour and what encourages
it, but in her case this was more pronounced. She mentioned that teachers who treat students like
adults and don’t talk down to them or make judgements about them based on behaviour without
talking about it were positive influences on behaviour. As causes for misbehaviour, she said; “If you
assume a kid is a troublemaker, they won’t disappoint you” and, interestingly, that students will
misbehave if they’re stuck in a subject they only chose because they were told they should rather
than choosing it on their own. This, of course, constitutes a lack of engagement.

In a general sense, the findings of these interviews agree with the positions of the four papers
referenced in this report. Home life and relationships with teachers as important factors influencing
student behaviour were a very pronounced commonality but none of the interviewees mentioned
the transition from primary to high school as a cause of misbehaviour. Both the interviews and the
scientific literature should be treated as valuable insight into teaching practice and only by using
such approaches in conjunction can worthwhile progress be made to inform pedagogical practice.
Bibliography

Crawshaw, Michael (2015) Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of student misbehaviour: A review
of international research, 1983 to 2013, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 59(3) 293–311.

Gavidia-Payne, Susana, Denny, Bianca, Davis, Kate, Francis, Andrew, Jackson, Mervyn (2015)
Children’s self-concept: parental school engagement and student–teacher relationships in rural and
urban Australia, Social Psychology Education, 18:121–136.

Murray–Harvey, Rosalind, Slee, Phillip T. (2010) School and Home Relationships and Their Impact on
School Bullying, School Psychology International, Vol. 31(3): 271–295.

Roache, Joel, Lewis, Ramon (2011) Teachers’ views on the impact of classroom management on
student responsibility, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 55, No. 2, 2011, 132–146.