102082 PEDAGOGY

FOR POSITIVE
LEARNING Pedagogy for

ENVIRONMENTS Positive Learning

Environments
Report

REPORT
Student Name: Samuel Chappuis

Student Number: 18331631

Date Submitted: 23/8/18
Campus: Kingswood
Why do young people misbehave in
schools?
Section One:

The teaching and learning experience is highly influenced by the environment of the school and
classroom (Braxton, Bayer & Noseworthy 2004; Hirschy & Braxton 2004). Effective teachers create
“caring classroom communities” (p. 7) and a “relaxed and enjoyable atmosphere in the classroom”
(p. 28) which is able to deter student misbehaviour (Anthony & Walshaw, 2009; Brown & McIntyre,
1993). However, a positive learning environment is not always the norm. Teachers constantly
complain about the misbehaviour of their students. The presence of student misbehaviour is
troubling for all involved. Insight into the motives of these behaviours could aid in the development
of successful methods of decreasing their prevalence.

Student misbehaviour is defined as behaviours which impede the process of learning (Croom &
Moore, 2003). Scholars have strived to highlight the reasons for students’ behaviour; they have
suggested that by understanding the motives, teachers would be able to reduce or avoid the
prevalence of misbehaviour and promote positive school behaviour. For example, Hyman (1994)
provides an exhaustive list of reasons for student misbehaviour. He emphasises that the factors lie
both inside and outside the school. In his dissertation, Cheney and Byrnes (2000) explore various
viewpoints on student misbehaviour. They use Hyman as a framework and discover that the causes
for misbehaviour are both internal and external to the school. Internal factors include “times when
teachers are unclear and inconsistent with their rules of conduct, neglect their students, or use their
classroom time inefficiently” as well as students trying to “prove their power, to seek revenge, or to
display deficiencies in order to be left alone” (p. 25). Additionally, Cheney and Byrnes point out
external factors such as “an unstable and isolated family life for the student” and “learning
disabilities, ADHD, and physical problems” lead to misbehaviour (p. 25).

Feldmann (2001) highlights the importance of understanding that the reasons behind any behaviour
are naturally complex and regularly multifaceted. He argues that the misbehaviour of students
“appears to be rooted in one or more of three psychological factors” including “the need to express
power over another,” “frustration at an unsolvable solution,” or “a need to obtain something of
value” (p. 127). Additionally, it was discovered that student misbehaviour is often linked to student
factors instead of teaching factors (Kulinna, 2007). Contrastingly, Demanet and Van Houtte (2011)
highlight that, students may show disruptive behaviour when they recognise that teachers have low
expectations for them. Studies have also illustrated that if students feel supported by teachers and
feel like they are at home in school, they are less inclined to misbehave (Demanet and Van Houtte,
2011; Freidenfelt, Liljeberg, Eklund, Väfors Fritz, and af Klinteberg, 2011).

It is apparent that the reasons behind student misbehaviour are cognitive, psychological and
biological. However, even though Rachel and Daniel (2012) explain there is a present need, there
have been few attempts to actually investigate the reasons why students misbehave in schools
(Johnson, Goldman & Claus, 2018). If the reasons why students misbehave are understood, it would
be much easier to prevent and deter student misbehaviour (Johnson, Goldman & Claus, 2018).
Thus, the focus of this report is on the reasons why young people misbehave in school.
Section Two:

Teachers, parents, pre-service teachers and non-teaching adults (n = 6) were invited to participate in
a conversational interview asking “In your opinion, why do young people misbehave in school?” The
sample was comprised of 2 males (33.3%) and 4 females (66.7%). The average age of participants
was 41.67 years (SD = 18.55, range = 21-61). All participants identified as White/Caucasian. Before
any interviews were conducted, the participant was explained the purpose of the interview. The
interviewee was given a consent form; informed responses would not be recorded and told they
would be de-identified in the report. It was further illustrated that participants reserved the right to
withdraw at any time. It was important for these conditions to be explained to exhibit ethical
integrity.

The interviewees are categorised as follows with the codes: P = parent, NTA = non-teaching adult,
PST = pre-service teacher and T = teacher:
- P1: 56 year old male Food Technologist and Father
- P2: 58 year old female Mail Coding Office, Teachers Aid and Mother
- NTA: 21 year old male Food and Beverage Assistant
- PST: 24 year old female Pre-Service Teacher
- T1: 61 year old female English Teacher
- T2: 30 year old female Maths Teacher.

The interview process took the form of a conversation. Each participant was asked the key inquiry
question. Based off the respondents’ answers, a conversation was generated using open-ended
questions to delve into the interviewees’ beliefs about student behaviour and the reasons why they
hold them. For example, some respondents were asked “Think back, what were some of the reasons
why you would have misbehaved in school”. Each participants answer(s) were fleshed out and
explored in depth through this conversational approach. The interviewer took detailed notes
focusing on discovering a theme of reasoning behind student misbehaviour.

One factor that all interviewees’ highlighted was family life, with respondents discussing “neglect”,
“no support”, “high expectations” and the varying types of “family units” as causes for misbehaviour.
Another frequent theme was lack of discipline/respect. P1, P2, T1 and T2 talked about students
having a “lack of respect” and that there was a “lack of discipline” in schools. P2 noted that there’s
no “healthy fear of consequences” and believed that young people need this to behave. P1
illustrated that the quality of the teacher/education plays a part in student behaviour. He noted that
the “incentive for education is not as high” and that there’s no “healthy competiveness” to do well.
He used his favourite teacher as a framework to discuss reasons why he behaved well, stating that a
great teacher deters misbehaviour. P1’s reasoning was backed up by other respondents such as T2’s
acknowledgement of the “inconsistency of teachers and school” and NTA’s illustration of “poor
teaching-student relationships”. Other factors discussed were behavioural issues such as “ADHD”
pointed out by P2 and “pubertal changes” discussed by PST. Most respondents noted that they
thought “technological devices are a distraction”. Additionally, PST and T2 illustrated that behaviour
depends on a “person’s personality”. PST talked about how it could be considered “cool” to act up;
on the other hand NTA explained that social issues such as “friendship drama” could lead to bad
behaviour.
Therefore, similar to Hyman (1994) and Cheney and Byrnes (2000), the reasons why young people
misbehave in schools are linked to both internal and external factors. The common internal factors
were:
- Quality of Teacher
- Lack of discipline/respect
- Quality of Education.
The common external factors found were:
- Biological/Psychological/Social Reasons
- Family Life
- Technology.
These overall factors were established by examining and comparing interview notes with each other.
The reasons for misbehaviour given were listed for all respondents and compared and once this was
done, the common themes were developed.

Section Three:

All interviewees’ highlighted that family life effected misbehaviour in school the most. However,
some respondents stated different aspects of family life that would cause bad behaviour. For
example, NTA discussed a personal example which he stated “affected his behaviour the most”. He
talked about a family member of his suffering a stroke and how difficult that was on him and his
family. He explained that this event put a heavy toll on him personally and he didn’t feel like going to
school and hence acted up. This was an interesting point as the literature (see Hyman, 1994; Cheney
& Byrnes, 2000) and other interviewees’ identified that if students feel “neglected”, “isolated”,
and/or “unsupported” at home then this caused misbehaviour. PST, also in contrast to the main sub-
factors of family life, identified that even a good home life can lead to bad behaviour. She explained
through an example that a student who has a good home life might feel pressured to do well in
school. That the pressure could become too much for them and as a result of this, they could start to
misbehave. Therefore, even though family life was a popular reason, there are multiple aspects that
can cause misbehaviour.

The quality of teachers/education was also emphasised throughout the responses and literature.
This essentially reveals that the teaching and overall educational environmental, plays a major part
in the misbehaviour of young people. In the literature review, it was discovered that students who
feel supported by their teachers are less likely to misbehave (Demanet and Van Houtte, 2011;
Freidenfelt, Liljeberg, Eklund, Väfors Fritz, and af Klinteberg, 2011). Similarly, NTA highlighted that
“poor teacher and student relationships” result in bad behaviour. Furthermore, P1 admitted to being
a troublemaker in school but he explained that a quality teacher deterred him from bad behaviour.
P2 and T1 addressed the fact that students could feel “disengaged” and “bored” with the content
and thus act out. T1 suggested that the “lack of exciting lessons” was the reason of disengagement.
Likewise, P1 provided an interesting point that students might not feel the need for school or
education, stating that “kids have access to anything they want to know about at the touch of a
button”. On the other hand, Kulinna (2007) disagrees and illustrated that student factors are more
influential in misbehaviour. This statement was backed up by Feldmann (2001) who talked about the
psychological factors of students as the reasoning for misbehaviour.
Ultimately, the most intriguing aspect discovered during this research process was that, like
Feldmann (2001) illustrated; the motives behind any behaviour are naturally complex and regularly
multifaceted. This is evidenced by the fact that the literature, as well as all respondents, shared
multiple different reasons for why they thought young people misbehave in schools. It is evident
that there is no single motive behind student misbehaviour and that a teacher must understand and
be knowledgeable of this fact in order to create a positive learning environment.

Section Four:

As mentioned throughout this paper, the motives behind the misbehaviour of young people in
school are varied and complex. Therefore, it is difficult for a teacher to diagnose the reasons for a
students’ misbehaviour. However, a teacher can limit the prevalence of bad behaviour by
understanding the causes of misbehaviour, getting to know the students and providing a positive
learning environment. As numerous studies have pointed out, students who feel supported by
teachers and feel like they are at home in school are less likely to misbehave (Demanet and Van
Houtte, 2011; Freidenfelt, Liljeberg, Eklund, Väfors Fritz, and af Klinteberg, 2011). Additionally, the
quality of the teacher-student relationship was also highlighted by respondents, especially P1 and
NTA, as being a main issue of misbehaviour. Most of the participants shared that they felt a positive
relationship between the teacher and the student would deter bad behaviour.

An important finding that this report identified was the influence of a young person’s family life on
their behaviour in school. The literature as well as all respondents highlighted family life as a major
reason for misbehaviour. It is therefore important that a teacher is constantly aware that a student’s
behaviour may be because of aspects of their family life. Hence, a teacher should try to create
positive relationships of trust and respect with their students so that a student feels comfortable
talking about what is troubling them. The teacher can do this through positive encouragement,
getting to know the student and genuinely caring about them. Furthermore, the teacher can develop
relationships with the families of their students which can help them identify any external factors
that lead to misbehaviour e.g. extra duties at home leading to no time for homework. Additionally, if
a student has a serious family issue, the teacher can involve the counsellor or staff-members who
are trained to deal with these kinds of issues.

Most importantly, adolescents seek to connect with the people around them (Arnett, 2014).
Teachers need to know the importance of this in their practice. It is important for teachers to see the
value in their relationships with students. This can be done by greeting each student with a smile,
getting to know them by discussing things that interest them or setting high expectations and
believing that they can achieve them. Teachers can also demonstrate high behavioural expectations,
such as not talking while the teacher is talking or being engaged in the learning. Teachers should also
realise, that these ideas will not also work straight away. It takes time and effort to promote a
positive learning environment where every student feels they can learn. However, if positive
behavioural expectations were promoted school wide through types of merit or achievement
systems, it may create a high expectations environment for all students and increase the positivity in
the relationships between students and staff.

Overall, this report has been a highly insightful process which has led to the understanding that
there is no one reason for why young people misbehave in school. It is more important for teachers
in their practice to understand all the possible reasons for bad behaviour, and that the best way to
decrease the frequency of misbehaviour is to create a positive learning environment. This involves
the teacher having a relationship with each student and the student being valued and encouraged to
learn.
References

Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2010). Effective pedagogy in mathematics. Brussels: International
Academy of Education.

Arnett, J. (2014). Adolescence and emerging adulthood (Fifth edition, Pearson new
international ed.).

Braxton, J., Bayer, A., & Noseworthy, J. (2004). The influence of teaching norm violations on the
welfare of students as clients of college teaching. New Directions For Teaching And Learning,
2004(99), 41-46.

Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Croom, B., & Moore, G. E. (2003). The relationship between teacher burnout and student
misbehavior. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 53, 262–274.

Cheney, K., & Byrnes, Ronald S. (2000). Various Viewpoints on Why Students Misbehave,
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Demanet, J., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). School Belonging and School Misconduct: The Differing
Role of Teacher and Peer Attachment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(4), 499-514.

Feldmann, L. J. (2001). Classroom civility is another of our instructor responsibilities. College

Teaching, 49, 137–140.

Freidenfelt Liljeberg, Eklund, Fritz, & Af Klinteberg. (2011). Poor school bonding and
delinquency over time: Bidirectional effects and sex differences. Journal of Adolescence,
34(1), 1-9.

Hirschy, A., & Braxton, J. (2004). Effects of student classroom incivilities on students. New Directions
For Teaching And Learning, 2004(99), 67-76.

Hyman, I. (1994). Policy and practice in school discipline; Past, present, and future. Washington, DC.

Johnson, Z., Goldman, Z., & Claus, C. (2018). Why Do Students Misbehave? An Initial
Examination of Antecedents to Student Misbehavior. Communication Quarterly, 1-20.

Kulinna, P. H. (2007). Teachers’ attributions and strategies for student misbehavior. Journal of
Classroom Interaction, 42, 21–30.

Rachel C. F. Sun, & Daniel T. L. Shek. (2012). Student Classroom Misbehavior: An Exploratory
Study Based on Teachers' Perceptions. The Scientific World Journal, 2012, 208907.