Daniel Jordan 18669233

Positive Learning Environments and Classroom Behavioural Theory

This essay will provide a synthesis of research and academic literature on student classroom

behaviour to identify leading theories and approaches. Additionally, there is also a synthesis

of data collected from six interviewees that has been studied to collate major themes that

will be also used for a comparison with the academic research data. Finally, this essay will

couch this information in terms of pedagogical practice and approach to student relationships

and engagement.

Literature Review

From the literature examined (see reference list) it is apparent that a very diverse range of

theories, models and approaches to student misbehaviour is available to educators to inform

their pedagogies. This supports what Jong (2005) refers to as an “eco-systemic perspective”

(p.357) which suggests that student behaviour is part of a range of factors including their

environment, relations to family, teachers, other students and their community as well as the

school institution itself. This synthesis of literature has identified four key areas:

• Environment

• Classroom management

• Cognitive skills

• Teacher perception and attitude

In terms of learning environment, Jong (2005) suggests it is a better strategy to target

problematic environments than behaviours. To be eco-systemic a learning environment must

also be flexible enough to cater for a diverse range of learners who may struggle to conform

to rigid, mainstream pedagogy (Jong 2005). A good classroom’s physical environment can

P a g e 1 | 11
Daniel Jordan 18669233

establish security, social interactions with peers and facilitate a sense of belonging that may

mitigate anti-social behaviours and alienation (De Nobile & Lyons, 2017). A positive

environmental behavioural approach suggested by Jong (2005) is to give students a role in

building their learning environment that empowers them and promotes inclusivity.

For classroom management and engagement, keeping students interested and challenged is

recognised as a leading method to manage behaviour. This was articulated by the students in

Cothran, Kulinna and Garrahy’s (2009) report who claimed that seemingly meaningless

content or classroom activities could lead to distraction, boredom and poor behaviour. Poor

classroom management has been shown to have a knock-on negative effect on student

achievement, security and as importantly, teacher attrition (Alter, Walker & Landers, 2013).

As further postulated by Jong (2005), quality teaching is essential to engagement and better

still, a student-centred learning environment promotes self-esteem, active learning and

minimizes occurrences of misbehaviour.

The cognitive approach turns to an internalised rather than externalised perspective, and that

students are not just “passive responders” to environmental and external influence (De

Nobile & Lyons, 2017, p.187). Looking at behaviour management through a social cognitive

perspective, good behaviour can be instructed and modelled, observed and then reflected

upon by the individual who can take developmental steps into self-regulation and pro-social

behaviours (De Nobile & Lyons, 2017). Building a relationship with students and

understanding internalised cognitive behaviours can provide educators a sophisticated

analysis. For example, Killu (2008) argues that taking verbalizations alone as a sign of

modifying behaviour can be ineffective if the mindset of the student has not been addressed.

Described by De Nobile & Lyons (2017) as cognitive behavioural theory, this form of

P a g e 2 | 11
Daniel Jordan 18669233

behavioural analysis is based on the idea that there is opportunity to positively influence the

student’s worldview and cognitive schemas where the existing foundation may lead to

intolerance, disrespect and anti-social behaviours.

Finally, the role of the teacher and their own schemas, attitudes and perspectives is likewise

essential. An effective educator needs cognisance of student diversity to tailor relevant,

flexible and engaging pedagogy (Jong, 2005). A teacher’s expectations for student learning

can heavily influence their performance and behaviour (Thompson, 2011). Depending on the

teacher’s perception of student gender, SES, culture or other identifying attributes there can

be a bias towards expectations of student behaviour that could see some students punished

unfairly (Bryan, Day-Vines, Griffin & Moore-Thomas, 2012). For example, Alter et al., (2013)

describes male teachers being more sensitive to inattentive student behaviours while female

teachers can be more sensitive to perceived incidences of disrespect. The teacher’s

disposition can have a huge impact on student’s perception of their learning, such as an

expression of pity from the teacher potentially being understood by a student as them having

low aptitude (Cothran et al., 2009). Hence, a good educator must understand their own

background and internalised biases towards students coupled with ongoing reflexive

interrogation.

To summarise, teachers must be abreast of a wide range of strategies and theories of student

behaviour to accommodate the great diversity of issues that can produce misbehaviour,

whether relating to the structure and environment of the class, content that meets all needs,

the ability to identify and work with internalized cognitive factors and their own personal

experiences and biases.

P a g e 3 | 11
Daniel Jordan 18669233

Interviews

Interviews for this essay were conducted one on one with six people of various ages and

experience and to satisfy the specific requirements of the task. In all cases the interviewees

were chosen for having some experience with school age children so that they could have

some level of informed opinion. The interviewees were:

M1 Parent, single child, 50

M2 Pre-service teacher, 26

F1 Parent, four children, 56

F2 Non-teaching friend, 47

F3 Drama teacher, private school, 44

F4 Arts teacher, public school, 35

Interviewees were asked: “In your opinion, why do young people misbehave in school?”.

Interviews were prefaced with the ethical protocols outlined in the assessment section of the

unit learning guide, with interviewees being assured of their privacy, purpose and use of

information collected and their opportunity to exit the interview at any time. All interviewees

agreed to sign the consent form presented and were pleased to participate. The process

began with the prescribed question being posited to the interviewee and discussed without

leading questions or bias. Only after their main responses were given and noted were several

P a g e 4 | 11
Daniel Jordan 18669233

questions then introduced to try and gain a larger data set and provoke further thinking and

discussion. These questions were:

• Gender.

• Socio-economic (high or low).

• Parenting.

• Genetics.

• Cultural background.

• School culture.

• Exposure to explicit media

Questions when asked were in random order, and no emphasis or weighting was placed on

any of the questions by the interviewer. The three most common themes pulled from the

interview data set relating to student misbehaviour were boredom, parenting and socio-

economic status. Responses for “boredom” fell in to two primary categories: either the

student can misbehave because they are not challenged or are being given content they have

already accomplished, or alternatively they don’t understand the content and as a result are

disconnected and frustrated.

With regards to parenting there was a very big emphasis placed by all respondents on the

impact that upbringing can have on student behaviour. Most common themes related to the

boundaries (or lack thereof) placed in children’s lives that could lead to an inability to self-

regulate behaviour in a classroom and reject teacher authority. Likewise, a student’s values

were described almost consistently by all interviewed as being heavily imprinted by parents

or carers, so if the parents or carers did not value or respect the role of education in their

children’s life, the student could “inherit” (F4) a negative mentality which is part of the

P a g e 5 | 11
Daniel Jordan 18669233

concept of “Resistance Theory”: the student may fight against their education through a lack

of appreciation or value for its merits (McKay & Devlin, 2015). Conversely, it was noted by F3

that in high socio-economic status (SES) schools that absent parents due to high work-life

demands could leave students feeling “abandoned and miserable” (F3) or that international

students could suffer lack of structure in their out-of-school lives. While only commented

upon by one interviewee (F1) but nonetheless interesting feedback was the idea that some

cultures may value men over women which can skew a male student’s perception of female

authority in the classroom and potentially activate bad behaviours.

With regards to SES, most of the comments on low SES students related back to parenting

and resistance theory, as well as under resourcing that could lead to difficulties in learning

that could manifest as misbehaviour. High SES students were also discussed as having their

own set of potential behavioural issues, such as entitlement mentality, looking down on the

teacher and absent parenting that could lead to attention seeking behaviours.

Outside of these main values, interviewee feedback was less consistent with things like

genetics or media being lowly regarded as attributable to misbehaviour with some

exceptions, for example “children with attention deficit disorders or autism” (M2). Most

obvious in what was not identified as a potential cause of misbehaviour was the role of the

teacher in the classroom. While boredom was universally quoted as a major theme in student

misbehaviour, only the arts teacher (F4) articulated that it was a responsibility of the teacher

as well as the school holistically to provide for all levels of learning and engagement. Likewise,

little attention was given to a student’s emotional state such as if the student was subject to

high levels of stress, anxiety or depression.

P a g e 6 | 11
Daniel Jordan 18669233

To summarise, as a whole the responses by interviewees tended to highlight external and

more tangible behavioural influences such as “you could see that student is just bored and

mucking up” (M1) or “she is just like her mother” (F1) and did not examine as critically the

less tangible factors such as teacher and student communication, relationship or underlying

cognitive and emotional factors.

Literature & Interviews

Examining both the literature and interviews conducted there was a consensus that student

engagement and challenging content for all levels of learning mitigates student boredom and

disengagement. The interviewees tended to focus on out of school influences such as

parenting, socio-economic background and nuanced differences between gender or cultures,

while the literature focused on in-school experience such as learning environment, flexible

and engaging pedagogy, student-teacher relationships and cognitive factors. The former

places a heavy weighting on forces beyond the teacher or school’s control, while the latter

places student misbehaviour almost entirely within the realm of responsible, informed and

ethical teaching and institutional practice. As an example, based on a consensus of interview

data it could be said that a male student disrespects his female teacher because he as been

raised in a family cultural environment that edifies males and denigrates women. However,

the cognitive behavioural approach would look at identifying the student’s schema and its

behavioural triggers, and then look at an integrated pedagogical approach to inform the

student of healthy, balanced and progressive gender modelling that could produce a

continuum of positively reinforced gender perspective.

P a g e 7 | 11
Daniel Jordan 18669233

Praxis

All of this information has value for my professional teaching career which is also mandated

in the Australian Professional Standards for Teaching focus 4.2-3: managing classroom

activities and managing challenging behaviour (AITSL, 2010). The interview and research data

stresses the diversity of students and their backgrounds that can contribute to misbehaviour,

alienation or disconnectedness, while also giving me insight into how parents, carers and the

community will perceive my work with their children. The teacher-student relationship has

been highlighted by interviewees as well as research as a very important platform for

understanding student need, fostering mutual respect and creating an inclusive, positive-

growth learning environment.

I will pay particular attention to student engagement as a very strong theme of both the

interviews and literature review, which can only be properly integrated by establishing open

lines of communication, a student-lead classroom, diverse lesson planning and use of

curriculum and syllabus tools (ACARA, 2016). Additionally, as affirmed by De Nobile and Lyons

(2017) flexible and reflexive review of the work I will give to my students is critical in meeting

their needs. Notably, different students may have different learning needs (up to an including

what may be labelled as learning disabilities), so I will challenge myself to provide as many

modes as needed to keep stimulation and learning as close to optimal as I can, both in the

classroom and in the homework spaces. This will work best if I can provide effective

communication to parents to bring them in to the learning circle and to use their feedback

for my own reflexive work on teaching to their children.

In cognitive terms, I will be constantly studying my students to understand their schemas and

how that filters their view of myself as their educator, their peers and the content they are

P a g e 8 | 11
Daniel Jordan 18669233

learning. Apart from being trained to avoid redundant teaching methods and extraneous

cognitive loads as part of my professional practice, I am now charged with creating positive

cognitive thinking that may have to overcome the student’s background, culture or even

trauma. This address behavioural issues potentially relating to upbringing, but also goes

deeper into the students own personal psychology that can be developed as much or more

as any other skill I will be teaching in the classroom, and with possibly a greater impact on

that student’s life.

Additionally, as affirmed by Alter et al. (2013), rather than seeing students who behave badly

as just attention seekers or the result of undisciplined parenting, I will use a more critical

theoretical perspective to find the underpinning cognitive and social triggers that I can

catalogue and then strategize with over a meaningful period of time to create lasting, and not

short-term, results. To keep this balanced and just for all students, I will be determined not

to bring personal bias or unrealistic or skewed perceptions of the students themselves

(especially those from high or low SES), but rather seek to learn from them collectively and

individually so that a safe, inclusive and engaging learning environment will grow and flourish.

Conclusion

To conclude, managing student behaviour is part of a much greater pedagogical environment

that facilitates engaging learning while responding to a diverse range of student backgrounds,

aptitudes, social skills and cognitive functions. While misbehaviours might be inevitable, an

informed teacher with sound research and a ‘tool kit’ of theoretical approaches can deliver

great outcomes for learning and growth for both them and their students.

P a g e 9 | 11
Daniel Jordan 18669233

References

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2016). Curriculum.

Retrieved from https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum

Alter, P., Walker, J., & Landers, E. (2013). Teachers' Perceptions of Students' Challenging

Behavior and the Impact of Teacher Demographics. Education & Treatment of

Children, 36(4), 51-69.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Limited (AITSL). (2010). Australian

Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards

Bryan, J., Day‐Vines, N., Griffin, D., & Moore‐Thomas, C. (2012). The Disproportionality

Dilemma: Patterns of Teacher Referrals to School Counselors for Disruptive

Behavior. Journal of Counseling & Development, 90(2), 177-190.

Cothran, D., Kulinna, P. & Garrahy, D. (2009). Attributions for and consequences of student

misbehaviour. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(2), 155-167.

Jong, T. (2005). A Framework of Principles and Best Practice for Managing Student

Behaviour in the Australian Education Context. School Psychology International, 26(3),

353-370.

De Nobile, J., & Lyons, G. (2017). Positive learning environments (First ed.). South

Melbourne, VIC. Cengage Learning.

Killu, Kim. (Jan 2008): Developing Effective Behavior Intervention Plans: Suggestions for

School Personnel. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(3), 140-149.

P a g e 10 | 11
Daniel Jordan 18669233

McKay, J., & Devlin, M. (2015). ‘Low Income Doesn't Mean Stupid and Destined for Failure':

Challenging the Deficit Discourse around Students from Low SES Backgrounds in

Higher Education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(4), 1-17.

Thompson, A. (2011) A Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Interventions for Students

with Challenging Behaviors in School Settings. Journal of Evidence Based Social Work,

8(3), 304-322.

P a g e 11 | 11