Reflection

1. What personal contributions did you make to the group assessment?

In our group we discussed how to divide the workload among the 5 members in our group in
the first group meeting. At the end of the meeting, we decided that each member would do
their own research and choose one article from their research. The topic we chose was
behavioural issues in the classroom or classroom management issues. I chose the article
“What do students believe about effective classroom management? A mixed-methods
investigation in Western Australian high schools” (Egeberg & McConney, 2017). I chose this
article for a myriad of reasons. Firstly, most of the other articles I came across were focused
on research from the teacher’s perspective. However, this research was done focusing on the
perspectives of the students and what they believe are the main issues for disruptive
classroom behaviour. Then I outlined the aim of the research, literature review and scholarly
discussion presented by the authors. I then focused on the methodology of the research and
how the methods aligned with the research questions. Then I discussed the results of the
research and whether the results could be trustworthy or not. The research conclusions were
reasonably consistent with the research aims. The research highlighted their limitations as
well. I also noted the Journal quality as well. This was published in the Australian
Educational Researcher which was a Q1 journal and was cited by 508 articles in the last 3
years. This was all noted down on a google document which was shared with my group
members. Other group members also shared their chosen research article and discussions on
the google document.

We then went on to discuss which articles were most relevant and of better quality and
choose 3 out of the 5 articles presented. After making our choice we decided to use Canva to
make the video presentation. My role was to summarize the quality of the journals of the 3
research papers and present. I created the slides on Canva and outlined the indicators of
quality of three journals Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Australasian Journal of
Special and Inclusive Education and Journal of Positive Behaviour Interventions.
2. How did you find the process of locating and evaluating these articles? Challenging? Easy?
In what ways?

I used the Western Sydney University online library to search for relevant articles. The search
engine was reasonably simple to use. However, finding the right keywords was a bit tricky.
The search results contained a lot of articles not based in Australia. There was a lot of
research done regarding tackling behavioural issues in the classroom but finding research
specific to Australian schools narrowed down results. Choosing one article out of the many
shortlisted was a challenge. I had to compare and contrast the methodologies, sample sizes,
results, recommendations and limitations of the research and then choose the most relevant
one for the assessment. Reading through the research and finding consistency between the
research data and results was a bit time consuming.

While choosing one article I gave more emphasis on how the findings of the research would
shed a light on the topic chosen by our group. I chose (Egeberg & McConney, 2017) as my
chosen research article because the research findings outlined various reasons for disruptive
classroom behaviour which was consistent with the data found from the qualitative and
quantitative research.

3. How did you determine whether or not your chosen articles were appropriate for this
assessment (e.g. relevant and high-quality)?

The chosen topic of our group was ‘Why do students misbehave in class?’. The research
articles chosen primarily investigated reasons for disruptive behaviour of students in
classroom in Australia. The research articles explore this question either from the teacher’s
perspective or the student’s perspective. The criteria I used to determine if the articles were
relevant for this assessment were whether the articles explore the potential answer to the
above question and explore interventions to reduce such disruptive behaviour.

There are a few indicators of quality I found from the chosen articles. (Sullivan et al., 2014)
used the Probability Framework to determine the significance of their results. I.e.: >0.9
Excellent; >0.8 Good; >0.7 Acceptable; >0.6 Questionable; >0.5 Poor; <0.5 Unacceptable.
The article explains the importance of the chosen sample and also mentions any discrepancy
in the findings. The research surveyed a very diverse and broad sample to utilise the results
more effectively as a reflection of the greater community. (Sullivan et al., 2014) reviewed
previous surveys conducted around student behaviour in school, their results also reach the
same conclusions on the impact and types of behaviour that teachers engage with (p.44). The
research article by (Fox et al., 2021) calculated interrater reliability at three points during the
data extraction process: before the interview, after the interview and after the analysis was
conducted.

In the research article by (Freeman et al., 2015), it employs structural equation modelling
(SEM) to analyze the relationships between SWPBIS implementation and various outcome
variables (behavior, attendance, and academics). SEM is a widely used statistical technique in
social science research. The study employs descriptive analysis, factor analysis, and growth
models to analyze the data. These are established statistical methods commonly used in
educational research. The article reports multiple model fit indices (e.g., RMSEA, CFI, TLI)
to assess the fit of the conceptual models to the observed data. These indices help gauge how
well the model represents the relationships in the data. The study also considers various risk
factors that could influence the outcomes, such as socioeconomic status, school size, and
minority representation. This strengthens the ability to attribute changes in outcomes to
SWPBIS implementation.

4. How are you currently feeling about this particular ’problem of practice’? How did
engaging with the research findings in these chosen articles effect your understandings of this
issue and how you might address it within your own classroom?

Disruptive behaviour in class is a problem of practice I’m particularly interested in. As a pre-
service teacher I had the opportunity to observe classrooms which were very disruptive in
nature. It could be really challenging for a new teacher to manage classrooms effectively.
While engaging with the research findings I had a clearer idea about the most common
disruptive behaviours in class.

Through the article by (Sullivan et al., 2014) a common type of behavioural issue identified
was talking out of turn. It concluded that a multi-tiered approach to behavioural management
is the most effective or usable strategy in classroom. An effective strategy could be the
school-wide positive behavioural interventions and supports (SWPBIS). This strategy
implements a multi-tiered approach to assist students with effectively engaging in classrooms
and encourages development of social emotional skills.

From the perspective of students, I found some critical elements that are needed to reduce
behavioural issues in the classroom such as development of relationships with their teachers,
the importance of students’ voices being heard and how the teacher can exercise authority
without being threatening (Egeberg & McConney, 2017). I believe if I can incorporate these
findings in the classroom then a more effective classroom environment could be produced.

References

Egeberg, H., & McConney, A. (2017). What do students believe about effective classroom
management? A mixed-methods investigation in Western Australian high schools. The
Australian Educational Researcher, 45(2), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-017-
0250-y

Fox, R. A., Sharma, U., Leif, E. S., Stocker, K. L., & Moore, D. W. (2021). “Not Enough
Time”: Identifying Victorian Teachers’ Perceptions of the Facilitators and Barriers to
Supporting Improved Student Behaviour. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive
Education, 45(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2021.6

Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., McCoach, D. B., Sugai, G., Lombardi, A., & Horner, R. (2015).
Relationship Between School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports and
Academic, Attendance, and Behavior Outcomes in High Schools. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 18(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715580992

Sullivan, A. M., Johnson, B., Owens, L., & Conway, R. (2014). Punish Them or Engage
Them? Teachers’ Views of Unproductive Student Behaviours in the Classroom. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n6.6