Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environment- 2018 Assignment One

“Why Do Young People Misbehave in Schools?”

Word Count: 2198 Excluding reference list

Introduction

Sun and Shek (2012) discuss the multitude of influences that might be able to explain

why young people misbehave in schools including developmental biopsychosocial factors

along with ineffective pedagogical practices and classroom behaviour. Nordstrom, Bartels,

Bucy (2009) suggests a few of the more common forms of misbehaviour consist of refusing

to follow instruction, non-attentiveness, disturbing others learning experience, creating

distractions with the classroom, daydreaming, talking at inopportune times, idleness, moving

away from their allocated seating without the teacher’s permission and ignoring direction for

learning. Through teacher’s development of understanding of what the causes are of young

people misbehaving, effective and suitable strategies can be designed and implemented for a

more positive environment for learning and improved student-teacher rapport (Cothran,

Kulinn & Garrahy, 2009). Additionally, students will increase engagment responding

positively to their teachers understanding and appropriate responses to challenging behaviour

due to being cared for and appropriately meeting their learning needs.

Method

This report will investigate the characteristics shaping challenging behaviours of

young people in schools and examining the six interviewees responses alongside theories

from current scientific academic literature. The interviews conducted were of an informal

nature with six participants from diverse backgrounds. The beliefs and attitudes expressed

and collected in respect to misbehaviour includes the responses of: One female high school
teacher, one female and one male that is not part of the teaching profession, one female and

one male pre-service teachers and finally one male parent. The interviewees were provided

with informed consent forms with explicit outcomes of the information collated. The

interviews were conducted in a private area at the convince of the interviewee with the

interviews lasting approximately 10-20 minutes each. The manner in which questions were

asked followed an open-ended method of questioning. The questions began with the research

question ‘Why do young people misbehave in school?’ followed by questions creating an

authentic conversation including ‘could you tell me more about that thought?’ or ‘how so?’ or

‘why do you think that is?’ These questions continued the conversation organically providing

detailed responses to the original question. This relaxed practice allowed the participant to

feel at ease, encouraging them to be more candid in their answers away from external

environmental elements de-authenticating any data.

Results

The information complied from each participants interview raised similar themes

along with a few variances that inspected the characteristics of misbehaviour amongst

students. The responses that were most commonly identified as attributing to challenging

behaviour across the diverse group raised the idea of, lack of connection to the content or

school; resulting in disengagement or demotivation, creating ‘feelings of boredom and

carelessness’. A few of the interviewees steered the conversation towards teacher causes for

challenging behaviour in respect to the teacher’s behaviour in the classroom and towards

students, effectiveness of management strategies, may have lack of differentiated instructions

and the effective application of pedagogical practices; questioning ‘how the students are

taught by their teachers’ and ‘do they follow a quality teaching model?’. Additionally,

interviewees identified student’s misbehaviour as stemming from ‘difficulties learning’

causing them to ‘act out because their needs weren’t being met’. Raising an issue surrounding
differentiation in learning or lack of academic competences and self-efficacy or lack of

‘communication’ between the teacher and student. Another two participants mentioned the

social construct of the classroom and what the student would be seeking to achieve through

misbehaving like popularity or status. “Being the class clown or making the teacher cry”

might be an achievement depending on the kind of demographic and social ladder is present

within the cohort. It was also mentioned by three other interviewees that it depends on the

type of school the students attend may determine the kind of challenging behaviour the

teacher is met with. These three interviewees also examined the attributed elements of

misbehaviour to the ‘parent’s ‘lack of disciplinary action at home’. Furthermore, the high

school teacher also added that students ‘going through’ and ‘tackling’ the level and pace of

changes that occur during a student’s adolescence development through the social,

psychological, biological, emotional may be an underlying contributor to misbehaviour in the

school environment.

Literature Review

According to Frydenberg, Lewis, Bugalski, Cotta, McCarthy, Luscombe-Smith &

Poole (2007) discuss that adolescence have the potential to increasingly benefit within the

academic and social domain with more focus on developing psychologically resilience.

Frydenberg et al. (2007) and Reynolds & Juconen (2011) reports students direct their focus

away from their process of learning in a state of distress due to lack of academic self-efficacy,

interfering with the development of adolescent psychosocial characteristics, resulting in

challenging behaviour in school. This discussion and report supports one of the main ideas

suggested from most of the interviewees interfering with their maximum learning potential at

school causing boredom and restlessness as a symptom. Teachers play a critical role in the

development of social- emotional growth and through their attentiveness and care students

will strive towards resilient behaviour (DOE, 2018 and Goss and Hunter, 2015). A teachers
pedagogical practice is integral to developing a positive learning environment and can

determine the behaviour of the student (Goss et al. 2015).

Rubie-Davies (2010) reports results on the relationship between teachers that held

high and low bias expectations for students within a classroom setting. There were

contrasting patterns found between two expectations whereby teachers with high expectation

significant and positive whereas the teachers with low expectations were significantly

negative. The same interviewees that had suggested students were misbehaving due to feeling

disengaged with the content and bored questioned whether the teachers pedagogical practice

had a negative influence on a student’s behaviour. According to Koutrouba (2013) the lack of

discipline at home is a contributing factor to challenging student behaviour in the classroom

further signifying that if there was better moral, value and social edification in the home the

young people would be better behaved at school. Even though the educational environment

and experiences play a chief role in shaping the development of adolescence social and

emotional system Yoon and Sara (2010) suggests that parental support is integral for

behaviour students exhibit in the school environment. Just as two of the interviewees had

suggested misbehaviour may be a symptom of an external influence of their parent’s lower

social and academic expectations.

According to Goss et al. (2015) Targeted teaching is a chief element for altering

attitudes and adapting pedagogical practice. For understanding why young people misbehave

teachers need to have stronger attention and focus on each students’ learning process. As

students are young, they are still developing their emotional vocabulary and literacy for

appropriate expression. Reynolds et al. (2011) engages with similar theories as Goss et al.

(2015) describing misbehaviour as a symptom of an action or event later resulting in a

consequence. Coincidently, interviewees had identified student’s misbehaviour as stemming

from not being having the built-up vocabulary or emotional literacy developed exhibiting in
behaviours that could potentially be disrupting the class or interrupting their own learning

process. Reynolds et al. (2011) suggests; that the students may feel embarrassed they aren’t

following the content or are having social difficulties they are uncomfortable with sharing

with the teacher cause them to withdraw themselves from the content. This is a lower level of

misbehaviour whereby the student is not particularly disrupting the entire classes learning

process but are drawing attention by being actively disengaged with their own learning that

may influence others negatively depending on the social status and power of the student

(Reynolds et al. 2011).

Further, Blair and Diamond (2008) discuss that there is a correlation between the self-

regulation of emotion and challenging behaviour, this is reflected in developing a relationship

between the student’s cognitive development and emotional awakening. This perception

remains cohesive with the early maturation hypothesis, when stripped down, a student may

have difficulties fitting in with same aged peers potentially causing delinquent behaviour and

prone to higher risk-taking behaviour (Sontag-Padill, Dorn, Tissot, Susan, Beers & Rose,

2012). Sontag-Padilla et. al (2012) supports Further et al, (2008) correlation between the

multifaceted components of the biopsychosocial model including emotional sensitivity

through to challenging psychosocial experiences developed before the established regulation

of cognitive function essential in mastering difficult emotional responses Sontag-Padilla et al,

2012, pp 212-213). Pubertal maturation may be a difficult transition to navigate as students

may also dealing with a variety of peer expectations alongside achieve academic success

(Sontag-Padilla et al, 2012, pp 212-213). These are attributes that can cause misbehaviour in

adolescence during their schooling years aforementioned by one out of the six interviewees.

Implications

De Nobile, Lyons & Arthur-Kelly (2017) discuss the beliefs of Psychoeducational

Theory that assumes a flexible approach to classroom management including the idea that
humans are inherently of good nature and encompass the desire to achieve and enable good

things around them. Furthermore, humans are trusted to be rational in the manner they

approach situations able to direct their own destinies and love thriving to reach their fullest

potential and strive to be the people they choose to be (Chaplin, 2003; Peterson, 2005 in

Denobile, et al. 2017). Informing that student misbehaviour strives towards achieving goals

and satisfying needs including acceptance, autonomy and belonging potentially shaping

student’s motivation and behavioural habits. Students resort to inappropriate behaviour when

these needs aren’t met, and appropriate behaviour has failed to accomplish their goals. In

order to rectify challenging behaviour teachers should strive to guide students through

behavioural decision making and the situation is dire, the school may provide a School

Support Officer or councillor’s assistance. De Nobile et al. (2017) discusses Choice Theory in

respect to provide a positive learning environment through fulfilling the needs of students,

facilitating their needs for a sense of belonging and fun, survival and safety, self-efficacy and

a degree of autonomy.

However, teachers should not assume all students seek the same needs and should be

tailored to individual needs through connectedness and established through student-teacher

relationships. The teacher may grant a degree of choice between content and discussion on

what they would like to explore as long as it meets the syllabus outcomes and schooling

curriculum. Conducting an informal survey within a classroom setting may assist the teacher

in understanding what motivates the students towards challenging behaviour (Dana, Yendol-

Hooppey, & Thompson-Grove, 2014). Choice Theory and the Psychoeducational approach

have a similar method in preventing the motivators for challenging student’s behaviour,

through teacher care and respect rather than referring external stimuli and regular positive

interactions. Biglan, Flay, Embry, & Sandler (2012) and Rubie-Davies (2010) agree that
these methods will establish higher expectations of the students and a higher threshold for

success in the classroom.

Additionally, there is a scale of misbehaviour severity that can be relatively mild

framed as the student may not be disruptive to the entire class but not engagment with the

learning material however a more severe form of misbehaviour might be throwing chairs

around and disrupting the entire class’ learning environment and safety. If the teacher is

controlling or the students doesn’t want to unintentionally want to do the work the student

might misbehave in the class. Goss et al. (2015) discusses focus on differentiated teaching is

essential to prevent mild adolescent misbehaviour developing into severe delinquency. It is

required of teachers to continuously develop in a flexible learning mindset and professional

practice in order to understand why misbehaviour is a symptom to a problem the student is

encountering. Defining expectations and appropriate behaviour can prevent student

misbehaviour in the classroom. For instance, according to recent studies youth are

experiencing stress as never before and it needs to be taken into consideration. In regard to

classroom management, Glasser’s Choice Theory suggests that teachers can assist their

students and help them identify the circumstances that drive their behaviour however Choice

Theory has its limitations, in the instance a student may abuse the power or take advantage in

the process of meeting their needs causing misbehaviour. Characteristics of De Jong’s (2005)

research has correlated significantly with aspects of interviewees over arching themes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Psychoeducational approaches and Glasser Theory, are similar to De

Jong’s (2005) approach through developing a positive student-teacher relationship,

appropriately exploring personal interest’s students have and building respect. Through a fair,

positive and empowering classroom model, a teacher is able to effectively understand why

students misbehave in school. A democratic learning environment is appropriate for teacher

and students to negotiate expectations within manageable reason possibly involving a parent

or carer in the process. Explicit instruction and communication should be relayed to the

students taking into consideration the diversity of learning within the classroom. These

respectful instructions will positively reinforce values in demonstrating appropriate behaviour

by taking responsibility for their democratic decisions encouraging self-regulation and

ownership of their discipline in and out of the school climate. Considering the Well-Being

Framework and Quality Teaching Model, in order for students to thrive have thrive a teacher

should evaluate the diversity within her classroom and provide the opportunity for students to

defeat insecurity or opportunistic behaviour with resiliency and increased self-value in order

to achieve the highest success meeting their needs. Through the composition of a positing

learning climate a teacher will have understood and taken preventative measures to

challenging behaviour as opposed to the treatment of misbehaviour (Nordstom, Bartels, &

Bucy, 2009).
Reference:

Biglan, A., Flay, B. R., Embry, D. D., & Sandler, I. N. (2012). The Critical Role of Nurturing
Environments for Promoting Human Wellbeing. The American Psychologist, 67(4),
257–271. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0026796

Chaplin, R (2003). Teaching without disruption in the Secondary School: A model for
Managing Pupil Behaviour. London: Routledge in De Nobile, J., Lyons, G., & Arthur-
Kelly, M. (2017). Positive learning environments: Creating and maintaining
productive classrooms. 185-249

Cothran, D. J., Kulinna, P. H.& Garrahy, D.A. (2009). Attributions for and consequences of
student misbehaviour, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14:2, 155-167, DOI:
10.1080/17408980701712148

Dana, N. F., Yendol-Hooppey, D., & Thompson-Grove, G. (2014). The reflective educator's
guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through
practitioner inquiry. Thousand Oaks (California: Corwin.

De Jong, T. (2005). A Framework of Principles and Best Practice for Managing Student
Behaviour in the Australian Education Context, School Psychology International, Vol
26, Issue 3, 353-370, doi.org/10.1177/0143034305055979

De Nobile, J., Lyons, G., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2017). Positive learning environments:
Creating and maintaining productive classrooms. 185-249

Frydenberg, E., Lewis, R., Bugalski, K., Cotta, A., McCarthy, C., Luscombe-Smith,

N., & Poole, C. (2004). Prevention is better than cure- coping skills training for
adolescents at school. Educational Psychology In Practice, 20(2), 117-134.
Goss, P., Hunter, J., Romanes, D., Parsonage, H., (2015), Targeted teaching: how better use of
data can improve student learning, Grattan Institute, 9-26

Koutrouba, K., (2013). Student misbehaviour in secondary education: Greek teachers' views
and attitudes, Educational Review, 65:1, 1-19, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2011.628122

NSW Department of Education and Communities. (2015). The Wellbeing Framework for
Schools. Retrieved 10 April 2018 from
https//www.det.edu.au/wellbeing/about/16531_Wellbeing-Framework-for
schools_Acessible.pdf

Nordstom, C. R., Bartels, L. K., & Bucy, J. (2009). Predicting and Curbing Classroom
incivility in Higher Education. College Student Journal, 43(1), 74 Retrieved
11/4/2018 from http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/AI94620752/AONE?
u=uwsydney&sid=AONE&xid=2cef50db

Peterson, S (2005). Reality Therapy and individual or Adlerian counselling approach with
preadolescent children. Individual Psychology, 51(3), 372-85. in De Nobile, J.,
Lyons, G., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2017). Positive learning environments: Creating and
maintaining productive classrooms. 185-249

Reynolds, M.B., Juconen, J. (2011). The Role of Early Maturation. Perceived Popularity, and
Rumors in the Emergence of Internalizing Symptoms Among Adolescent Girls. J
Youth Adolescence. 40:1407-1422. DOI 10.1007/s109064-101-9619-1

Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2010). Teacher Expectations and perceptions of student attributed: Is

there a Relationship? British Journal Of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 121-135.

Sontag-Padilla, L.M., Dorn, L. D., Tissot, A., Susan, E.J., Beers S.R., & Rose, S.R (2012).
Exective Functioning, Cortisol Reactivity, and Symptoms of Psychopathology in Girls
with Premature Andreache. Development and Psychopathology; 24(1), 211-223. Doi:
10.1017/s0954579411000782

Sun, R. C. F., & Shek, D. T. L. (2012). Student Classroom Misbehaviour: An Exploratory

Study Based on Teachers’ Perceptions. The Scientific World Journal, 2012, 208907.
http://doi.org/10.1100/2012/208907
Yoon, M., & Rimm-Kaufman, Sara. (2010). A Longitudinal and Bioecological
Approach to Understanding the Contribution of Teacher and Family
Relationships to School Outcomes, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.