Halim Yasar 18030727

Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments – Assignment 1

The purpose of this essay is to analyse, synthesise and contrast information gathered from

academic articles and interviews to provide an answer as to why students misbehave in

classrooms. The definition that will be used as an identifier for misbehaviour is provided by

Kyriaciou (1997), specifically regarding pupil misbehaviour, is that it “refers to any

behaviour by a pupil that undermines the teachers’ ability to establish and maintain effective

learning experiences in the classroom” (p. 121).

The article by Alter, Walker and Landers is a report which was conducted to formulate

reasons as to what teachers from diverse backgrounds thought were the most prevalent

behaviours in classroom. Behaviours that are usually associated with student misbehaviour,

such as physical aggression, are not the most prevalent occurrence of student misbehaviour,

but instead students’ beings “off-task” was reported the most prevalent and problematic

misbehaviour. Physical aggression was actually “among the lowest identified prevalent and

problematic behaviour” (Alter, Walker and Landers, 2013, p. 64). Teachers are reportedly

more receptive to outward displays of student misbehaviour, such as verbal

disruption/aggression and being off-task, identifying these as the most problematic

behaviours, as oppose to isolationism and no social interaction (Alter, Walker and Landers,

2013). This is a problem as it is reflexive of teachers attitudes towards students who are quiet

as being “behaved” and thus are overlooked in favour of students displaying outward displays

of misbehaviour (Alter, Walker & Landers, 2013). These findings coincide with the research

report by Crawshaw (2015). This study indicates that despite media reports focusing on the

violent aspect of student misbehaviour and as a result, forming a negative rhetoric around

schools with elevated levels of misbehaviour, the “relatively harmless misbehaviours” were

the main concerns of teachers as they “do not appear to be highly concerned by violent or

potentially violent student behaviour” (Crawshaw, 2015, p.307).

Halim Yasar 18030727

Therefore, the research indicates that most forms of student misbehaviour are behaviours that

are non-violent/aggressive. Little (2005) furthermore states that behaviours such as being off

task, idleness, not paying attention and hindering others are the forms of behaviour that most

teachers concern themselves with (Little, 2005). moreover, research indicates that as

students’ progress through high school and “the academic demands on students increase”

(Little, 2005, p.375), the teachers’ concerns are further shifted into behaviours dealing with

student engagement, attentiveness and off-task behaviours rather than disruption or

aggressiveness (Little, 2005). These are indicative of student behaviours such as lack of

respect for teachers, disengagement, and disinterest in curriculum/learning material. Cothran

& Kulinna, (2007) reinforce these views by providing data from student perspectives as to

why students misbehave. The top three answers were; “lesson was boring, the student wanted

attention, and students didn’t think they could do the lesson” (Cothran & Kulinna, 2007,

p.223). In another segment of the report in which students rate themselves, the students

provided the reasons ““lesson is boring,” …. “they don’t like the teacher,” … “they are just

bad kids.” as the main causes for student misbehaviour (Cothran & Kulinna, 2007, p.223).

Additionally, research conducted by Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy (2009), consisting of

interviews from teachers and students regarding their opinions as to why students misbehave,

reinforces these claims. The consensus reached by the teachers in this study for student

misbehaviour are reasons that are external (Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009). Teachers

believed that students misbehaviour were either due to unknown reasons, or students’ home

life (Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009). However, the students in this study convey

different beliefs as to why students misbehave. The students, like the teachers, externalise

their responsibility for misbehaviour, redirecting the fault of misbehaviour towards the

teacher. Reasons provided by students for student misbehaviour are; not getting enough

attention from the teacher and class is boring/uninteresting (Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy,
Halim Yasar 18030727

2009). While both sides externalise the issue of misbehaviour, there is a general agreement

regarding the issue of misbehaviour and its negative impact on the learning environment.

This study provides an interesting outlook to student misbehaviour, as it indicates that

teachers attitudes and the learning environment the student is exposed to are possibly

conducive of student misbehaviour. As McGrath and Bergen (2015) argues, there is a direct

correlation between positive/negative student-teacher relationships and student misbehaviour,

for example, negative assumptions of students based on their race/ethnicity/gender could

lower student morale/engagement within the classroom (McGrath & Bergen, 2015)

Additionally, as McGrath & Bergen (2015) previously argued about the correlation between

teacher-student relations and student engagement and behaviour, the research conducted by

Lewis (2001) found similar but interesting results. This study, which was carried out to find

the correlation between classroom discipline and student misbehaviour, suggests that the

“The next most significant correlation indicates that the level of misbehaviour in class is

associated with teacher aggression” (Lewis, 2001, P. 312). The article suggests that teachers

who are more aggressive or “coercive” promote more levels of disengagement (Lewis, 2001,

p.312). Furthermore, when teachers “are sarcastic towards students, yell in anger, keep

classes in, or use sexist or racist language” students are likely to misbehave in the form of

disengagement and to be “off-task”, aforementioned as one of the teachers’ biggest concerns

regarding misbehaviour. Therefore, bad teaching practices are not only incapable of

preventing, but also act as a catalyst to misbehaviour

Halim Yasar 18030727

Figure 1

The interviews were open ended, informal, conducted professionally in which all participants

were informed of the research, read the information sheet and agreed to participate by signing

the consent forms. All participants were interviewed in public spaces. They were properly

informed of their right to withdraw and that their information would be de-identified, and

were given ample time to answer each question. The participants were diverse, originating

from various age groups, genders and education (refer to figure 1).

Entertainment/Fun 1

Self-entitlement 2
Primary Themes

Academic inability 3

Home life 3

Boring classroom 5

Attention Seeking 6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of Mentions

Figure 2

The most common reason given by participants as to why students misbehave is attention

seeking, with all participants mentioning attention seeking as a cause for misbehaviour (refer
Halim Yasar 18030727

to figure 2). However, interestingly the reasons given by participants as to why students seek

attention were varied. Person C said that students seek attention because “they want to stand

out”. Person E gave a similar response, saying that students would like others to perceive

themselves as “cool” so they seek attention from their peers. Person D states that students “go

unnoticed by the teacher, so they cause disruptions to seek attention and feel included within

the classroom”. Person B, disclosing that his views are culturally influenced, states that

students seek attention because “they don’t understand the lesson”, thus “distract other

students to get them on their level”. Person A stated that the “teachers disinterest of students

cause attention seeking”. Person F gave a similar response, stating that “students seek

attention from peers when there is a lack of respect for the teacher or their authority”. Three

out of the six responses were centred around the social sphere of the classroom, two were

teacher related and one was related to the cognitive abilities of the student.

"Attention Seeking" Sub-Themes

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Social Teacher-related Cognitive

Figure 3

The second most common theme was “disengaged/disinterested in class content”, I have

grouped these responses together as they are synonymous. In this theme most participants

attributed the misbehaviour to cognitive related issues. Person E stated that some students

might have a learning disability effecting their retainment of content, resulting in students
Halim Yasar 18030727

“not engaged in the classroom”. Person D stated that students misbehave in classrooms

because they are “bored with class content” and that this could be because “the lesson is too

easy”. This is the only response in which misbehaviour was attributed to heightened cognitive

abilities of the students. Person A, C, and F provided similar responses, stating that the

student did not understand the topic or topic was too difficult and therefore lost interest,

Person A stated, “if they are not interested in the subject then they won’t care”, Person C

stated that “if the teacher does not properly help students understand then they will just muck

up” and Person F stated, “sometimes the teacher needs to provide easier tasks”.

"Disintersted/Disengaged" Sub-themes

1
Learning impairment/disability
lesson too easy
3 1
lack of understanding/too hard

Figure 4

The findings between the interviews and the literature view, despite themes intersecting,

differ in opinion as to why these behaviours are caused. The literature review primarily

externalised most of the blame/fault for student misbehaviour on the teacher, for example, for

attention seeking, the findings indicate that misbehaviour is a reactionary outcome to boring

lessons, not liking the teacher, or not getting enough attention from the teacher (Cothran,

Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009; Cothran & Kulinna 2013). This skew in results could be due to the

age group of the participants in the literature review, who are students, therefore likely to

show bias.
Halim Yasar 18030727

However, the interview findings indicate a different source for these displays of

misbehaviour. While few participants placed the fault on teachers (refer to figure 3), most

participants placed responsibility on the student. Participants referred to misbehaving

students as having difficulty with the content due to it being hard, having a learning

disability, like to perceive themselves as the “cool” student, or mucking up to get out of

work. This shared reasoning might be due to age, education and cultural background of the

participants. The age range of participants varies between 20 – 60 years old, differing from

the literature review which provides a mostly homogenous perspective (mostly students).

Also, most of the participants are highly educated, two participants are preservice teachers, 2

have their PhD, and one is attempting their bachelors. This provides a slightly skewed

perception as they may lack individual experiences with misbehaviour. Furthermore, there

was a cultural factor that had an influence on the participants rationale, person B, A and E

disclosed that their cultural background had an impact on their views. They indicated that due

to their cultural backgrounds which have traditionally strict teacher mindset, they believed

that the teacher should always be respected. Person B had the strictest views regarding this,

stating that it is the students’ responsibility to always behave, do well in class and listen to the

teacher, despite the teachers’ experiences, skills, and level of social interaction with students.

Furthermore, the findings in the literature review imply that there is negative a correlation

between teacher aggression/discipline and student misbehaviour. The article by Lewis (2001)

indicate that aggressive teacher, who might as a result disrespect the student (sarcasm, yell,

racist/sexist remarks etc) cause students to respond negatively, such as misbehaving. The

interviews differ in this regard, as while there was no collected data regarding the correlation

between teacher aggressiveness and student misbehaviour, there were remarks made that

teachers who were considered “forgiving”, as mentioned particularly by person B, A and C,

were encouraging misbehaviour. They mentioned that teachers who were not disciplining
Halim Yasar 18030727

their students and putting their, as person B states, “foot down”, showed the students that

misbehaviour was something that they could get away with”. All 3 participants drew on their

own past experiences from high school when referring to teachers who lack

aggressiveness/discipline, person B and C attended high school in other countries, Vietnam

and Turkey, in which they stated had more strict teachers, which are possible factors to their

decision making.

The implications that these findings have for praxis within the teaching field revolve around

teacher attitude, classroom management strategies, and student engagement. While both the

literature review and Interviews state different reasons for the root causes for misbehaviour,

the main theme emerging from these studies is the importance of student-teacher dynamics in

the prevention of student misbehaviour. The literature review and interview findings stated

that teachers who were either too kind, or too aggressive, were creating environments

conducive of misbehaviour. Therefore, it is essential for teachers to balance positive/negative

forms of punishment and reinforcement when dealing with students. Drawing on the analyses

provided, student misbehaviour could be a reactionary response to teachers’ actions and

attitudes, therefore justifying their misbehaviour, as Person C stated, “students feel rebellious

when they misbehave, they like to rebel against the teacher they don’t like and challenge their

authority”

Lack of Classroom/lesson management strategies is another issue that was highlighted in the

analyses. The findings from the literature review and interviews indicated a correlation

between boring/noninteractive lessons, and students being “off-task” and misbehaving in

general. Students, to avoid attending boring lessons, might disrupt the classroom, talk to their

friends or as Person A states “students will go on their phones to listen to music”. Therefore,

teachers need to reflect on their practices and materials to identify areas that need

improvement. These could be implementing interactive learning materials, apply group based
Halim Yasar 18030727

learning theories (Economides, 2008), scaffold the content so students do not find the material

too easy or hard to understand (Rose, 2005), and apply student-centred approach to empower

students in their learning process, and consequently engage students in the classroom.

Finally, these findings impacted my own awareness and understanding of student

misbehaviour. This study indicates that the responsibility of misbehaviour lies not only with

the student also the teacher. The practices and attitudes that teachers have can form learning

environments that are either conducive of positive or negative behaviours. Therefore, this

analysis shaped my understanding and reinforced the importance of developing proper

teacher-student relationships, as these relationships have a chain reaction that influence

student behaviour in the classrooms.

Halim Yasar 18030727

References
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. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/1462031483?accountid=36155
Crawshaw, M. (2015). "Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of student misbehaviour: A
review of international research, 1983 to 2013." Australian Journal of Education
59(3): 293-311. Retrieved from: https://search-informit-com-
au.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/fullText;dn=209225;res=AEIPT
Cothran, D., & Kulinna, P. (2007). Students' Reports of Misbehavior in Physical

Education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78(3), 216-224.

Donetta J. Cothran, Pamela Hodges Kulinna & Deborah A. Garrahy (2009) Attributions for
and consequences of student misbehavior, Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 14:2, 155-167, doi: 10.1080/17408980701712148
Emma Little (2005) Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of students’ problem behaviours,
Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational
Psychology, 25:4, 369-377, doi: 10.1080/01443410500041516
Economides, A. A. (2008). Culture-aware collaborative learning. Multicultural Education &
Technology Journal, 2(4), 243-267. doi: 10.1108/17504970810911052
Mcgrath, & Van Bergen. (2015). Who, when, why and to what end? Students at risk of
negative student–teacher relationships and their outcomes. Educational Research
Review, 14, 1-17. doi: 10.1108/17504970810911052
Kyriacou, C. (1997). Effective teaching in schools: Theory and practice. Nelson Thornes.
Lewis, R. (2001). Classroom discipline and student responsibility:: The students’

view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(3), 307-319. doi: 10.1016/S0742-

051X(00)00059-7

Rose, D. (2005). Democratising the classroom: A literacy pedagogy for the new
generation. Journal of education, 37(1), 131-168.