Student misbehaviour is a problem faced by various countries around the world for

many years. Many classes are focused on classroom management rather than learning
content, and teachers are continuously leaving the profession due to an inability to handle the
pressure. Majority of classroom management problems faced in schools are low-level
misbehaviours that occur frequently and disrupt classroom practices. For teachers to work on
preventing and intervening in these behaviours, there must be an understanding of where
these behaviours stem from. The following report outlines a review of literature and a mini
research-study which involved individual interviews on why students misbehave in schools.
The report aims to compare and contrast the literature review and the interview findings in
order to devise implementations for practice.

Impacts on student behaviour can be distinguished into three main factors:

developmental, psychological and environmental (De Nobile, Lyons & Arthur-Kelly, 2017).
Developmental factors relate to students own cognitive, physical, moral, social and emotional
development. Cognitive theories attribute student misbehaviour to the “processes that occur
in the minds of individuals” (De Nobile, Lyons & Arthur-Kelly, 2017). A study by McGrath
and Bergen (2015), also demonstrated the effect of students age, physicality, gender and
temperament on their relationships with their teachers and hence, their behaviour. Their study
illustrated that students with difficult relationships were of older age, generally boys, and had
certain temperaments. Furthermore, in terms of moral and social development, self-
determination theory argues that students will only follow rules and codes of conduct when
they personally internalize the rules (Aelterman, Vansteenkiste, & Haerens, 2018).
Internalizing rules means that students move away from external or introjected motives for
following classroom rules, to a deeper belief in the value of rules and the need to follow
them. Psychological factors also focus on students as the ‘cause’ of misbehaviour. These
include the student having a psychological or learning disability such as ADHD or ASD (De
Nobile, Lyons & Arthur-Kelly, 2017) which is argued to result in more negative student-
teacher relationships (McGrath & Bergen, 2015).

Environmental factors of student behaviour are the most discussed in research studies,
as they focus on aspects which provide hope for possibility of change and adjustment. One
significant aspect of the student’s environment is the teacher. The Pygmalion effect
highlights the effect of teacher attitudes and expectations on student behaviour (Demanet &
Houtte, 2012). If teachers have low expectations of students or negative attitudes it can lead
to academic futility which makes students feel ‘blocked’ and hence, according to strain
theory, lead students to ‘inappropriate’ behaviours due to lack of purpose or as an expression
of their frustration (Demanet & Houtte, 2012). Psychoeducational theories such as goal
theory, choice theory, pain model and strain theory all outline how student misbehaviour is an
expression of students’ needs not being met (Demanet & Houtte, 2012; De Nobile, Lyons &
Arthur-Kelly, 2017). These needs range from freedom, fun, power, belonging, survival,
escape from pain etc. Similarly, students with disabilities, when their needs are not met by the
overall school ethos and system they will most likely resort to acts which are deemed
‘inappropriate’ to voice their needs to the teacher or school (Parker, Paget, Ford, & Gwernan-
Jones, 2016).

Furthermore, there exists a variety of environmental factors that directly relate to the
student. Family and home-life have generally been identified by teachers as one of the major
factors associated with student misbehaviour (Cothran, Kulinna, & Garrahy, 2009). McGrath
& Bergen (2015) demonstrated how students from low-socio-economic and minority
backgrounds are more likely to have negative teacher-student relationships depending on
teacher background. Sleeping for less hours, or having unregulated sleep was also associated
with student misbehaviour in adolescent years (Li & Yi, 2015).

Interviews were conducted by phone and face-to-face and focused on the question
“Why do you think students misbehave at school?”. Interviewees were informed about the
research assignment, the fact that the interview will not be recorded, and that their names will
be removed completely from the assessment. They were also informed that they are free to
exclude themselves from the project at any time. All interviewees signed the consent forms
and the interviews were conducted for approximately 15-20 minutes each and were
conducted in an open-ended fashion.

Six people were interviewed, the following table contains their demographics.
Pseudonyms have been used to keep the privacy of the interviewees:

Name Age Gender Occupation Interview Role

Allen 25 Male Pharmacist Friend
Emma 31 Female Primary School Teacher Teacher
Margaret 51 Female House Wife Parent of 2 (18, 19 years)
Isaac 24 Male PhD Student Friend
Leslie 27 Female Primary School Teacher Teacher
 Sarah 31 Female Pre-Service Teacher Colleague

Main themes were extracted from each interview and then compared to combine the
various themes which connected and distinguish between different opinions and ideas. The
main themes identified were home-life, content and pedagogy, friends, language and culture,
student image and needs.

One of the most common themes which all interviewees mentioned was the effect of
home life and student background. In terms of home life, some argued based on personal
school experiences that misbehaviour “originates from the home” (Allen, Pharmacist) and the
way parents raise their children to value school and education. Students who misbehave were
said to have parents that always sided with their child, arguing with staff members about their
child’s behaviour asking, “how dare you speak to my son like this” (Isaac, PhD student).
None of the articles detailed the concept of ‘upbringing’ which is unique to the responses of
the two non-teaching male interviewees. On the other hand, interviewees mainly discussed
home life in terms of family and parental problems. This was especially evident from the
responses of the teachers, pre-service teacher and parent who highlighted examples of
students who “act up when something is happening at home” (Emma, Teacher). Interestingly,
perspectives on problems coming from home were expressed mainly by teachers as they were
in the research study by Cothran, Kulinna and Garrahy (2009). Li & Yi’s (2015) research was
highlighted by a primary school teachers response, indicating lack of sleep as a source of
misbehaviour. Majority of these aspects of home-life were connected by the interviewees to
students desire for attention which was a main theme in the literature for student
misbehaviour especially in psychoeducational theories (De Nobile, Lyons & Arthur-Kelly,
2017).

Another aspect of background and home-life were socio-economic status, culture and
disability. Low socio-economic status was argued to be a cause for misbehaviour. However,
one interviewee mentioned how being “well-off” was a cause of misbehaviour where students
felt “they didn’t need school” (Isaac, PhD student). Having English as a second language or
being new to the country was classed as a factor for misbehaviour, as it was argued that
students sometimes could feel a lack of connection to the teacher and school (Leslie, Primary
Teacher). As identified by the interviewees, McGrath & Bergen (2015) related low-SES and
being from a minority background to student misbehaviour. However, the concept of being
‘well-off’ was not identified in the literature at all. This could be a minority view, as all other
interviewees did not mention this factor, and Isaac himself mentioned that this was his own
observation from his school experiences and it may “not always be the case”. Similarly,
students with disabilities were argued to face additional difficulties with behaviour, one
interviewee deeply discussed how misunderstanding the needs of students with disabilities
can cause them to react and communicate their needs in ways that may be classed by teachers
as ‘misbehaviour’ (Margaret, Parent). She also identified all student misbehaviour as a “call
for help”. This view is very much connected to psychoeducational theories on student
misbehaviour, and not surprisingly also aligns with parent’s views on students’ misbehaviour
in the research by Parker et al. (2016). Margaret’s position as a mother of a child with ASD
has allowed her to express such a view which was not found in the other interview responses.

Content being too difficult, too easy, boring, irrelevant was commonly discussed
amongst interviewees. When students misbehave, “they can’t see the benefit of what the
teacher is teaching … they don’t like how the teacher is teaching” (Allen, Pharmacist).
Student’s desire for freedom, fun and self-control is identified by the interviewees in terms of
freedom from rules, and freedom to choose what they learn. These views align with
psychoeducational theories and were held by the interviewed teachers which was different to
the findings of Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy (2009) where teachers rarely attributed
misbehaviour to their own practices. Teacher age and being “older” was related to student
misbehaviour in the class (Emma, Teacher). This was interestingly not explicitly identified in
the literature, but rather, McGrath and Bergen (2015) highlighted the effect of student-age on
teacher-student relationships rather than teachers age. Teachers attitudes also affected, a
teacher “thinks their [the students] not successful so she never put effort in the lesson”
(Sarah, Pre-service Teacher). This view is closely related to the Pygmalion effect (Demanet
& Houtte 2012).

Students personal views about themselves and the school was also deemed significant.
Outlined by only one interview, students who misbehaved were said to “disagree with the
rules… they don’t see the value of following this set behaviour” (Isaac, PhD student).
Interestingly, the research study performed by Aelterman, Vansteenkiste & Haerens, (2018)
identified that if students didn’t internalise rules they were bound to misbehave. Furthermore,
the interviewee also argued that where students perceived themselves to be in the “school
hierarchy” effected their behaviour, “are they bullied, or do they bully, are they alone or do
they have friends” (Isaac, PhD student). Furthermore, being pressured by peers was a
common theme, were students sought attention and therefore misbehaved. Puberty was
identified by one interviewee as a significant factor in adolescent years, whereby students
body images and changes can lead to feelings of frustration (Margaret, Parent). Puberty and
peer-pressure were aspects not explicitly identified in the literature, however, they can be
viewed from the lens of psychoeducational theory, which highlights the fact that students in
both instances are expressing a need through their misbehaviour.

The implications of the above findings is that they firstly demonstrate the effect of an
individual’s role and experiences on their views on student misbehaviour. For instance,
Margaret being a mother of a child with disability was able to form an opinion about why
students with disabilities may ‘misbehave’. In the literature as well, perspectives differed
according to the individual, teachers failed to identify their role in student misbehaviour,
placing the blame on student’s home lives (Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009). This is
significant, as according to attribution theory, the reasons which teachers attribute to student
misbehaviour influences their attitudes and reactions towards the student’s misbehaviour
(Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy, 2009). One way in which I can help in avoiding my own
biases, is to recall and utilise the ecological systems model/theory which focuses on the
myriad of factors that affect student behaviour which include the student, teachers, class,
peers, family, school, and even the wider community (DeNobile, Lyons & Arthur-Kelly,
2017; Sullivan, Johnsen, Owens & Conway, 2014). Having this wider view of student
behaviour, would help me avoid narrowing my understanding of why a student is
misbehaving and attributing an incorrect factor and therefore responding inappropriately.

Furthermore, the interviews and literature review identify the various factors that
affect student behaviour. Of most needed consideration is the effect of the teacher on student
misbehaviour. Attitudes, and lesson preparation (including curriculum, pedagogy, activities
etc.) all affect student behaviour. Using frameworks such as Universal Design for Learning or
differentiation can assist with meeting student’s needs and having an inclusive approach
which delivers high expectations for all students. These approaches, for example UDL,
allows the teacher to recognise the various barriers and needs students may have with the
learning before the task is decided. Importantly, when working with students with identified
learning needs or disabilities, having support or professional advice may assist with
identifying students’ needs and meeting those needs. However, as identified in the literature,
various factors outside the capacity of the teacher exist which affect student behaviour, and
this includes home factors. Student-teacher relationships, as identified by McGrath and
Bergen (2015), are a crucial factor for student behaviour, although surprisingly, this was
mentioned very minimally in the interviews. Having a positive and professional relationship
with the students can help build that report with the students which may assist in identifying
their needs even if they may be external, and this can allow me to direct the student to
relevant support. Keeping contact with parents and an awareness of cultural and language
needs may also be a significant way of building a connection with students and even assist
with misbehaviour, as this was identified as a significant factor by several interviewees.

In conclusion, student behaviour is evidently complex and formed by a myriad of

interrelated factors. Individual experiences, views and perspectives affect the way they view
and approach student misbehaviour. The literature contains a vast amount of research in
student behaviour, and each paper identifies a variety of factors. It is important, to have an
open-minded and ecological approach to student behaviour to not resort to incorrect reactions
and responses to incorrect assumptions.
 References

Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., & Haerens, L. (2018). Correlates of students’

internalization and defiance of classroom rules: A self-determination theory
perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, pp. 1-19. doi:
10.1111/bjep.12213

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

Demanet, J., & Houtte, M. V. (2012). Teachers’ attitudes and students’ opposition. School
misconduct as a reaction to teachers’ diminished effort and affect. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 28, pp. 860 – 869. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.008

De Nobile, J., Lyons, G., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2017). Positive learning environments:
Creating and maintaining productive classrooms. South Melbourne, VIC:
Cengage Learning.

Lin, W. H., & Yi, C. C. (2015). Unhealthy sleep practices, conduct problems, and daytime
functioning during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, pp.
431-446. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0169-9.

McGrath, K. F., Bergen, P. V. (2015). Who, when, why and to what end? Students at risk of
negative student-teacher relationships and their outcomes. Educational
Research Review, 14, pp. 1-17. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.12.001

Parker, C., Paget, A., Ford, T., & Gwernan-Jones, R. (2016). ‘.he was excluded for the kind
of behaviour we thought he needed support with …’ A qualitative analysis of
the experiences and perspectives of parents whose children have been
excluded from school. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 21(1), pp.
133-151. doi: 10.1080/13632752.2015.1120070

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), pp. 43-56. Retrieved from
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol39/iss6/4