Perception of student misbehaviour within the

classroom
Student misbehaviour is commonplace in the classroom, and it refers to behaviour and
responses of a students that significantly deviates away from teacher expectation and
school guidelines (Gerber, & Solari, 2009; Sullivan, Johnson, Owens, & Conway, 2014). A
teacher perception of student misbehaviour as well as the challenging behaviour itself
within the classroom, has a high correlation to emotional exhaustion (Tsouloupas,
Carson, Matthews, Grawitch, & Barber, 2010). The amount of effort used and learning
time loss by the teacher, causes emotional exhaustion from managing challenging
behaviour and ends up being one of the reasons for teacher burnout (Kokkinos 2007).
The purpose of this study is to explore what people classify as student misbehaviour and
their perception of why challenging behaviour exists and where it may originate from.
This study synthesises the conversation of a variety of people involved within the school
community; a teacher, a pre-service teacher, a parent, a student, and two university
graduates, on their perception of influences on misbehaviours and analyses literature and
research that was conducted on the topic of challenging behaviour within the classroom.
The purpose of this study is to inform people within the school community regarding
what people believe causes misbehaviour and using that information to improve
classroom management.

Crawshaw’s (2015) article, Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of student

misbehaviour: A review of international research, 1983 to 2013 gave insight as to what
the major challenging behaviours in the classroom were. Student misbehaviour was
categorised into two groups, severity and frequency of challenging behaviour. Serious
student misbehaviours varied from non-compliance and verbal aggression, to physical
disruption, destructiveness or vandalism and schools are often heavily portrayed as
places of physical violence and aggression by media (Alter et al. 2013). Despite this,
minor student misbehaviours that were identified such as talking out of turn, chatting,
distracting others with rowdy behaviour, lack of focus, laziness and daydreaming are the
types of challenging behaviours that are most prevalent within the classroom and
consequently affecting majority of the students’ learning time (Crawshaw, 2015; Cothran,
Kulinna, & Garrahy, 2009).
There are many ways in which misbehaviours given by Crawshaw (2015) can be handled,
but in Cothran, Kulinna and Garrahy’s (2009) article, Attributions for and consequences
of student misbehaviour suggests the use of attribution theory, that teachers
acknowledge and understand the underlying cause of student misbehaviour, as it is an
important step in determining how to respond to those particular behaviours.
Throughout their research on examining physical education teachers and students
attributions on challenging behaviours, they found a multitude of beliefs that stemmed
mainly from home, attention and boredom. Majority of teachers within the study believed
that all misbehaviour can be traced back to the home environment, where students may
be neglected by carers or not taught proper manners and respect and because of this
negligence, students seek attention in school. Whereas students attributed misbehaviour
to boredom in class as the work was irrelevant to their lives or activities are not engaging,
and as a way to seek attention from either the teacher or their peers in order to increase
their social status in and outside the classroom. Cothran, Kulinna and Garrahy (2009)
note that both parties do not take responsibility for misbehaviour and the perspective
should change, as teachers and students play a role in student misbehaviour.

While misbehaviour can be managed through the use of attribution theory and looking at
the underlying reasons for misbehaviour, a preventative measure to minimise future
challenging behaviour can be taken. McGrath and Van Bergen (2015) investigates the
effect of positive and negative student-teacher relationships in ‘Who, when, why and to
what end? Students at risk of negative student-teacher relationships and their outcomes’.
There are many factors that impact student-teacher relationship, from gender, age,
cultural background, socioeconomic background, to relationships with carers, behaviour
and achievement. McGrath and Vanbergen found that students at the most risk of
experiencing a negative student-teacher relationship are the student who would benefit
most from a positive student teacher relationships. Students who are engaged in positive
student-teacher relationship experience what a healthy relationship is, this relationship
becomes a model to build from and promotes adaptive and prosocial behaviour to
develop positive peer relationships. Through the improvement of prosocial behaviours,
misbehaviour is minimised as student aggression is reduced, school becomes a safe
environment and students develop a sense of responsibility towards others.
The interviews were conducted with six interviewees a space they felt comfortable in,
where a conversation about student misbehaviour took place after consent forms were
read, discussed and signed. The interviewees’ answers were recorded briefly via pen and
paper and their identities will remain confidential throughout the study. The candidates
of interviews were not evenly balanced in terms of gender and age; four males and two
females were interviewed, and the ages ranged from sixteen to twenty-six and an outlier
age of forty-nine. Below is table summary of the demographic of interviewees.

Identity Gender Age Occupation

P1 Female 49 Parent and Bookkeeper

P2 Female 25 Proficient Teacher

P3 Male 26 Graphic Designer and Digital Director

P4 Male 23 Nurse

P5 Male 22 Pre-service Teacher and Kitchen Specialist

P6 Male 16 Student

The data analysis began by comparing all the notes that were recorded side by side.
Information that was common between groups were extracted first and grouped. The
initial groups were then consolidated into a larger theme that comprises of the smaller
groups. Responses were relatively similar, the themes aligned across all interviewees but
the reasons behind each theme differed from each other. The major themes that were
found were home life and other external factors, biological traits and mental wellbeing,
lack of engagement and student-teacher rapport.

All of the interviewees had the common response of home life and upbring when asked
the question, “In your opinion, why do you think students misbehave?”. When asked to
go into detail on the matter however, many of the remarks differed from each other. Every
interviewee mentioned a poor upbring, P1 further elaborates that students are possibly
neglected by carers and hence do not receive enough nutrition, does not experience a
caring environment and relationship with others and may have experienced trauma that
students bring with them into the classroom. The interviewees suggest that student who
misbehave may not have a positive model relationship, and instead have these negative
relationships of neglect and do not know how to build healthy relationships with peers
and teachers. Despite this general consensus, P2, P3 and P5 brought up the idea of
contradiction of lifestyle values and school values. P2 in particular stated, ‘students at
home may be spoiled, placed on a pedestal and receive overwhelming support from their
carers, but this is contradicted at school, as majority of the time, students are all treated
equally and not the way their carers treat them. Thus this expectation of being a “perfect
child” and normal student contradicts each other and misbehaviour occurs.’ P2 also
suggests that the negative expectation at home and positive expectation at school can
cause misbehaviour as well. P3 and P5 explores the contradiction of cultural expectations,
where the cultural knowledge and expectation at home differs from the cultural
expectation of the school, and a lot of times, teachers may perceive behaviour that is
respectful in the student’s culture as disrespectful within the school community.

Biological traits and mental wellbeing was another common response from the
interviewees. P6 suggest that the physical developmental stage of students are different
from each other, thus all students get different expectations and does not consider this to
be fair treatment by the teacher especially in physical education. P4 looked at it from a
“nature vs nurture” perspective where both the upbringing and natural development of
personality may be the reason as to why students misbehave. Students may also
misbehave due to their mental wellbeing and hereditary mental health status, P5
continues, ‘mental illness can greatly impact student motivation for school and what
might be considered as laziness and lack of motivation, in reality can stem from things
like depression and anxiety’.

Lack of engagement was another prevalent theme across the interviewees, and this
theme concerns the teacher unlike the previous themes which were in relation to
students. P6 says that in a lot of classes, he finds himself and fellow peers disengage from
the work from a multitude of reasons, ‘sometimes the work is so repetitive, the majority
of us have practiced and know how to do the worksheets and some people thrive off
collaborative work’ and P2 states that teachers do not bring relevancy of the work to the
students work and thus, students do not find the importance of the content in their lives.
‘The work can also be too difficult for students causing them to give up almost
immediately after trying, or the there is not enough difficulty and challenge for the more
gifted students,’ P2 further addresses. P3 had an interesting look at disengagement,
suggesting that technology and social media specifically has shortened the attention span
of students, ‘kids on social media have a flood of information instantaneously flooding
their screens and due to constant stimuli, students may be disengaged if activities are not
changing frequently.’

The final theme was student-teacher rapport and was mentioned by majority of
interviewees. The general consensus was that a positive student-teacher relationship
allowed students to develop curiosity in content and thrive upon the opportunities
presented by teacher. According to P2, a negative student-teacher rapport involved the
teacher not understanding students learning profiles, level of ability and having low
student expectation. P5 proposed that a lack of safety, support and belonging that is not
cultivated by teachers hinders students and may cause them to revolt within the
classroom. Thus, a negative student-teacher relationship can produce maladaptive
behaviours and possible peer rejection further building upon the reasons as to why
students may misbehave.

As mentioned earlier, home life and upbringing is a common perception as to what the
underlying cause for student misbehaviour is (Cothran, Kulinna, & Garrahy, 2009). All
interviewees mentioned this as a significant concept for challenging behaviour but have
divulged from Cothran, Kulinna and Garrahy’s (2009) research which only looked at a
poor upbringing. This theme is also related to student-teacher rapport which was
commented upon by majority of interviewees. Having a significantly negative student-
teacher relationship hindered students’ school life and commonly resulted student
misbehaviour (McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015). With this knowledge, I now understand
that despite having no control over students’ life outside of school, facilitating a positive
learning environment in which students feel safe, supported and have a sense of
belonging can combat the negative relationships that students may experience (McGrath
& Van Bergen, 2015). I would develop a positive student-teacher rapport through
communicating with students on their interest to show recognition, create more
collaborative tasks, set achievable high expectations for behaviour and learning, or
simply greeting them in the playground or at the door before a class.
Biological traits and mental wellbeing was another matter that interviewees regarded as
playing as a role in student misbehaviour. Though none of the articles really looked into
biological traits and mental wellbeing into great detail, Crawshaw (2015) states that idea
of inclusivity may restrict students with special needs and suggests to study the prevalent
behaviour within the classroom, notating frequency and if the behaviour appears within
different subjects as well. As a teacher, catering to students with special needs and being
aware that students may suffer from slower physical development, mental illness or
negative growth mindset will allow me to improve my pedagogical approach and
relationship with students.

Lack of engagement was commonly discussed by interviewees, and especially by P2 and

P6 who are teacher and student. Getting the perspective from a teacher, student and
Cothran, Kulinna and Garrahy’s (2009) article, allowed me to explore the diverse ideas of
lack of engagement. The underlying concept across these perspectives is that content is
irrelevant to the students lives and teachers may be pitching the work incorrectly, thus
activities are perceived as boring. interviewee P2 also states her concern that work may
be either too difficult or too easy for students causing student to become disengaged. This
information is important for me to take differentiated tasks and expectations into
consideration. I would do this by researching in class what activity work well with the
students, set appropriate expectations for students and promoting student collaborative
tasks to decrease boredom.
To conclude, the synthesis of literature and interviews on the perceptions of student
misbehaviour is insightful for pre-service teachers like myself. Understanding the
possibilities as to why students may misbehave develops a teacher with resilience, an
open mind and a pedagogy that promotes a positive learning environment for students.

Reference List
Alter, P., et al. (2013). "Teachers' perceptions of students' challenging behavior and the
impact of teacher demographics." Education and Treatment of Children 36(4): 51-
69
Cothran, D. J., Kulinna, P. H., & Garrahy, D. A. (2009). Attributions for and consequences
of student misbehavior. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(2), 155-167.
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
Gerber, M.M., Solari, E.J., (2009) Future Challenges to Cognitive-Behavioral
Interventions in practice and policy. In M. J. Mayer, R. Van Acker, J. E. Lochman, & F.
M. Gresham, (Eds.), Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Students with
Emotional/Behavioral Disorders. NY, NY: Guildford Press.
Kokkinos, M.C. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school
teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 229–243.
McGrath, K. F. and P. 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.
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).
Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K. (2010).

Exploring the association between teachers’ perceived student misbehaviour and

emotional exhaustion: The importance of teacher efficacy beliefs and emotion

regulation. Educational Psychology, 30(2), 173-189.