Using individual interviews, this study investigated perceptions of classroom

misbehaviors among secondary school students in Hong Kong ( = 1 8 ). Nineteen

categories of classroom misbehaviors were identified, with talking out of turn,
disrespecting teacher, and doing something in private being most frequently mentioned.
Findings revealed that students tended to perceive misbehaviors as those actions
inappropriate in the classroom settings and even disrupting teachers' teaching and other
students' learning. Among various misbehaviors, talking out of turn and disrespecting
teacher were seen as the most disruptive and unacceptable. These misbehaviors were
unacceptable because they disturbed teaching and learning, and violated the values of
respect, conformity, and obedience in the teacher-student relationship within the
classroom. The frequency and intensity of misbehaviors would escalate if students found
it fun, no punishment for such misbehaviors, or teachers were not authoritative enough in
controlling the situations. Implications for further research and classroom management
are discussed.

1. Introduction
There are numerous studies examining the definitions and range of student misbehaviors.
For example, in the United Kingdom and Australia, researchers defined classroom
misbehaviors as behaviors which are disruptive to classroom order and cause trouble to
teachers, such as making nonverbal noise, disobedience, talking out of turn,
idleness/slowness, nonpunctuality, hindering others, physical aggression, untidiness, out
of seat, and verbal abuse [13]. In the United States, James [4] conceived students
misbehaved when they either did what they were not supposed to do or did not do what
they were supposed to do (page 9), ranging from fooling around as mild misbehavior to
fighting as severe misbehavior. In the Caribbean contexts, student misbehaviors in
classroom included those disruptive behavior which hampered teaching, and learning,
such as classroom disconformity, verbal and physical hostility, defiance of authority, task
avoidance, inappropriate use of school property, inconsiderate interpersonal relationships,
over-reactions to normal situations, and technological related factors [5].
While classroom misbehavior is generally interpreted as disruptive and improper
behavior that adversely affects the order, teaching, and learning in classroom, it is
noteworthy that the range of student misbehavior varies across cultures [6, 7].
Particularly, as respect for authority, conformity, and obedience are highly valued in the
Chinese school context [8], some student behaviors would be considered as problematic
or unacceptable in Chinese classroom but not elsewhere. For example, in the traditional
Chinese culture, students who kept on asking questions would be regarded as
troublesome students whereas students strictly followed teachers orders were regarded
as excellent students. However, in contrast to the studies conducted in the Western
cultural contexts, there have been very limited research findings on student misbehavior
in the Chinese cultural contexts [9, 10], particularly in Hong Kong [11, 12]. Therefore, it
is necessary to understand more about the definition and conception of student
misbehavior in Hong Kong. This need is particularly acute when we realize that
adolescent behavior has changed tremendously with the advance in technology. Through
the Internet, it does not take long to popularize certain misbehavior in young people.
Against the above background, a recent study was conducted in Hong Kong Chinese
schools by Sun and Shek [13], which showed that most of the classroom misbehaviors
reported by the teachers included doing something in private, talking out of turn, verbal
aggression, disrespecting teachers, nonattentiveness/daydreaming/idleness, sleeping,
habitual failure in submitting assignments, and out of seat. These findings suggest that
classroom misbehaviors can be defined as those behaviors that involve rule breaking,
violating the implicit norms or expectations, being inappropriate in the classroom settings
and upsetting teaching and learning. The findings also matched with the categorization of
misbehavior as off-task, disruptive, and unruly behaviors [14]. Off-task behaviors like
doing things irrelevant to the class learning, or daydreaming and sleeping, are regarded as
classroom misbehaviors. These misbehaviors would become disruptive if their frequency
and intensity escalated. Similar to those obvious disruptive behaviors such as talking out
of turn and out of seat, they impede teachers teaching and students learning. Failing
ones responsibility in handing homework on time and lacking respect to classmates and
teachers by showing verbal and physical aggressiveness are definitely breaking the
conventional rules and values in Chinese classroom. Among the various forms of
misbehaviors, talking out of turn was constantly rated by teachers as the most frequent
and troublesome misbehavior across contexts [15]. However, it is doubtful whether
behaviors considered as problematic, inappropriate, disturbing, or unruly in the eyes of
teachers are necessarily shared by the students.
One serious limitation of the research on student misbehavior is that most of the existing
studies on school misbehavior were primarily based on teachers perceptions and ratings,
(for example, [1, 9, 11, 12]). However, it can be criticized that teachers usually have a
dissimilar conception of school misbehavior with their students due to differences in
social roles and values [16]. Moreover, teachers and students might have different degree
of tolerance in judging whether a particular action is a misbehavior or not, or in rating the
intensity of disruptiveness on the same misbehavior [17]. Hence, it is argued that findings
simply based on teachers responses might be partial or biased, and the perceptions of
students should also be included. Nevertheless, there is scant research studies
investigating students perceptions of classroom misbehavior [4, 18]. Although a study
was conducted in Hong Kong to examine misbehavior from the students perspective
[19], it focused on students explanations of their school misbehavior and effective means
to deal with student misbehavior. However, it can be argued that any meaningful
intervention would not be possible if students conceptions and definitions of classroom
misbehavior are not thoroughly examined before the intervention. Thus, the present study
attempted to examine classroom misbehavior from the students point of views, and to
understand what are the most common, disruptive, and unacceptable misbehaviors in the
eyes of students.
The overarching goal of this study was to examine classroom misbehavior from the
perspective of students in junior secondary school settings in Hong Kong. In this study,
classroom misbehavior was regarded as a kind of problem behavior [2022]. It is a
descriptive and exploratory qualitative research study which attempted to identify and
categorize classroom misbehaviors reported by a group of Grade 7 to 9 students. By
understanding the issue from the students perspective, the present findings would
contribute to the existing literature and shed light on teaching, discipline, or guidance
work in the school context.
A qualitative research method was adopted in this study. This method can enrich our
understanding of the problem area because most of the studies in this area are quantitative
in nature. By listening to the voices of the students, it is expected that the findings can
help generate findings that cannot be adequately captured by those based on the teachers.
A general qualitative study orientation (i.e., no particular qualitative research strand was
adhered to) was adopted, with the following elements intrinsic to the study. First, voices
of the students instead of the experts or adults were heard. Second, narratives of the
students were focused upon. Third, individual interviews were conducted in nonartificial
setting. As it is an exploratory study, a general qualitative orientation close to a
postpositivistic tradition (qualitative data collection with coding and thematic analyses)
was sufficient for this purpose.

2. Methods
2.1. Participants
The informants were 18 junior secondary school students from three schools, with each
school admitting students having low, medium, or high academic competencies. In each
school, six students (one boy and one girl in Grade 7, Grade 8, and Grade 9) were
randomly selected by their teachers and they were invited to join an individual interview
on a voluntary basis. The informants comprised nine boys and nine girls, with a mean age
of 13.9 years old (range = 1217 years old). Although there is no sacred number in
qualitative research, an engagement of 18 participants could be regarded as on the high
side. Also, recruitment of students from schools with different academic abilities and
gender could ensure that a wide range of experiences would be examined. Written
consent from the school principals and the informants, as well as passive parental consent
from the student informants, were obtained prior to data collection. At the beginning of
each interview, anonymity and confidentiality of the study were clearly explained to the
informants. Before conducting this research, ethical approval was obtained from the
Human Research Ethics Committee, The University of Hong Kong.
2.2. Instruments
A self-constructed semi-structured interview guide was used for each individual
interview. In the interview guide, questions and prompts were used to explore the
informants perceptions of students problem behaviors and teachers management
strategies in the classroom and school contexts. The informants were asked to define
problem behaviors based on their own understanding and interpretation. They were
invited to use real-life examples to further illustrate their views. The average time for an
interview was 48 minutes (range = 3371 minutes). Each interview was conducted by
two trained interviewers in Cantonese (the mother tongue of both the interviewers and
interviewees). The interviews were audio-taped with informants prior consent and
transcribed in verbatim after the interviews.
As many open-ended questions were covered in the interview guide, only data related to
the following questions were analyzed in this paper. Interested readers can write to the
first author to obtain the full list of interview questions.(1)In the classroom, what student
problem behaviors are there? Please list out as many as possible and describe
them.(2)Among these problem behaviors, which one(s) is/are the most
common?(3)Among these problem behaviors, which one(s) is/are the most disruptive to
teaching and learning?(4)Among these problem behaviors, which one(s) is/are the most
unacceptable? Please illustrate.
2.3. Data Analysis
The data were analyzed by general qualitative analyses techniques [23], in which codes
and categories of misbehavior were inductively derived from the data. A colleague who
has a Bachelor degree in psychology and teaching experiences conducted the first-level
coding to cluster semantically similar words, phrases, and/or sentences that formed
meaningful units in each conclusion at the raw response level. The first author further
checked and carried out second-level coding and categorization, in which similar codes
were grouped to reflect higher-order categories of themes. The coding and categorization
were finalized with consensus among the coders, and agreed by another colleague with a
Bachelor degree in psychology and professional counseling training.
The researchers were aware of their possible biases in their conceptions of student
misbehavior because they had worked in the education field for some time. Therefore,
checking procedures were carried out to look at the consistency in the coding process
without the involvement of the authors. Both intra- and interrater reliability on the coding
were calculated to ensure the credibility of the findings. Intrarater reliability tests were
conducted by the two coders independently, whereas interrater reliability tests were
conducted by two colleagues (one has a Master degree and several years of teaching
experience and one has a Bachelor degree) independently. In each reliability test, 20 raw
responses were randomly selected for each rater to code without referring to the original
codes. Results of the reliability analyses were on the high side: intrarater agreement
percentages were both 100% for both coders; interrater agreement percentages were 80%
and 90% for each coder when they coded the analyses of the counterpart. To enhance the
quality of the research, audit trails were developed and data analyses processes were
systematically documented.

3. Results
Table 1 summarizes the categorization of responses based on students perceptions of
problem behaviors inside classroom reported by 18 student informants. The 107
responses could be classified into 19 main categories and six of them could further be
divided into subcategories. The frequently reported classroom misbehaviors were
talking out of turn, disrespecting teachers, doing something in private, verbal
aggression, out of seat, sleeping, playing, clowning/making fun, (habitual)
failure in submitting assignments, non-attentiveness/looking out of window, and
non-verbal communication. Among them, talking out of turn and out of seat were
viewed as the most common misbehavior in the classroom. Talking out of turn and
disrespecting teachers were rated as the most disruptive and unacceptable problem
behaviors.

Table 1: A Summary of students' perceptions of student problem behaviors inside

classroom ( = 1 8 ).

3.1. Talking Out of Turn

The informants perceived that students usually talked out of turn, such as do not put up
their hands before answering questions and shout the answer out (Student A05). This
kind of calling out, as well as asking nonsense questions without teacher permission,
were regarded as disturbing. As mentioned by Student B08:
No one likes to hear people speaking too loudly. It will affect the learning environment.
The class is often distracted by this kind of noise. Also the noise will largely affect each
student psychologically. I mean student may be annoyed by the noise. They will become
more agitated, easy to lose their temper and becomes inattentive in class. It is fine if you
make noise but you should not disturb others.
They also revealed that conversation among students was the most common and
annoying. Student B10 described:
When the teacher is teaching, students at the back talk to each other Sometimes they
are not too excessive, but sometimes they speak too loudly that we can hardly hear what
the teacher is saying There are not just two (students) but sometimes a cluster just
like to kick up a fuss, because sometimes you wont sit next to your friend. Your friend
may sit far away from you at the diagonal corner. You have to speak out loudly in order
to let your friend hear you. Then, other students will hear you and all of them will laugh
together. This is like ripple effect.
Talking out of turn, especially chatting among students, was perceived as most
disruptive to teachers teaching and students learning. Student C10 explained:
Chatting will disturb teaching. If they chat very loudly or do not listen to the teacher,
they and other students will miss some new knowledge. Also the teacher may think that
you do not have motivation to learn which may make him/her unhappy.
It was perceived as unacceptable when the misbehavior becomes so noisy and
uncontrollable that it adversely affects other students learning. Student A10 revealed:
It is acceptable if you chat in a low voice. But the point is you chat louder and louder
despite being asked to stop. This is the most distracting behavior which makes others
unable to concentrate in class.
3.2. Disrespecting Teacher
Behaviors that were disrespectful to teachers, such as disobedience, refusing to follow
instructions, rudeness, talking back, arguing with teacher, offending, or attacking
teachers, were reported as an obvious problem behavior in the classroom. Student B08
described how students used some subtle ways to offend their teachers:
The students do not respect their teacher. Sometimes they do not treat their teacher as a
person. Generally speaking, they do not care about him/her. They may pretend to be
good, but in fact, they behave differently at the back of their teacher.
On the other hand, some students would attack teachers directly. Student A06 recalled:
Such as our class teacher, when teaching, some boys offended him/her for no reason. It
is because the teacher does not know how to scold the students. Thats why those boys
like to assault him/her.
Arguing with teachers could disrupt teaching and learning because it was time
consuming. Student C07 commented that if the teacher scolds us, we will argue back,
and then the teacher will scold us even much more. It uses up all the time. Student B08
also considered it as an unacceptable behavior: I think politeness of a student is very
important. Sometimes if the teacher asks you to do something, you need to show your
politeness in addition to respect A persons virtue is more important than his/her
knowledge.
3.3. Doing Something in Private
Students liked to do something unrelated to classroom learning, such as doing homework
of other subjects, dealing with personal stuff, having irrelevant drawing, or using mobile
phone. However, not all informants would regard doing something in private as a kind
of problem behavior. For example, Student C09 explained: some students use mobile
phone to text when the teacher is not looking at them Actually, I think using mobile
phone or pushing classmates are not problematic. It will not affect the learning
atmosphere playing mobile phone only affects the individuala persons learning
attitude and usually the teacher do not see them so that it affects nothing.
3.4. Out of Seat and Sleeping
The informants also pointed out that out of seat (including changing seats and
wandering around the classroom) and sleeping were other problem behaviors in the
classroom. Moreover, these problem behaviors would become more serious and spread
over if without proper teacher control. Some students also considered that both of these
behaviors would affect classroom teaching and learning. As two students described:
The teacher sometimes is not aware of students who are out of seat, and also he/she may
be dealing with the students who are making noiseso he/she is not able to handle those
who leave their seats. (Student A06)
When the students, who are very tired but try to endure the sleepiness, find their
classmate is sleeping, they will begin to lay on the table, sleep or do other things because
they realize that the sleeping student will not be punished, that means they are allowed to
do so. (Student A09)
3.5. Verbal Aggression and Physical Aggression
Verbal aggression (including attacking classmates, quarrelling with classmates,
speaking foul language, teasing classmates, and gossiping) and physical aggression
(including striking, attacking and pushing classmates, and destroying things) were
reported as problem behaviors. Student might feel bad and even threatening when there
was hostility. As Student C09 expressed, I feel hurt when I saw my classmate was struck
by others We are classmates, we are friends I dont dare to stop them because Im
afraid that they will strike me too.
3.6. Other Forms of Misbehaviors
As shown in Table 1, there were other problem behaviors reported by the informants.
They were playing, clowning/making fun, failure in submitting assignments (and
in a habitual manner), nonattentiveness (also including looking out of window),
nonverbal communication (via body language or passing papers), making noise (like
rocking chair and singing), isolating classmates, copying homework, forget to bring
textbook and other learning materials to class, and disturbing other classmates (e.g.,
pulling classmates braid, tickling others, messing up others things). Individual
informants also reported that invasion of privacy (tried to sneak a quick look of other
personal stuffs) and intimate physical contact (likes touching and hugging during class)
were problem behaviors in the classroom.

4. Discussion
The present study attempted to examine classroom misbehaviors perceived by junior
secondary school students in Hong Kong. A total of 19 problem behaviors were
mentioned by the students, including talking out of turn, disrespecting teachers, doing
something in private, verbal aggression, out of seat, sleeping, playing, clowning/making
fun, (habitual) failure in submitting assignments, nonattentiveness/looking out of
window, nonverbal communication, physical aggression, isolating classmates, making
noise, copying homework, forget to bring textbook and other learning materials to class,
disturbing other classmates, invasion of privacy, and intimate physical contact (see
Table 1). The present findings showed that many of the misbehavior categories are
similar to those reported in the studies conducted in the Western and Chinese cultural
contexts [1, 9, 11], and they are consistent with those reported by teachers and students as
well [4, 13]. The findings generated from the Chinese students perspective lent support
to the previous research findings that talking out of turn is the most common and
disruptive misbehavior inside the classroom [15].
In conjunction with the previous study conducted by the authors [13], the present study
showed that the views of both the teachers and students were complementary in
understanding the definition and types of student misbehaviors inside classroom. In terms
of the categorization of the classroom misbehavior, there was a consensus in some of the
misbehavior, though some differences were also identified. While teachers perceived
lateness to class, eating/drinking and passive engagement in class were problem
behaviors, students did not regard these to be misbehaviors. On the other hand, while
students reported that disturbing classmates, intimate physical contact, invasion of
privacy, isolating classmates, and making noise were problem behaviors, their teachers
did not mention these behaviors in their narratives.
There are two explanations for the discrepancies in the conceptions of misbehavior
between teachers and students. First, some misbehaviors may be more easily identified
among students than by teachers such as those misbehaviors performed at the back of the
teacher inside the classroom. It was mentioned by the students that teachers were not
aware of some misbehaviors when they were concentrated in teaching or dealing with
other problem behaviors in the classroom. Second, the discrepancies might be due to
different levels of tolerance between the students and teachers. For example, some
students did not perceive some off-task behaviors as problematic as they considered that
these behaviors would not cause disturbances to others. Moreover, students and teachers
might view the same thing through different lens. For example, students who had not
brought textbook to class were perceived as forgetfulness in the eyes of the students but
perceived as unprepared for learning by the teachers. Both forgetfulness and
unpreparedness refer to a lack of responsibility in the expected role of students, but the
level of accusation for unprepared for learning seemed to be more serious than that for
forgetfulness. Obviously, the present study shows that collecting students views can
help provide a more comprehensive picture in describing various types of student
misbehaviors.
In the present findings, all the reported misbehaviors were actually off-task and
inappropriate behaviors inside classrooms. This observation is in line with the assertion
that misbehavior is behavior students either did what they were not supposed to do or
did not do what they were supposed to do [4, page 9]. It is noteworthy that some of these
misbehaviors are disruptive to teaching and learning as well. For instance, asking
nonsense questions and fighting with teachers are wasting the time which is timetabled
for valuable learning. Students who are running out of seat and playing would disturb
others. Students would learn nothing if they fell asleep in class, and the worse was more
students would slumber as a result of imitation. Interestingly, some misbehaviors, such as
chatting in a low voice and doing irrelevant things in private, were perceived as
nonproblematic as they simply affected ones own learning and did not disturbing other
students, or when these behaviors were not detected by the teachers and thus did not
disturb teachers teaching. This observation may be due to the fact that contemporary
young people have become more egocentric (i.e., not really caring about others feelings)
and pragmatic (i.e., less emphasis on moral principles).
Among various misbehaviors reported in this study, both talking out of turn and
disrespecting teachers were rated as the most unacceptable problem behaviors.
Obviously, these behaviors, particularly if uncontrollable, are disruptive to classroom
learning and thus unacceptable. Moreover, it is interesting to note that some students
found these misbehaviors as intolerable, when they upheld the personal virtues of
politeness and respect, and the Chinese values of conformity and obedience, in the
teacher-student relationship within the school context [8]. Therefore, they regarded
misbehaviors as those behaviors that were impolite, challenging, noncompliant, and
rebellious behaviors because they violated the hierarchical teacher-student relationship as
well as the order and organization of the classroom [24]. Also, attacking and striking
classmates, though rarely happened, were unacceptable because they upset the
harmonious peer relationship and classroom atmosphere. All these misbehaviors would
elicit negative emotions, such as annoying, hurtful, and even threatening, that in turn
affected learning adversely.
Some students also mentioned that the frequency and intensity of misbehaviors, such as
chatting, sleeping, and out of seat, would escalate if they found it fun, or no punishment
for such misbehaviors, or teachers were not authoritarian enough in controlling the
situations. Dreikurs [25] stated that student misbehavior is a purposeful endeavor to gain
social recognition, while Glasser [26] stated that student misbehavior is a response to the
classroom context or instruction that cannot satisfy their basic needs of love,
belongingness, self-worth, freedom, fun, and survival. Thus, misbehavior usually occurs
when there is a mismatch between the school and student needs [27]. It was suggested
that having caring teachers who are willing to cater for students needs might be one of the
helpful means to deal with student misbehavior [19]. Research findings also showed that
a combination of care and behavioral control [28], schoolwide/whole-school positive
behavior support [29, 30], character education [31], social skills training [32], and
positive youth development programs [3335] was effective in mitigating students
problem behavior. In particular, positive youth development programs such as the Project
P.A.T.H.S. would help to reduce misbehavior in class. The existing evaluation findings
showed that this program was able to promote psychosocial competencies (which may
eventually lower classroom misbehavior) and reduce adolescent delinquency [3639].
The present findings underscore the importance to view student misbehavior through the
lens of students. Practically, they shed lights on managing student behavior and
enhancing student learning and development via identifying students needs and
matching up with the classroom context. It is equally important for future research to
further explore the reasons behind student misbehaviors and the effective means of
managing student behaviors from both students and teachers perspectives. As
mentioned above, there are few studies looking at both the perspectives of the teachers
and students. Theoretically, it is important to look at the discrepancies between teachers
and students on student misbehavior and understand how such differences may affect
school policies on school discipline and counseling. For researchers adopting an
interpretive perspective, the social reality is fluid in nature. Hence, it is important to look
at things from different angles and hear voices of different parties. For critical theories, it
is even more important to understand the views of different stakeholders so that we can
empower them.
There are several limitations in this study. First, it was a small-scale exploratory study
with 18 students from three secondary schools recruited via convenience sampling.
Hence, representativeness of the findings should be viewed with caution. However, it is
noteworthy that the informants were randomly selected from the students. Second, as the
informants were junior secondary school students, generalization of the findings to other
age groups, like upper secondary or elementary school students, needs further validation.
Third, only a one-shot interview was conducted for each informant. It would be ideal if
more interviews over a longer period of time can be conducted. Finally, it may be
criticized that the students may share the ideologies of the teachers. However, as the
students were randomly selected, this possibility is not too high. Regardless of these
limitations, this study is a good endeavor to understand the issue of classroom
misbehavior from the perspectives of students, which helps to give a fuller picture of the
phenomenon of classroom misbehavior, particularly in Hong Kong Chinese school
context.
To what extent the present study is an acceptable qualitative study? Based on the criteria
proposed by Shek et al. [40] to evaluate the quality of qualitative research, the present
study can be regarded as having good quality. First, there was an explicit statement of the
philosophical base of the study (Criteria 1). Second, the number and nature of the
participants of the study were justified (Criteria 2). Third, the data collection procedures
were given in details (Criteria 3). Fourth, biases and preoccupations of the researchers
were discussed (Criteria 4) and how such biases were handled (Criteria 5) are described.
Sixth, interrater reliability and intrarater reliability procedures were used (Criteria 6) and
the present findings were triangulated with those collected from the teachers (Criteria 7).
Seventh, the researchers were consciousness of the importance and development of audit
trails (Criteria 9). Eighth, alternative explanations for the observed findings were
discussed (Criteria 10). Ninth, negative evidence were accounted for (Criteria 11).
Finally, limitations of the study were examined (Criteria 12). Because of time and
manpower constraints, the researchers were not able to include peer checking and
member checking procedures (Criteria 8), which should be carried out in future studies.

Acknowledgments
The authorship of this paper is equally shared by both authors. The research and
preparation for this paper was financially supported by the Faculty Research Fund,
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong. Special thanks to Ms. Katrina
Cheung and Ms. Evana Lam for their assistance in data collection and analysis.

Key Theorists on Classroom Management

There is no one, clear, universal explanation of how we learn or a subsequent guidebook as to
how we should teach. Rather, there are a range of theories, each with their background in a
different psychological and epistemological tradition. To understand learning then, we have to
understand the theories and the rationale behind them. Following are some of the key theorist
that have influenced the discipline of education.

Fredrick Jones (2000): theory is a non-adversarial method which requires that teachers help
students learn to develop self-control. By employing appropriate body language, making use of
an incentive system and efficiently assisting pupils, teachers help students control themselves.
Learning self-control empowers students and prepares them for the future.

Albert Bandura (1997): developed the Social Learning theory based on the theory of
personality. He posits that people learn from one another, via observation, imitation, and
modelling. His theory has often been called a bridge between behaviourist and cognitive
learning theories because it encompasses attention, memory, and motivation. He defined self-
efficacy as the "beliefs in one's capability to organize and execute the courses of action required
to manage prospective situations". Self-efficacy is a central component in managing
classrooms today.

William Glasser (1997): His Reality and Choice theories state that students need to have an
awareness of their responsibility and to make their own decisions about their learning and
behaviour in the classroom, students must have a choice and that if they help choose their
curriculum and decide on the rules in the classroom, they will then have ownership of their
learning, have pride in their participation, will have higher self-esteem and will exhibit greater
levels of self-confidence and higher levels of cognition. This approach to classroom
management creates a safe space to learn, as mainly it is their space.
Edward Ford (1994): Responsible Thinking Process (RTP) if properly used, is designed to
teach educators how to teach students to develop a sense of responsibility for their own lives
and to respect the lives of everyone around them. This unique classroom discipline process is
both non-manipulative and non-punitive. It creates mutual respect by teaching students how to
think through what they are doing in relation to the rules of wherever they are. This gives
students personal accountability for their actions. The key component of this classroom
discipline process is its focus on how students can achieve their goals without getting in the way
of others who are trying to do the same thing. In short, it teaches students how to respect
others.

Jean Piaget (1983): Constructivist Learning Theory surrounds the cognitive development of
children. Piaget believed children undergo stages of cognitive development that allows them to
grow and develop as individuals.

Lee and Marlene Canter (1976): theory on Assertive Discipline states that rules and behaviour
expectations must be clearly stated and enforced. Teachers are never to threaten students, but
to promise fair consequences for improper behaviour. For this model to work, the teacher must
use a firm voice and constant eye contact. This model places responsibility for bad student
behaviour on the teacher.

Gordon Thomas (1974): Teacher Effectiveness Training (TET). What makes the difference
between teaching that works and teaching that fails? The factor that contributes the most is the
quality of the teacher-student relationship. Its more important than what the teacher is teaching
or who the teacher is trying to teach. T.E.T., offers teachers the essential communication and
conflict resolution skills they need to have high quality relationships with their students so there
will be less conflict and more teaching-learning time. This model has worked for hundreds of
thousands of teachers around the world.

Jacob Kounins (1970): determined that the mastery of classroom management must include
the ability to teach to the learning style of the group instead of the individual, and organizing of
lessons and teaching methods. The goal of classroom management is to create an environment
which not only stimulates student learning but also motivates students to learn. Kounins
approach is in line with both Glasser and Kohn as he also posits that the keys to successful
classroom management is in preventing management problems from occurring in the first place
by putting into place good organization and planning.

Applied Behaviour Analysis (1968): previously known as Behaviour Modification is the

science of human behaviour and became widespread use in 1968. The best definition available
is still the one written about in 1968 by Baer, Wolf, & Risley: Applied Behaviour Analysis is the
process of systematically applying interventions based upon the principles of learning theory to
improve socially significant behaviours to a meaningful degree, and to demonstrate that the
interventions employed are responsible for the improvement in behaviour.
Rudolf Dreikurs (1972): believed that discipline is based on mutual respect, which motivates
students to behave constructively because of their high sense of social interest and that all
humans have a primary need to belong and feel part of a group and that all students desire to
feel they have value and to feel they can contribute to the classroom. He called this need to
belong the genuine goal of human social behaviour. Dreikurs believed that when students are
not able to gain their genuine goal of belonging they turn to a series of mistaken goals.
Mistaken goals are defined as attention, power, revenge and inadequacy. This is when students
misbehave.

Alfie Kohn (1957): says, grades and praise, kills intrinsic motivation and the desire to learn,
and this concept is, of course, in opposition to what teachers have always been taught. The
punishment/praise grade system explains why the system has failed so many students as the
competition norms of most classrooms indicates that for every winner/top of the class, there will
be thirty-nine losers dealing with the inherent self-esteem issues surrounding their constant
failure. He states that rewards destroy a students inherent motivation and reduces their natural
interest in a subject. Helping students tap into and develop their inner authentic selves where
they think, feel and care on a deeper level is the teachers primary responsibility; arousing
students interests in learning is another. Thinking deeply and critically should be the first goal of
education; the second goal is the desire for more education and a lifelong affair with learning.

B F Skinner (1954): relied on the assumption that the best way to modify behaviour was to
modify the environment. He was a proponent for many instructional strategies that modern day
"progressive educational reformers advocate for: scaffold instruction, small units, repetition and
review of instructions, and immediate feedback. Skinner did not approve of the use of
punishments in school, or as a behavioural modification technique in general. He posits that
punishments were ineffective and he advocated for the frequent use of reinforcement (i.e.
rewards) to modify and influence student behaviour.

John Dewey (1916): believed that classroom management should be guided by democratic
practices with consequences and offered the theory of experience through social learning.
Dewey believed that children were capable of learning, behaving cooperatively, sharing with
others and caring for one another with the teacher as a facilitator. He believed that instructional
management included a natural approach involving direction and guidance and that behaviour
management included the sequential behaviour development of students. Many teachers
practice this technique today as a central component of classroom management

Problem-Behavior Theory is a social-psychological framework which helps to explain the nature

and development of alcohol abuse, drug misuse and other problem behaviors. The aims of this
paper are to present a brief overview of the theory, to review some of the research that has
been generated and to appraise the usefulness of the theory when applied to drinking and
problem drinking among young people.
Problem Behavior Theory (PBT) by the definition of Jessor (1987) is any behavior that deviates from both
social and legal norms or behavior that is socially disapproved from those of authority and tends to elicit
some form of social control response whether mild reproof, social rejection or incarceration (Jessor,
1987). PBT was initially developed to use with the study of alcohol abuse minority communities (Jessor,
1987) by acting as an psychosocial model that attempts to explain behavioral outcomes such as
substance abuse (Zamboango et al., 2004) by focusing on three systems of psychosocial influence:
personality system (all social cognitions, personal values, expectations, beliefs and values), perceived
environment system (family and peer expectations) and the behavior system (problem and conventional
behavioral structures and that work in opposition to each other) (Zamboango et al., 2004).

Each of the three systems of psychosocial influence that are comprised in the Problem Behavior Theory
(PBT) (personality, perceived environment and behavior) utilized different variables that either influence
the problem (such as substance abuse) to occur or decrease the likelihood of a behavior to take place
(Donovan et al., 1991). When researchers examine an individual and analyze the likelihood of a risk
behavior to take place, the conventional-unconventional behaviors of the individual is taken into
consideration. Donovan et al. (1991) defined conventional behaviors as actions such as church
attendance, involvement in extracurricular activity, other socially approved behaviors; while
unconventional behaviors are defined as anything that deviates negatively from social norms such as
underage drinking, substance abuse and other risk behaviors. Through analyzing conventional-
unconventional behaviors in each of the three psychosocial systems in the individual, researchers can
make predictions on future behaviors.

Since the original study of Richard and Shirley Jessor was published in 1977 Problem Behavior Theory
(PBT) has expanded to include research that tests other factors that may strengthen the predictive
process of PBT. In a study designed by Jessor, R. et al. (1995) several protective factors such as positive
orientation of school, adult relationships and health, attitude toward deviant actions, and perception of
social controls were analyzed independently in order to determine their effect on risk behaviors talking
place in relation to PBT. Similar to conventional behaviors, protective factors are absent of risk and act
opposite of risk factors or unconventional behaviors (Jessor, et al.,1995). Through analyzing middle
school children in this longitudinal study researchers concluded that protective factors had a strong effect
on adolescent behavior over time and certain factors even influence gender and ethnicity more directly
(Jessor, et al.,1995).

Problem Behavior Theory (PBT) is not the only theory that is used in Public Health to predict behaviors;
the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) as well the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) were also developed
to look at the relationship between attitudes and intentions toward behaviors (both positive and negative)
(Glanz et al.,2008). Self-esteem is also an important aspect of the model that can be associated with self-
efficacy which is also seen in the Health Belief Model (HBM). Today the application of the Problem
Behavior Theory is used in the Public Health profession to predict what actions an individual may take
that can lead to addictive and other lifestyle behavior changes such as sexual behavior, smoking and
overeating. For example, PBT was used in study by a group of students to determine what factors
contribute to the likelihood of adolescents smoking (Banerjee et al., 2008). Through applying
simultaneously the three system of psychosocial influence, researchers where able to determine that in
the two middle schools examined in the study, peer influence, a weaken family structure and or
relationships, other history of delinquency and poor academics all contributed to the likelihood of an
adolescent individual to start smoking. The powerful tool of prediction that PBT provides can be applied to
all aspects of public health including intervention design that can allow health programs in the future to
not only be more efficient but also effective in the populations it is applied to.

Work Cited

Banerjee, S. & Greene, K. (2008) Adolescent Cigarette Smoking: An Application of Problem

Behavior Theory to Examine Systems of Influence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
International Communication Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Retrieved
from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p229870_index.html.

Donovan, J.E., Jessor, R. & Costa, F. M. (1991). Adolescent Health Behavior and
Conventionality-Unconventionality: An Extension of Problem-Behavior Theory. Health Psychology, 10(1),
52-61.

Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K., & Viswanath, K. (2008). Health Behavior and Health Education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jessor, R. (1987). Problem-Behavior Theory, Psychosocial Development, and Adolescent

Problem Drinking. British Journal of Addiction, 82, 331-342.

Jessor, R., Bos, J.V.D., Vanderryn, J., Costa, F.M.& Turbin, M.S. (1995). Protective Factors in
Adolescent Problem Behavior: Moderator Effects and Developmental Change. Developmental
Psychology, 31(6), 923-933.

Jessor, R.& Jessor, S. (1977). Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development: A Longitudinal
Study of Youth. New York: Academic Press.

Zamboanga, B.L., Carlo, G., & Raffaelli, M. (2004). Problem Behavior Theory: An
Examination of the Behavior Structure System in Latino and non-Latino College Students. Interamerican
Journal of Pschology, 32(2), 253-262.

Additional Application of PBT

This is a great overview of a very interesting theory. To clarify, would social norms be
considered a part of perceived environment?

In addition to many articles on the application of this theory to alcohol and substance abuse,
I found a very interesting article applying this theory to tanning bed use among college
students. In this article Bagdasarov et al. even discuss the potential impacts and
interactions of several problem behaviors on the three systems in this theory. The benefits
and drawbacks of tanning applied to the problem behavior theory that are discussed in this
article seem to have many connections to constructs and variables of models we have
discussed in class. Bagdasarov et al. also discuss self esteem. Self esteem could be
considered as a contributing factor to self-efficacy as a part of the Health Belief Model,
Social Cognitive Theory, and other models discussed in class.
This study aimed to examine the conceptions of junior secondary school student
misbehaviors in classroom, and to identify the most common, disruptive, and
unacceptable student problem behaviors from teachers' perspective. Twelve individual
interviews with teachers were conducted. A list of 17 student problem behaviors was
generated. Results showed that the most common and disruptive problem behavior was
talking out of turn, followed by nonattentiveness, daydreaming, and idleness. The most
unacceptable problem behavior was disrespecting teachers in terms of disobedience and
rudeness, followed by talking out of turn and verbal aggression. The findings revealed
that teachers perceived student problem behaviors as those behaviors involving rule-
breaking, violating the implicit norms or expectations, being inappropriate in the
classroom settings and upsetting teaching and learning, which mainly required
intervention from teachers.

1. Introduction
Student misbehaviors such as disruptive talking, chronic avoidance of work, clowning,
interfering with teaching activities, harassing classmates, verbal insults, rudeness to
teacher, defiance, and hostility [1], ranging from infrequent to frequent, mild to severe, is
a thorny issue in everyday classroom. Teachers usually reported that these disturbing
behaviors in the classroom are intolerable [2] and stress-provoking [3], and they had to
spend a great deal of time and energy to manage the classroom [4, 5]. Obviously, student
misbehaviors retard the smoothness and effectiveness of teaching and also impede the
learning of the student and his/her classmates. Moreover, research findings have shown
that school misbehavior not only escalated with time but also lowered academic
achievement and increased delinquent behavior [6, 7]. To lessen these immediate and
gradual adverse effects of student misbehaviors, it is of primary importance to identify
what exactly are these behaviors inside classroom.
In the literature, different terms have been used to describe problematic behaviors of
students. For instance, Stewart et al. [8] referred student misconduct to disciplinary
violations in school, for instance, tardiness, vandalism, fighting, stealing, and drinking on
campus. When there are explicit rules and regulations in school and classroom, violation
of these is apparently a misbehavior or misconduct or discipline problem. Nevertheless,
a particular behavior is viewed as problematic may not necessarily be rule breaking, but
inappropriate or disturbing in the classroom setting. For instance, daydreaming in class,
not completing homework, talking in class, lesson disruption, bullying, and rudeness to
the teacher are named as problem behaviors [9], behavior problems, [10, 11] or
disruptive behaviors [4, 12]. These behaviors referred to an activity that causes
distress for teachers, interrupts the learning process and that leads teachers to make
continual comments to the student [13, page 60], or the myriad activities which disrupt
and impede the teaching-learning process [14, page 43]. Noting that school misconduct
is one of the manifests of the problem behavior syndrome [1517], the term problem
behavior was used to refer to all externalizing behaviors that violate explicit rules or
implicit norms, disturb the classroom order, and irritate the process of teaching and
learning in this study.
Several scales have been developed to measure teachers perceptions of classroom
problem behaviors. For instance, in the United Kingdom, Wheldall and Merrett [10] used
ten items, including eating, nonverbal noise, disobedience, talking out of turn,
idleness/slowness, unpunctuality, hindering others, physical aggression, untidiness, and
out of seat, to measure behavior problems among primary school students. Houghton et
al. [11] also used these behaviors to measure secondary school students behavior
problems, with a replacement of eating with verbal abuse because they found that
teachers did not perceive eating as a problem behavior among secondary school students
whereas verbal abuse was a more relevant behavior problem.
However, the cultural relevance of these scales to describe and measure disruptive
behavior among primary and secondary school students in Hong Kong Chinese
classroom is a concern that should be addressed. For example, Ho and Leung [12] and
Leung and Ho [4] modified Wheldall and Merretts scale [10] by dropping disobedience,
and adding six student behaviors commonly reported by local teachers in Chinese school
settings. These included verbal abuse, forgetfulness, nonattentiveness, gambling, reading
other materials, and doing other things. However, as these descriptors of students
disruptive behaviors were formed almost a decade ago, their validity and applicability to
Chinese classrooms nowadays may be questioned. Some student behaviors that have not
be mentioned in the previous studies, such as daydreaming, sleeping, looking out of
window, playing with personal stuff in private, bullying, disrespecting, talking back,
arguing, quarrelling or fighting with teachers, complaining, and lack of independent
initiative were found by a recent study in exploring Chinese teachers perceptions of
students classroom misbehavior [18]. On top of this, uncooperativeness, emotional
disturbance, overactivity and withdrawal were also reported as student classroom
behavior problems by Chinese elementary school teachers [5]. Although these two
studies were recent, both were conducted in mainland China. It is thus argued that the
scales developed in these studies as well as the findings may be limited to describing
student problem behaviors in mainland China classroom, which is different from the
pluralistic classroom in which Confucian and Western teaching and learning approaches
are used in Hong Kong. As such, direct employment of an existing scale is hardly
sufficient to tap all the classroom problem behaviors exhibited by students. It is,
therefore, important to carry out a qualitative research study to unravel relevant and up-
to-dated descriptions of the students problem behaviors in Hong Kong classroom based
on the views of teachers.
Apart from exploring different categories of student problem behaviors inside classroom,
it is also valuable to identify the common ones and the disruptive ones from the teachers
perspectives. Existing research findings showed that, among various types of student
problem behaviors, talking out of turn, hindering others, and idleness were
commonly reported by secondary school teachers as the most frequent and troublesome
misbehaviors in the United Kingdom [11] and Australia [19]. Similar to these findings in
the West, talking out of turn was rated by both primary and secondary school teachers
as the most frequent and troublesome misbehavior, followed by nonattentiveness and
forgetfulnesstwo other typical students disruptive behaviors in Hong Kong
classroom [4, 12]. In mainland China, nonattentiveness, talking out of turn, and
overactive were reported as the most frequent and troublesome classroom behavior
problems by the elementary school teachers in three provinces [5]. On the other hand,
daydreaming, talking out of turn, and playing with personal stuff were rated as the
most frequent classroom misbehaviors by a group of elementary, middle and high school
teachers in another two provinces, while daydreaming, slowness and talking out of
turn were the most troublesome classroom misbehaviors [18]. Apparently, talking out
of turn is usually ranked as highly popular and disturbing student misbehavior across
time and cultures and in different grade levels of students. With a specific focus on
studying the problem behaviors of junior secondary students in Hong Kong classroom,
this study attempted to replicate the previous studies in examining the problem behaviors
perceived by teachers as the most common and disruptive. In addition, this study further
attempted to investigate the most unacceptable problem behaviors in the eyes of teachers
and the underlying reasons behind.
The primary goal of this study was to examine classroom problem behaviors among
junior secondary school students in Hong Kong based on the views of teachers. The aims
of this study were to (i) generate a list of categories of students problem behaviors
perceived by teachers in Hong Kong junior secondary school classroom, (ii) identify
problem behaviors that were perceived as the most common, the most disruptive to
teaching and learning in classroom, and the most unacceptable problem behavior and the
reasons. Noting that the most frequent misbehavior can be somehow objectively
observed, a particular behavior is regarded as the most disruptive or unacceptable
depending on the teachers subjective judgment and values, professional training, and
years of teaching experiences. Therefore, this study recruited teachers with different
years of teaching experiences and training background, in order to get a comprehensive
view of the issue. It is a descriptive and exploratory qualitative research study.
Academically, the present findings would add to the local literature, as recent research
studies on this topic are scanty in Hong Kong [8, 9]. Even though there were some
studies, they were conducted a decade ago [4, 12] and limited to focusing on the
mainland China educational settings [5, 18]. Practically, it was expected that the findings
would have profound importance to counseling and guidance work in the school context.

2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Three schools, each admitting students having low, medium or high academic
competencies, were invited to join this study. In each school, four teachers who had
experiences of teaching junior secondary grades (Grade 7, 8, and/or 9) and/or were
members of the school counseling team and/or discipline teams were invited to join an
individual interview. In total, twelve teachers (5 males and 7 females) participated in this
study. Four of them were members of the school counseling team and three were
members of the discipline team. The average of their teaching experiences was 9.25 years
(range = 122 years). Their participation was voluntary and written consent from the
school principals and the interviewees were obtained prior to data collection. Issues of
anonymity and confidentiality in handling the data were also clearly explained at the
beginning of each interview.
2.2. Instrument
A self-constructed semistructured interview guide was used for each individual interview.
In the interview guide, questions and prompts used to explore the interviewees
perceptions of students problem behaviors and their management strategies in the
classroom and school contexts. The interviewees were asked to define problem
behaviors based on their own understanding and interpretation. They were invited to use
real-life examples to further illustrate their views. The average time for an interview was
49 minutes (range = 3378 minutes). Each interview was conducted by two trained
interviewers in Cantonese (the mother tongue of both the interviewers and interviewees).
The interviews were audio-taped with informants prior consent and transcribed in
verbatim after the interview.
As many questions were covered in the interview guide, only data related to the
following questions were analyzed in this paper.(1)In the classroom, what student
problem behaviors are there? Please list out as many as possible and describe.(2)Among
these problem behaviors, which are the most common?(3)Among these problem
behaviors, which are the most disruptive to teaching and learning?(4)Among these
problem behaviors, which are the most unacceptable? Please illustrate.
2.3. Data Analysis
Findings pertinent to teachers perceptions of students problem behavior inside
classroom are reported in this paper. Data was analyzed by using general qualitative
analyses techniques [20]. First level of coding was conducted by a colleague who has a
Bachelor degree of Psychology and teaching experiences. Semantically similar words,
phrases, and/or sentences that formed meaningful units in each conclusion at the raw
response level were grouped whereas semantically different data were divided. Further
checking and second levels of coding and categorization were conducted by the first
author, in which similar codes were grouped to reflect higher-order categories of theme.
The coding and categorization were finalized with consensus among the coders and
further checked by a colleague with a Bachelor degree of Psychology and professional
counseling training.
As the code and categorization were inductively derived from the data, both intra- and
interrater reliability on the coding were calculated to ensure the credibility of the
findings. In the reliability test, 20 raw responses were randomly selected for each rater to
code without referring to the original codes. The intrarater reliability tests were
conducted by the two coders independently; whereas the interrater reliability tests were
conducted by two colleagues (one has a Master degree and several years of teaching
experiences and one has a Bachelor degree) independently. The reliability of the
categorization was on the high side, because the intrarater agreement percentages were
both 100%; while the interrater agreement percentages were 80% and 95%.

3. Results
3.1. Categories of Classroom Problem Behaviors
Table 1 summarizes 88 responses regarding students problem behaviors inside
classroom reported by 12 informants. The responses were classified into 17 main
categories, and 6 of them were further divided into subcategories. As shown in Table 1,
the problem behaviors reported by the teachers were mostly doing something in
private, talking out of turn, verbal aggression, disrespecting teachers,
nonattentiveness/daydreaming/idleness, sleeping, habitual failure in submitting
assignments, and out of seat.

Table 1: A Summary of the teachers perceptions of student problem behaviors inside

classroom.
Teachers reported that students would do something in private which was unrelated to the
lesson, such as reading, drawing, and doing other homework. Some teachers pointed out
that it was a rising phenomenon that students liked to use electronic devices, such as
mobile phone for texting people inside or outside classroom, playing electronic games,
surfing webpage, or listening to music. In response to this phenomenon, there were
regulations in some schools prohibiting students to switch on their mobile phones inside
school.
Talking out of turn was another problem behavior which was mainly referred to
students chatting among themselves on irrelevant topics that disrupts the lessons, calling
out, and making remarks on somebody or something without teachers permission. It is
distinguished from verbal aggression which was referred to more hostile verbal
expression, such as teasing, attacking, quarrelling, and speaking foul language.
Disrespecting teachers appeared to be an attitude, but the teachers could concretely
describe some behaviors under this category. For instance, a teacher mentioned that
refusing to follow instructions was a disobedient and disrespectful behavior. Teacher B02
commented that
challenging your (teachers) authority, mainly like, if you ask them not to do something, they
are rebellious and insist to behave the other way round. They wont listen to teachers opinion.
They will insist to do what they thinkThese behaviors are mainly perceived in lower
competent classes at the moment.
Another teacher illustrated that disrespecting teachers meant rudeness, talking back, and
confronting teachers. As remarked by Teacher C04:
sometimes they will even dispute against their teacherA student gave an irrelevant answer to
teachers question, that is, the teacher asked a serious question but the student gave a casual
answer. If the teacher commented on, the student would be enraged and hostile, and then
disputed against the teacher. Scolding teacher was unusual, unless the student was agitated. At
the school level, I think there were less than five cases of scolding teacher in an academic year.
Quite rare. When arguing, students usually had poor attitudes, especially boys. Hence, teachers
would scold at them, and the students would become hostile, temper-losing more seriously,
they would knock tables or throw books to express their anger. But this situation was very rare;
say one to two cases a year.
Nonattentiveness/daydreaming/idleness, sleeping, and out of seat (including
changing seats deliberately, wandering around the classroom, catching, running away
from the classroom without permission) were commonly reported as problem behaviors
inside classroom. Some teachers also regarded failure to submit assignments on time in a
habitual manner as one of the problem behaviors, as reflected in the following narrative:
[failure in submitting homework on time] is one of the problems if you are talking about
students misbehavior at schoolthis is quite a big problem in factThere are a large
proportion of students who fail to submit their homework on time, especially among Form 1
(Grade 7) studentOnly half class can submit the homework on time if you set the deadline
once. You need to chase after them for the homeworkI think Form 1 (Grade 7) students are
more likely to fail to submit their homework. In Form 2 (Grade 8), some classes can do better
(Teacher C03).
Some teachers added that some of the aforementioned problem behaviors, such as
talking out of turn and disrespecting teachers, were commonly found among a
specific group of students who had special education needs. A teacher mentioned that
once I taught a student with SEN (Special Educational Needs) who had attention deficit He
had problems in getting along with his classmates. When other classmates had wrong answers,
he would immediately call out and point out their mistakes. This in fact slightly affected the
class (Teacher C01).
Another teacher reported that

I know that there are one or two SEN student(s) in every grade in our school. These students are
quite disruptive. For example, they often have emotional disturbance, run away from classroom
and sometimes fight against with their teachers (Teacher B01).
3.2. Problem Behaviors That Were Most Common and Disruptive to Teaching and
Learning
Among various classroom problem behaviors reported, comparatively more teachers
pointed out that having disruptive conversation was a form of talking out of turn,
which was the most common and the most disruptive to teaching and learning (see
Table 1). A teacher explained that
chatting during lesson affects teaching and learning most Whereas other behaviors such as
daydreaming only affect self-learning, chatting will alter the whole class atmosphere as well as
class progress. I have to stop the chatting, otherwise I cannot teach and the students who chat
will miss the content of the lesson. If I do nothing, other students will imitate and join the
conversationAs the classroom is small, others can still hear even you talk in a low voice.
Moreover, students are very attentive to the surroundings. So such chatting can be disruptive
even you chat in a very low voice (Teacher C04).
Nonattentiveness/daydreaming/idleness was the next common and disruptive problem
behavior. A teacher explained that
daydreaming during lesson will affect learning. If they are not attentive to the teacher, they have
already missed some knowledge (Teacher B04).
3.3. The Most Unacceptable Problem Behaviors inside Classroom
As indicated in Table 1, disrespecting teachers were rated by five teachers as the most
unacceptable problem behavior. As revealed in the interviews, such behavior indicated
that students lacked proper attitudes and values in interpersonal relationships as well as in
their morality. Teacher C04 remarked that
disputing against teachers is disrespecting teachersOther misbehaviors are just behaviors. The
underlying reasons of these behaviors are simple. For instance, chatting in the middle of lesson
could take place because they feel bored; or they just pop up some ideas to share with their
neighbors. However, if they argue back or disrespect their teachers, it is something related to
their attitudes and values. So I think this is the biggest problemNormally, they behave
offensively against individual teachers, a certain kind of teachers including those who are too
gentle or those who are rigid but not convincing.
Another teacher added that

[in confrontation]some students like to twist the fact and shout their fallacy out loud to amuse
their classmates. This is something that I cannot acceptIt is obvious that he does not hold a
point but still insists he is correct. I think this kind of behavior is unacceptable (Teacher C03).
Talking out of turn and verbal aggression were also mentioned by teachers as
unacceptable, because these behaviors disrupted the classroom order, which required
teachers to spend time in managing classroom discipline and thus would adversely affect
teaching. Among these verbal aggressive behaviors, teachers revealed that they could not
accept students speaking foul language and teasing others, particularly insult would hurt
the bullied.
Furthermore, individual teachers mentioned that non-
attentiveness/daydreaming/idleness, out of seat, habitual failure in submitting
assignments, clowning, and passive engagement in class as unacceptable, mainly
because these behaviors would affect student learning and classroom atmosphere. For
instance, in a teachers perception of non-attentiveness, he expressed that
if all students are unwilling or not motivated to learn, it will be very disastrous (Teacher A01).
Another teacher explained why out of seat was unacceptable:

if they sit still on their chairs, it is settled and they are less likely to have distracting behaviors
or more severe problem behaviors. If they are out of seat, they may act out. There is a greater
chance that they will distract other students and so the whole class. Therefore, I think this
behavior is relatively unacceptable (Teacher C01).
Another teacher showed his view on passive engagement in class by stating that

the most unacceptable behavior? I think it is inactive during lesson. To me, it is misbehavior
although it is not obvious. If there are a number of passive students in my class, it is hard for me
to teach them. No matter how and what I teach, they just do not want to learn. Compared with
these inactive students, those who make noise in class are better. At least there is interaction even
we argue (Teacher A02).

4. Discussion
Based on the perspective of teachers, this study attempted to generate a list of categories
of students problem behaviors in Hong Kong junior secondary school classroom, and to
identify the most common, disruptive and unacceptable student problem behaviors. As
shown in Table 1, a list of 17 student problem behaviors was reported by the teachers,
including doing something in private, talking out of turn, verbal aggression, disrespecting
teachers, nonattentiveness/daydreaming/idleness, sleeping, out of seat, habitual failure in
submitting assignments, physical aggression, copying homework, nonverbal
communication, clowning, playing, lateness to class, eating/drinking, have not yet
prepared textbook well, and passive engagement in class. Among them, the most
common and disruptive misbehavior was talking out of turn, particularly in the form of
disruptive conversation. The next one was nonattentiveness/daydreaming/idleness. The
most unacceptable problem behavior was disrespecting teachers in terms of disobedience
and rudeness, followed by talking out of turn, and verbal aggression. Teachers would
consider these behaviors as intolerable when they disrupt teaching, affect student learning
adversely, or suggest the fact that students do not have proper values and attitudes. These
findings indicate that teachers are concerned about classroom learning and student
development, and they expect that there are respect, obedience, order, and discipline in
the classroom.
There were some unique findings of this study, although most of the categories of
problem behaviors identified are similar to those reported in the previous studies. First,
doing something in private was regarded as a student problem behavior in secondary
school classroom in Chinese cultural contexts [12, 18], while it was not included in some
studies conducted in the West [11, 19]. In this category, on top of dealing with personal
stuff, doing other homework, reading, and drawing that are unrelated to the lesson, this
study showed that using electronic devices (e.g., mobile phone) for texting, playing
games, surfing webpage, and listening to music were regarded as problematic nowadays.
With particular focus to Hong Kong, mobile phones are popular among adolescents. As
these electronic devices are multifunctional and audio-visual stimulating, some students
would be tempted to use them for communication and fulfilling personal satisfaction even
during lesson. Actually, doing something in private is an off-task behavior in which
students are doing something irrelevant to classroom learning. Others, like
nonattentiveness, idleness, and daydreaming were grouped together as a category of
problem behaviors in this study because they were mentioned as related to the fact that
students were tired, lazy, or lacking learning motivation. Sleeping was a single category,
because it was an obvious off-task behavior and would be disruptive if students imitate
each others.
Similar to most of the existing studies [1012], talking out of turn included calling out,
making remarks, and having disruptive conversation. All these referred to verbal
disturbance in the lesson without teachers permission. This conception is much wider
than the narrow definition in Ding et al.s study [18] where talking out of turn was
simply referred to calling out answers without raising hands and being called upon by
teachers. As usual, talking out of turn was rated by teachers as the most common and
disruptive to teaching and learning. It was due to the fact that the noises are disruptive
and teachers need to spend time to manage, otherwise, such behaviors would escalate in
term of frequency and intensity and would be contagious. Another reason is that when
compared to nonattentiveness/daydreaming/idleness, irrelevant chatting is more than an
off-task behavior that adversely affects students own learning. It is also a distracting
behavior hampering others learning in the same classroom.
Following talking out of turn, verbal aggression appeared to be a distinct problem
behavior which was disruptive as well as hostile, such as speaking foul language as well
as making offensive or insulting remarks to tease and assault classmates that further led
to quarrelling or mutual attacking [11, 12]. All these might escalate to physical
aggression, such as striking and pushing each others and destroying things in the
classroom. The lack of sympathy or hostility involved in these aggressive behaviors was
mentioned as intolerable as the teachers recognized the hurt involved. It reflected that
caring was valued in the eyes of the teachers when they judged a behavior was
problematic or not.
It is not surprising that disrespecting teachers was highlighted in this study as a kind of
unacceptable problem behavior, because respect and obedience are the deeply rooted
values in Chinese education. Disrespecting teachers embraced disobedience, that is,
refusing or failing to carry out instructions [1012], and rudeness, that is, talking back
and arguing with teachers [18]. Sometimes, these behaviors would also be perceived as
offensive to authority. These findings further demonstrated that these values are still
strongly held in teacher expectations, and thus behaviors that fail to comply were
pinpointed as disrespectful and the students were judged as lacking proper values and
attitudes. The findings suggest that problem behaviors include those breaking explicit
rules as well as those infringing implicit norms or expectations.
Apart from respect and obedience, order and discipline are essential elements of the
Chinese classroom. Therefore, out of seat, playing, clowning, lateness to class,
eating/drinking, copying homework, and habitual failure in submitting assignments
were some common student problem behaviors perceived as disruptive to classroom
order. The interviews revealed that on one hand, the teachers would like to have more
control on the classroom order and discipline for not only easy management but also
facilitating student learning. On the other hand, they would like students to have more
self-control or self-discipline which is an important ingredient in learning. Moreover,
have not yet prepared textbook well and passive engagement in class were some
unique problem behaviors reported by the teachers in this study. It also reflected that
some teachers expected students to get ready for the lesson and take an active role to
learn throughout the lesson. If students were passive and not engaged, similar to
daydreaming and not paying attention, teachers tended to regard students as irresponsible
for their learning and even lacking learning motivation. Again, perception or labeling of
problem behaviors results from the mismatches between the student behaviors and the
social expectations. In short, the present findings indicated that student problem
behaviors are not necessarily rule-breaking, but violating the implicit norms (e.g., the
cultural values of respect, obedience, order, and discipline) or expectations (e.g., students
can control their behaviors and be responsible for their own and others learning). These
problem behaviors are inappropriate in the classroom settings, as well as upsetting the
classroom teaching and learning, which mainly require intervention from teachers.
Although some unique findings were observed in this study, there were some limitations
involved. First, as only twelve teachers from three secondary schools were involved,
representativeness of the findings should be viewed with caution. Second, as only
teachers were interviewed, the findings may reveal the assumptions and biases of the
teachers due to their social role as teacher. Therefore, it would be more comprehensive
if the views of the students can be also included. Apart from looking at the categorization
and descriptions of student problem behaviors, it would be more insightful if the
antecedents of these behaviors or effective classroom management strategies could be
explored in future. In particular, it would be exciting to see how curricular-based
programs can help to reduce classroom misbehavior. One example that should be
considered is the Project P.A.T.H.S. (Positive Adolescent Training through Holistic
Social Programmes) in Hong Kong [21]. There are findings showing that the program
could promote holistic youth development and reduce adolescent substance abuse and
delinquent behavior [2224]. It would be interesting to see whether the program can
lessen classroom misbehavior in the long run.