WHY DO YOUNG

PEOPLE MISBEHAVE IN

SCHOOL?
Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments

Jasmine Breeze
18036116@student.westernsydney.edu.au
18036116 – JASMINE BREEZE 2

Why do Young People Misbehave in School?

A question that all preservice and current teachers search for is why students misbehave

in school. In pursuit for an answer educators refer to research and evidence based strategies that

have a specific focus on adolescent behaviour and the multiple reasons for misbehaving. Based

on the ideas of current research in creating positive learning environments teachers and schools

are taking new approaches like improved classroom management plans and whole school

approaches to help maintain misbehaviour within students. For that reason, this report will

expose the views from the wider community on the belief and attitudes of why students

misbehave. Including comparison and reflection among research and previous academic

literature.

Misbehaviour and the Research

Challenging students and misbehaviour are two profound focus areas related to teacher

dropout rates due to unprepared educators, with the belief of inadequate ability to teach and cater

to all student needs. (Mitchem, 2005, p. 1) In order to find more resolution on misbehaviour and

challenging students, research has been undertaken to review current strategies and create

advanced ideology from these ideas on classroom management and positive learning

environments. It is important as a teacher to appreciate the inclusiveness of adolescents to

understand and address students’ educational needs. Understanding the students’ needs expresses

quality teaching towards creating positive learning environments that consider the multiple

reasons for student misbehaviour, and the reasons that may interplay or counteract with teaching

strategies, and interventions for behaviour and behavioural management. For example, the ‘Be

Proactive Strategy’ (Mitchem, 2005) is a ‘student-oriented’ approach for educators that works

among building a teacher and student relationship that counters for students needs but also
18036116 – JASMINE BREEZE 3

creates self-regulated learning for students in relation to control of their behaviour. This strategy

provides steps to approach misbehaving students by using care and control, and encouragement

to engage student’s in understanding the expectations required of them. Instead of punishment

this strategy enhances reinforcement and self-management to show the perception that

misbehaviour has on the environment around them.

Teachers are spending too much time on gaining order and control within their classrooms on

minor behaviours that are part of the natures environment. (Little, 2005) Classroom behaviour

has always been a focus, and in some cases this focus has resulted in student disengagement as

not enough content is being provided. This of course causes massive concerns for teachers and

students, as misbehaviour is interfering with the learning of both the instigator/s and the other

students. To solve misbehaviour educators need to continually reflect among teaching practice

and pedagogy, as it is understood that students will behave differently in accordance to their

needs being accomplished. De Jong (2005, pg. 357-363) states the best practice in addressing

behaviour issues is to follow the seven principles and characteristics for classroom management.

These principles and characteristics focus on the perspective of students’ needs. An example:

“Student behaviour management programs should incorporate a student-centred philosophy that

places the student at the centre of the educational process and focuses on the whole student.” (De

Jong, 2005, pg. 358) Although De Jong’s focus is another student orientated approach. He

highlights a psychoeducational/ needs based theory for classroom management that is considered

effective as it highlights reasoning for misbehaviour due to student needs not being met.
18036116 – JASMINE BREEZE 4

Satisfying students’ needs is taking consideration of William Glasser’s Choice Theory

(CT) and in particular the four dimensions of behaviour: acting, thinking, feeling and physiology.

(“William Glasser 2”, 2011) As Glasser (1997) states, “we choose our own behaviour at all

times”, your own behaviour is the only action you have total control over. Therefore, in

implementation of this theory it is stated that “students should have an active role in what they

learn and how they learn.” A teacher is a provider for students and should cater the basic needs

of the student through teaching pedagogy and the way they engage students among learning. For

example, the four dimensions of behaviour in CT interact with a more cognitive and behavioural

approach to classroom management. Creating engaging classes that increase cognitive activity

allows students to implement the four dimensions of behaviour through decisive actions. In

assessment of behavioural interventions, teachers can use CT to provide students with a

negotiable approach like explained by Kaplan & Carter (1995) as “all students have the

capability to make both good and bad choices”. Although educators must acknowledge the

following influences associated with misbehaviour in reflection of the effectiveness of their

teaching pedagogy. Educators must recognize that to change a student’s behaviour there must be

an approach to upholding student needs through strategies or inventions, these could be

measured through whole school approaches.

Methodology

The interview focus is on student misbehaviour and why they do it. In order of getting sufficient

findings it was decided to balance the participation of interviewees. For this reason, this study

has equal gender participation, this was also to see any difference among opinions especially in

review of the two teachers and two parents. The choice of two participants for both teachers and
18036116 – JASMINE BREEZE 5

parents was chosen due to the shared responsibility in providing students’ needs and curiosity of

similar or opposing views.

All participants that were involved in the interviews received an overview of the purpose of the

study and completed the required ethic protocols. The interviews were completed through

multiple ways due to the flexibility and time availability of certain participants. Primarily the

‘teachers’ were interviewed through a video call that exceeded more than the suggested time

frame compared to ‘parents and others’ who completed the same structured interview within 10-

15 minutes through a face-to-face conversation. All participants were asked the same interrelated

questions: why do students misbehave, what is the cause of misbehaviour, how would you deal

with misbehaving students and who is the cause for misbehaviour? The use of these questions

created possibility for open questions as defining of specific aspects could be expanded among.

All participants were based in the outer suburbs of Sydney ranging from North-west region to

South – west, and for this report will be addressed by letters ‘A-F’ for de-identification purposes.

A) Female Parent: Children out of school.

B) Male Parent: Children out of school.

C) Non-Teaching Friend: Out of school for 4 years.

D) Female Teacher: Head Teacher

E) Male Teacher: Head Teacher.

F) Pre Service Teacher: Still undertaking study.

18036116 – JASMINE BREEZE 6

Findings

Throughout the review of findings there has been a substantial consideration in relation to

‘ecological systems theory’ (Bronfenbrenner, 1979: Nobile et al., 2017). Which shows the

biological relationships between the student and the surrounding ecological systems. In

particular, these results have led to judgements on the ‘microsystem’ including family, the school

and fellow peers. The ‘exosystem’ incorporating the education industry and the issues in regards

to curriculum, school environment and the ‘macrosystem’ which refers to societal restrictions.

These ecological systems are evaluated within the following statements below:

“Schools are boring, curriculum is boring and school is not for everyone” - Participant A.

“Students misbehave due to lack of engagement” – Participant B.

“There is no longer the same standards of discipline like there should be. Our society has become

sensitive to punishment.” – Participant C.

Referring back to ecological systems many of the participants referred to the ‘microsystem’ for

why student misbehaviour is present. While there was little mention to fellow peers as an

interference or an influence to student behaviour. An intriguing aspect that was found in the

results from ‘parents’ was personal reflection. The participants A & B were decisive on placing

blame on themselves and teachers. For example, Participant B stated that “there is a lack of

parental guidance these days”, which they pointed out to be vital in providing students with

morals and expectations like respect within the school community. Where Participant A
18036116 – JASMINE BREEZE 7

mentioned the change among education and how “in their days, education was a necessity to get

a job.” Where “nowadays education has a different value and focus, one that outlooks further

education.” There was also reflection from one parent that placed teachers at fault for student

misbehaviour which extends further into the following ecosystems mentioned above. Their

comment states, “Students are not interested in learning. There is little teacher engagement with

lesson activities and an expectation of students to behave and listen, but they may have not been

taught this.” Where in comparison Teacher Participant’s D & E refer to multiple considerations

for student misbehaviour derived from prior experience, research and teaching practice as

provided below in Table 1.1:

18036116 – JASMINE BREEZE 8

Following on from the findings, all participants were asked four question based around student

misbehaviour which explore the attributes of why, what, who and how. When participants were

asked about what influences student’s behaviour, references were made once again to the

microsystem. Evidence of this is shown below in Table 1.2.

18036116 – JASMINE BREEZE 9

Question 3 consisted of participants putting themselves in a place of control. They were asked

how they would approach students representing misbehaviour. Interestingly non-educators

referred to ideas of both positive and negative punishment in comparison to educators who

referred to control through both positive and negative reinforcement. This can be seen through

the ideas presented in Table 1.3.

“Who is the cause for misbehaviour?” was the last question for the study that identifies the level

of responsibility placed on each cause and of course the attributes to why. As shown below in

Table 1.4.
18036116 – JASMINE BREEZE 10
18036116 – JASMINE BREEZE 11

Discussion

Students are affected by many influences that surround them whether this be through ecological

systems as explored above, behavioural functionality and social learning that idealizes role

models. These theories and many more are combined in the holistic view of misbehaviour, as

misbehaviour can’t be controlled. However, the need for misbehaviour has been discovered

through study and links to CT and individuals needs and wants. As stated in Table 1.1: “Students

misbehave because they are bored, not interested, misunderstanding content and avoiding

something.” These influences of misbehaviour can be associated to teacher pedagogy and the

functionality of the school policy. As explored by Pavlov and Skinner (1927 – 1953; Wheeler.,

Richey, 2005), human behaviour is measurable and observable. It relates on past environmental

events for functionally of present behaviour. The behavioural approach focuses on control of

behaviour through ‘respondent conditioning’ that instigates a reward for a certain behaviour. This

conditioning of pupil behaviour confines the basic needs as stated by Glasser (1997), which

creates limitations and of course behavioural issues aligned to rebellion. Although in terms of

why students misbehave the ‘behavioural model’ draws focus to past research on the effect

‘environment events have on the individual’. This identifies an attribute to misbehaviour through

teacher pedagogy and school approaches, and the past experiences involving these aspects.

Whilst it’s known that behaviour is dependent on the environment and ecological systems.

Behaviour additionally relies on multiple influences that develop adolescents understanding of

learning and behaving. Bandura (1977; Wheeler., Richey, 2005) identifies that social context and

models within the ecosystems influence students learning. In relation to the study, this can be

identified through the opinion of 5/ 6 participants and the findings in Table 1.2 that blames
18036116 – JASMINE BREEZE 12

teachers and their incentives on behaviour. Essentially, the results are underpinning the quality of

the teacher through their professional philosophy and teaching pedagogy. In review, a teacher is a

model within a classroom environment. They are expected as professionals to lead and aspire

students to engage within their classes, and also throughout the whole school environment. The

‘social learning model’ attributes in creating an effective whole school approaches that represent

expectations of behaviour as a whole school intervention. A strategy that reflects this process of

‘social learning’ is Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) that uses student –centred interventions to

create awareness and self-management in behaviour. The incentive of a whole school approach is

suggested through study results with ½ of the participants indicating the presence of

misbehaviour in reflection to school principles. Therefore, demonstrating that misbehaviour is

present not only in the class but in the school environment. The approach of PBL within schools

allows a school-wide behavioural expectation. Although an implication of this approach is

communication between parents and the school systems.

Personal Awareness

In reflection of my personal practice for behavioural management. I would ensure any

implications that can occur from the outer influences beyond the classroom are noted as

observations. An example: could be playground relationships that interfere or carry over into the

classroom environment. As an educator I would consider the multiple reasoning for why students

misbehave including the basic needs of a student not being comprehended or students needed

more content, assistance and attention. I agree with study findings that behaviour is a calling for

help. A student is in control of their behaviour and when they act out, there is something that

needs attention drawn to. It is our expectation as teachers to understand and know the students as
18036116 – JASMINE BREEZE 13

identified in the Quality Teaching model. We must understand the actions that may take place

and use effective interventions to assist students in understanding and controlling themselves to

behave better. I believe the best practice for implications is by having a classroom that is safe,

engaging, fun and realistic for students to learn.

18036116 – JASMINE BREEZE 14

References:

Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory; Wheeler, J.J., & Richey, D.D. (2005)

Behaviour Management: Principles and Practices of Positive Behaviour Supports. Pearson

Education (2)

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. International

Encyclopedia of Education, 3(2); De Nobile, J., Lyons, G, & Arthur – Kelly, M. (2017). Positive

Learning Environments: Creating and Maintaining Productive Classrooms. Cengage Learning,

1.

De Jong, T. (2005) A framework of Principles and Best Practice for managing student

behaviour in the Australian Education Context. School Psychology International, SAGE, 26 (3),

353 -370.

Glasser, W. (1997) ‘Choice Theory’ and Student Success. The Education Digest, 63 (3),

16-21.

Kaplan, J.S & Carter, J. (1995). Beyond Behaviour Modification: A cognitive-behavioural

approach to behaviour management. Pro Ed (3); De Nobile, J., Lyons, G, & Arthur – Kelly, M.

(2017). Positive Learning Environments: Creating and Maintaining Productive Classrooms.

Cengage Learning, 1.

Little, E. (2005) Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of students’ problem behaviours.

Educational Psychology, 25 (4), 369 – 377.

Mitchem, K.J. (2005). Be proactive: Including students with challenging behaviour in

your classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, ProQuest, 40 (3), 188.

18036116 – JASMINE BREEZE 15

Pavlov, I . (1927) Conditioned Reflexes., Skinner, B.F. (1953) Science and Human

Behaviour; Wheeler, J.J., & Richey, D.D. (2005) Behaviour Management: Principles and

Practices of Positive Behaviour Supports. Pearson Education (2)

William Glasser 2: Classroom Application Choice Theory. (2011). In wikispaces.

Retrieved August 20, 2017, from

http://williamglasser2.wikispaces.com/Classroom+Application+Choice+Theory