SID: 18372205, Matthew McClure

This paper aims to investigate the causes of student misbehaviour (that being, “common

behaviours that are non-criminal but disruptive, offensive or against a school’s/society’s ethos.”

(Johnson & Fullwood, pp.20-21, 2010.) In turn, a summary of five scholarly literary works will be

provided as will six interviews. Similarities and diversities within the source’s findings will then be

provided and used to support the thesis that student behaviour is, generally, caused by them lacking

the relevant behavioural knowledge and skills. Finally, three implications of this view for praxis will

be considered.

Denmark and Van Houtte’s article on ‘Teachers’ attitudes and students’ opposition’ (2012)

explains students’ conduct through strain theory (the idea that students feel pressured by teachers to

meet certain goals). In so doing, they suggest that a teacher’s treatment of their students is key to

behaviour. If a student perceives the teacher to be “blocking their progress” or not appreciating it,

they will act out against the teacher (p.862). Rather, teachers should be explicit with both their

expectations and their praise when expectations are met (p.863).

Mosen-Lowe, Vidovich, and Chapman’s assessment in ‘Students at-risk policy: competing

social and economic discourses’ (2009) takes a constructivist approach to explaining student’s

behavioural choices. They define ‘constructivist’ through their thesis: student behaviour is the

‘product’ built by developing students’ knowledge and social skills. This lead to socially appropriate

conduct; thus “misconduct reflects a lack of construction” (p.470). For praxis, this means that socially

appropriate behaviour must be “developed, not demanded, in classes” (p.472).

Downey and Pribesh’s work, ‘When Race Matters: Teachers’ Evaluations of Students’

Classroom Behaviour’ (2004) examines student behaviour through the lens of ‘race’. The thesis of

their work is that “oppositional cultures” (the matching of students from one racial group with a

teacher of another) contributes to students’ behavioural choices (p.267). They explain that racial

1
SID: 18372205, Matthew McClure

differences may cause misinterpretations of behaviour. They conclude that “racial matching of

teachers and students can help” (p.280) but developing and modelling attitudes of respect and

appreciation are most effective long-term.

Hastings and Bham’s journal article, ‘The relationship between student behaviour patterns and

teacher burnout’ (2013) argues that psychological variables mitigate students’ behavioural choices.

The article focuses on one of these – teacher burnout – which it defines as teachers experiencing

“emotional exhaustion…and low levels of personal accomplishment” (p.116). The study highlights a

strong correlation between student behaviour and teacher fatigue and makes recommendations

accordingly. These include schools developing personalised intervention strategies to aid teachers

such as providing “welfare support” and “ensuring annual leave is taken when desired” (p.125). For

pedagogical practice, the article suggests that misbehaviour can be prevented by reducing teachers’

fatigue.

Little’s work, ‘Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of student problem behaviours’ (2005),

posits that student behaviour can be explained on an ‘individualist’ level (p.370). By this, Little means

that behaviour is determined by the individual having, or lacking, certain social skills and attitudes.

Broader psychological or cultural issues “are seldom relevant” (p.377). In turn, this influences praxis

as appropriate behaviour can be promoted by developing the desired knowledge and skills in students

during classes (p.376).

The literature reviewed demonstrated three lessons to be utilised in pedagogical practice.

Foremost, the importance of helping students develop behavioural skills was repeated. Practically, this

involves a diverse range of steps including teachers communicating and modelling the desired

behaviours (Little, p.369, 2005), making accommodations for students failing to meet expectations

(Hastings & Bham, p.117, 2013), and clearly identifying when expectations are met. Two sub-themes

2
SID: 18372205, Matthew McClure

that correlated to poor behaviour were also presented: “cross-racial miscommunication between

teacher and student” (Doney & Pribesh, p.280, 2004) and “students’ economic or social circumstances

made instruction ill-suited or irrelevant” to the ideals taught in school (Mosen-Lowe, Vidovich, L., &

Chapman, p.472, 2009). Lastly, Hastings and Bham (2013) elucidated a clear relation between

misbehaviour and teacher fatigue; however, they provided little advice for improving pedagogy

instead focusing on whole-school policies toward staff.

In researching why students misbehave, six interviews were conducted. Ethical protocols were

followed, advanced notice was given, consent forms were explained and signed. Interviews were then

conducted in private locations and were not recorded except handwritten notes. The interviews

themselves ran as conversations regarding students’ behaviour; formal, pre-set questions were

avoided although discussion prompts were prepared. Once completed, interviews’ major themes and

sub-themes were addressed. The following is an outline of those interviewed:

(F1) Female 1 – aged 20, registered nurse

(F2) Female 2 – aged 43, parent of secondary school-aged children.
(F3) Female 3 – aged 58, primary school teacher
(M1) Male 1 – aged 26, pre-service teacher
(M2) Male 2 – aged 49, senior secondary school teacher (Mathematics)
(M3) Male 3 – aged 71, retiree, former diesel mechanic.

The interviews highlighted various themes and sub-themes in explaining why students

misbehave. The first theme, reflected in the responses of F1, F2 and M1, was that students’ behaviour

was influenced by poor teacher practices. Respondents defined this as pedagogy that “did not provide

students with meaningful lesson or personal interaction” (Interviewee F2). These concerns can be

linked to Standards Three (effective teaching and learning) and Four (creating supportive learning

environments) of the Australian Professional Standards (APST, pp.12-15, 2011). Respondents offered

practical examples of poor pedagogy. Examples included “teacher’s disinterest in students” and

3
SID: 18372205, Matthew McClure

“putting minimal effort into lesson preparations [thus] evoking students’ reciprocal disinterest”

(interviewee F1). Additionally, a sub-theme arose across responses. Interviewees suggested a

correlation between misbehaviour and students’ access to resources and opportunities; they further

saw the provision of such as the teacher’s responsibility. This correlation worked on multiple levels:

in-class, students lacking resources (such as textbooks) “cannot complete work and [instead]

misbehave” (interviewee M1). Across-classes, interviewees suggested that students lacking access to

opportunities also promoted poor behaviour. The reasoning being that students were unable to explore

their interests and felt restricted by schooling.

The second theme to arise during interviews was the theory that students’ home-lives impacted

their behaviour. This was presented by respondents’ F1, F3, M1, M2 and M3; the latter specifying the

meaning of this theory, saying, “students misbehave because home-life…promotes ‘undesirable’

[behavioural] skills.” Respondents saw that ‘good behaviour’ required development; its absence at

home was reflected in-class. Interview M3 refined this view, suggesting that, “depending on a

classroom’s ‘culture’– how students interact, teacher’s behaviour – students who develop behavioural

skills at home do not display these in that context.” Notably, a sub-theme emerged in four interviews

regarding ‘teacher’s image’. Respondents suggested that, depending on students’ perceptions of a

teacher, the teacher may encourage or discourage students from displaying what students know to be

behaviourally appropriate. Respondent M1 gave practical examples of this, suggesting, “if the teacher

uses course language, or is aggressive in tone, students will likely follow.” In turn, the idea that

students mirror their teacher’s behaviour was also presented.

There were multiple similarities and contrasts between the literature and interviews. These

highlighted one overall explanation for poor behaviour: developmental theory (Romiszowski, pp.199-

200, 2009). This posits that schooling must take responsibility for developing, rather than expecting,

behavioural knowledge and skills; misbehaviour reflects the incompletion of this learning process.

4
SID: 18372205, Matthew McClure

There was general consensus (four articles and five interviewees) that classes should develop

student’s behavioural choices. However, all sources extended past this explanation of misbehaviour

(implying that, alone, it is simplistic). For example, M3 argued that a students’ home-life was

instrumental in their behavioural development; conversely, Little (2005) saw the explanation for

misbehaviour being only within the classroom context. Contrasts were also present between most

sources and Downey and Priebesh’s ‘When Race Matters’ (2004). For example, interviewees F1 and

F2 argued that poor pedagogy hindered students’ behavioural skill acquisition. However, Downey and

Priebesh contended that “[skill] acquisition is most diminished by oppositional cultures” irrespective

of pedagogy’s effectiveness (p.278, 2004). Their reasoning, that oppositional cultures lead to

miscommunications (and thus perceptions of misbehaviour), were not reflected by any other sources.

Literature and interview findings affirmed the importance of effective pedagogy in influencing

student behaviour. With exceptions (namely, Downey and Priebesh), sources agreed that ‘how’

teachers conducted lessons influenced behaviour. For example, Mosen-Lowe, Vidovich, and

Chapman (p.476, 2009) saw the need for teachers to differentiate practices to effectively communicate

behavioural expectations to students. Similarly, respondent M1 placed importance on how teachers

conducted themselves so as to model desired behaviours. Whilst in both these responses, the same

assumptions of the reasons for misbehaviour are present – that schooling should develop students’

behavioural understanding – disagreements occurred regarding definitions of ‘effective pedagogy’.

Hastings and Bham saw successful pedagogy as “attune to the personal needs of the educator” (p.120,

2013); conversely, no respondents considered the impact of teachers’ personal needs on their

pedagogy. Furthermore, interviewees saw teachers as responsible for students’ access to learning

resources and in-school opportunities. This aligned with Denmark and Van Houtte’s views (p.868,

2012). They described misbehaviour in terms of social control theory (individuals’ behaviours must

be progressively appropriated to an environment). Accordingly, if teachers cannot provide the

resources needed, students feel limited by teachers, thus students’ reactions manifests in poor

5
SID: 18372205, Matthew McClure

behaviour. Nonetheless, they still maintained that, broadly, developmental theory can at times account

for students’ behaviour (p.863).

Research findings have highlighted that students’ conduct is largely determined by the

behavioural skills and knowledge that an individual possesses; wider factors such biology, home-life

or psychology have only limited influence. This has three implications for praxis and these strategies

aim both to prevent misbehaviour and develop the relevant skills in students. Firstly, the teacher must

model the behaviour they desire from students. Examples may include the teacher addressing students

with respectful language which avoids mocking students; being sensitive to students’ individual needs

and circumstances and, in so doing, showing a respect for others. Explicit communication of

behavioural expectations is needed (Little, p.377, 2005). However, Hastings and Bham highlight one

shortfall of this approach: the teacher’s psychological state; “Anxiety, stress, depression [and] other

psychological ailments hamper the ability of the teacher to model behaviours” (p.119, 2013).

Consequently, it is important to address the psychological strain of teaching when using the modelling

approach.

The second implication for praxis regards the feedback given to students. Interviewees

elucidated how teachers, through both formal and informal assessments, can develop students’

behavioural skills. This required constructive criticism that addresses both areas for improvement and

areas of success. As per Social Control theory, “the student will feel less restrained or undervalued by

the teacher and [will be] made aware of how to further improve” (interviewee M2). Practically, this

may manifest as teachers providing encouraging comments during or between classes. It may also

manifest as praise given formally in school reports, assessment feedback or in contact with parents.

However, Johnson and Fullwood (p.37, 2010) note the limits of this theory. Guidance for

improvement and praise in themselves do not cause ‘good behaviour’; they only correlate to such.

Consequently, a wider environment, preferably on a whole-school level, must be fostered which

6
SID: 18372205, Matthew McClure

develops students’ behavioural understanding. This may include involving students in mentoring

programs for younger students.

The third implication for praxis is an extension of Mosen-Lowe, Vidovich, and Chapman’s

Constructivist approach to behavioural problems. They, alike this paper, accept that Developmental

theory alone cannot prevent all misbehaviour. Indeed, there are hurdles even when teaching the

desired behaviours including contextual, psychological and social factors. For example, desired

behaviours may not be reflected at home or students may have sleeping or learning difficulties such as

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) that influence their behavioural choices.

Interviewee F1 described these factors as “limiting student’s potential to practice behaviour

expectations.” Consequently, effective pedagogy responds to individual students’ concerns by

addressing obstacles to them acquiring behavioural skills. In practice, this adaption will vary from

student to student but may involve providing welfare support (comfort), giving advice for healthy

sleeping routines or differentiating assessment tasks to inculcate students’ passions. Ultimately this

helps students retain more when behavioural skills are explicitly demonstrated.

This paper has found varying explanations for student misbehaviour. However, there was wide

consensus on one explanation: that misbehaviour was a result of students lacking the knowledge and

skills of what was expected of them. On this basis, three implications were made for praxis. Foremost,

part of a teacher’s role is to model the desired behaviour and clearly communicate their expectations.

Secondly, feedback given to students should provide constructive criticism which shows both

students’ shortcomings and successes. Lastly, effective pedagogy must note the obstacles to students

learning the behavioural skills being presented. Teachers must attempt to identify these obstacles and

differentiate instruction to overcome them.

7
SID: 18372205, Matthew McClure

References
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). ‘Australian Professional Standards
for Teachers.’ Retrieved: https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/apst-resources/aust
ralian_professional_standard_for_teachers_final.pdf.
Mosen-Lowe, L., Vidovich, L., & Chapman, A. (2009). ‘Students ‘at-risk’ policy: competing social
and economic discourses.’ In: Journal of Edu.ation Policy 24 (4): 461-476.
Denmark, J., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). ‘Teachers’ attitudes and students’ opposition. School
misconduct as a reaction to teachers’ diminished effort and affect.’ In: Teaching and Teacher
Education 28 (6): 860-869.
Downey, D., & Priebesh, S. (2004). ‘When Race Matters: Teachers’ Evaluations of Students’
Classroom Behaviour.’ In: Sociology of Education 77 (1): 267-282.
Hastings, R., & Bham, M. (2013). ‘The relationship between student behaviour patterns and teacher
burnout.’ In: School Psychology International 24 (1): 115-127.
Johnson, H. & Fullwood, H. (2010). ‘Disturbing behaviours in the secondary classroom: how do
general educators perceive problem behaviours?’ Journal of Instructional Psychology, vol.33,
(1), pp. 20–39.
Little, E. (2005). ‘Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of student problem behaviours.’ In:
Educational Psychology 25 (4): 369-377.
Romiszowski, A. (2009). ‘Fostering Skill Development Outcomes.’ In: Reigeluth: pp.199-224.
Routledge, New York City, USA. Retrieved:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a1b7/14db8ce4ff25adfe8b7fa804a0d9d7d86af5.pdf