17465016 Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments Assessment One

Literature Review

The aim of the research is to explore the multidimensional nature of student misbehaviour to
reach conclusions that provide insight into why it occurs. One way that this will be facilitated
is through a synthesised recount of six interviews that were conducted and themed around the
research question. ‘Misbehaviour’ in the context of this research refers to the actions (or
inaction) conducted by students that negatively impacts a teacher’s ability to teach, as well as
having a detrimental impact on the learning experiences of themselves and/or their peers.
Regarding the sources that influence the act of misbehaving, both the interviewees and
academics attribute them to a variety of different factors such as effects of biology, cognition,
societal influence and educational practices and systems.

In attempting to determine why students misbehave, it would of great value to assess this
question from what students themselves believe about this issue. Supaporn (2000)
implements critical incident forms, semi-structured interviews and observational field notes
as an inquiry into why students misbehave as described from the student’s perspectives
themselves. According to the students in the research, peer groups, types of activity and the
level of enjoyment derived from the activity were the three most commonly identified
reasons behind why students choose to misbehave. Supaporn’s research is of significance to
this research area as it will allow for parallels to be drawn between what external parties
(parents, teachers, etc.) believe about the origins of student misbehaviour as compared to the
attitudes held by students regarding this subject matter.

In consideration of the attitudes held by students, it is also crucial to not underestimate the
influence that teachers have on the actions of their students. The study conducted by Demanet
and Houtte (2012) aims to determine the nature of misbehaviour and how it manifests
through an observation into how students respond to their teacher’s attitudes and subsequent
expectations towards them. Their findings indicate a direct correlation between lower teacher
expectations of students and increased instances of student misconduct. Potential limitations
of the study include not being physically present in classrooms to observe teachers and a
reduced sense of individuality regarding teacher’s approaches to teaching and handling cases
of misconduct.

In addition to the social and education influences on causes of misbehaviour, there are also
biological and cognitive factors that must be accounted for. Lewis et al. (2014) examined the
relationship between student misbehaviour and how it may be caused by the influences of a

1
17465016 Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments Assessment One

student’s disability. Part of this research was facilitated through an examination of the
relevant legislation and standards regarding the processes behind addressing disabled
student’s behaviour in the classroom. One of the primary conclusions drawn from the
research was that the current standards applicable to these scenarios does not provide a
supportive mechanism for teachers to alter their disciplinary actions based on whether the
student’s misbehaviour has stemmed from the effects of their disability. Lewis et al. (2014)
suggests that this in turn may lead to increased occurrences of misconduct due to an inability
to cater to their needs on an individual level. In addition to the findings by Lewis et al.,
further implications resulting from the affects of biology on student misbehaviour can be
found in the research conducted by Lin and Yi (2014). Through an analysis of the problems
associated with different forms of sleep deprivation in adolescents, Lin and Yi (2014)
concluded that the different unhealthy sleep practices had an influence on student conduct,
poor academic performance and lower states of emotional wellbeing.

While misconduct can be described simply as the actions that are in opposition to the
school’s policies or guidelines, it is also important to distinguish the specifics of what kind of
actions are most commonly perceived to be the most prevalent. Crawshaw’s (2015) research
focuses on how teachers perceive student misbehaviour by asking them to identify examples
of both serious and high frequency misbehaviours that they had encountered during their
profession. Given that teachers across different countries are likely to have different views on
what constitutes how serious a misbehaviour is, Crawshaw (2015) asserts that such
conclusions will influence how often they occur since a teacher’s method of dealing with
misconduct will at least partially inform whether a student will misbehave based on the
perceived repercussions. For example, two teachers may have differing opinions on the
seriousness of students talking back to them, and so their reactions, which are inherently
different, will influence how often their students might be willing to risk misbehaving.

Interview Process

The interview process utilized an informal structure. A casual conversation between myself
and the interviewee begun with the prompt question “In your opinion, why do young people
misbehave in school”?, and followed with myself taking notes to best represent their
viewpoint (as confirmed by the interviewee at the end of the interview). This was preceded
by a signed information sheet that participants reviewed which provided clarification on the
nature of the interview process and ensured they were comfortable with the process before

2
17465016 Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments Assessment One

proceeding. Four females and two males were interviewed, and their ages ranged from 23 –
59. Questions that followed the prompt questions usually were repeated across the six
different interviews as there were many instances of the same ground being covered by each
of the interviewees. After the interview process, their answers were consolidated into
categories and themes that were subsequently compared with the relevant literature.

- Teacher – Female, 59 – Religion Teacher

- Teacher – Female, 29 – Religion and English Teacher
- Preservice Teacher – Male, 25 – Final semester of Master of Teaching at WSU
- Parent – Female, 48 – Two adult children, stay at home mother
- Non-teaching acquaintance – Female, 23 – Studying Modern History at WSU
- Non-teaching acquaintance – Male, 24 – Employee at an IT company

Synthesis of Ideas drawn from Interview Findings and Literature Review +

Implications for Praxis

In drawing parallels and contrasts between the literature and the interview findings, it quickly
becomes clear that there are certain conceptions of student misbehaviour that are more shared
than others. The most widely reported reasons for why student misbehaviour occur can be
attributed to poor parenting and unstable homelives, negative influences from peers and
cognitive limitations. These were identified by all six of the interviewees as recurring causes
of misbehaviour. There is an identifiable parallel between these identified causes by the
interviewees and the research conducted by Supaporn (2000). Supaporn’s (2000) research
into the causes of misbehaviour as recognized from the student’s perspective indicates a
strong emphasis on the influence of peers on the actions of individual students. There were
several examples of how peer influence can manifest in instances of misconduct provided in
Supaporn’s (2000) research and the interviewees, such as talking out of turn, touching things
they shouldn’t be (e.g. lights and blinds) and challenging the teacher. M24 confidently
identified wanting to impress their peers and feel like the stand out is a primary motivation
for students who act out in these ways. Furthermore, F29 and F59 each identified other
examples of peer influenced behaviour based on their experience in the classroom, such as
the inability to move away from their devices (e.g. smartphones) and/or the misuse of
technology that has been provided to them (e.g. school computers). M25 interestingly
brought forth a cognition related reason for students to misbehave due to peer influence. The

3
17465016 Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments Assessment One

scenario they described involves instances where a student who is disadvantaged or

struggling with the material will not seek help or will resist assistance in the classroom for the
perceived feeling of appearing foolish or ‘uncool’ in front of their friends for wanting to
participate or receive help. This identification by M25 is one of the many circumstances that
arguably could occur from an inability to address differences in cognitive level and ability as
detailed in the research by Lewis et al. (2014). Teachers who may feel restricted by certain
legislative guidelines in their intention to assist disadvantaged or disabled students may be
further hindered by the resistance a student exhibits in the hopes that they satisfy a societal
need to appeal to their peers.

There were some thought-provoking conclusions drawn by a few of the interviewees

regarding effects of biology and cognition on the causes of student misbehaviour. Based on
the observations made by the interviewees and the research covered by Lewis et al. (2014)
and Lin and Yi (2014), there is most definitely some crossover between effects of both a
biological and societal nature. While disabilities are of a biological nature and can manifest in
bad behaviour, there are other biological and cognitive processes that are influenced by the
effects of poor parenting and homelives. F48 interestingly identified poor eating habits as
instilled by a student’s parents as a potential reason for student misconduct. F48 asserted that
poor food choices, dictated by either limited access to healthy food or a lack of importance
placed upon diet, leads to surges in blood sugar levels which can lead to hypoglycaemia. The
effects of this can cause students to have feelings of tiredness, fatigue and/or irritability, all of
which are not conducive to a positive learning experience. Another biological factor related
to the origins of student misconduct can be attributed to undiagnosed disabilities such as
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) for example, which was illustrated as a possibility by F29.
While this issue is biologically grounded, the problem can be exacerbated by both a failure on
the parent’s part to provide the right treatment at home for their child which subsequently has
the potential to manifest negatively in the classroom, which teachers have a limited ability to
address effectively (Lewis et al., 2014). F29 also mirrored some of the findings in the
research of Lin and Yi (2014) through her identification of sleep deprivation as a source of
disengagement and misbehaviour in the classroom. F29 suggested several potential reasons
for sleep deprivation, such as the side effects of an undiagnosed condition as mentioned
previously, medication, and addiction to media such as smartphones and video games. These
factors all have the potential to lead to one of the three primary forms of sleep deprivation as

4
17465016 Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments Assessment One

identified by Lin and Yi (2014), and subsequently can lead to unfortunate instances of student
misconduct in the classroom.

Educational practice was the only divisive content among the interviewees, with only three
out of the six identifying this as a potential issue. This would likely be explained by the fact
that the three interviewees were all involved in the educational profession (two teachers, one
preservice teacher). As per the findings of Demanet and Houtte (2012), teacher expectations
of student performance in the classroom can be an effective indicator of whether a student
may choose to misbehave, where lower expectations of students often to led to higher
instances of misconduct. One suggestion by F59 that was not reflected in the research of
Demanet and Houtte (2012) was the failure to accommodate gifted students in an effective
manner. Teachers who have generally lower expectations of their students are certainly more
likely to be less accommodating to the needs of gifted students who may need extension work
as opposed to the standard class material. F59 stated that a failure to keep the gifted students
engaged often led to occurrences of misbehaviour such as refusal to partake in class activities
and dismissive attitudes towards teacher instruction. Aside from this example, there was a
consensus that a failure to provide engaging activities and an encouraging learning
environment can lead to an increase in misbehaviour, as asserted by both Demanet and
Houtte (2012), and F29, F59 and M25. Furthermore, the findings in Crawshaw (2015) and
M25, F59 and F29 all had slightly different perceptions of what constituted serious
misbehaviour, as well as what misconduct appeared to happen the most. For example, F29
stated that bullying and its subsequent threat to those in close proximity was the most serious
offence whilst F59 indicated an aggressive refusal to engage in class was one of the most
serious offences. These differences in perceptions reflects the findings of Crawshaw (2015)
quite strongly, as the F29 and F59 were likely to employ different disciplinary actions in the
same contexts, which may affect the degree to which the student decides to intensify their
misconduct.

The synthesis of these findings has revealed several implications for praxis. A review of the
literature and interview findings demonstrates the interrelationship between a number of
different issues that all have a certain affect on the reasons behind why students misbehave.
Perhaps the most multilayered reason identified in the literature and interviews was the
effects of parenting and homelife on the biological and social factors that may influence
student misconduct. A necessary step towards amending this divide in future praxis would be
to facilitate a strong relationship between the school, the teacher, the student and their parents

5
17465016 Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments Assessment One

through any means available. Providing a sense of encouragement for the student and their
parents will help begin to improve the potential for problems to arise at home. Examples of
this could be encouraging the implementation of good practices and behaviours at home such
as getting enough sleep (Lin and Yi, 2014) and completing homework can assist in
reinforcing the student’s attitudes towards their teachers as well as strengthen the values they
hold towards education.

Furthermore, increased communication between these parties can assist teachers by

encouraging them to be more active and have higher expectations for student performance so
that the increased likelihood to misbehave as outlined by Demanet and Houtte (2012) can be
managed more effectively. These findings were particularly informative for myself as I
intend to be very conscious of meeting the needs of my students as both a collective and on
an individual level as facilitated through actions indicative of higher performance
expectations. In addition to this, the findings of Crawshaw (2015) have encouraged me to
seek out more opinions of teachers regarding the seriousness of different misbehaviours and
consolidating the knowledge I gain to employ a fair and consistent means of disciplinary
action in these instances. Supaporn’s (2000) research also illustrated the importance of
involving students in the learning process, as it was illuminating to gain insight into how the
students themselves perceive misbehaviour. If teachers can design and implement a type of
collaborative feedback system with their students, it might be possible to close the gap
between the teacher and student relationship and solidify a stronger sense of respect and
awareness for both parties. An example of this could be to communicate with the students
and find out what type of activities would be the most engaging for them before
implementing them in future lesson plans. A refined version of a system that asks students
what parts of class might lead them to misbehave could allow for future classroom
experiences to be more fruitful and successful.

6
17465016 Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments Assessment One

Reference List:

Crawshaw, M. (2015). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of student

misbehaviour: A review of international research, 1983 to 2013. Australian Journal of
Education, 59(3), 293-311.

Demanet, & Van Houtte. (2012). Teachers' attitudes and students' opposition. School
misconduct as a reaction to teachers' diminished effort and affect. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28(6), 860-869.

Lewis, M., Mead, Julie F., Conrad, Clifton, Kelley, Carolyn, Rainwater, Art, &
Trainor, Audrey. (2014). Navigating the Grey Area: A Review of a School District's
Documentation of the Relationship between Disability and Student
Misconduct, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Lin, W., & Yi, C. (2015). Unhealthy sleep practices, conduct problems, and daytime
functioning during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(2), 431-46.

Salee Supaporn. (2000). High school students' perspectives about

misbehavior. Physical Educator, 57(3), 124.