Page: 1

EXPLORE THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
CLASSROOM BEHAVIORAL
MANAGEMENT AND
STUDENT’S ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT AT
SECONDARY SCHOOL
LEVEL IN LAHORE.

Project
Report
Business Research Method

Submitted By: Muntaha Haseen

Roll number: M.COW-F19-055
Page: 2

EXPLORE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLASSROOM

BEHAVIORAL MANAGEMENT AND STUDENTS ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT AT SECONDARY SCHOOL LEVEL

Subject: Business Research Method, Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan.

ABSTRACT
The objective of the study is to explore the relationship between students perception
about disruptive behavior and their academic achievements in relation to find out the
difference in students perception about disruptive behavior and monthly income of
their parents and measure the difference between art and science students perception .
This study is to attempt to go through related literature. The nature of study is
descriptive based on random samples. All private institutes, schools and colleges are
taken as population for research.
The data was collected from students of secondary level. Questionnaire made and was
distributed by using Google forms and shares the link with student through Whatsapp
and emails.
The responses were extracted from the Google forms and converted in MS EXCEL
software, collected data was arranged in order for analysis and interpretation process.

Keywords: Classroom behavior, Student achievement, Schools, Teachers, Public,

Private

INTRODUCTION
Classroom administration is the procedure by which educators and schools make and
keep up suitable conduct of understudies in classroom settings. The motivation behind
actualizing classroom administration procedures is to improve prosaically conduct
and increment understudy scholastic commitment. Conduct administration,
additionally called conduct adjustment, endeavors to control and spur people to
change their activities or associations in specific settings. For instance, instructors
utilize conduct administration at a classroom level to present tenets against hindering
different understudies. Educators additionally utilize conduct administration with
singular understudies to adjust negative behavior patterns and poor decisions, for
example, getting up out of their seats when they ought to be situated. Conduct
administration incorporates distinguishing proof of the issue or negative conduct,
training about substitution practices, modifications to the person's condition to lessen
Page: 3

the adverse conduct, uplifting feedback to support the new conduct and contrary
fortification to demoralize the improper activity. There are numerous social issues in
classroom yet troublesome conduct in the optional schools in Pakistan, especially in
Lahore has turned into an incredible issue. Educators have dissensions against
conduct issues identifying with understudies in classroom administration. The
classrooms where problematic conduct happen as often as possible gets less scholastic
drew in time and the understudies in troublesome classrooms remain in low
classification in accomplishment tests.
Statement of the Problem:
There are diverse kinds of troublesome conduct and everyone has distinctive causes
which has negative effect on understudy's scholarly accomplishment. The present
investigation intends to characterize the connection between understudy's troublesome
conduct and their scholastic accomplishment. The school condition is getting to be
tested because of understudy's classroom conduct issues and its impact their scholarly
accomplishments. Instructors ceaselessly manage troublesome conduct in a
classroom, there by detracting from the educating time. A few understudies may not
know and simply couldn't care less. The principle reason of this examination is to
research the connection between understudy's classroom troublesome conduct and
their scholarly accomplishment at optional school level since classroom social issues
have profound impact on understudy's scholastic accomplishments.
Objectives of the Study:
The objectives of the study were to
1. Explore the relationship between student’s perception about disruptive
behavior and their academic achievement.
2. Find out the difference in student’s perception about disruptive behavior and
monthly income of their parents.
3. Describe the difference between art and science student’s perception about
their disruptive behavior.
Research questions:
The questions of the study were to
1. What is the relationship between student’s perception about disruptive
behavior and their academic achievement?
2. Is there any difference among student’s perception about disruptive behavior
and monthly income of their parents?
Page: 4

3. What is the difference in art and science student’s perception about their
disruptive behavior?
Significant of the study:
The study is contributed to research for the classroom behavioral problems which
effect the student’s academic achievements at secondary school level. Our research
will beneficial for teachers to know the behavioral problems which learners are
suffering during formal education at secondary school level. In Pakistan after middle
education students not attend the schools because of these problems, that’s why this
study will be helpful to overcome the dropout rate at secondary school level in
Pakistan. This study can be helpful for students to have protected, safe learning
environment in which they grow up and be qualified.
Delimitation of the study:
The examination was delimited because of time restriction and constrained money
related assets. It concentrated on the connection between classroom conduct
administration and understudy's scholarly accomplishment at optional school level.
The investigation was additionally delimited Lahore City of Pakistan.

Conceptual Model

Student
Behavior

Dependent Intrinsic Student

Variable Reward Capabilities

Teacher
Response
CLASSROOM
BEHAVIORAL Parents
Income

Academic
Achievement
Independent Extrinsic
Variable Reward
Teacher
Authority

Assertive
Discipline
Page: 5

LITERATURE REVIEW
Classroom management and behavioral management:
Classroom administration is a noteworthy worry in schools today. As indicated by
Martin and Sass, classroom administration is mix of definitions that incorporate
learning associations, learning and the conduct of understudies.
In Walker's perspective a best instructors don't just show content, they educate
individuals.
As indicated by Marzano, Pickering, and Pollack, to adequately educate their
understudies, educators need to utilize viable conduct administration procedures,
actualize powerful instructional techniques, and build up a solid educational module.
Notwithstanding dealing with the direction in the classroom, an educator's most
critical test is likewise dealing with the conduct of understudies in the classroom in
view of how it can influence guideline, learning, and accomplishment.
As indicated by Shupe, understudy accomplishment has endured in schools where
train and conduct issues have not been sufficiently tended to. As indicated by him,
there's not an educator alive who hasn't felt the dissatisfaction of endeavoring to deal
with a classroom with no less than one understudy who over and over pulls different
understudies off-errand with irritating, misconduct. At the point when understudies
with conduct issues are not taken care of appropriately, look into has demonstrated
they can contrarily impact the learning condition by inducing other to go along with
them, which make instructor adequacy be addressed, and causing an expanded worry
for the educator.
Schools and classrooms should be a protected and inviting spot that gives the essential
scholastic, and also social and passionate backings, all understudies require.
Plined youngster goes into train by working in the organization of others, not by being
informed that he is mischievous (Vardin, 2003). B While dissecting the conduct
worry inside schools numerous specialists concurred that teach is certifiably not
another issue; it has been a continuous issue for quite a long time. Open Agenda
directed a study in which 97% of instructors concurred that schools require teach and
conduct to develop (Public Agenda, 2004). Kids rapidly move toward becoming
affected by negative environment that encompasses them. Step by step understudies
come to feel no ethical ruin in run infringement and become lethargic to train. In spite
of the fact that educators uphold classroom rules and other disciplinary
Page: 6

methodologies, as Goodman expressed, unequivocal tenets, clear specialist,

proportionate assents, controlled impartially, and gathering support are vital however
deficient. (Goodman, 2007, p.5).
All together for positive conduct to be compelling the understudies need to reconsider
before carrying on or rehashing the troublesome or comparative practices. The
presentation of character training is advantageous to all gatherings required; as
teachers we take in more about our understudies and the understudies are giving the
data expected to create character and ethics. Kids see their encompassing world and
build up their character in view of what they see and what they are educated. .
Scholar:
Maria Montessori, Lawrence Kohlberg, Dr.Thomas Linkona, and Abraham Maslow
all concur that character instruction is profitable. Maslow made the chain of command
of essential needs, which incorporates the need of the person to satisfy physiological
prerequisites, need to protect ones presence, the need to fabricate individual
affiliations, the need to get confidence and the requirement for self-completion or
individual satisfaction (Smith, 2001, p.2). Maria Montessori trusted that character
instruction was of equivalent if not more prominent result than figuring out how to
peruse, compose and do numbers (Vardin, 2003). Both Montessori and Kohlberg infer
that youngsters create character by investigating and settling on free decisions.
Summing up Kohlbergs hypothesis, Six Stages of Moral Development, Brimi (2009)
states as opposed to advising kids acceptable behavior, instructors would need to
depend on the understudies to find the proper behavior (Brimi, 2009, p.128). In
concurrence with Brannon (2008), Kohlberg concurs that pretending and a majority
rule condition can be gainful to moral advancement (Davis, 2003). In concurrence
with Kohlberg, Montessori trusted that the undisciplined youngsters goes imto train
by working in the organization of the others, not by being informed that he is
mischievous (vardin 2003).
Disruptive behavior:
The accompanying writing survey will portray the meaning of troublesome conduct,
how the conduct influences alternate understudies in the classroom, and how
educators handle the testing understudies in their classroom. This writing will address
the basic diagnosable problematic conduct issue: consideration shortfall hyperactive
confusion.
Page: 7

Defining Disruptive Behavior

Preferably understudies would come to class with specific aptitudes in the classroom,
for example, control and participation (Lane, Givner, and Pierson, 2004), and
additionally a capacity to take after headings, connect genius socially, control outrage,
and regard physical limits (Lane, Givner, Pierson, 2004). Stacks (2005) states that
conduct issues in the primary school setting are normally partitioned into gatherings,
externalizing or disguising.
Teacher's Response to Disruptive Behavior
The classroom condition is essential for the understudies to learn yet in addition for
the educators in light of wear out rates. McCarthy ET. al. (2009) said that instructing
is a requesting calling and instructor burnout rate has been a worry in the training
scene (p.282). Burnout stress can happen to any educator paying little mind to the
quantity of long periods of instructing. Burnout rate can be ascribed to the school,
instructor's adapting abilities, and furthermore classroom push. The quantity of unique
needs youngsters, grown-up aides in the room, and different assignments outside of
the classroom can add to educator burnout. Scientists have investigated that an
educator's accomplishment in the classroom and saw pressure has been connected to
having testing kids in their classroom (McCarthy et. al., 2009).
Fathers' month to month pay and understudy's scholarly accomplishment:
A developing observational writing questions how neediness affects a youngster's
prosperity and whether pay bolster projects can enhance kids' life shots. Be that as it
may, confirm on the degree to which family pay affects tyke advancement is blended.
Past investigations differ in information, strategies, and findings, as talked about in
the ongoing gathering of concentrates in Brooks-Gunn and Duncan (1997) or the
overviews in Haveman and Wolfe (1995) and Mayer (1997). Analysts have given a
few clarifications to why family wage may affect tyke improvement. In the first place,
neediness is related with expanded levels of parental pressure, gloom, and weakness –
conditions which may antagonistically affect parent's capacity to support their
youngsters. Low wage guardians likewise report a larger amount of dissatisfaction
and irritation with their youngsters, and these kids will probably have poor verbal
advancement and display more elevated amounts of distractibility and threatening
vibe in the classroom (Parker et. al, 1999).
Page: 8

PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY

The major purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between classroom
behavioral management and student’s academic achievement at Secondary school
level. This study deals with methodology procedure adopted to conduct the study.
This section includes description of research design, population, sample of the study,
instrument of the study, and administration of instrument, reliability of instrument.
The following procedure and methodologies will be used in order to achieve the
purpose of the research.
Research Design
The nature of the study was a descriptive research that often involves collecting
information through review, surveys or questionnaires. The questionnaire was based
on linker scales and responses were asked from respondents as following: (Always,
Often, Sometimes, rarely, Never). Therefore, quantitative research strategy adopted
to quantify the views of the respondents. The link of questionnaire is given below:
https://forms.gle/tYSeiYApdYnbscTy5
Population of the Study
The population of the research was consists all the pupil study in the 9 th, 10th and 1st
and 2nd year’s students.

Sample of the Research

Sample of the research was the 35 students of secondary level. Amole (2009) says
that he used the convenient sampling for a study in which the sample was 35 and he
used convenient sampling techniques.
Instrument of the study
The instrument was a questionnaire, used to gain the required information on the
basis of related literature of the study. Instrument was consisted of 15 statements on
student’s disruptive behavior.
Administration of Instrument
The reason of the research was to guide the students before distributing the
questionnaire and assures them strongly that their responses would be kept
confidential in order to retrieve from any kind of fear. If they were felt any difficulty
to solve the questionnaire they would be asked.
Page: 9

Data Analysis Techniques

The responses were extracted from the Google forms and converted in MS EXCEL
software, collected data was arranged, analysis and present by pie chart in report for
interpretation process.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of data. The topic of research
was “Explore the relationship between class room behavioral management and
student’s academic achievement at Secondary school level in Lahore”. The
questionnaire was used for data collection.

Table 4.1

Gender Frequency Percent

Female 19 54.3

Male 16 45.7

Total 35 100.0

Table 4.1 showed that 54.3% students were female and 45.7% were male.

Gender

Female
Male
Page: 10

Table 4.2

Group Frequency Percent

Science 24 70.6

Arts 10 29.4

Total 34 100.0

Table 4.2 showed that 29.4% students were from arts group and 70.6% were from
science group.

Group

Science
Arts
Page: 11

Table 4.3

Income Frequency Percent

30000 24 68.6
20000 6 17.1
10000 5 14.3

Total 35 100.0

Table 4.3 showed that 68.6% student’s father monthly income was 30000, 17.1%
student’s fathers monthly income was 20000, and only 11.4% students father income
was 10000.
Page: 12

Income

30000
20000
10000

Table 4.4

Trying to gain influence among his/ her fellows

Frequency Percent
Always 2 5.7

Often 2 5.7
Sometime 10 28.6
Rarely 7 20
Never 14 40
Total 35 100.0

It was found that 5.7% student were often and 10% sometimes trying to gain
influence among his/ her fellows.

Table 4.4 showed that 5.7% students were always trying to gain influence among his/
her fellows, 5.7% answered as often, 28.6% described sometime, 20% opined rarely
and 40% responded as never with this statement. It was concluded that the majority of
students were never trying to gain influence among his/ her fellows.
Page: 13

Table 4.4

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Never

Table 4.5
Trying to gain power in classroom to threaten teacher.
Frequency Percent
Always 0 0.00
Often 0 0.00
Sometime 6 17.1
Rarely 4 11.4
Never 25 71.4
Total 35 100.0

It was found that no student often and 71.4% never trying to gain power in classroom
to threaten teacher.

Table 4.5 showed that no students were trying to gain power in classroom to threaten
teacher., no answered as often, 17.1% described sometime, 11.4% opined rarely and
71.4% responded as never with this statement. It was concluded that the majority of
students were never trying to gain power in classroom to threaten teacher.
Page: 14

Table 4.5

Sometime
Rarely
Never

Table 4.6
Sleeping during lecture.
Frequency Percent
Always 3 8.6
Often 1 2.9
Sometime 8 22.9
Rarely 11 31.4
Never 12 34.3
Total 35 100.0

It was found that 1% student often and 12% never sleeping during lecture.

Table 4.6 showed that 8.6% students were always sleeping during lecture, 2.9%
answered as often, 22.9% described sometime, 31.4% opined rarely and 34.3%
responded as never with this statement. It was concluded that the mostly students
were rarely sleeping during lecture but majority never sleeping during lecture.
Page: 15

Table 4.6

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Never
Page: 16

Table 4.7
Chatting with one another during lecture.
Frequency Percent
Always 3 8.6
Often 7 20
Sometime 13 37.1
Rarely 7 20
Never 5 14.3
Total 35 100.0

It was found that 20% students often and 37.1% sometime chatting with one another
during lecture.

Table 4.7 showed that 8.6% students were always chatting with one another during
lecture. , 20% answered as often, 37.1% described sometime, 20% opined rarely and
14.3% responded as never with this statement. It was concluded that the majority of
students were sometime chatting with one another during lecture.

Table 4.7

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Never

Table 4.8
Coming in classroom habitually late.
Frequency Percent
Page: 17

Always 3 8.6
Often 2 5.7
Sometime 8 22.9
Rarely 9 25.7
Never 13 37.1
Total 35 100.0

It was found that 5.7% student often and 37.1% never coming in classroom habitually
late.

Table 4.8 showed that 8.6% students were always coming in classroom habitually
late. 5.7% answered as often, 22.9% described sometime, 25.7% opined rarely and
37.1% responded as never with this statement. It was concluded that the mostly
student rarely come in classroom habitually late and majority of students never were
late.

Table 4.8

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Never
Page: 18

Table 4.9
Shouting loudly to create thrill in classroom.
Frequency Percent
Always 1 2.9
Often 1 2.9
Sometime 3 8.6
Rarely 8 22.9
Never 22 62.9
Total 35 100.0

It was found that 2.9% student often and 62.9% never shouting loudly to create thrill
in classroom.

Table 4.9 showed that 2.9% student’s were always Shouting loudly to create thrill in
classroom., 2.9% answered as often, 8.6% described sometime, 22.9% opined rarely
and 62.9% responded as never with this statement. It was concluded that the majority
of students were never shouting loudly to create thrill in classroom.

Table 4.9

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Never

Table 4.10
Start answering before question finish
Frequency Percent
Always 1 2.9
Page: 19

Often 2 5.7
Sometime 8 22.9
Rarely 12 34.3
Never 12 34.3
Total 35 100.0

It was found that 5.7% students often and 34.3% never start answering before
question finish.

Table 4.10 showed that 2.9% students were always Start answering before question
finish, 5.7% answered as often, 22.9% described sometime, 34.3% opined rarely and
34.3% responded as never with this statement. It was concluded that the majority of
students were rarely and mostly were never start answering before question finish.

Table 4.10

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Never
Page: 20

Table 4.11
Playing with (hands, feet, pen etc) during lecture.
Frequency Percent
Always 5 14.3
Often 13 37.1
Sometime 7 20.0
Rarely 6 17.1
Never 4 11.4
Total 35 100.0

It was found that 37.1% student often and 11.4% never playing with (hands, feet, pen
etc) during lecture.

Table 4.11 showed that 14.3% students were always playing with(hands, feet, pen etc)
during lecture, 37.1% answered as often, 20% described sometime, 17.1% opined
rarely and 11.4% responded as never with this statement. It was concluded that the
majority of students were often playing with (hands, feet, pen etc) during lecture.

Table 4.11

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Never
Page: 21

Table 4.12
Throwing things on your class fellows.
Frequency Percent
Always 1 2.9
Often 4 11.4
Sometime 6 17.1
Rarely 8 22.9
Never 16 45.7
Total 35 100.0

It was found that 22.9% student rarely and 17.1% sometime throwing things on their
class fellows.

Table 4.12 showed that 2.9% students were always throwing things on their class
fellows, 11.4 % answered as often, 17.1% described sometime, 22.9% opined rarely
and 45.7% responded as never with this statement. It was concluded that the majority
of students were never throw things on their class fellows.

Table 4.12

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Never

Table 4.13
Reporting others for his/her mistakes or misbehavior.
Page: 22

Frequency Percent
Always 0 0.00
Often 3 8.6
Sometime 10 28.6
Rarely 10 28.6
Never 12 34.3
Total 35 100.0

It was found that 8.6% students often and 34.3% never reporting others for his/her
mistakes or misbehavior.

Table 4.13 showed that no student was always reporting others for his/her mistakes or
misbehavior, 8.6% answered as often, 28.6% described sometime, 28.6% opined
rarely and 34.3% responded as never with this statement. It was concluded that the
majority of students were never reporting others for his/her mistakes or misbehavior.

Table 4.13

Often
Sometime
Rarely
Never

Table 4.14
You want to change your seat at daily bases.
Frequency Percent
Always 2 5.7
Often 4 11.4
Sometime 9 25.7
Rarely 12 34.3
Never 8 22.9
Total 35 100.0
Page: 23

It was found that 11.4% students often and 22.9% never want to change their seat at
daily bases.

Table 4.14 showed that 5.7% students were always you want to change your seat at
daily bases, 11.4% answered as often, 25.7% described sometime, 34.3% opined
rarely and 22.9% responded as never with this statement. It was concluded that the
majority of students were rarely want to change their seats at daily bases.

Table 4.14

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Never

Table 4.15
Discussing religious/sectarian issues.
Frequency Percent
Always 2 5.7
Often 4 11.4
Sometime 10 28.6
Rarely 8 22.9
Never 11 31.4
Total 35 100.0

It was found that 11.4% students often and 31.4% never discussing religious/sectarian
issues.
Page: 24

Table 4.15 showed that 5.7% students were always discussing religious/sectarian
issues, 11.4% answered as often, 28.6% described sometime, 22.9% opined rarely and
31.4% responded as never with this statement. It was concluded that the majority of
students have mixed responses that were sometime discussing religious/sectarian
issues and never discussing religious sectarian.

Table 4.15

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Never

Table 4.16
Refuses to follow classroom’s rules.
Frequency Percent
Always 2 5.7
Often 2 5.7
Sometime 5 14.3
Rarely 8 22.9
Never 18 51.4
Total 35 100.0
Page: 25

It was found that 5.7% students often and 51.4% never refuses to follow classroom’s
rules.

Table 4.16 showed that 5.7% students were always refuses to follow classroom’s
rules, 5.7% answered as often, 14.3% described sometime, 22.9% opined rarely and
51.4% responded as never with this statement. It was concluded that the majority of
students were never refuses to follow classroom’s rules.

Table 4.16

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Never
Page: 26

Table 4.17
Refuses to participate in classroom activities.
Frequency Percent
Always 1 2.9
Often 0 0.00
Sometime 8 22.9
Rarely 14 40.0
Never 12 34.3
Total 35 100.0

It was found that zero percent students often and 34.3% never refuses to participate in
classroom activities.

Table 4.17 showed that 2.9% students were always refuses to participate in classroom
activities, 0% answered as often, 22.9% described sometime, 40% opined rarely and
34.3% responded as never with this statement. It was concluded that the majority of
students were rarely refuses to participate in classroom activities.

Table 4.17

Always
Sometime
Rarely
Never
Page: 27

Table 4.18
Refuses to cooperate with others.
Frequency Percent
Always 1 2.9
Often 0 0.00
Sometime 8 22.9
Rarely 7 20.0
Never 19 54.3
Total 35 100.0

It was found that zero percent students often and 22.9% sometime refuse to cooperate
with others.

Table 4.18 showed that 2.9% students were always refuses to cooperate with others,
0% answered as often, 22.9% described sometime, 20% opined rarely and 54.3%
responded as never with this statement. It was concluded that the majority of students
were never refuses to cooperate with others.

Table 4.18

Always
Sometime
Rarely
Never

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

Page: 28

Conclusion:
On the basis of findings of the study it was concluded that there was significant low
relationship found between disruptive behavior and student’s academic achievement.
The results revealed that arts and science groups does not affect significant in attitude
towards disruptive behavior. It was concluded that both arts and science student’s had
perceived equally towards disruptive behavior at secondary level. So it is concluded
that there was no significant difference in perceptions of student’s disruptive behavior
on the basis of their different father income groups. It was also concluded that there
was positive significant very low effect of disruptive behavior management on
student’s academic achievement.
Recommendations:
The following recommendations are made:
1.  Instructing systems might be overhauled with regards to understudy's
troublesome conduct all together maintain a strategic distance from it and limit the
effects of problematic conduct.

2. Some insightful people might be point by point to visit the optional schools and
convey addresses intermittently, keeping troublesome conduct under thought.

3. Classes for guardians, instructors and understudies might be organized on the point
of troublesome conduct to feature the effects, cures and repercussions of understudy's
problematic conduct.

4. Some standing working systems might be acquainted as cure with troublesome

conduct on commonplace level.

5. A problematic behavior. Ranking framework might be presented for conduct as

stamping awful, great, better and incredible conduct for understudies, which may raise
or deescalate affirmations and grants keeping in mind the end goal to decrease the
understudy's.

REFERENCES
Barton, P.E, Coley, R.J., & Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Order in the classroom; Violence,
Page: 29

Discipline and student achievement. Policy information center. Research division.

Princeton, NJ: Educational testing service.

Bear, G.G. (1998). School discipline in the United States: prevention, correction and
long-term social development. School psychology review, 27, 14-32.

Brannon, D. (2008). Character education: it’s a joint responsibility. Kappu Delta pi

Record, 44(2), 62-65, retrieved from ERIC: 2816294

Brimi, H. (2009). Academic instructors or Moral guides? Moral education in America

and the teacher’s Delimma. Clearing House, 82(3), 125-130.
Retrieved from Academic search Complete: 356083863

Bryan, L. (2005). Once upon a time: A Grimm Approach to Character Education

Journal of Social Studies Research, 29(1), 3-6

Bulach, C. (2002). Implementing a Character Education Curriculum and Assessing Its

Impact on Student Behavior. Clearing House, 76(2), 79.

Butler-Banks, C. (2010, February 4), PRIDE in School and self: Waterloo Middle

School uses character education to improve academics. New York;

Teacher, LI(9).

Celia E.J., & Anstine, R.T. (1999). Promoting Peace in a Place called School. Journal
of Church & State, pp. 5-14.

Davis, M. (2003). What’s Wrong with Character Education? American Journal of

Education, 110(1), 32-57

Ellenwood, S. (2006). Revisiting Character Education: From McGuffey to Narratives.

Journal of Education, 187(3), 21-43.

Etheridge, T. (2010). Assertive Discipline and its Impact on Disruptive Behavior

Page: 30

Dissertation completed at Capella University. 1-118. Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertation & these database. (Publication No. AAT 3409180)

Gable, R., Hester, P., Hester, L., Hendrickson , J., & Size, S. (2005). Cognitive,
Affective, Rational Dimension of Middle School Students: Implications for
Improving Discipline and Instruction. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 79(1), 40.

Goodman, J.F. (2007). School Discipline, Buy-In and Belief. Ethics and Education,
2(1). Retrieved from ERIC Database: Ej815028.

Kohn, A. (2008). Progressive education: why it’s hard to beat, but also hard to find.
Independent School, spring, 1-8

Landau, B., & Gathercoal, P. (2000). Creating Peaceful Classrooms. Phi Delta
Kappan, 81(6), 450.

Martin, N.K. & Sass, D. (2010). Construct validation of the behavior and Instructional
Management Scale. Teacher and Teacher Education. University of Texas, San
Antonio.

Marzano,R.J., Marzano,J.S. & Pickering, D.J.(2003). Classroom Management that

Works. Retrieved June 14, 2010, from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/103027.aspx

McArthur, J.R. (2002). The why, What, and How of Teaching Children Social Skills.
Social studies, 93(4), 183-185.

Milleren, A., & Messer, M, M. (2009). “Invitations” To Character. Journal of

Invitational Theory & Practice, 15, 19-31.

Milson, A., & Mehlig, L. (2002). Elementary School Teachers’ Sense of Efficiency
for Character Education. Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 47.
Page: 31

Public & Common, (2004). Teaching Interrupted: Do Discipline policies in Today’s

Public Schools Foster the Common God?

Public Agenda. Retrieved from: http://commongood.org/assets/attachements/29.pdf

Rynders, L. (2006). If you matter to someone, ther is always a Glimmer of Hope.

Reclaiming Children & Youth, 14(4), 215-217.

Sanchez, T. (2006). Harry Truman and the Atomic Bomb: An Excursion into
Character Education through Storytelling.America Secondary Education, 35(1), 58-
65.

Shupe, J. (1998). Prescriptive discipline: just what the doctor ordered. NASSP
Bulletin, 82(596), 250-30.

Skaggs, G., & Bodenhorn, N. (2006). Relationship Between Implementing Character

Education. Students Behavior, and Students Achievement. Journal of Academics,
18(1), 82-114.

Smith, C.J., (2001). School Discipline and Classroom Management: A Must for
Improved Instruction. Walden University Cyberspace chapter of PDK International.
Retrieved from Walden PDK on March 19, 2010.
http://waldenpdk.org/newsletters/Smith_SchoolDiscipline.html

Vardin, P. (2003). Character Education in America. Montessori Life, 15(2), 32-34.

Varnham, S. (2005b). Citizenship in Schols: the gap between theory and practice.
Education & the Law, 17(1/2), 53-64.

Walker, J. (2009). Authoritative Classroom management: How control and

nurturance work together. Theory into practice, 48(2), 122-129.

QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Students,
I am M.COM student at Superior University Lahore. My study is on “Explore the
 Page: 32

relationship between class room behavioral management and student’s academic

achievement at Secondary school level in Lahore” I require your opinion for this
study and it is assured the data collected through this questionnaire will be used for
research purpose.

Gender: Male Female

Group: Science Arts
Marks obtained in previous class in %.
Monthly income of your father: 10,000 20,000 30,000

Note: The questionnaire is based on Linker Scale you have to tick one of them.
Sr. Statements Never Rarely
Some 0ften Always
times

1 Trying to gain influence among his/ her fellows

‫آ پ اپنے سا تھیو ں کے درمیا ن خو د کو با اثر ثا بت کر نا چا ہتے ہیں۔‬
2 Sleeping during lecture.
‫ٓا پ کو لیکچر کے دوران نیند آ تی ہے۔‬
3 Chatting with one another during lecture.
‫آ پ لیکچر کے دوران ایک دوسر ے سے با تیں کر تے ہیں۔‬
4 Coming in classroom habitually late.
‫آ پ عا د تا "کال س میں د یر سے آ تے ہیں۔‬
5 Shouting loudly to create thrill in classroom.
‫آ پ کمر ہ جما عت میں خو ف پید| ا کر نے کے لیے اونچی آ واز یں نکا لتے‬
‫ہیں۔‬
6 Start answering before question finish.
‫آ پ سوال ختم ہو نے سے پہلے ہی جوابات شر و ع کر د یتے ہیں۔‬
7 Playing with (hands, feet, pen etc) during lecture.
‫ پا ؤں یا قلم سے کھیلتے ہیں۔‬،‫آپ کال س کے دوران اپنے ہا تھ‬
8 Throwing things on your class fellows.
‫آ پ اپنے ہم جما عتو ں پر چیز یں پھینکتے| ہیں۔‬
9 Reporting others for his/her mistakes or misbehavior.
‫آ پ کسی کی غلطی یا غلط ر و یے کو کسی دو سر ے کو بتا تے ہیں۔‬
10 You want to change your seat at daily bases.
‫آ پ روز جما عت میں اپنی جگہ تبد| یل کر نا چا ہتے ہیں۔‬
11 Discussing religious/sectarian issues.
‫آ پ جما عت میں مذ ہب یا فر قہ وار یت پر بحث کر تے ہیں۔‬
12 Refuses to follow classroom’s rules.
 ‫‪Page: 33‬‬

‫آ پ کمر ہ جما عت کے ا صو لو ں پر عمل کر نے سے انکا ر کر تے ہیں۔‬

‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪Refuses to participate in classroom activities.‬‬
‫آ پ کمر ہ جما عت کی سر گر میو ں میں حصہ لینے سے انکا ر کر تے ہیں۔‬
‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪Refuses to cooperate with others.‬‬
‫آ پ دو سر و ں کے سا تھ تعا و ن کر نے پر انکا ر کر تے ہیں۔‬
‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪Disturb others during class by asking again and again to go‬‬
‫‪for toilet and drinking water.‬‬
‫آپ لیکچر کے دوران با ر بار با ہر با تھ روم اور پا نی پینے کی اجا ز ت لے‬
‫کر دو سر و ں کو تنگ کر تے ہیں۔‬