Page: 1

EXPLORE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLASSROOM BEHAVIORAL

MANAGEMENT AND STUDENT’S ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AT
SECONDARY SCHOOL LEVEL IN LAHORE.

BY
SYED ALI MUSTAFA HAMDANI
MBA 1.5 Year (Evening Program)

_______________________________________________________
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Page: 2

ACCEPTENCE CERTIFICATE

This thesis is accepted by faculty of NATIONAL COLLEGE OF BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION & ECONOMICS Lahore, in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the Degree MASTER OF BUSSINESS ADMINISTRATION.

Master’s Thesis Committee:

_____________________

Chairman

Internal Examiner
Page: 3

_____________________

External Examiner
Page: 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

All praises and gratitude’s are to Almighty Allah (SWT) who blessed us the
will energy and the words to complete this research project and all respects to His
Holy Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.W), the last messenger from Allah, whose teaching
enabled us to identify our creator and also gave us the golden principles of Islam.

The researchers also thankful to their supervisor --------------- who has always
provided the guidance for the completion and presentation of this research work. The
researchers are also very thankful to our loving parents, brother and sister who
supported and encouraged us in the completion of this research work.

SYED ALI MUSTAFA HAMDANI

Page: 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapters Topics Page No.
Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 2
Statement of the problem 2
Objectives of the study 3
Research Question 3
Significance of the study 4
Delimitation of the study 4
Chapter II LITERATURE REVIEW 5

Chapter III PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY 10

Research Design 10
Population of the Study 10
Sample of the Study 10
Instrument 10
Administration of Instrument 11
Data Analysis Technique 11

Chapter IV DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 12

Chapter V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 45
Conclusion 45
Recommendations 45
REFERENCES 47
QUESTIONNAIRE 50
Page: 1

CHAPTER I
Executive Summary:
In this study the researchers need to explore the relationship between classroom
behavioral management and student’s academic achievement at secondary school
level.
The objectives of the study were to explore the relationship between student’s
perception about disruptive behavior and their academic achievement, find out the
difference in student’s perception about disruptive behavior and monthly income of
their parents and describe the difference between art and science student’s perception
about their disruptive behavior. This study is an attempt to go through related
literature. The nature of the study is to descriptive research, based on random type of
sampling was used. All private and government schools were the population of the
study research has taken from the schools.
The data was collected from 315 students of secondary level. Questionnaire was
distributed personally. Data was entered in the computer, having the MS Excel
software, collected data was arranged in order for analysis and interpretation process.
Page: 2

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 prosocial 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 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 every one 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 manages 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:
Page: 3

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?
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.
Page: 4

CHAPTER II
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 modules.
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.
Bear (1998) contends school teach in the United States has changed significantly
inside the most recent couple of years. Clegg (1984) proposed inefficient teach
influences numerous parts of training. Understudies have changed in the course of
recent years; in this manner, classroom administration systems should be rearranged
to meet the requests of another age. It is essential to recognize instructional
administration (IM) and Behavioral administration (BM).
Instructional administration is the point at which the instructor keeps up control inside
their classroom with the thoroughness of the exercise. As per Fowler (n.d.), teach is a
subcategory of classroom administration, and classroom administration is a
subcategory of instructional administration. Instructional administration depends on
arranging viable exercises inside the classroom where the understudies stay connected
Page: 5

with and on undertaking.

Conduct administration is identified with the desires an instructors holds for their
understudies. Zimmerman kept in touch with, "It's insufficient to anticipate that
understudies will hush up about their hands or to raise their hands to talk, however
those are awesome begins.
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
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
Page: 6

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).
Dr. Linkona built up the Eleven Principals of Character Education Effectiveness
(Bulach, 2002 p. 81). Inside these eleven principals the accompanying is
recommended to fortify character instruction in the classrooms; center moral qualities,
psychological, passionate and social parts of good life, cognizance and proactive,
mindful network, moral activity obligations, an important and testing educational
modules, educators, staff and organization share duty, moral authority, and
assessment of character (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 (ADHD), lead issue (CD), oppositional rebellious turmoil (ODD), and
posttraumatic push issue (PTSD).
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
The exploration included understudy and educator writing about scholastic results.
The inquiries that surveyed trouble making of an understudy included: talking with
different understudies without authorization, aggravating others, talking out of turn,
and irritating the instructor (Bru, 2009).
Page: 7

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

CHAPTER III
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 in numerical values
(Always=5, Often=4, Sometimes=3, rarely=2, Never=1). Therefore, quantitative
research strategy adopted to quantify the views of the respondents.
Population of the Study
The population of the research was consists all the pupil study in the 9th, 10th and 1st
and 2nd year’s students.
Sample of the Research
Sample of the research was the 315 students of secondary level. Amole (2009) says
that he used the convenient sampling for a study in which the sample was 300 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 30 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.
Data Analysis Techniques
After data collection it was arranged, processed and analyzed in the Microsoft Excel
by applying basic formulas.
Page: 9
Page: 10

CHAPTER IV
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 200 63.5

Male 115 36.5

Total 315 100.0

Table 4.1 showed that 63.5% students were female and 36.5% were male.

Gender

Female
Male
Page: 11

Table 4.2

Group Frequency Percent

Science 138 43.8

Arts 177 56.2

Total 315 100.0

Table 4.2 showed that 56.2% students were from arts group and 43.8% were from
science group.

Group

Science
Arts
Page: 12

Table 4.3

Income Frequency Percent

30000> 72 22.8
21000-30000 143 45.3
11000-20000 92 29.2

<10000 8 2.5

Total 315 100.0

Table 4.3 showed that 22.8% student’s father monthly income was more than 30000,
45.3% student’s fathers monthly income was 21000 to 30000, 29.2% students father
income was 11000-20000 and only 2.5% student’s parents income was less than or
equal to 10000.
Page: 13

Income

30000>
21000-30000
11000-20000
<10000

Table 4.4

Trying to gain influence among his/ her fellows

Frequency Percent
Always 86 27.3

Often 128 40.6

Sometime 25 7.9
Rarely 49 15.6
Never 27 8.6
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 40.6% student’s were often and 7.9 % sometimes trying to gain
influence among his/ her fellows.

Table 4.4 showed that 27.3% student’s were always trying to gain influence among
his/ her fellows, 40.6% answered as often, 7.9% described sometime, 15.6% opined
rarely and 8.6% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.63. It
was concluded that the majority of students were always trying to gain influence
among his/ her fellows.
Page: 14

Table 4.4

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely

Table 4.5
Trying to gain power in classroom to threaten teacher.
Frequency Percent
Always 57 18.1
Often 125 39.7
Sometime 53 16.8
Rarely 49 15.6
Never 31 9.8
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 39.7% student often and 9.8% never trying to gain power in
classroom to threaten teacher.

Table 4.5 showed that 18.1% student’s were trying to gain power in classroom to
threaten teacher., 39.7% answered as often, 16.8% described sometime, 15.6% opined
rarely and 9.8% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.41. It
was concluded that the majority of students were often trying to gain power in
classroom to threaten teacher.
Page: 15

Table 4.5

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 16

Table 4.6
Entering in the classroom hurriedly with screaming sounds.
Frequency Percent
Always 73 23.2
Often 124 39.4
Sometime 41 13.0
Rarely 49 15.6
Never 28 8.9
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 39.4% student often and 8.9% never entering in the classroom
hurriedly with screaming sounds.

Table 4.6 showed that 23.2% student’s were always entering in the classroom
hurriedly with screaming sounds. , 39.4% answered as often, 13.0% described
sometime, 15.6% opined rarely and 8.9% responded as never with this statement. The
mean score is 3.52. It was concluded that the majority of students were often entering
in the classroom hurriedly with screaming sounds.

Table 4.6

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 17

Table 4.7
Sleeping during lecture.
Frequency Percent
Always 65 20.6
Often 124 39.4
Sometime 40 12.7
Rarely 55 17.5
Never 31 9.8
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 39.4% student often and 9.8% never sleeping during lecture.

Table 4.7 showed that 20.6% student’s were always sleeping during lecture, 39.4%
answered as often, 12.7% described sometime, 17.5% opined rarely and 9.8%
responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.43. It was concluded that
the majority of students were often sleeping during lecture.

Table 4.7

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 18

Table 4.8
Chatting with one another during lecture.
Frequency Percent
Always 69 21.9
Often 119 37.8
Sometime 25 7.9
Rarely 51 16.2
Never 51 16.2
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 37.8% students often and 7.9% sometime chatting with one another
during lecture.

Table 4.8 showed that 21.9% student’s were always chatting with one another during
lecture. , 37.8% answered as often, 7.9% described sometime, 16.2% opined rarely
and 16.2% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.33. It was
concluded that the majority of students were often chatting with one another during
lecture.

Table 4.8

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 19

Table 4.9
Coming in classroom habitually late.
Frequency Percent
Always 92 29.2
Often 127 40.3
Sometime 30 9.5
Rarely 43 13.7
Never 23 7.3
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 40.3% student often and 7.3% never coming in classroom habitually
late.

Table 4.9 showed that 29.2% student’s were always coming in classroom habitually
late. , 40.3% answered as often, 9.5% described sometime, 13.7% opined rarely and
7.3% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.70. It was
concluded that the majority of students were come in classroom habitually late.

Table 4.9

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 20

Table 4.10
Unnecessarily arguing with teachers.
Frequency Percent
Always 82 26.0
Often 142 45.1
Sometime 40 12.7
Rarely 34 10.8
Never 17 5.4
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 45.1% student often and 5.4% unnecessarily arguing with teachers.

Table 4.10 showed that 26.0% student’s were always unnecessarily arguing with
teachers , 45.1% answered as often, 12.7% described sometime, 10.8% opined rarely
and 5.4% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.76. It was
concluded that the majority of students were often unnecessarily arguing with
teachers.

Table 4.10

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely

Table 4.11
Bringing noisy electric devices in the classroom.
Frequency Percent
Always 82 26.0
Often 145 46.0
Sometime 32 10.2
Rarely 29 9.2
Page: 21

Never 27 8.6
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 46.0% students often and 8.6% never bringing noisy electric devices
in the classroom.

Table 4.11 showed that 26.0% student’s were always bringing noisy electric devices
in the classroom, 46.0% answered as often, 10.2% described sometime, 9.2% opined
rarely and 8.6% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.72. It
was concluded that the majority of students were often bringing noisy electric devices
in the classroom.

Table 4.11

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely

Table 4.12
Blaming one another upon any mischiefs.
Frequency Percent
Always 92 29.2
Often 150 47.6
Sometime 42 13.3
Rarely 24 7.6
Never 7 2.2
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 47.6%% students often and 2.2% never blaming one another upon
any mischief.
Page: 22

Table 4.12 showed that 29.2% student’s were always blaming one another upon any
mischiefs., 47.6% answered as often, 13.3% described sometime, 7.6% opined rarely
and 2.2% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.94. It was
concluded that the majority of students were often blaming one another upon any
mischief.

Table 4.12

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely

Table 4.13
Initiating quarrel among the students.
Frequency Percent
Always 100 31.7
Often 142 45.1
Sometime 31 9.8
Rarely 22 7.0
Never 20 6.3
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 45.1% students often and 6.3% never initiating quarrel among the
students.

Table 4.13 showed that 31.7% student’s were always Initiating quarrel among the
students. , 45.1% answered as often, 9.8% described sometime, 7.0% opined rarely
and 6.3% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.89. It was
Page: 23

concluded that the majority of students were Initiating quarrel among the students.

Table 4.13

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely

Table 4.14
Shouting loudly to create thrill in classroom.
Frequency Percent
Always 105 33.3
Often 134 42.5
Sometime 30 9.5
Rarely 39 12.4
Never 7 2.2
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 42.5% student often and 2.2% never shouting loudly to create thrill
in classroom.

Table 4.14 showed that 33.3% student’s were always Shouting loudly to create thrill
in classroom., 42.5% answered as often, 9.5% described sometime, 12.4% opined
rarely and 2.2% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.92. It
was concluded that the majority of students were shouting loudly to create thrill in
classroom.
Page: 24

Table 4.14

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 25

Table 4.15
Frequency Percent
Always 85 27.0
Often 120 38.1
Sometime 60 19.0
Rarely 40 12.7
Never 10 3.2
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 38.1% student often and 3.2% never wandering in balcony which
diverge attention of students inside the classroom.
Table 4.15 showed that 27.0% student’s were always wandering in balcony which
divert attention of students inside the classroom. 38.1% answered as often, 19.0%
described sometime, 12.7% opined rarely and 3.2% responded as never with this
statement. The mean score is 3.73. It was concluded that the majority of students were
often wandering in balcony which diverge attention of students inside the classroom.

Table 4.15

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 26

Table 4.16

Frequency Percent
Always 93 29.5
Often 122 38.7
Sometime 44 14.0
Rarely 37 11.7
Never 19 6.0
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 38.7%% students often and 6.0% never start answering before
question finish.

Table 4.16 showed that 29.5% student’s were always Start answering before question
finish, 38.7% answered as often, 14.0% described sometime, 11.7% opined rarely and
6.0% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.74. It was
concluded that the majority of students were start answering before question finish.

Table 4.16

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 27

Table 4.17
Playing with (hands, feet, pen etc) during lecture.
Frequency Percent
Always 72 22.9
Often 121 38.4
Sometime 35 11.1
Rarely 58 18.4
Never 29 9.2
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 38.4% student often and 9.2% never playing with (hands, feet, pen
etc) during lecture.

Table 4.17 showed that 22.9% student’s were always playing with(hands, feet, pen
etc) during lecture, 38.4% answered as often, 11.1% described sometime, 18.4%
opined rarely and 9.2% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is
3.47. It was concluded that the majority of students were often playing with (hands,
feet, pen etc) during lecture.

Table 4.17

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 28

Table 4.18
Destroying classroom furniture with your feet.
Frequency Percent
Always 65 20.6
Often 102 32.4
Sometime 48 15.2
Rarely 57 18.1
Never 43 13.7
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 32.4% student often and 13.7% never destroying classroom furniture
with their feet.

Table 4.18 showed that 20.6% student’s were always destroying classroom furniture
with their feet, 32.4% answered as often, 15.2% described sometime, 18.1% opined
rarely and 13.7% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.28. It
was concluded that the majority of students were often destroying furniture with their
feet.

Table 4.18

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 29

Table 4.19
Throwing things on your class fellows.
Frequency Percent
Always 70 22.2
Often 73 23.2
Sometime 40 12.7
Rarely 82 26.0
Never 50 15.9
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 26.0% student rarely and 12.7% sometime throwing things on their
class fellows.

Table 4.19 showed that 22.2% student’s were always throwing things on their class
fellows, 23.2 % answered as often, 12.7% described sometime, 26.0% opined rarely
and 15.9% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.10. It was
concluded that the majority of students were rarely throw things on their class fellows.

Table 4.19

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely

Table 4.20
Using rough language with other students and teachers.
Frequency Percent
Always 54 17.1
Often 95 30.2
Page: 30

Sometime 44 14.0
Rarely 72 22.9
Never 50 15.9
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 30.2% students often and 14.0% never using rough language with
other students and teachers.

Table 4.20 showed that 17.1% student’s were always using rough language with other
students and teachers, 30.2% answered as often, 14.0% described sometime, 22.9%
opined rarely and 15.9% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is
3.10. It was concluded that the majority of students were often use rough language
with other students and teachers.

Table 4.20

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 31

Table 4.21
Reporting others for his/her mistakes or misbehavior.
Frequency Percent
Always 93 29.5
Often 155 49.2
Sometime 31 9.8
Rarely 23 7.3
Never 13 4.1
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 49.2% students often and 4.1% never reporting others for his/her
mistakes or misbehavior.

Table 4.21 showed that 29.5% student’s were always reporting others for his/her
mistakes or misbehavior, 49.2% answered as often, 9.8% described sometime, 7.3%
opined rarely and 4.1% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is
3.93. It was concluded that the majority of students were often reporting others for
his/her mistakes or misbehavior.

Table 4.21

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 32

Table 4.22

Deliberately destroying things.

Frequency Percent
Always 101 32.1
Often 136 43.2
Sometime 32 10.2
Rarely 33 10.5
Never 13 4.1
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 43.2% students often and 4.1% never deliberately destroying things.

Table 4.22 showed that 32.1% student’s were always deliberately destroying things ,
43.2% answered as often, 10.2% described sometime, 10.5% opined rarely and 4.1%
responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.89. It was concluded that
the majority of students were often deliberately destroying things.

Table 4.22

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely

Table 4.23
Challenging the teacher on certain concepts about study.
Frequency Percent
Always 91 28.9
Page: 33

Often 125 39.7

Sometime 29 9.2
Rarely 45 14.3
Never 25 7.9
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 39.7% student often and 7.9% never challenging the teacher on
certain concepts about study.

Table 4.23 showed that 28.9% student’s were always challenging the teacher on
certain concepts about study, 39.7% answered as often, 9.2% described sometime,
14.3% opined rarely and 7.9% responded as never with this statement. The mean
score is 3.67. It was concluded that the majority of students were often challenging
the teacher on certain concepts about study.

Table 4.23

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 34

Table 4.24
Ignoring the teacher’s directions.
Frequency Percent
Always 116 36.8
Often 126 40.0
Sometime 37 11.7
Rarely 22 7.0
Never 14 4.4
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 40.0% student often and 4.4% never ignoring the teacher’s
directions.

Table 4.24 showed that 36.8% student’s were always ignoring the teacher’s
directions, 40.0% answered as often, 11.7% described sometime, 7.0% opined rarely
and 4.4% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.98. It was
concluded that the majority of students were often ignoring the teacher’s directions.

Table 4.24

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely

Table 4.25
You want to change your seat at daily bases.
Frequency Percent
Always 87 27.6
Often 149 47.3
Page: 35

Sometime 41 13.0
Rarely 27 8.6
Never 11 3.5
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 47.3% students often and 3.5% never want to change their seat at
daily bases.

Table 4.25 showed that 27.6% student’s were always you want to change your seat at
daily bases, 47.3% answered as often, 13.0% described sometime, 8.6% opined rarely
and 3.5% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.87. It was
concluded that the majority of students were often you want to change your seat at
daily bases.

Table 4.25

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely

Table 4.26
Discussing religious/sectarian issues.
Frequency Percent
Always 84 26.7
Often 138 43.8
Sometime 19 6.0
Rarely 49 15.6
Never 25 7.9
Total 315 100.0
Page: 36

It was found that 43.8% students often and 7.9% never discussing religious/sectarian
issues.

Table 4.26 showed that 26.7% student’s were always discussing religious/sectarian
issues, 43.8% answered as often, 6.0% described sometime, 15.6% opined rarely and
7.9% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.66. It was
concluded that the majority of students were often discussing religious/sectarian
issues.

Table 4.26

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 37

Table 4.27
Losing temper on slight penalty given by teacher.
Frequency Percent
Always 80 25.4
Often 135 42.9
Sometime 18 5.7
Rarely 45 14.3
Never 37 11.7
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 44.0% student often and 7.9% sometime losing temper on slight
penalty given by teacher.

Table 4.27 showed that 27.3% student’s were always Losing temper on slight penalty
given by teacher., 44.0% answered as often, 7.9% described sometime, 15.6% opined
rarely and 8.6% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.63. It
was concluded that the majority of students were often losing temper on slight penalty
given by teacher.

Table 4.27

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely

Table 4.28
Making complaints against his/her fellows.
Frequency Percent
Always 66 21.0
Often 143 45.4
Page: 38

Sometime 30 9.5
Rarely 53 16.8
Never 23 7.3
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 45.4% student often and 7.3% never making complaints against
his/her fellows.

Table 4.28 showed that 21.0% student’s were making complaints against his/her
fellows., 45.4% answered as often, 9.5% described sometime, 16.8% opined rarely
and 7.3% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.56. It was
concluded that the majority of students were often making complaints against his/her
fellows.

Table 4.28

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely

Table 4.29
Refuses to follow classroom’s rules.
Frequency Percent
Always 88 27.9
Often 169 53.7
Sometime 20 6.3
Rarely 30 9.5
Never 8 2.5
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 53.7% students often and 2.5% never refuses to follow classroom’s
rules.
Page: 39

Table 4.29 showed that 27.9% student’s were always refuses to follow classroom’s
rules, 53.7% answered as often, 6.3% described sometime, 9.5% opined rarely and
2.5% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.95. It was
concluded that the majority of students were often refuses to follow classroom’s rules.

Table 4.29

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 40

Table 4.30
Refuses to participate in classroom activities.
Frequency Percent
Always 87 27.6
Often 140 44.4
Sometime 37 11.7
Rarely 34 10.8
Never 17 5.4
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 44.4% students often and 5.4% never refuses to participate in
classroom activities.

Table 4.30 showed that 27.6% student’s were always refuses to participate in
classroom activities, 44.4% answered as often, 11.7% described sometime, 10.8%
opined rarely and 5.4% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is
3.78. It was concluded that the majority of students were often refuses to participate in
classroom activities.

Table 4.30

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 41

Table 4.31
Refuses to cooperate with others.
Frequency Percent
Always 52 16.5
Often 131 41.6
Sometime 36 11.4
Rarely 57 18.1
Never 39 12.4
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 41.6% students often and 11.4% sometime refuses to cooperate with
others.

Table 4.31 showed that 16.5% student’s were always refuses to cooperate with others,
41.6% answered as often, 11.4% described sometime, 18.1% opined rarely and 12.4%
responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.32. It was concluded that
the majority of students were often refuses to cooperate with others.

Table 4.31

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 42

Table 4.32
Pushed chairs and desks before leaving class.
Frequency Percent
Always 61 19.4
Often 140 44.4
Sometime 43 13.7
Rarely 51 16.2
Never 20 6.3
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 44.4% students often and 6.35 never pushed chairs and desks before
leaving class.

Table 4.32 showed that 19.4% student’s were always pushed chairs and desks before
leaving class., 44.4% answered as often, 13.7% described sometime, 16.2% opined
rarely and 6.3% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.54. It
was concluded that the majority of students were often pushed chairs and desks before
leaving class.

Table 4.32

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely
Page: 43

Table 4.33

Frequency Percent
Always 78 24.8

Often 149 47.3

Sometime 44 14.0
Rarely 22 7.0
Never 22 7.0
Total 315 100.0

It was found that 47.3% students often and 7.0% rarely and never interfering with
others learning during class.
Table 4.33 showed that 24.8% student’s were always interfering with others learning
during class., 47.3% answered as often, 14.0% described sometime, 7.0% opined
rarely and 7.0% responded as never with this statement. The mean score is 3.76. It
was concluded that the majority of students were often interfering with others learning
during class.

Table 4.33

Always
Often
Sometime
Rarely

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion:
Page: 44

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. There is no
statistically significant effect of different income on perceptions towards student’s
disruptive behavior. 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,
Discipline and student achievement. Policy information center. Research division.
Page: 45

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

Dissertation completed at Capella University. 1-118. Retrieved from ProQuest
Page: 46

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: 47

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.

Winston, S. (2008). The appeal(s) of character education in threatening times: caring

and critical democratic responses. Comparative Education, 44(3), 305-316.
Page: 48
Page: 49

QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear students,
We are research scholars at National College of Business Administration. Our study is
on “Explore the relationship between class room behavioral management and
student’s academic achievement at Secondary school level in Lahore” We 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
Above
Note: The questionnaire is based on Linker Scale you have to tick one of them.
5., Always 4: Often, 3: Some time, 2: Rarely , 1: Never

Sr. Statements Never Rarely

Some 0ften
1 2 times 4
3
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 Trying to gain power in classroom to threaten teacher.
‫آپ کال س روم میں اُ ستا د کو خو فز د ہ کر نے کی طا قت حا صل کر نا چا‬
‫ہتے ہیں۔‬
3 Entering in the classroom hurriedly with screaming sounds.
‫آ پ مختلف آواز یں نکا لتے ہو ئے جلد ی جلد ی کال س روم میں داخل ہو‬
‫تے ہیں۔‬
4 Sleeping during lecture.
‫ٓا پ کو لیکچر کے دوران نیند‹ آ تی ہے۔‬
5 Chatting with one another during lecture.
‫آ پ لیکچر کے دوران ایک دوسر ے سے با تیں کر تے ہیں۔‬
6 Coming in classroom habitually late.
‫آ پ عا د تا "کال س میں د یر سے آ تے ہیں۔‬
7 Unnecessarily arguing with teachers.
‫آ پ استا د سے غیر ضر و ری بحث کر تے ہیں۔‬
8 Bringing noisy electric devices in the classroom.
‫‪Page: 50‬‬

‫آ پ کال س میں شور مچا نے والے بر قی آ ال ت لے کر آ تے ہیں۔‬

‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪Blaming one another upon any mischiefs.‬‬
‫آ پ کسی شرارت پر ایک دوسرے پر الزام لگا تے ہیں۔‬
‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪Initiating quarrel among the students.‬‬
‫آپ طلبہ کے درمیا ن جھگڑ ے کا آ غا ز کر تے ہیں۔‬
‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪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۔‬
‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪Wandering in balcony which diverge attention of students‬‬
‫‪inside the classroom.‬‬
‫با لکو نی میں چلتے ہو ئے لو گ کمر ہ جما عت میں بیٹھے ہو ئے طا لب‬
‫علمو ں کی تو جہ کو منتشر کر تے ہیں۔‬
‫‪13‬‬ ‫‪Start answering before question finish.‬‬
‫آ پ سوال ختم ہو نے سے پہلے ہی جوابات شر و ع کر د یتے ہیں۔‬
‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪Playing with (hands, feet, pen etc) during lecture.‬‬
‫آپ کال س کے دوران اپنے ہا تھ‪ ،‬پا ؤں یا قلم سے کھیلتے‹ ہیں۔‬
‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪Destroying classroom furniture with your feet.‬‬
‫آ پ جما عت کے فر نیچر کو اپنے پا ؤں سے تو ڑ نے کی کو شش کر تے‬
‫ہیں۔‬
‫‪16‬‬ ‫‪Throwing things on your class fellows.‬‬
‫آ پ اپنے ہم جما عتو ں پر چیز یں پھینکتے ہیں۔‬
‫‪17‬‬ ‫‪Using rough language with other students and teachers.‬‬
‫آ پ اپنے سا تھی طلبہ اور اُ سا تذ ہ کے ساتھ غلط ز با ن استعما ل کر تے‬
‫ہیں۔‬
‫‪18‬‬ ‫‪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۔‬
‫‪19‬‬ ‫‪Deliberately destroying things.‬‬
‫آ پ جا ن بو جھ کر چیز و ں کی تو ڑ پھو ڑ کر تے ہیں۔‬
‫‪20‬‬ ‫‪Challenging the teacher on certain concepts about study.‬‬
‫آ پ پڑ ھا ئی کے متعلق کچھ خیا ال ت پر اُ ستا د کو چیلنج کر تے ہیں۔‬
‫‪21‬‬ ‫‪Ignoring the teacher’s directions.‬‬
‫آ پ اُ ستا د کی بتا ئی ہو ئی ہد ا یا ت کو نظر اند ا ز کر تے ہیں۔‬
‫‪22‬‬ ‫‪You want to change your seat at daily bases.‬‬
‫آ پ روز جما عت میں اپنی جگہ تبد یل کر نا چا ہتے ہیں۔‬
‫‪23‬‬ ‫‪Discussing religious/sectarian issues.‬‬
‫آ پ جما عت میں مذ ہب یا فر قہ وار یت پر بحث کر تے ہیں۔‬
‫‪24‬‬ ‫‪Losing temper on slight penalty given by teacher.‬‬
‫آ پ اُ ستا د کی طر ف سے کیے گئے معمو لی سے جر ما نے پر اپنا مز ا ج‬
‫‪Page: 51‬‬

‫کھو د یتے ہیں۔‬

‫‪25‬‬ ‫‪Making complaints against his/her fellows.‬‬
‫آ پ اپنے ہم جما عتو ں کے خال ف شکا یا ت کر تے ہیں۔‬
‫‪26‬‬ ‫‪Refuses to follow classroom’s rules.‬‬
‫آ پ کمر ہ جما عت کے ا صو لو ں پر عمل کر نے سے انکا ر کر تے ہیں۔‬
‫‪27‬‬ ‫‪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۔‬
‫‪28‬‬ ‫‪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۔‬
‫‪29‬‬ ‫‪Pushed chairs and desks before leaving class.‬‬
‫کال س چھو ڑ نے سے پہلے ُکر سیو ں اور ڈیسک کو د ھکیلتے ہیں۔‬
‫‪30‬‬ ‫‪Interfering with others learning during class.‬‬
‫کال س کے دوران آ پ کسی دو سر ے کے سیکھنے کے عمل میں مد اخلت‬
‫کر تے ہیں۔‬
‫‪31‬‬ ‫‪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۔‬