Mark Dunn (20237947) 102082 - Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments

Section 1 – Literature Review

Why students misbehave at school is a puzzling question that poses different answers depending on

which party is questioned, this report will attempt to examine the views of adults, teachers, and

students through the mediums of journal articles, textbooks, and focussed interviews. Before the

question can be asked, clarifications must be made. The first is to clarify what “school” means, and

the second is to define misbehaviour. For the purposes of this report, “school” will more specifically

refer to the classroom environment, under supervision of a teacher, and “misbehaviour” will be

defined as an action that “undermines the ability of a teacher to build and maintain an effective

learning experience” (Ye, Liu, Lee, Zhang, & Chiu, 2019, p. 1).

There are several schools of thought in literature as to why students misbehave in school which can

be separated into internal and external factors, and don’t contradict each other but build a very

intricate system. Taking an ecological [ CITATION DeN17 \l 3081 ], or eco-systemic[ CITATION DeJ \l

3081 ], approach it can be seen that students are not only influenced by these factors, but also play a

role in being an influence themselves.

There are two main factors within the student that causes them to misbehave, but they are not

clearly separate. The first is the drive of the student, what they want to achieve or attain, whether

that be a sense of belonging through gaining attention, or just enjoyment during a lesson in which

they are disengaged. This factor relates to the psychoeducational theories Choice Theory [ CITATION

Gla90 \l 3081 ] and Goal Theory [ CITATION Dre87 \l 3081 ] which state that students may not even

be aware of what they are trying to achieve through their misbehaviour. The second factor is a

further roadblock to understanding their motives, reduced cognitive ability. This may come in the

form of disability, or simply a reduction in academic understanding which the student may disguise

by misbehaving (Ye et al., 2019).

Teachers are the most influential factor outside of the student, as they create the environment in

which the students misbehave. Sometimes, teachers inadvertently promote misbehaviour through
Mark Dunn (20237947) 102082 - Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments

inadequate or outdated pedagogy [ CITATION Bee20 \l 3081 \m Cot \m Deb19], and shallow to non-

existent relationships with students [ CITATION Bee20 \l 3081 \m DeJ \m DeN17]. The appearance

of mobile phones in classrooms, regardless of school rules, and prompted absent presenteeism

[ CITATION Bee20 \l 3081 \m Deb19], as well as the structure put forth by the school, whether rules

or classroom sizes [ CITATION Deb19 \l 3081 \m Kou13]. Finally, when interviewing teachers, a

prominent opinion was that parents and home life had a major impact in the student’s behaviour in

the classroom [ CITATION Cot \l 3081 \m Kou13].

In summary, the literature supports many causes for student misbehaviour at school, however the

factor with the greatest impact being the teacher in how they relate to the students, how they

present their material, and how they enforce school and classroom rules.

Section 2 – Interview Summary

Six separate interviews were conducted to determine opinions that the average person has as to

why students misbehave in schools. Participants read and signed a consent form, agreeing to give

their honest opinions with the conditions that they not be recorded, for any notes taken to be

verbally confirmed, and that their identities be concealed. All participants had attained some form of

tertiary education, with ages ranging from twenty-five years old up to forty-four years old. Each

participant will be referred to by their gender and age. The participants’ opinions fell into two

categories: external and internal influences, with internal influences often intertwined with one or

more external influence.

The most common external influence identified was teachers. Teachers were mentioned by every

participant in different methods of influence summarised by static and unengaging pedagogy, a lack

of adequate behaviour management skills, labelling students (which results in reinforcing negative

stereotypes), and no desire for relationships with students. M30 suggested that “the ratio of

teachers to students is too low,” and that a “Lord of the Flies situation” is bound to eventuate.
Mark Dunn (20237947) 102082 - Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments

Parents were identified as another common external influence, again through rather varied means

summarised by not teaching their children to respect authority or emphasis personal growth

through education, inconsistent discipline, and the refusal to treat, or even acknowledge, possible

cognitive impairments in their child. Both F44 and M30 attribute family disfunction and breakdown

as important contributors, with F44 pointing out that “some students are overlooked if their sibling

has major issues… stress-head parents make their children do too much work or too much sport, and

come to school exhausted and fed up with being told what to do,” while M30 added, “students

spend less time in the influence of their parents than they used to.” F25 drew on her childhood in Sri

Lanka stating that, “family background is the main reason students misbehave. In school they will be

themselves because their home life is restricted, it just bursts out… Laid back parents also influence

students because they become used to freedom of action.”

The most common internal influence was the need for attention, mentioned by half of the

participants. All three participants believed that the desired attention would come from the teacher

with F44, herself a secondary teacher, noting, “negative attention is better than none”. M31

indicated that students seek attention “from classmates, or anyone willing to give it. They may not

be getting it at home and are seeking it elsewhere.” The motivation of students seeking attention

was clearly linked to the participants’ opinions that attention from another source was lacking.

In summary, the opinions of the participants on why students misbehave at school revolve around

the influence of teachers and parents, and the student’s desire to recover denied attention.

Section 3 – Comparison

In the previous sections, many ideas were laid out to explain, in some small part, why students

misbehave at school. The opinions of the interview participants will now be compared against the

literature, and any contradictions clarified.

Mark Dunn (20237947) 102082 - Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments

The main factor brought up by participants was teacher influence, which is reflected in the

literature. The themes of pedagogy, behavioural management and relationships with students were

all directly support by articles, which contrasts with the second factor the participants mentioned,

parents. Parental influence is uncommon in literature, only appearing in the reviewed literature as

interview responses from teachers as to the source of misbehaviour, i.e. lack of interest in

education, disregard for authority, poor life balance, and family breakdown issues. This could be a

refusal to accept responsibility for their students’ behaviour in their classroom, as pointed out in the

literature [ CITATION Cot \l 3081 ], but it may also be due to the professional developmental nature

of educational journals. It is also possible that certain psychology journals address this issue of

counselling parents in how to better raise their children but were simply not reviewed above.

Remaining points that arose from the interviews, teachers labelling students, parents overlooking

the child’s behaviour in order to care for a sibling with greater needs, and F44’s example of parental

disregard for diagnosis of learning difficulties, while not stated in the reviewed literature, do not

contradict anything that has been learned and must be deem plausible, but not yet evidence based.

The final main factor brought up by many of the participants was attention seeking. This aligns very

well with the literature, specifically the psychoeducational theories, Choice Theory and Goal Theory.

Dreikurs (1987) proposes four mistaken goals that lead to misbehaviour, one of which is attention

seeking. However, two of the three remaining goals are also plausible motivations for attention

seeking misbehaviour, power and escape. Escape was mentioned by F44 as a student’s way of

masking their academic struggles. Attention seeking students are motivated by the need to belong

with their misbehaving peers, the need for freedom over rules that may not be consistent, and

M33’s point that they desire fun in subjects they are disinterested in, as outline by Choice Theory

[ CITATION Gla90 \l 3081 ].

There were points raised in the literature review that did not arise as main factors from the

interviews. Very few participants suggested that cognitive limitations could be an influence on
Mark Dunn (20237947) 102082 - Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments

student misbehaviour. Mobile technology and absent presenteeism, which is so prominent in our

society, was absent from all interview statements, even those of F44, a secondary teacher of 22

years. This may be because of its deeply engrained nature in most ages of our society, that it is

becoming normalised.

In summary, this section has compared the main factors supplied by the interview participants

against those from literature and have linked many of the behaviours with psychoeducational

theories.

Section 4 – Praxis Implications

As mentioned above, one of the main influences on student misbehaviour in the classroom is due to

the teacher, and their classroom environment. While participants emphasised the role of the parent

in grooming habits, teachers can only do so much to affect how parents will interact with their child.

Therefore, this section will focus on how my practice as a teacher will be affected.

Dealing with the internal factors that prompt a student to misbehave will be very difficult to do as a

teacher. The best course of action that has been suggested is for strong teacher-student

relationships. This can be achieved by expending more effort to get to know students early in the

teaching and becomes more difficult as time goes on. This relationship should affect pedagogy and

classroom behaviour management methods, by trying to engage students creatively, proving the

authenticity of the lesson content, and by trying to work with students to acknowledge their needs

and goals, and provide better ways to attain them. While psychoeducation theories have been

mentioned, there is also great value to be found in social justice methods which involve making

them take ownership of their actions and the harm that their misbehaviour has caused.

Beeri & Horowitz (2020) stated that teacher concerns about student misbehaviour can lead to undue

stress, which diminishes the resilience needed to teach. This results in teachers leaving their

positions, left with a feeling of hopelessness about sustaining an effective teaching environment. The
Mark Dunn (20237947) 102082 - Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments

same article also states that continued student misbehaviour causes a “steady erosion of [teacher]

authority” (p.179). It is again clear that I will need to make efforts early to avoid the worst-case

scenario or leaving teaching prematurely.

As mentioned above, teachers are limited in how much we can affect the home life, and while any

evidence pertaining to such a theory has escaped my review, I believe it is in the best interests of the

child if professionals are role models to students in addition to their parents. There is no doubt in my

mind that this approach will be strengthened by the previously mentioned student-teacher

relationships, not with the intent of creating clones, but with instilling the values that are required

by the National Curriculum [ CITATION Bar08 \l 3081 ] and AITSL [ CITATION Aus17 \l 3081 ] to

become well-rounded citizens.

This report has endeavoured to answer the question, “why do students misbehave at school?”

through a comparative literature review and interviews, to determine what implications that has for

teaching praxis. It has been determined that teachers play an integral role in student misbehaviour,

and that effective teachers should strive to form relationships and engage students with the content

and values of the curriculum through contemporary pedagogy and behaviour management

methods.
Mark Dunn (20237947) 102082 - Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments

References

Beeri, I., & Horowitz, D. D. (2020). Reducing students’ ‘absent presenteeism’ and mobile

misbehaviour in class: an empirical study of teacher perspectives and practices. Technology,

Pedagogy and Education, 177-190.

Cothran, D. J., Hodges Kulinna, P., & Garrahy, D. A. (2009). Attributions for and consequences of

student misbehaviour. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 155-167.

De Jong, T. (2005). A Framework of Principles and Best Practice for Managing Student Behaviour in

the Australian Education Context. School Psychology International, 353-370.

De Nobile, J., Lyons, G., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2017). Psychoeducational Approaches. In J. De Nobile, G.

Lyons, & M. Arthur-Kelly, Positive Learning Environments: Creating and Maintaining

Productive Classrooms (pp. 213-254). South Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia.

Debreli, E., & Ishanova, I. (2019). Foreign language classroom management: Types of student

misbehaviour and strategies adapted by the teachers in handling disruptive behaviour.

Cogent Education, 1-21.

Dreikurs, R. (1987). Are psychological schools of thought outdated? Individual Psychology, 265-272.

Glasser, W. (1990). The Quality School: Managing Students without Coercion. New York: Harper

Collins.

Koutrouba, K. (2013). Student misbehaviour in secondary education: Greek teachers' views and

attitudes. Educational Review, 1-19.

Ye, X., Liu, P.-F., Lee, X.-Z., Zhang, Y.-Q., & Chiu, C.-K. (2019). Classroom misbehaviour management:

an SVVR-based training system for preservice teachers. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-

18.
Mark Dunn (20237947) 102082 - Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments