Pple Assessment1 Rdonoghue
Pple Assessment1 Rdonoghue
Pple Assessment1 Rdonoghue
Introduction
The following paper attempts to answer the question “why do young people
misbehave in school?” through primary and secondary research. A literature
review was conducted followed by six individual interviews, which were then
compared and contrasted in an attempt to answer the above question and
determine the implications this has on a pre-service teachers praxis. For the
purpose of this paper, student misbehaviour is defined as behaviour that is
inappropriate in the context in which is it is displayed, socially inappropriate and
impedes the learning of students, including themselves (De Nobile, Lyons &
Arthur Kelly, 2017; De Jong, 2005).
Literature Review
An important finding of Westling’s (2010) paper Teachers and challenging
behavior knowledge, views, and practices, is “a substantial majority” (p.59) of
teachers’ surveyed believed that behaviour is learned and can be improved. The
implication of this finding is the teacher acknowledgement that student
misbehaviour is shaped by a myriad of factors including but not limited to
personal characteristics and environmental influences. This theme is also
evident in Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor and Schellinger’s (2011) article,
The impact of enhancing Students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis
of school-based universal interventions, that found when social and emotional
learning (SEL) programs were effectively implemented in schools fewer student
conduct problems were experienced. An important implication of both articles is
that behaviour is learned as such can be manipulated through skill building. As a
result, misbehaviour in schools can be understood to be influenced by
development.
In saying this Lin and Yi’s (2015) article, Unhealthy sleep practices, conduct
problems, and daytime functioning during adolescence, adds another layer of
consideration to the theme. The article cites poor sleep habits as a contributor to
misbehaviour. Interestingly it is also reported that poor sleep practises correlate
with poor emotional wellbeing. As such, when considering why students
misbehave in school, it may not be enough to address social and emotional
1
102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892
development through SEL programs if the crux of the issue is poor sleep quality
and not lack of skill.
Stemming from this theme, Roache and Lewis’ (2011) paper Teachers’ views on
the impact of classroom management on student responsibility, found that
coercive teachers incite more instances of misbehaviour. In comparison, teachers
who focussed on building positive relationships with students experience fewer
instances of misbehaviour and students demonstrate higher capability in self-
regulation of behaviour. This is an important implication as it demonstrates how
students react to different teaching styles and therefore misbehaviour is not an
isolated incident but is a response to environment. Covell, Mcneil and Howe
(2009) also established a link between disengagement and lack of rights given to
the student to shape their own learning, again suggesting that teaching style
contributes to behaviour. Similarly, Demanet and Van Houtte’s (2012) article
Teachers’ attitudes and students’ opposition. School misconduct as a reaction to
teachers’ diminished effort and affect, found that students in classroom
environments of low expectations and belief in capabilities demonstrated a
higher likelihood of misbehaviour. An interesting implication of this article is the
finding that misbehaviour can occur despite a students’ actual level of capability,
that is, despite previous academic performance low expectations resulted in low
performance. Therefore students’ self-efficacy is intimately shaped by teacher
expectations and as such teachers need to ensure they provide an environment
in which all students feel they are capable and supported.
Interview process
Six individuals, three male and three female, have been interviewed in order to
gather primary data on the research question, “why do young people misbehave
in school?” Interviews were not conducted until participants read and returned
the information sheet and signed the consent form. Interviews were informal
and conversational, open ended and began by asking, “Why do young people
misbehave in school?” As participants answered, follow up questions were asked
in order to elicit more detailed responses and often provided insights in to
participants’ own experiences as the basis on which their views were shaped.
2
102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892
Participants were not randomly selected but instead chosen to both fill the brief
and to capture varying demographics in the hope that this would give a plethora
of results. Further information of participants is as follows:
Once completed, interviews were coded in to themes and sub-themes. This was
done by reading one interview and colour-coding each distinct reason listed by
the interviewee and then applying the same technique to subsequent interviews.
Should a subsequent interview highlight a new reason, a new colour-code was
created. Once all interviews were coded, codes were compared across interviews
to determine if they could be grouped. For instance, one interview identified
anxiety due to pressure from family as a reason for misbehaviour, however,
another interview identified temperament as a cause of misbehaviour. When
compared, it was concluded that both responses could be categorised as
developmental factors as both interviewees were referring to using
misbehaviour as a mechanism for coping.
Results
The broad themes identified were disengagement, developmental factors and
relationships.
3
102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892
Relationships were another broad theme drawn from the data with all
participants identifying it as cause of misbehaviour. A student’s relationship with
peers was one relationship mentioned by the five participants whom all cited a
need to be accepted as reason students’ misbehaved. M3 and F2 approached
relationships with peers from the perspective of bullying as a cause for
misbehaviour, with F2 citing wagging to avoid peers and M3 citing acting out in
class after encountering a bully. Student-teacher relationships were also cited by
F2 and F3 as a cause of misbehaviour whereby a lack of respect within the
relationship caused misbehaviour, that is, a student who did not feel respected
would misbehave or a student who didn’t respect the teacher would misbehave.
Home life was another form of relationship drawn from the interviews with all
participants mentioning it as a cause of misbehaviour. Home life was considered
a cause of misbehaviour when students were not supported at home and craved
attention, what constituted misbehaviour at home was different to school, lack of
discipline from parents and poor modelling of respectful relationships.
4
102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892
Analysis
As mentioned previously, developmental factors were highlighted in the
interviews as a reason for misbehaviour in school and this was reflected in the
literature in which teachers’ believed that behaviour was a response to social
and emotional learning (Westling, 2010; Durlak et al., 2011). Interviewees noted
numerous developmental reasons for misbehaviour many of which related to
social and emotional learning including, a response to bullying, peer pressure,
the need for peer acceptance, learning to deal with disappointment and
experimentation with boundaries. Interviewees also cited relationships as a
cause of misbehaviour and although identified as a separate theme, correlates
with the literature in regards to social and emotional learning with every
interviewee creating a link between misbehaviour and a response to dealing
with a relationship in their life be it teacher, peer or home.
The relationship between teachers and students was another theme drawn from
the literature that also emerged in the interviews (Roache & Lewis, 2011;
Demanet & Van Houtten, 2012). F2 provided an anecdote in which they rarely
misbehaved in class but due to one particularly poor relationship with a teacher
was unfairly targeted. F1 did not mention poor relationships as a cause of
misbehaviour, however, did cite that building a positive student-teacher
relationship could help neutralise issues at home that caused misbehaviour.
Interestingly, no male participants cited poor relationships between student and
teacher as a cause of misbehaviour including one pre-service teacher and one
practising teacher.
5
102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892
The only sub-theme there was consensus on was relationships with peers and
cause of misbehaviour. This was not reflected in the literature reviewed,
however, it correlates with SEL (Durlak et al., 2011) as every participant
identified peer influence, social acceptance or coping with bullying as a cause of
misbehaviour. Should these factors be improved through SEL, students may
learn to engage in pro-social behaviour with peers that in turn may eliminate
misbehaviour in the classroom where peer relationships are the catalyst.
The finding that relationships influence student behaviour has in turned shaped
how and to what extent I will build relationships with students. I now
understand how much my own relationships with students can influence their
behaviour. Although I cannot control external factors such as peer relationships
or home life, it is evident to me that knowing my students will have an impact on
how they behave in the classroom. For instance, a cause of misbehaviour is
disengagement and should I encounter a student who is misbehaving due to
disengagement, in order to make the content relevant to them I will need to
know them. In order to build positive relationships with students I would follow
the advice of De Nobile et al. (2017) and do things such as greeting students
using their preferred name, make connections with things that interest them and
share appropriate aspects of my life in order to connect with them. Following
this I would try to build communication between the student and myself by using
open questions such as “how interesting do you find this subject” or “how are
you feeling today?” (De Nobile et al., 2017).
6
102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892
Upon synthesising the findings of Durlak et al. (2012) and the interviews, it is
evident that SEL is a major factor in why young people misbehave at school. This
knowledge has shaped my praxis as I now understand that misbehaviour does
not occur because a student wants to be disruptive to learning but because they
are learning how to manage their emotions. As a result, I will incorporate SEL in
my classroom as much as reasonably possible. This might occur in the form of a
mindfulness activity or a program such as MindMatters (2014) of which different
parts can be done at different intervals depending on what the students’ are
experiencing. MindMatters (2014) and similar programs are more effective at a
whole year or school level however, so I would advocate for this within the
whole school environment to increase SEL for all students and not just those in
my classroom.
7
102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892
Reference List
Covell, K., Mcneil, J.K., & Howe, R.B. (2009). Reducing Teacher Burnout by
10.1177/0143034309106496
De Nobile, J., Lyons, G., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2017). Positive learning environments:
Demanet, J., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). Teachers’ attitudes and students’
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.008
Durlak, J.A., Weissberg, R.P., Dymnicki, A.B., Taylor, R.D., & Schellinger, K.B.
8
102084_Assessment One
Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892
Lin, W., & Yi, C. (2015). Unhealthy sleep practices, conduct problems, and
https://www.mindmatters.edu.au/about-mindmatters/what-is-
mindmatters
Roache, J., & Lewis, R. (2011). Teachers' Views on the Impact of Classroom