Cameron Wallace 17698724

Young people do not just misbehave for the sake of misbehaving. There are a number of underlying,
social, education and cognitive factors that cause young people to misbehave in school. This report
explores this factors firstly in a literature review and then through a qualitative study. This is
followed by a comparison between the two and a how it impacts my own teaching practice.

Section 1: Literature Review

Peers can have a substantial impact on a student’s behaviour as peers have been shown to influence
what you value, learn, wear and eat (Belle, 2017; Wang, Kiuru, Degol, & Salmela-Aro, 2018). This has
been highlighted in studies by Wang, Kiuru, Degol, and Salmela-Aro (2018) where they found young
people are more likely to misbehave if their peers value and participate in delinquent behaviour
such as truanting. In terms of class-wide peer influence, research has shown students who are in
classrooms over an extended period of time with other students who regularly misbehave are more
likely to engage in such behaviour (O’Brennan, Bradshaw, & Furlong, 2014). This aligns with research
by Belle (2017) who highlighted over time students become alike to their peers in terms of cognitive,
emotional and behavioural engagement.

In continuing how classroom and school environments impact student behaviour research has also
shown that overcrowded classrooms, harsh discipline measures and lack of effective leadership from
the principle can lead to students misbehaving (Belle, 2017). Interestingly, research has shown that
the number of males and females in the class can affect student behaviour. Demanet, Vanderwegen,
Vermeersch, and Van Houtte (2013) found that males and females are more likely to behave if there
are a greater number of females in the class suggesting the presence of females may encourage boys
to adhere to the school rules. In contrast, research by Cothran, Kulinna, and Garrahy (2009) found
some students believe male students misbehave to try and impress the females in the class. This
study also highlighted students will misbehave to gain the attention of the teacher. Some teachers
attribute this need for attention due to the students ‘poor’ home life (Cothran et al., 2009).

There is also evidence to suggest a negative student-teacher relationship can cause students to
misbehave (Belle, 2017). Highlighted in the research by Belle (2017) students may misbehave if they
feel like their teacher: has no interest in them, does not provide adequate feedback and guidance,
does not communicate with them and cannot provide relevant learning activities. This is echoed in
studies by Cothran et al. (2009) as they found relevance of the content and learning activities is a key
influence on student behaviour. Students in the study highlighted they would misbehave if the class
was boring or if they did not care about the subject (Cothran et al., 2009). Interestingly the teachers
Cameron Wallace 17698724

in the study never credited student misbehaviour to what they teach and how they teach it (Cothran
et al., 2009).

Section 2: Methods and Results

Methods

A purposive sample was used to ensure the study included the perspectives of parents, teachers,
pre-service teachers and individuals in a non-teaching occupation. Table 1 illustrates the
characteristics of each participant in the study. An unstructured interview was conducted with each
participant with the interviewer facilitating conversation to get an in-depth understanding of the
perspectives of each participant. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify key themes within
the data. This was done by highlighting the most frequent answers given. All participants were
provided with a consent form that ensured their answers were to be used for this study only, were
ensured they would remain anonymous and were told they could withdraw from the study.

Results

Two themes were identified from the interview data as reasons why students misbehave: ‘the
teacher’ and ‘peer influence/attention’. The sub-themes of ‘boredom’ and ‘relevance’ were
identified within the theme of ‘the teacher’

1. The Teacher

All of the participants except P2 identified teachers as being one of the main reasons why students
misbehave. The participants said if the teacher cannot build a positive student-teacher relationship
and build a positive learning environment where students are engaged then students will
misbehave.
Cameron Wallace 17698724

1.1 Boredom

P3,P5 and P6 all identified boredom as one of the reasons students misbehave but also attributed
boredom to the learning activities prescribed by the teacher. P3 from a students perspective recalled
when they were in school they would misbehave because they were bored “it was so boring, so we
would make fun by talking and do stupid things” P5 highlighted their experience whilst on
professional practice citing teaching activities that involved copying from a text book caused
boredom to arise and as a consequent students engaged in disruptive behaviour. P6 provided their
perspective from a current teacher’s perspective making a link between the relevance of the content
and boredom saying “students can misbehave because their learning needs are not being met, if it’s
too easy for students they become bored and start talking, disrupting the whole lesson”.
Interestingly this data highlighted that the student, pre-service teacher and teacher identified the
teacher as the primary cause of boredom.

1.2 Relevance

In this study relevance is used to describe whether learning content and activities are relevant to the
students learning needs, interests and background. P1, P4 and P6 highlighted if teachers are not
aware of the learning needs of their students it creates a negative learning environment with P1
attributing this to misbehaviour. P6 and P4 take this into more depth by highlighting if the learning
activities do not match the students learning abilities then they are more likely to misbehave with P6
saying “If the work is too hard for the student then they think they’re not good enough and will just
give up and potentially start being disruptive”. In terms of subject areas and content P2 and P4
highlight that students who do not see the value and relevance of certain subject areas and content
are more likely to misbehave. This data highlights that regardless of the participants age, sex and
occupation they believe irrelevant learning activities that do not meet students’ needs attribute to
misbehaviour.

2. Peer influence/Attention

Peer influence and attention has been paired as the one theme because the participants identified
peers acting out of peer-pressure is to get attention and acceptance from their peers. P2 and P5
highlighted that students will get peer-pressured into doing things that are considered unacceptable
behaviour but ultimately they do them to get attention from their peers with P2 saying “I think kids
get peer pressured, and some might do something stupid just to get a laugh”. P4 believed that
students may misbehave to get attention from teachers and parents as well as their peers. P6
Cameron Wallace 17698724

believed students seeking attention by acting out was generally a personality trait of the student and
highlighted these attention seeking behaviours as minor such as talking out of turn. P1 had a
different view on peer influence saying “I think good kids can get mixed up in the wrong crowd and
start bad things at in and out of school”

Section 3: Comparison of Findings

Importantly P6 who is a current teacher ‘blamed’ student misbehaviour on what the teacher does,
saying teachers can counteract misbehaviour “by designing activities that are suited to their needs
and learning styles and that are relevant to their own situations and cultural background” Students
from another study said when the subject matter was of interest to students, and not boring they
would behave and when it was boring they would become disruptive (Cothran et al., 2009). This is
contrasted by the teachers in the same study who said they had no idea why students misbehaved
and did not ever attribute misbehaviour to their own teaching practices (Cothran et al., 2009). These
differences in opinion could be a result of changing views about student misbehaviour. The study by
Cothran et al. (2009) is nine years older than the current study, also the studies were conducted in
different geographic locations where differences in socio-economic status could be a contributing
factor.

Peer influence as a reason for students misbehaving has been supported by the present study as
well as previous research. P2, P4 and P5 in the current study identified that students will succumb to
peer-pressure to ultimately get attention from their peers. This type of peer influence identified by
the participants is situational, which is to say in a certain situation a student will act out to due to
peer pressure such as throwing something across the classroom. In addition Belle (2017) and Wang
et al. (2018) found peer influence on student’s behaviour can develop over time. The more time a
student spends with peers who engage in poor behaviour the more likely they will align their own
behaviour with that of their peers. This view is shared by P1 who highlighted well behaved students
can begin misbehaving if they ‘hang out’ with students who already engage in poor behaviour. P4
and P5 may not have identified how poorly behaved students can have a long term effect on well
behaved students because they do not have children of their own, whereas P1 is a mother and may
have had first-hand accounts of this.

Interestingly no participants in the current study highlighted the school environment as a factor that
contributes to student misbehaviour. Where studies by Belle (2017) identified the school
environment as a primary reason why students misbehave, highlighting overcrowded classrooms
and poor leadership from the executive staff in the school can contribute to environment where
disruptive behaviour is the norm. School environments where disruptive behaviour is the norm can
Cameron Wallace 17698724

have adverse effects on students who otherwise would not engage in such behaviour (O’Brennan et
al., 2014). The participants in the study failing to identify the school environment as a contributing
factor to why students misbehave could be due to a number of reasons. Perhaps the school
participants attended as a student and/or teacher was/is a positive learning environment where
disruptive behaviour is not so frequent or in contrary the school, participants attended as a student
and/or teacher was/is a negative learning environment believing that is how all schools are.

Section Four: Praxis for Teaching

This study highlights factors that contribute to why students misbehave in school. The primary
factors were teaching practices including classroom culture and peer influences. This study has
changed my own views on why students misbehave and has highlighted the impact teachers have on
student’s behaviour. I previously thought students primarily misbehaved because they did not value
school and to try and get attention from their friends. This study has shown students do misbehave
for attention as highlighted in studies by Cothran et al. (2009), but has shown the teacher can
minimalise student misbehaviour.

From the present study it is clear building a positive learning environment is the first step in
minimalising the frequency of students misbehaving. Building positive classroom environments
allows for more positive interactions between students and teachers to occur which subsequently
reduce the chance of disruptive behaviour occurring (Guardino & Fullerton, 2010). To build a
positive classroom environment it is important teachers and students share the same beliefs about
learning and behaviour by negotiating rules and expectations (De Nobile, Lyons, & Arthur-Kelly,
2017). Allowing students to negotiate rules and expectations in the classroom is an example of
student involvement.

Student involvement contributes to a student’s engagement motivation and self-esteem (De Nobile
et al., 2017). Student involvement occurs when a teacher includes students in the decision making
about activities as well as encouraging them to regulate their own behaviour (De Nobile et al., 2017).
Giving students control over their learning can increase their overall engagement (Shernoff,
Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, & Steele-Shernoff, 2016). Furthermore, teachers can increase
engagement by providing activities that support student’s autonomy and activities that students can
make personal connections to (Shernoff et al., 2016). This is echoed in the present study from P6
who highlighted the importance of designing activities that are relevant to the students own
situations and backgrounds as well as ensuring they are relevant to the their leaning needs and
styles.
Cameron Wallace 17698724

To ensure learning activities meet the needs of the student the content, process, and product should
be differentiated to provide an achievable challenge for all students (NSW Department of Education
and Communities, 2015). Not differentiating learning activities can lead to boredom if it is too easy
and feelings of not being good enough and frustration if it is too hard (Wilson & Devereux, 2014).
This is important as boredom and feeling not smart enough can lead to students misbehaving as
highlighted in the present study. Furthermore, affording students the choice on how they present
their work can increase their autonomy, motivation and engagement which can reduce disruptive
behaviour (Platt, 2018; Shernoff et al., 2016).

The focus of this section was what I can personally do as a teacher in terms of creating learning
environments and activities that are engaging for all students despite their learning needs. While I
believe students misbehave for numerous reasons, from this study and the research I have
conducted I believe the primary reason students misbehave is because the learning activities they
are provided are not engaging which causes them to become bored and disruptive.

Word count: 2195

References

Belle, L. J. (2017). Factors that influence student behaviour in secondary schools. European Journal

of Educational and Development Psychology, 5(5), 27-36. Retrieved from

http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/Factors-That-Influence-Student-

Behaviour-in-Secondary-Schools.pdf

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

misbehavior. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 14(2), 155-167.

doi:10.1080/17408980701712148

Demanet, J., Vanderwegen, P., Vermeersch, H., & Van Houtte, M. (2013). Unravelling gender

composition effects on rule-breaking at school: a focus on study attitudes. Gender and

Education, 25(4), 466-485. doi:10.1080/09540253.2013.772567

De Nobile, J., Lyons, G., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2017). Positive learning environments: Creating and

maintaining productive classrooms. South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning

Australia.

Guardino, C. A., & Fullerton, E. (2010). Changing behaviors by changing the classroom environment.

TEACHING Exceptional Children, 42(6), 8-13. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991004200601

NSW Department of Education and Communities. (2015). Differentiating content, process, product,

learning environment. Retrieved from

http://www.ssgt.nsw.edu.au/documents/3_content_pro_etal.pdf

O’Brennan, L. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Furlong, M. J. (2014). Influence of classroom and school

climate on teacher perceptions of student problem behavior. School Mental Health, 6(2),

125-136. doi:10.1007/s12310-014-9118-8
Cameron Wallace 17698724

Platt, J. (2018). How far does choice theory succeed, within classics, as a form of differentiation in

the classroom? Journal of Classics Teaching, 19(37), 10-16.

doi:10.1017/s2058631018000028

Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Steele-Shernoff, E. (2016). Student

engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. In Applications

of flow in human development and education (pp. 475-494). Claremontnt, CA: Springer.

Wang, M., Kiuru, N., Degol, J. L., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2018). Friends, academic achievement, and

school engagement during adolescence: A social network approach to peer influence and

selection effects. Learning and Instruction, 58, 148-160.

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.06.003

Wilson, K., & Devereux, L. (2014). Scaffolding theory: High challenge, high support in academic

language and learning (all) contexts. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 8(30), 91-

100. Retrieved from http://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/viewArticle/353