Pedagogy for Positive Learning Environments – Assignment 1 –

Report
Lyndal Howison - 15895338

Why do young people misbehave in school?

(Word count 2163 including in-text citations and sub-headings)

Adolescence is a life-stage that features dramatic physical change as well as burgeoning self-
awareness (Arnett, 2014) and is subject to a myriad of external effects including escalating
peer influence and growing responsibilities. These factors help explain why misbehaviour at
high school is a relatively common occurrence (Cothran et al., 2009). The management and
mitigation of this misbehaviour is of keen interest, because of its adverse impact on school
culture, classroom climate and teacher wellbeing (Sullivan et el, 2014; Osher et al., 2010).
Further, research indicates that both engaged students and well-managed classrooms are
associated with improved academic outcomes (Osher et al., 2010).

Section One – Literature synthesis

Contemporary research indicates that the more salient factors determining student
misbehaviour are the quality of the student-teacher relationship (De Jong, 2005) and the
influence of the school community (De Jong, 2005), including the programs or philosophy of
behaviour management espoused at the school, and the extent to which those programs
are applied consistently.

Learning is a social process, so it is argued that a strong, functioning student-teacher

relationship is a necessary precursor to learning (Arnett, 2014; Green, 2011; Martin, 2004).
Healthy student-teacher relationships feature high levels of student engagement (Zendarski
et al., 2017; Sullivan et al., 2014) and research indicates that where this is achieved,
academic performance increases (Zendarski et al., 2017).

Positive student-teacher relationships create classroom environments that are “supportive,

non-threatening” (De Jong, 2005, p. 365). They also foster higher order thinking; McDonald

1
contends that it is in the “emotionally safe classroom” that students can “risk a creative
answer, take an alternative opinion” (2010, p. 150). With engagement, student
misbehaviour declines, and teachers can “reduce a reliance on intervention strategies”
(Sullivan et al., 2014, p. 53), which can be time-consuming and taxing.

The school communities and classrooms are part of the ‘ecosystem’ that encompasses all of
the social and relational influences on a student’s life (Sullivan et al., 2014; Cothran, 2009).
It has been argued that full understanding of student misbehaviour cannot be achieved
without an “eco-systemic perspective” (De Jong, 2005, p. 357), within which, the student-
teacher relationship is part of a set of “complex, interconnected, interdependent…
relationships” (ibid, p. 357).

A student’s ecosystem is clearly implicated in school misbehaviour. Research indicates that

effective behaviour management strategies require full identification of “the environmental
correlates of problem behaviour” (Killu, 2008, p. 141). A student-centred and more lasting
approach may be achieved by adjusting “a problem environment” “rather than seeking to
change “problem behaviour” (De Jong, 2005, p. 357). For the school communities,
“(m)inimizing challenging behaviour requires systems change and a range of appropriate
interventions. No one intervention will necessarily facilitate meaningful behavioural change”
(ibid, p. 357).

Ultimately, the quality of the student-teacher relationship and the degree of support in the
school community are mutually reinforcing. Osher et al. argue that “Effective schools
establish shared values regarding mission and purpose; promote prosocial behavior and
connection to school traditions; and provide a caring, nurturing climate involving collegial
relationships among adults and students” (2010, p. 53).

Section Two – Interview summaries and main findings

All six interviews were conducted as informal discussions prompted by the question: Why
do young people misbehave in school?

Interviewee B - female, early 40s, speech pathologist, no children.

2
With extensive clinical experience of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), I(B) is
well versed in both passive and active forms of misbehaviour. She described these students
as “hard to guide or teach” due to their impaired cognition and communication ability. She
differentiated “praise” from “encouragement”, whereby effort is recognised and
incentivised, a distinction that is made in Goal Theory, a psychoeducational approach to
behaviour management that addresses psychological needs (De Nobile et al., 2017).

Interviewee T – male, early 40s, finance manager, father to one teenage daughter.

I(T) commenced the interview with the position that misbehaviour “starts early, in the
home” when parents fail to teach children about authority and respect for teachers. His
views changed when he applied the interview topic to his own child. His expectation is that
misbehaviour by her would likely arise as a result of distress or psychological disruption and
hopes that her school would be supportive rather than punitive. He later touched on
ecosystem perspectives by expressing sympathy towards students with unsettled home
lives. His own parenting indicates that adolescents require significant emotional support.

Interviewee G – female, late 30s, part-time psychologist, mother to three including one
adolescent.

I(G) reflected on her brother, who was gifted but misbehaved in school “because he was not
challenged” and noted some “teaching styles… disagree with some kids”. She places high
value on the student-teacher relationship, which is necessary for a joint student-teacher
“learning journey”. She addressed engagement with school, which she consider paramount,
and believes that all students should have the opportunity to lead and hold positions of
authority.

Interviewee J – female, early 40s, experienced teacher, mother to two including one
adolescent.

I(J) is involved with research on pedagogy through her role managing professional
development at her school. She noted that classroom management is innate for an
experienced teacher, however she still engages in active self-reflection. She views
misbehaviour as “feedback… a cue to modify what I’m doing, to meet the needs of the
students and engage them more.” She described a school-wide project to develop critical
thinking and metacognitive skills, that seeks to reduce passive misbehaviour and “over-

3
compliance”. She notes “what we name and notice is what we value. It sends a strong
message to students… If we’re constantly rewarding compliance, safe answers, discouraging
risks, we will produce those outcomes.”

Interviewee N – male, mid-30s, early-career teacher, no children.

I(N) acknowledged the challenge of student misbehaviour, and its occasionally detrimental
effects on his wellbeing. His goal is to establish trust and ensure that students feel valued.
This is purposeful; students need to feel comfortable to confide in him if that have a
problem, “whether its inside or outside the classroom”. This trust allows him to build
student “confidence in their learning”, which he believes is a pre-requisite to academic
progress and critical thinking. I(N) believes that students want to do well, and they want
structure; “they want the steps they need to take to achieve success to be clear to them.
When they don’t understand what they need to do, they get frustrated… it’s good when it
works.”

Interviewee O – male, early 30s, studying to become a teacher, no children.

I(O) shared similar views to I(T) in that he believes parents and families have an important
role in “conveying respect about teachers and educators”, which is a persistent “cultural”
belief. The student-teacher relationship is important, and the teacher bears responsibility
for it. To manage weak relationships, he believes teachers can “deflect focus away (from
themselves) and onto the subject material” because students are less likely to misbehave if
they are experiencing success in their learning and engaged in tasks that are “intrinsically
motivating”.

The principle differentiator between the interviewees was a teaching career and classroom
experience; the two teachers interviewed both held clear and coherent beliefs about
student misbehaviour that closely aligned with psychoeducational approaches. They
prioritised student-teacher relationships over their own position of authority (De Nobile et
al., 2017). Student wellbeing is their overriding goal, and viewed as a necessary precursor to
academic achievement.

The views held by other interviewees were a blend of various theories, sometimes
contradictory. I(G) believes that teachers should build positive relationships to engage
students on their learning journey, but that her brother’s misbehaviour was attributable to

4
poorly targeted curriculum. This lack of coherence may be explained by the absence of any
need to test their beliefs in a classroom context, where inconsistencies in practice would
likely result in misbehaviour (Martin, 2004). The contradictory views of I(T) were notable;
the importance of recognising the authority of teachers diminished in relation to the needs
of his own child. This is a stark but understandable instance of personal bias, and a useful
insight for future interactions with parents on this subject.

Both I(O) and I(T), males and not teachers, commenced their interviews with relatively
authoritarian views about the need for students to respect teachers, but these “softened”
somewhat through the course of conversation. Other than this theme, there was no
observable differences by gender. The research cohort did not contain sufficient range to
observe differences in interviewee age.

Section Three – Interview Findings Synthesised with Literature

All interviewees held mostly humanist and student-centred beliefs about student
misbehaviour (De Nobile et al., 2017).

I(B) noted that misbehaviour in students with ASD may arise from differences in their
capacity to think and feel, which can be related to the ‘Basic Thinking Processes’ of Cognitive
Behavioural approaches to misbehaviour. She also attributed some of the difficulties to
student-teacher relationships, which aligns with De Jong’s views about the primacy of this
relationship (2005).

I(T)’s earlier views on student misbehaviour recalled an authoritarian view that aligns with
Assertive Discipline (De Nobile et al., 2017), whereby the student should show compliance.
However, his later views had more commonality with psychoeducational approaches, and
specifically the Pain Model (ibid), whereby physical or psychological distress is expressed
through misbehaviour.

I(G)’s beliefs are student-centred and shared some elements of Glasser’s Choice Theory;
whereby her brother’s needs were not met by a faulty learning environment that failed to
inspire him into self-directed, constructive learning (De Nobile et al., 2017, p. 227).

5
I(J)’s views place a high value on “thinking, feelings, beliefs and attitudes of individual
students” (De Nobile et al., 2017, p. 249) and align with Zendarski’s arguments about the
importance of school engagement, whereby “(s)tudents with strong emotional and
behavioural connections to school are likely to experience greater academic success” (2017,
p. 128).

I(N)’s position is grounded in humanism and the “paramount importance” (De Nobile et al.,
2017, p. 215) of the student-teacher relationship. His classroom practice is slightly less
congruent and consistent; he doesn’t have a formal classroom management plan and
sometimes strays into authoritarian strategies, with some regret, under pressure.

I(O)’s stance may be founded on mistaken causality; research suggests that student
engagement is more likely to occur when students feel a sense of belonging (Zendarski et
al., 2017), not the other way around. He intends to address student misbehaviour through
“environmental manipulation” (De Nobile et al., 2017, p. 188) achieved through dynamic
adjustments to curriculum and pedagogy.

Section Four – Implications for praxis

This project underscores Gore’s contention that “teaching is a complex endeavour” and an
individual’s “approach to and beliefs about effective teaching matter” (ibid, p. 74). Research
indicates that experience is a significant determinant of success in classroom management
(Moran, 2015; Martin, 2004), and this was aligned with the interviews. However,
experienced teacher I(J) also indicated an inspiring ongoing commitment to self-reflection
and new approaches. With support in my early years, as well as sustained effort towards
reflection and self-awareness, I hope this will mirror my own practice.

Some elements of the interviews closely reflected contemporary research, particularly the
conception of the primacy of the student-teacher relationship. Research finds some
common features of successful student-teacher connections, with teacher behaviours that
include “an under emphasis on power; modelling of trust; an emphasis on the positives,
even under adversity and de-escalation of conflict through humour” (De Jong, 2005, p. 365).
These qualities were clearly evident in the approaches described by the two teachers.

6
Interviewees mostly concurred on the distribution of responsibility for the student-teacher
relationship, and acknowledged or inferred the inherent asymmetries in power and
cognitive development (Arnett, 2014) between student and teacher. In my praxis I aspire to
Moran’s (2015) framework, where the teacher is a role model, and also to Glasser’s ‘lead
teachers’ by ‘helping students make choices’ (De Nobile et al, 2017, p. 227) about their
behaviour.

Coherence in behaviour management between the teacher and the institution is necessary
because of the role of the school community in the sociocultural ecosystems of students.
However, Cothran notes that “(some) teachers may feel they have low control in the socio-
political context of their school and that lack of control spills over into their beliefs about
how much control they can have over student behavior” (2009, p. 165). One teacher
interviewee was very supportive of a school-wide initiative to address passive
misbehaviours, which has widespread support. The other admitted to some inconsistencies
in his own practice, and noted that this was somewhat reflective of his school’s general
approach. The behaviour management practices of future schools will be outside my
influence as an early career teacher, however my praxis will seek to characterise and remain
cognisant of its influence because “improving the efficacy and holding power of classroom
activities” can have an “indirect approach to improving school discipline” (Osher et al., 2010,
p. 48). My classroom can both leverage and foster a student-centred school ecosystem.

Ultimately, the drivers of young people’s misbehaviour are numerous and dynamic. Some
behavioural approaches to managing student misbehaviour mentioned by interviewees,
result in a trade-off between student wellbeing and authority. My hope is to achieve both
through “democratic, empowering and positive classroom management” (De Jong, 2005, p.
360).

7
REFERENCES

Arnett, J. J. (2004). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach. Upper Saddle

River, New Jersey. Pearson Prentice Hall.

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

misbehavior, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(2), 155-167, DOI:

10.1080/17408980701712148

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

Behaviour in the Australian Education Context. School Psychology International, 26,

353-370

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

and maintaining productive classrooms. South Melbourne, Australia. Cengage

Learning

Greene, R. W. (2011). Collaborative Problem Solving can Transform School Discipline. Phi

Delta Kappan, 93(2), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109300206

Gore, J. (2016) Effective and reflective teaching practice. In Weatherby-Fell, N. (Ed).

Learning to Teach in the Secondary School. Port Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Cambridge University Press

Killu, K. (2008) Developing Effective Behavior Intervention Plans: Suggestions for School

Personnel. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(3), 140-149.

8
Moran, W. (2016) Managing student behaviour: Individual and group contexts. In

Weatherby-Fell, N. (Ed). Learning to Teach in the Secondary School. 132-153. Port

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Cambridge University Press

Martin, S. (2004) Finding balance: impact of classroom management conceptions on

developing teacher practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 405–422.

Doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.002

McDonald, T. (2010). Developing safe and accountable classrooms. In: Classroom

management: Engaging students in learning. 144-180. South Melbourne, Australia.

Oxford University Press

Osher, D., Bear, G., Sprague, J. & Doyle, W. (2010). How Can We Improve School Discipline?

Educational Researcher, 39(1), 48–58. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X09357618

Sullivan, A., Johnson, B., Owens, L., & Conway, R. (2014). Punish Them or Engage Them?

Teachers’ Views of Unproductive Student Behaviours in the Classroom. Australian

Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n6.6