TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF CAUSES OF DISRUPTIVE CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR AMONG PRIMARY SCHOOL PUPILS IN ESAN WEST LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF EDO STATE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE i
CERTIFICATION iii
DEDICATION iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
ABSTRACT viii
Background to the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Research Questions 5
Purpose of the Study 6
Significance of the Study 7
Scope of the Study 8
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Concept of Dropout 9
Dropout Rate among Secondary School Students 10
Causes of Dropout among Students in Secondary School 13
Consequences of Dropout in Secondary School 24
Role of Educational Managers in Reducing Dropout Cases 25
Summary of Literature Reviewed 26
CHAPTER THREE: METHOD OF STUDY
Research Design 28
Population of the Study 28
Sample and Sampling Technique 29
Research Instrument 29
Validity of the Instrument 30
Reliability of the Instrument 30
Administration of the Instrument 30
Method of Data Analysis 31
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS
AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Presentation and Analysis of Data 32
Discussion of Findings 37
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of the Study 43
Conclusion 44
Recommendations 44
REFERENCES
QUESTIONNAIRE
ABSTRACT
This study investigated the teachers’ perception of the causes of disruptive classroom behavior among primary school pupils in Esan West Local Government Area of Edo State. Disruptive behaviour in the primary schools has been a cause of concern to parents, teachers, educationist, ministers of religion, the government and even the pupils who do not understand what is wrong in their behaviour to be tagged with the unpleased word “Indiscipline”. Four research questions were raised to guide the study. Literature was reviewed on the related subheadings based on the variables of study. The descriptive design was adopted. The data was collected through questionnaire. The collected data was analyzed by the use of percentage. The research findings revealed that lack of parental management, School related factors such as overcrowded and teacher’s incompetence resulted to disruptive behaviour among pupils in school. It was recommended that schools should be encouraged by setting up rules while the consequences of breaking them should be clearly stated. And qualified teachers and effective teaching should also be encourage
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
Discipline is a tool for correcting disruptive behaviour among children. For any organization, establishment to move smoothly towards the achievement of goals, every body working in the establishment (school) should understand the policy statement that guide the expected code of conduct of the school.
Nowadays, the public outcry about disruptive behaviour in schools and the society is widespread and enormous. Cases of student’s unrest, examination malpractices, drug abuse, sex offence, disobedience, truancy, assault and insult, mass demonstration and other issues that reflect the unsatisfactory state of our institutions of learning.
To rectify the problem created by disruptive behaviours in schools, the education system must be designed so as to instill in our children the need to be discipline, conscious in their daily activities and the endeavours to refrain from all kinds of vices and to have respect for elders which is a very important aspect of Nigerian education code of conduct, by co-operating with the government and the school so as to achieve the aim of our educational goals.
Disruptive behaviour has been a serious matter that has also been viewed by many societies, organization as an act that will not bring goal realization of such societies or organization (Black and Brown 2011).
Thus, the purpose of discipline in schools can be said to be produce a breed of well cultivated boys and girls who will develop not only respect for themselves and the society at large but also respect for school authorities and school regulation (Gootman 2008). There is no doubt that the conditions of youth today would inevitably dictate the state of affairs in the country. In other words, the today’s disciplined youth will be tomorrow’s discipline elders.
Disruptive behaviour in the primary schools has been a cause of concern to parents, teachers, educationist, ministers of religion, the government and even the pupils who do not understand what is wrong in their behaviour to be tagged with the unpleased word “Indiscipline” seminars, conference, symposia, lectures, etc. have been held all over the country times without numbers to enlighten teachers the custodian of pupils and other people who have to do with adolescence on how to handle them.
Disruptive behaviour among the primary school children manifest itself in various forms such as truancy, fighting, gross disobedience to the head master or class teachers, drug addition, physical attack on teacher by grown up pupils, males or female, sexually immorality resulting from the matured boys and girls, even feeling reluctant to write class test or assignment, stealing, cheating, and many more (Daniel 2003).
Thus, one can see that disruptive behaviour is a serious threat to our primary school system. Moreover, developmental psychologist are of the opinion that parental influence on children comes before school influence in their order of importance, that is before the child is of school age, the parent would have made some permanent impression on the child of his formative stage, which is to a large extent is the determining factor of his personality later in life (Gordon 2008)
The school environment influence on the pupils is no better either. It goes without saying that the school head have sufficient power to control their schools and the right to punish their pupils without outside influence. This had not be very correct because, some headmaster and teacher have formed the bad habit of absenting themselves from school, going late to school daily and going shabby dresses to school, as such the pupil also come late to school and in most cases they are found playing or roaming about when they are supposed to be in the classroom for their normal academic works (Miller 2012).
Disruptive behaviour such as truancy fighting in the school gross disobedience to headmaster and teacher, physical attack on teachers by grown up pupils and promiscuity etc, are peculiar to all primary schools, but the nature may vary from one area to another because of environmental factors (Pienaar 2003).
This study therefore, is to determine teacher’s perception of causes of disruptive classroom behaviour among primary school pupils in Esan West Local Government Area of Edo state.
Statement of the Problem
Disruptive behaviour in primary is a bane to moral and educational standard of our contemporary Nigeria society and educational system respectively. This growing tread towards undesirable ways of life on the part of our primary school pupils is unsatisfactory. It is appropriate that this unseemly behaviour of our children should not be allowed to continue. Therefore, the main problem to be investigated in this research is that of identifying the cause of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils.
Research Questions
The following research questions were raised to guide the study:
i. What are the various forms of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils in Esan West Local Government Area?
ii. What are the causes of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils in Esan West Local Government Area ?
iii. What are the differences of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils in Esan West Local Government Area
iv. Examine the ways problems of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils can be curb in Esan West Local Government Area
Purpose of the Study
This research aims at investigating the cause of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils as perceived by primary school teachers in Esan West Local Government Area of Edo State, are as follows:
i. Examine the various forms of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils in Esan West Local Government Area
ii. Examine the causes of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils in Esan West Local Government Area
iii. Examine the differences of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils in Esan West Local Government Area
iv. Examine the ways problems of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils can be curb in Esan West Local Government Area
Significance of the Study
The findings would be very important to all teachers, schools and parents in Esan West Local Government Area of Edo State as to finding the causes and possible solutions with regard to disruptive behavior, their causes among pupils in primary schools. Findings would be important to all primary schools in Esan West Local Government Area of Edo State because, if proper discipline is maintained in the primary schools, our youth will be conscious in their daily activities and life endeavour to refrain from all kinds of vices and to have respect for elders which is very important aspect of Nigerian education code of conduct.
The Government would equally benefit from educational system in the grassroots level, since the purpose of discipline in schools is to produce a breed of well cultivated boys and girls who will develop not only respect for themselves and the school authorities but also, respect for the society at large.
Parents and managers stand to gain from the study because, if their children are discipline, parents will gain the full benefits of what they are spending on their children’s education. Teachers would be able to learn how to handle disruptive behaviour problems as it arises from time to time and how to enforce discipline in their respective schools.
Furthermore, Nigeria society would also benefit from this study in the sense that, if her citizens are disciplined such as maintaining law and order, there will be high rate of unity, understanding the progress towards national development, but where discipline is not maintained by her citizen, the country may not attain higher level of national development and this will later turn to chaos and frequent political instability of such disruptive behaviour in the society.
Scope of the Study
This work was limited to only Primary schools in Esan West Local Government Area. The study examined teacher’s perception of causes of disruptive classroom behaviour among primary school pupils in Esan West Local Government Area of Edo State.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this research, the following terms are specifically defined.
1. Discipline: This is used here as obedience and training character.
2. Disruptive Behaviour: This is the aggregate of anti-social forms of behaviour which run contrary to the norm of an education institution and the society which result in the negation of the effort of educators to teach the pupil to learn.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter is concerned with the review of various literature related to the study. The chapter is discussed under the following sub-headings:
· The various forms of disruptive behaviour
· The causes of disruptive behaviour
· The differences of disruptive behaviour among primary school
· The ways problems of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils can be curb.
· Summary of Literature Reviewed
The Forms of Disruptive Behaviour in Primary Schools
Disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils manifests itself in various forms such as truancy, quarrelling, fighting, stealing, and telling lies, disobedience to the headmaster or class teachers wearing long finger nails, bushy hairs and dirty clothes.
According to Gordon and Browne (2009) disruptive behaviour is merely inappropriate behavior. According to Mabeba and Prinsloo (2011) disruptive behaviour is attributable to disciplinary problems in schools that affect in learning environment. For the purpose of this research, concept such as misconduct and misbehaviour are treated under the rubric of disruptive behavior.
For Levin and Nolan (2010) disruptive behaviour implies learner behaviour that inhabits achievement of the teacher’s purpose. Furthermore, they classify disruptive behaviour into four basic categories.
i. Behaviour that interferes with the teaching and learning act (e.g a learner who distracts other learners during lesson presentation, who refuse to follow directions, or displays aggressive behavior).
ii. Behaviour that interferes with the right of others learner’s to learn (e.g a learner who continually calls out while the teacher is explaining content).
iii. Behaviour that is psychologically or physically unsafe (e.g learning on the back legs of a chair, unsafe use of tools or laboratory equipment, threats, to other learners, and constant teasing and harassment of classmates).
iv. Behaviour that causes the destruction of properties (e.g vandalism in the classroom).
Levin and Nolan (2011) not that common, day to day disruptive behaviours that pose a challenge to teachers are verbal interruptions (e.g talking out of turn, name calling, humming, calling out), off task behaviour (e.g wandering about, bisecting others learners, passing notes, sitting on the desk, throwing objects around the classroom) and disrespect (verbal aggression, teasing, punching, neglecting academic work, refusing to following directions, and assault). These common forms of disruptive behaviour exist to some extent in all classrooms. They are called surface behaviour because they are usually not the result of dep-seated personal problems, but normal development behaviour of children.
On the other hand according to Rayment (2006) and Dewet (2003) more serious disruptive behavior, such as conflict degenerating into physical violence, is by far the most challenging misbehaviour to deal with. It is often a subset of revenge seeking and one in five boys will resort to violent physical conflict way of resolving their conflict situations. According to Rayment (2006) more learners regard peers who do not fight as weaklings.
Another example of serious disruptive behaviour that negatively affects both the emotional and physical experience of learners in the school is bullying, define for the South African context by neser, ovens, hurtful words or acts or other behaviour repeatedly visited upon a child or children. According to these authors, bullying exist in the classrooms and on the playgrounds of all schools around the world. As a teacher, Bott (2004) testifies that several learners reported that they were frequently called names such as stupid, Dump, skinny, fat or retarded by other learners in the classroom and on the playground, and that they felt ashamed and humiliated by the experience of been called those names. Smit (2003) reported in her study most of the bullying took the form of general name-calling or the use of derogatory labels referring to colour and race.
The request forms of bullying includes physical blows administered to, or threats against, chosen victims, and spreading of malicious rumours. Other form of bulling have shown, that more boys are involved in bullying than girls (Smit 2003).
Causes of Disruptive Behaviour among Students
Causes of disruptive behaviour among students can be related or categorized as factors related to the family, school related factors, influence of peers, poor socioeconomic status, media, factors emanating from society, developmental stage of the foundation phase learner, inexperience or ignorance, curiosity, need of belonging, need of recognition, need for power, control and anger release
Factors Related to the Family: The family is the most immediate and perhaps the most influential system affecting the individual (Walsh & Willams, 2012). Lack of parental management and dysfunction families are continually emphasized as risk factors. Rayment (2006) found that certain parents display violent and aggressive behaviour towards school staff and that their children also showed signs of violent, aggressive and antisocial behavior. Rayment (2006) opined that 45% of primary school pupils often seeing their parents verbally or physically fighting. It stands to reason that if children are exposed to aggressive display between the adult partners who are their role models at home, they will carry these experiences with them into the schools. Wolhuter and Oosthuizen (2003) mention that from a learner’s perspective, lack of parents involvement is the biggest cause of disciplinary problems.
One of the closest structures to the child is indeed the family home and is therefore a “dominant part of a child’s immediate environment” (DeHart 2004). In the family home the child interacts with a parent or parents/carers and most usually, with siblings. Bandura’s social learning theory (Bandura, 2006) finds that children model behaviour which they observe from people around them. The way the family at home act and behave therefore has a direct effect on how a child will model viewed behaviour and subsequently display similar behavioural traits (Woolfolk, 2008). As a result the child then replicates such behaviour at school.
In a study of misbehaviour in British and Turkish classrooms by Atici and Merry (2001) it was found that most of the teachers regarded family background as the most prominent cause of behaviour problems in children. However, it can also be argued that when teachers blame the home and parents they are doing so because they have failed to engage with the child/ren and their learning, thus using ecological systems theory in a negative way. Richman’s 2000 epidemiological study of three year old children with behaviour problems found that there was a clear link between poor marital relationship and the occurrence of a behaviour problem in the child. This is also mentioned in Fortin and Bigras’s (2008) review, highlighting marital relationship as one of the family-centred factors operant in disruptive behaviour. Where poor relationships occur between a mother and a father and the child is exposed to such negative environments, according to Bandura’s social learning theory, the child will tend to model the negative behaviours he/she witnesses in the classroom (Fortin and Bigras, 2012).
It has also been noted that social learning theorists have proposed a link between parents’ use of physical discipline towards their children and the child displaying physical aggression (Deater-Deckard and Dodge, 2001; McLoyd, 2013; Sampson and Laub 2011; Dodge et al., 2004; Dodge et al., 1999; Patterson et al., 2013). Some reasons for this explicit link include the parents’ use of impulsive and harsh physical discipline towards their children (Patterson, 2003). Inconsistent behaviour by parents is highlighted by Mukherji (2001), as one of the eight principles for behaviour management and as being detrimental to a child’s development. If discipline is applied inconsistently then the inappropriate behaviour may be exacerbated. Mukherji states that it is vital that both parents involved in bringing up the child share the same consistency in relation to the child’s discipline (Mukherji, 2001).
Another aspect of the link between parents and the child which is of importance is where children receive a lack of attention at home. Atici and Merry, (2001) stated that this was a reason given by both British and Turkish teachers for disruptive behaviour. This coincides with Parry’s view (2004) who terms children who seek attention the “classical disrupter”; such children increase their bad behaviour in the hope that the attention they receive will also increase.
Kutnick, (2011) identifies that a parent’s attitude to school correlates with children’s attitudes and also the children’s “involvement in pro-social or anti-social subcultures”; if the parents hold negativities towards school culture and/or authority, this may lead to the child possessing the same outlook.
It has been found in some literature that parent-child attachment can have an effect on the child’s later behaviour (Wood 2004; Coleman, 2003; Maras and Kutnick, 2010). John Bowlby’s (2000) attachment theory states that the relationship between mother and child in the child’s first few months of its life is vital for survival. Wood et al (2004) have highlighted the link between low parent-child attachment security and the child’s later relationship with its peers and high disruptive behaviour (Wood et al, 2004). Wood’s hypothesis is reinforced by the research of Coleman (2003) and Ooi (2006) who both concluded that children with low quality parent-child attachment were more likely to show externalising and internalising behaviour problems. However, Ainsworth (2005) and Dryfoos (2007) have proposed that a secure parent–child attachment may serve as protective factor against children’s aggressive behaviour.
School Related Factors: Oosthuizen and Van Staden (2007), as well as De Wet (2003) list numerous school related factors which may heighten learner’s propensity to engage in disruptive behaviour such as: a negative school climate inadequacy as role models; teachers professional incompetence (lack of educational/didactic expertise) overcrowded schools, deficient organizational structure of the schools and rundown, ill kept physical appearance of school.
Jones (2008) states that “the school is an environment designed to have an ‘impact’ on children” thus the proximity and the relative impact it can have on the development of a child are a convincing reason for the school to be placed in the microsystem. This may explain the reason why so many studies on children’s behaviour have taken place in the school setting (Romi and Freund, 2003; MacLeod, 2006; Wheldall and Merrett, 2008). A truly ecological approach takes account of behaviour and all the contexts in which it occurs.
Dowling and Osborne (2012) point out that educationalists have recognised that they have to consider how the educational setting is affecting pupil behaviour rather than hold the view that the problem behaviour exists within the individual. However, in Maras and Kutnick’s 2011 study, teachers were asked to identify the cause of children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (EBD) and, surprisingly, none of the teachers located the cause as being within the school environment. Instead they blamed a range of environmental factors outwith the school. This reflects the findings of Guttman’s 2002 study where teachers underestimated reasons for pupil disruptive behaviour to be associated with themselves and blamed external factors. Watkins and Wagner (2000) also identify explanations given by teachers for disruptive behaviour in schools, again with no mention of factors relating to the school itself.
In some literature (Atici and Merry, 2001; Head, 2005; Head 2007; Atherley, 2001) the stance was taken that an effectively managed classroom and an environment which allowed for pupils to become motivated to learn by becoming actively involved in particular learning tasks enhanced pupil development and promoted positive behaviour. However, such views are opposed to the recent Scottish Executive Discipline Task Group Report entitled ‘Better Behaviour, Better Learning’ (SEED, 2001) where behaviour should be tackled first before learning can take place. However, it has been noted by Atherley (2001) and Garner and Gaines (2007) that some children may be unable to conform to the school’s norms and therefore display disruptive behaviour as a reaction to poor teaching or a de-motivating environment. Miller et al, (2004) and Nafpaktitis and Perlmutter (2003, cited in Desbiens and Royer, 2003) found that on average between 10 and 25 percent of children will have difficulty adjusting to their school environment at some point in their schooling. Failure at school is a factor which has been cited as contributing to behaviour problems (Walker 2004, cited in Desbiens and Royer, 2003). One belief of children’s failure at school which is well documented is the self-efficacy of teachers towards pupils (Chazan, 2009; Jordan et al, 2006; Jones, 2005; Bandura, 2006). It is due to this view that Cooper and Upton (2012) believe that so many family therapists focus their attention on the school environment as being a central factor for children’s behaviour problems.
Influence of Peers: The relationships that a child has with peers are extremely important as they have the potential to have a great influence on the child’s development. Mukherji recognises “as children grow older their role models are the members of their peer group. The adult influence becomes less important...” (Mukherji, 2013). The importance of peer relationships for child development is also highlighted by Pellegrini and Blatchford (2009) who discuss the impact upon a child’s behaviour that such relationships can have.
Children with behaviour difficulties often advance their social network by virtue of these very difficulties. Fortin and Bigras (2004) recognise that antisocial behaviour in some children can be a quality that other peers can relate to. This can contribute to an expectation of the maintaining of this type of behaviour for the benefit of the peer group. The problem can then become self perpetuating. Fortin and Bigras (2004) also note that within the group there is no adverse reaction to the inappropriate behaviour.
In fact, quite the opposite may be the case. However, a different view is taken by Desbiens and Royer, (2003) who based on the results of three studies (Sabornie, 2000; Sabornie and Kauffman, 2004; 2005) is of the view that children identified with behavioural problems find it hard to be socially accepted by their peers. They highlight the fact that because of the child’s aggressive behaviour and lack of social skills, she/he is often rejected by peers. The rejection factor can escalate already diminished self belief: this in turn can cause an increase in the aggressive/disruptive behaviour. Children who are rejected by the wider peer group will often form their own bonds with others with a similar disposition where such displays of antisocial behaviour are the common ground between the individuals and such behaviour will be encouraged.
Poor Socioeconomic Status: Atici and Merry’s (2001) study found that poor socioeconomic status was highly likely to lead to a lack of material support at home: this in turn had an effect on behaviour. Larsson and Frisk (2011) also found in their study of Swedish schools that children from lower socioeconomic groups were regarded by teachers as having more emotional and/or behavioural problems than their peers from other groups – see also Exosystem above. Watson (2005) believes that the power which less privileged children wield in the classroom is “primarily in the form of resistance”. It therefore seems evident that the socioeconomic climate in which a child survives can determine behaviour within the classroom. The findings of Richman, (2009) are somewhat contradictory in that she did not find that social class was a factor in rates of behaviour problems. What she did find however, was an increased tendency for larger families to have a child with behaviour problems.
Clegg (2010, cited in Jackson, 2005) suggests that certain pupils, especially those from lower socio economic groups, develop much more surely in highly structured classroom situations. Jackson (2011) states that “many disruptive pupils demonstrate personal characteristics, lack of method and application in their working habits, and they tend to come from less well-organized homes.” He therefore suggests that it is essential that thesechildren are allowed to work in a secure and structured environment in school.
Fishbiens (2012) discussed the effect of sex roles and stereotypes which society influences on child behaviour and that from an early age they acquire knowledge from parents, peers and the media of how boys and girls should behave. One example of this is boys who take on hegemonic masculinities as described by Jackson (2002) who believes displaying such traits is a way of conforming to the so called ‘boys norm’ whereby they act disruptively or show no interest in school to seem ‘laddish’ to their peers. Barker, (2007) is of the view that that “boys seem to bring another agenda to the classroom which entail asserting their masculine identity and differentiating themselves from the girls by jokes, noise and impulsive, ‘go for it’ attitudes. Throughout the literature on disruptive behaviour a clear theme is evident that boys seem to cause more problems in the classroom than girls (Cremin and Thomas, 2005; Larsson and Frisk, 2007; Wheldall and Merret, 2000; Deater-Deckard and Dodge, 2005; Atici and Merry, 2001) and the stem of this appears not to come from the child but as a result of the cultural viewpoint of the role of the male evidencing the fact that despite its remoteness in Bronfenbrenner’s terms, the macrosystem can have such an effect on behaviour.
The management, set at national level according to government policies, can also have an effect on children’s behaviour notwithstanding its remoteness. Depending on the content and delivery in the classroom, it can result in children to becoming uninterested and occuping themselves in disruptiveness (Atici and Merry, 2001). Head, (2007) also discusses this point and in fact sees teachers as having the responsibility to create exciting and stimulating lessons. This is backed up by Ravet (2007), whose study of children’s perceptions of various aspects of teaching in the classroom in relation to disengaged behaviour found there to be a general consensus that problems with the curriculum were a common theme. More specifically boredom with lessons was often cited. All of the above represent systemic issues which impinge greatly upon the work of schools and teachers. Clearly each of these is worthy of research and exploration in its own right, but the relevance of the discussion for this paper is that they play a great part in how child behaviour is constructed, and upon how it is viewed by classroom and other professionals.
Influence of Media: There has been much literature written on the subject of the media and its audience - especially children - and how it can affect their behaviour (Mayrowitz, 2002; Huesmann and Miller, 2011). Bandura (2013) well-known study where nursery aged children were exposed to witnessing a toy being violently abused on television illustrates this point: children put in the room with the toy also behaved violently towards it. The control group who did not witness the violence towards the toy did not display violent behaviour. Children observing violence on television may subsequently repeat behaviour viewed. Gunter and Harrison (2002) examined violence within children’s television programmes. Their research concluded that children viewing violence in TV programmes, especially boys, were more likely to display a higher amount of aggression in their subsequent play. There are implications for schools and teachers here relating to factors which may be outwith their control, and which in turn exemplify one of the tensions between school and wider societal and cultural issues.
Factors Emanating from Society: Moral degeneration of communities racial conflict, poor housing and medical services, the availability and poor control of firearms, poor law enforcement and unemployment (De Wet, 2003) are some of the community based risk factors that could heighten the possibility of learners’ engaging in disruptive behavior. Furthermore, McHenry (in Oosthuizen and Van Staden 2007) takes the view that prevalent examples of violence propagation in the media and witnessed or experienced as a victims in society have a predisposing influence that could heighten learners’ propensity to engage in disruptive behavior.
Developmental Stage of the Foundation Phase Learner: When examining a learners’ motives with a view to responding appropriately to their untoward behavior, it can be helpful to look at some developmental issues that play a role in this regards (Miller: 2008). According to Erickson’s stage theory, the foundation phase learner is typically in the fourth stage of development, for which the defining characteristic is stated as industry versus inferiority (6-12 years). The major theme for development in this stage is attaining mastery of life, primarily by conforming to the laws imposed by society (laws, rules, relationships) and by the physical characteristic of the world in which they have to live. Problem arises if the child feels inadequate and inferior to this adaptive task (Gordon & Browne, 2004). If learners have to struggle inwardly with a sense of guilt and feeling of unworthiness, inadequacy and inferiority, it is most likely that their behaviour will not conform to what is expected by society or required for purely practical reasons; in other word, their behaviour will tend to be maladaptive. Furthermore, foundation phase learners are still learning about their world by touching and doing. This explains why it is so difficult for them to sit still, which is regarded as a tendency to misbehave. Reviewing notes on children’s developmental stages can help refresh teachers’ memories and assist them in making age-appropriate rules.
Inexperience or Ignorance: Some learners make mistakes and misbehave simply because they do not understand the “rule” of the classroom or even the dominant culture in the school (Gootman, 2013). It cannot be expected that young learners who came from divergent circumstances will automatically know and understand what Payne (In Tilestone, 2004) calls the “hidden rules” of the classroom. These hidden rules are mostly based on middle-class ideas and values. It is important for teachers to teach that there is a set of behaviors and communication standards that work in situations where they come from and that there is another set of behaviours and speech patterns that will make them successful at school. When learners come from disadvantage environments such as living in squatter camps, on the streets or in abusive family scenarios, where language is coarse and loud and where stealing is a way of surviving, they need to be taught what is expected of them in the classroom. Making rules and explaining with the aid of concrete examples can help receive their ignorance (Gootman 2013).
Curiosity: Norma curiosity may lead to misbehavior. For example, a young learner who is asked to open a book at a certain page may be tempted to flip through the book before doing so. This may happen more often if the learner comes from a poor socio-economic background where books are normally not freely available. Raiment (2006) adds that experimentation out of curiosity is not only a natural part of growing up and of development, but is powerful educative medium, which can lead to disruptive behavior.
Need of Belonging: Ladson-buildings (2000) contend that learners are not treated equally since white teachers are prejudiced against black learners. He insists that these stereotyped perceptions that they have internalized. He insists that these perceptions are derived from mainstream society’s invalidation of African culture. In the report, racism, racial integration and desegregation in South African Public Secondary School (Vally & Dalamba, 2005), similar examples are given. The report includes detail of incidents of racism and the prevalence of racism in schools. The challenges to the South African teacher, is therefore to become a variety of cultures and family structures, and to accept all learners equally.
Need of Recognition: Many learners misbehave because they are starved for attention-ignoring such learners will not help; after all, negative attention is still better that none at all. A huge problem in desegregated schools is the disparity between the English proficiency of black learners and the proficiency requires of them in order to master all the learning areas through the medium of English. When places in classes where the ability to communicate fluently in idiomatic English is often assumed, these learners find themselves at risk of under-achievement. In this regard Lund (2011) warns that these learners are more likely to exhibit antisocial behavior. Research further claims that poor parental discipline and lack of parental warmth, sensitivity and attention due to factors such as divorce or job commitments have been responsible for the occurrence of persistent misbehaviour during middle childhood and adolescence (Pienaar, 2003).
Need for Power, Control and Anger Release: Some learners misbehave as a means of issuing a deliberate challenge to the teacher’s authority. Ironically these are often children who either come from families where the children are in control (in which cases they may also feel powerless, for example, because they feel abandoned and overwhelmed) (Gootman, 2013). Furthermore learners learn a lot by coping behaviour they observed around them watching television, as well as playing computer and videogames, influences young people to be heroes and stresses the need for power, control and aggressive behavior. The media therefore inspire learners to emulate what they see. Observing entertainment-based power and control affect learners day-to-day behaviour and temperament, and this influence is carried with them into schools (Rayment, 2006). Some learners create disciplinary problems by indulging in violent behaviour because they are angry and resentful are not mentally and emotionally equipped to handle their strong feelings or express their anger constructively. They lash out blindly without thinking. Furthermore, interpersonal situations in learner’s home neighbors, and the exposure to aggression and violence (Gordon & Browne, 2004), Recent learner integration in classrooms aggravates the situation, for example, in a community where there has been a long history of racial intolerance, there could be a great deal of unresolved anger (Fouries, 2008). This is all the more reason for teachers to be well-acquainted with the culture of learners attending their classes and with any unresolved anger they may be harbouring.
Finally Rossouw (2003) holds that “children are not naturally inclined to be good and innocent”, and that they have a “naturally inclination to be disobedient”.
Differences of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils
Considerable primary and secondary school research reports male students as more disruptive than female students across the majority of disruptive behaviours (Borg & Falzon, 2003; Houghton, 2007; Kaplan, Gheen & Midgley, 2002; Merrett & Wheldall, 2003; Research from the Early Years (Years Prep to Year 4) suggests that additional management strategies are needed for 5% of male students and 2% of female students in an average class (Stephenson 2000). Whether these trends continue into the middle years is unknown, as little research has considered the perceptions of teachers involved in the middle years.
Central to investigating the behavioural differences throughout the transition period is the usage of a single study sample involving primary and secondary school students, an element often neglected in research samples. One study that has investigated the behaviour problems across primary and secondary school is that conducted by Haroun and O’Hanlon (2004). These researchers investigated the disruptive behaviours of concern to Jordanian schoolteachers. However, the sample only reflects the behaviour patterns of male students, due the structure of the Jordanian education system. It was demonstrated that there were distinct changes in the behaviours considered as disruptive to the classroom environment across primary and secondary levels (Haroun & O’Hanlon 2004). TOOT was identified as the most frequent disruptive behaviour exhibited by both primary and secondary school students. However there was large discrepancy between the percentages of primary and secondary school teachers finding this behaviour problematic (57% and 35% respectively). Seventeen percent of secondary teachers found bullying to be of concern while in contrast, primary school teachers failed to note the behaviour as a concern. How the behavioural changes progress from primary school to secondary school is not clear, as this study that considered primary and secondary school samples combined levels. The implications of the transition period on student behaviour and comparisons involving discrete year levels have not been investigated.
Moreover, it is evident that many research studies have employed questionnaires using a ranked scale Haroun & O’Hanlon, 2004; Wheldall & Merrett, 2002). Thus, results are often ordinal and not a clear reflection of how closely teachers perceive behaviours to be ranked. Martin (2005) derived a questionnaire using likert scales to assess the behaviours teachers perceived as most disruptive, the supports utilized by teachers and the management strategies employed by teachers in the early years. Such a scale has not been used in the middle years environment.
Ways of Curbing Schools Disruptive Behaviour
Working to change the above mentioned characteristics may decrease disruptive behavior: first, rules and the consequences of breaking them should be clearly specified and communicated to staff, students and parents by such means as newsletters, student assemblies, and handbooks. Mayers and Pawlers (2008) recommend periodically restarting the rules, especially after students return from summer or winter vacation.
Research has shown that social awards such as smiling, praising, and complimentary are extremely effective increasing desirable behavior.
Citing studies showing that students, who dislike school, do poorly academically and have limited career objectives are more likely to be disruptive. Gottfredson (2002) recommends that school work it increase success for low-achiever, however, this alone is not enough. A comparison of three alternative programmes for at risk youth revealed that while achievement increased in all three delinquent behaviors decreased only in the programme that also increased students’ social involvement and attachment to school.
Sometimes problem behaviour occurs because students simply don’t know how to act appropriately. Black and Browns (2001) urge administrators to regard disciplinary referrals as opportunities to teach students valuable social skills that will promote success in future employment as well as in school. They present detailed procedures for “deescalating disruptive behavior, obtaining and maintain instruction control, teaching alternative behavior, and preparing students for classroom re-entry.
Variables such as teacher training, length of teaching experience and teacher confidence are significant moderator variables on teacher’s perceptions of disruptive behavior, although little research has examined relationship between these variable (Borg & Falzon, 2009). A teacher who perceive classroom management problems are more serve, are more likely to leave the education system (Taylor & Daie 1999; as cited in Sokal, Smith, and Mowat, 2003). Out of a sample of 400 teachers (from the United States of America) choosing to leave the education system, 30% of teachers did so due to classroom management and discipline concerns (2001).
It has also been established that teacher confidence affects various elements of the classroom, ranging from student behaviour and achievement to teacher psychological well being (Lewns, 2008; Merrett & Wheldall, 2011). The finding that almost 20% of teachers did not feel confident in their ability to manage disruptive classroom behaviour (Martin, 2007) is highly disturbing. This is reinforced by findings that 72% of a group of 60 experienced teachers indicated that they were under prepared at all to manage behaviour problem following their initial teacher training (little, 2003).
Teacher supports for managing classroom behaviour involve strategies such as personal development sessions, reading appropriate literature, and the use of staff meetings. This supports employed by teachers to assist with disruptive student behaivours constitute a relatively new area of investigation. Research that has considered the support used by teachers has classified teacher support into the categories of professional and school based supports (Martin 2002; Stephenson et al 2000). It is imperative to examine relationship between teacher confidences and supports throughout the middle years and across the transitional period. Once possible relationships are identified, interventions can be introduced.
The Raising Healthy Children program, previously named Skills, Opportunity, and Recognition (SOAR), is a replication and extension of the Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP). This well-documented program provides a school-wide approach to intervening with aggressive children that includes teacher training, parent training, and student skill development (Catalano, Haggerty, Oesterle, Fleming, & Hawkins, 2004).
Raising Healthy Children (RHC) is grounded in forging strong connections to school and family as protective factors against antisocial behaviors. RHC focuses on teachers, children, and parents from kindergarten through third grade, and provides an extension program for grades four through seven (Catalano 2003; 2004; Abbott & Day, 2009). A school home coordinator (SHC), either a former classroom teacher or school counselor is recommended to administer the interventions used in RHC (Catalano et al., 2004).
Teachers receive 10 to 12 days of in-service training over a two-year period to develop teaching and proactive classroom management skills that increase children’s bonding to school. Training in proactive classroom management includes establishing routines, giving clear instructions, and intervening early to keep classroom disruptions from escalating. A cooperative learning component introduces teachers to the use of small group teaching methods (Catalano 2003).
Children receive direct cognitive and social skills training in the classroom. Some of the skills addressed include listening, problem solving, tattling versus reporting, sharing, anger management, giving compliments, recognizing feelings, and manners.
Parenting workshops focus on teaching child-rearing skills, decreasing family conflict, setting clear rules, and developing academic support skills. There also is an opportunity for parents to engage with their children in activities such as demonstration and modeling, role-plays, and small and large group discussions. An example of RHC’s parent training includes teaching first- and second-grade parents to use behaviour management skills through a “Catch ‘Em Being Good” activity (Hawkins, Catalano, Jones & Fine, 2007). “Catch ‘Em Being Good” is designed to build on children’s’ strengths by helping parents to identify both positive and negative behaviour and provide positive reinforcement or consequences as needed. In second and third grade, parents receive a four-session academic support curriculum, originally called “Supporting School Success.” In grades four through seven, parents are invited to participate in a program originally called “Guiding Good Choices.” (aka, “Preparing For the Drug (Free) Years,” (Hawkins, Catalano, & Kent, 2008).
Using multivariate statistical analyses researchers have determined that children who participated in the Raising Healthy Children program, and its predecessor, the Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP) demonstrated increased bonding to school, enhanced academic achievement and social skills, less school misbehaviour and antisocial behaviors, and less frequent use of alcohol and marijuana following treatment (Brown, Catalano, Fleming, Haggerty, & Abbott, 2005; Catalano et al. 2003; Hawkins, Catalano, Kosterman, Abbott, & Hill, 2009). In a long term follow up study of SSDP participants at age 21 researchers conducted a multivariate analysis of variance to compare participants to controls. The results of this study showed that SSDP participants were significantly more likely to have graduated high school and be gainfully employed than were control group participants. Moreover, SSDP participants had significantly better regulation of emotions, significantly fewer thoughts of suicide
and were significantly less likely than control participants to be involved in crime or adjudicated (Hawkins, Kosterman, Catalano, Hill & Abbott, 2005). In its current form, RHC has not been extensively researched with culturally diverse populations, with only 20% of the participants in the existing studies being of non-European American descent (Catalano et al., 2002, 2003). However, research studies on the Seattle Social
Summary of Literature Reviewed
From the literature reviewed above one will be able to conclude that disruptive behaviour phenomenon is a global problem, which needs urgent attention. According to different authors from the literature review, the Causes of disruptive behaviour among students can be related or categorized as factors related to the family, school related factors, influence of peers, poor socioeconomic status, media, factors emanating from society, developmental stage of the foundation phase learner, inexperience or ignorance, curiosity, need of belonging, need of recognition, need for power, control and anger release.
Each of the above listed factors has contributed in no small measure to the causes of disruptive behaviour among students in our society. Disruptive behaviour among students not only affects the individual, but also the society, as it results in social value degradation and security threat in the society as a whole.
CHAPTER THREE
METHOD OF STUDY
This chapter describes the procedure employed in conducting this study. The chapter describes the research design, population of the study, sample and sampling technique, research instrument, validity of the instrument, reliability of the instrument, administration of the instrument and method of data analysis.
Research Design
The researcher employed the descriptive survey design to analyze the causes and consequences of dropout among secondary school students in Esan West Local Government Area
Population of the Study
There are seventeen (19) public primary schools in Esan West Local Government Area of Edo State, with a total number of ten thousand nine hundred and eighty five students (10,985) which comprised of five thousand four hundred and ninety-four (5,494) male student and five thousand four hundred and ninety one (5,491) female students (Local Government Ministry of Education, Ekpoma, 2016)
Sample and Sampling Technique
The sampling technique employed was the simple random sampling method to select two schools from the urban area and two from rural areas, which enabled all the elements of the population to have equal probability of being tested and included in the sample.
Research Instrument
The instrument used for collecting data in this research work was a questionnaire titled “Causes of Disruptive Classroom Behavior questionnaire (CDCBQ). The questionnaire had two sections, ‘Section A’ and ‘Section B’. Section A contained the respondents’ personal data including demographics such as age, sex and education level. Section B contained twenty (15) structured items based on teachers perception of causes of disruptive classroom behaviour among primary school pupils in Esan West Local Government Area
Validity of the Instrument
The items on the instrument were validated by experts in the field of Educational Management to ensure that it measured what it was meant to measure.
Reliability of the Instrument
To ensure reliability of the instrument, the test-retest method was employed. The copies of questionnaire were distributed to respondents outside the study sample. The data was collected after a second distribution and analyzed using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Co-efficient (Pearson r), which yielded correlation co-efficient of 0.72, which indicated that the instrument was reliable for use.
Administration of the Instrument
Copies of the questionnaire were administered personally by the researcher to the respondents. The completed copies were collected immediately from the respondents.
Method of Data Analysis
Percentages and means were used to descriptively analyze the research questions of the study.
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
This chapter is concerned with the analysis of data and presentation of result from the questionnaire administered.
Research Question 1: Forms of Disruptive Behaviour among Primary School Pupils
Table 1: Forms of Disruptive Behaviour
S/N
|
Items
|
Response Rate
| |||
Agreed
|
%
|
Disagreed
|
%
| ||
1
|
Quarrel and fighting are forms of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils
|
60
|
60%
|
40
|
40%
|
2
|
Stealing and telling lies are regarded as forms of disruptive behaviour
|
70
|
70%
|
30
|
30%
|
3
|
Disobedient to the headmaster or class teacher is a major disruptive behaviour among pupils
|
75
|
75%
|
25
|
25%
|
4
|
Wearing long finger nails, bushy hairs and dirty clothes are also disruptive behaviour among pupils
|
60
|
60%
|
40
|
40%
|
Total
|
265
|
66.3%
|
135
|
33.7%
| |
Table 1 shows responses in percentage. From the analysis, 265 of the respondents agreed to the items while 135 disagreed. This represented 66.3% and 33.7% respectively. The findings gave credence to the fact that, the various forms of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils in Esan West Local Government Area of Edo State was rampant. It ranged from quarrel, fighting, stealing, disobedience to headmaster and class teachers, wearing long finger nails, bushy hairs and dirty clothes.
Research Question 2: Causes of Disruptive Behaviour among Primary School Pupils
Table 2: Causes of Disruptive Behaviour
S/N
|
Items
|
Response Rate
| |||
Agreed
|
%
|
Disagreed
|
%
| ||
5
|
Lack of parental management and families can result to the causes of disruptive behaviour among pupils
|
43
|
43%
|
57
|
57%
|
6
|
School related factors such as overcrowded and teachers incompetence can result to disruptive behaviour among pupils in school
|
72
|
72%
|
28
|
28%
|
7
|
Influence of peers can also result to disruptive behaviour among student
|
65
|
65%
|
35
|
35%
|
8
|
Influence of media also result to disruptive behaviour
|
57
|
57%
|
43
|
43%
|
Total
|
237
|
59.3%
|
163
|
40.7%
| |
The Table 2 shows responses in percentage. From the analysis, 237 of the respondents agreed to the questions while 163 disagreed. This represented 59.3% and 40.7% respectively.
The findings shows that there were various causes of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils in Esan West, among which were lack of parental management, school related factors such as over-crowdedness, teachers’ incompetence, influence of peers and influence of media.
Research Question 3: Differences of Disruptive Behaviour among Primary School Pupils
Table 3: Differences of Disruptive Behaviour
S/N
|
Items
|
Response Rate
| |||
Agreed
|
%
|
Disagreed
|
%
| ||
9
|
Male students has more disruptive behaviour than female students
|
83
|
83%
|
17
|
17%
|
10
|
Children from small family size are more organized than those in larger one.
|
41
|
41%
|
59
|
59%
|
11
|
Children in larger home are more prone to disruptive behaviour than those in the smaller one.
|
73
|
73%
|
27
|
27%
|
Total
|
197
|
65.7%
|
103
|
34.3%
| |
Table 3 shows responses in percentage. From the analysis, 197 of the respondents agreed to the questions while 103 disagreed. This represented 65.7% and 34.3% respectively. The findings from Table 3 shows that, there were differences in disruptive behaviours among primary school pupils in Esan West Local Government Area of Edo State.
Research Question 4: Ways of Curbing Disruptive Behaviour among Primary School Pupils
Table 4: Ways of Curbing Disruptive Behaviour
S/N
|
Items
|
Response Rate
| |||
Agreed
|
%
|
Disagreed
|
%
| ||
13
|
Rules and the consequences of breaking them should be clearly stated
|
79
|
79%
|
21
|
21%
|
14
|
Social awards such as smiling, praising and complimentary can also be introduce to reduce disruptive behaviour
|
55
|
55%
|
45
|
45%
|
15
|
Qualified teachers and effective teaching may also help to reduce disruptive behaviour among student
|
61
|
61%
|
39
|
39%
|
Total
|
195
|
65%
|
105
|
35%
| |
Table 4 shows responses in percentage. From the analysis, 195 of the respondents agreed to the research questions while 105 disagreed. This represented 65% and 35% respectively.
The findings from Table 4 shows that the ways of curbing disruptive behaviour among schools included setting out rules while the consequences of breaking them should be clearly stated, social awards such as smiling, praising and other compliments could also be introduced and lastly, qualified teachers and effective teaching may also help to reduce disruptive behaviours among students.
Discussion of Findings
The discussion is organized under the following sub-headings:
· Forms of Disruptive Behaviour
· Causes of Disruptive Behaviour
· Differences of Disruptive Behaviour
· Ways of Curbing Disruptive Behaviour
Forms of Disruptive Behaviour
From the findings in table one, various forms of disruptive behaviour in the secondary schools were analyzed and presented in tables. Disruptive behaviour rates were discussed in terms of the general disruptive behaviour rates in the secondary schools in Esan West Edo state. The study revealed that students’ disruptive behaviours were common in all secondary schools in Esan West Edo State and had a continuous increase from the beginning of the period of the study to the end. The findings agree with some earlier studies and researches across all educational levels, that of Rayment (2006) and Dewet (2003) which noted that, serious disruptive behavior such as conflict degenerating into physical violence is by far the most challenging misbehaviour to deal with. Rayment (2006) also noted that most learners regard peers who do not fight as weaklings. Another example of serious disruptive behaviour that negatively affects both the emotional and physical experience of learners in the school is bullying which Ovens (2009) describe as hurtful words or acts or other behaviour repeatedly visited upon a child or children.
Causes of Disruptive Behaviour
One of the findings in table was that the main causes of disruptive behaviour among students could be related to the family, school related factors, influence of peers, poor socioeconomic status, media, factors emanating from society, developmental stage of the foundation phase learner, inexperience or ignorance, curiosity, need of belonging, need of recognition, need for power control and anger release. This was also in an agreement with the report of (Walsh & Willams, 2012) which noted that, lacks of parental management and dysfunction families are continually emphasized as risk factors. Rayment (2006) was also on the viewed that 45% of primary school pupils often seeing their parents verbally or physically fighting. It stands to reason that if children are exposed to aggressive display between the adult partners who are their role models at home, they will carry these experiences with them into the schools. Wolhuter and Oosthuizen (2003) also make mention that from a learner’s perspective, lack of parents involvement is the biggest cause of disciplinary problems.
Differences of Disruptive Behaviour
Another finding was that, there were many differences of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils in Esan West Local Government Area of Edo State. The findings revealed that, male students have more disruptive behaviour than female students across the majority of disruptive behaviours. The findings also corroborates the study of (Stephenson 2000), which state that, additional management strategies are needed for 5% of male students and 2% of female students in an average class. Another study which also investigated the behaviour problems across primary and secondary school was that conducted by Haroun and Hanlon (2004). These researchers investigated the disruptive behaviours of concern to Jordanian school teachers. However, the sample only reflects the behavioural patterns of male students due to the structure of the Jordanian education system. It was demonstrated that there were distinct changes in the behaviours considered as disruptive to the classroom environment across primary and secondary levels. (Haroun & Hanlon 2004) also identified most frequent disruptive behaviour exhibited by both primary and secondary school students, however there was large discrepancy between the percentages of primary and secondary school teachers finding this behaviour problematic (57% and 35% respectively). Seventeen percent of secondary teachers found bullying to be of concern while in contrast, primary school teachers failed to note the behaviour as a concern.
Ways of Curbing Schools Disruptive Behaviour
As a result, a solution must be made to arrest this ugly situation called disruptive behaviour. From research question 4 in table 4, the ways of curbing schools disruptive behaviour was Cleary stated.
1. One the ways of curbing schools disruptive behaviour was to set up rules and the consequences of breaking them should be clearly stated
2. Qualified teachers and effective teaching may also help to reduce disruptive behaviour among student.
3. Social awards such as smiling, praising and compliments could also be introduce to reduce disruptive behaviour
On the other hand, Mayers and Pawlers (2008) was on the support that social awards such as smiling, praising, and complimentary are extremely effective increasing desirable behavior. Citing studies also show that students, who dislike school, do poorly academically and have limited career objectives, are more likely to be disruptive. Gottfredson (2002) also recommends that school work increase success for low-achiever, however, this alone is not enough. A comparison of three alternative programmes for at risk youth revealed that while achievement increased in all three delinquent behaviors decreased only in the programme that also increased students’ social involvement and attachment to school. Black and Browns (2001) urge administrators to regard disciplinary referrals as opportunities to teach students valuable social skills that will promote success in future employment as well as in school.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter is concerned with the summary of the study, conclusion and recommendations.
Summary of the Study
The study investigated teachers’ perception of causes of disruptive classroom behavior among primary school pupils in Esan West Local Government Area of Edo State. Four research questions were raised to investigate the problem of study. Literature was reviewed on the related subheadings based on the variables of study. The descriptive design was adopted. The data was collected through a questionnaire. The collected data was analyzed by the use of percentage. After the analysis, the following were the findings:
1. Lack of parental management and families resulted to the causes of disruptive behaviour among pupils
2. School related factors such as overcrowded and teachers incompetence resulted to disruptive behaviour among pupils in school
3. Influence of peers also resulted to disruptive behaviour among student and
4. Influence of media also resulted to disruptive behaviour among students in Esan West Local Government Area of Edo State.
Conclusion
From the findings, it was observed that lack of parental management and families, school related factors such as overcrowded and teachers’ incompetence, influence of peers and influence of media also resulted to disruptive behaviour among students in Esan West Local Government Area of Edo State
Recommendations
Based on the findings, the following recommendations were suggested:
1. Schools should be encouraged by setting up rules while the consequences of breaking them should be clearly stated
2. Social awards such as smiling, praising and compliments could also be introduced to reduce disruptive behaviour
3. Qualified teachers and effective teaching should also be encourage
4. Students should realize that negative peer group will not only lead them to disruptive behaviour but also to academic failure.
REFERENCES
Atici, N.J., & Merry, G.H. (2001). The elephant in the classroom: the impact of misbehavior on classroom climate. Journal of Education, 131(2), 306-314.
BANDURA, M. (2006). Readings on the development of children. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Bigras K.L., (2012). Teacher expectations of student behavior: social skills necessary for success in elementary school classrooms. The journal of special education, 38(2), 104-110.
Black, E. and Brown, F. (2011). Teachers' perspectives on providing support to children after trauma: a qualitative study. School Psychology Quarterly, 27(1), 51-59.
Bott, V.E. (2004). Trauma in early childhood: a neglected population. clinical child family psychology review, 14, 231-250.
Coleman, l. (2003). The pain of attachment-“you have to put a little wedge in there: how vicarious trauma affects child/teacher attachment, childhood education, 84:2, 85-91.
Daniel, C. (2003). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder among children aged 5-17 years in the united states, 1990-2009. National center for Health Statistics data brief 70.
Dehant, K.A. (2004). Psychiatric disorders and treatments: a primer for teachers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36 (2), 42-49.
Dewet, N. (2003). Ecological systems theory: the person in the center of the circles. Research in human development, 4(3-4), 203-217.
Dowling , A. and Osborne (2012). Understanding behavior problems in urban elementary schools. (Senior research project Trinity College, 2006).
Fishbiends, M.S. (2012). Development, implementation, and sustainability of comprehensive school-wide behavior management systems. intervention in school and clinic, 39(1), 10-21.
Goodtman, E. (2008). “Teachers experiences supporting children after traumatic exposure.” Journal of Traumatic Stress. 25, 98-101.
Gordon , P., & Browne, M. (2009). Self reported and actual use of proactive and reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and student behavior. Educational Psychology, 28(6), 693-710.
Gordon, (2008). diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). washington, d.c.: american psychiatric association.
Jones, J. (2008). How teachers respond to concerns about misbehavior in their classroom. Psychology in the schools, 36(4), 347-358.
kutnile D. (2011). Trauma symptoms in preschool-age children exposed to domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(2), 150-164.
Levin , P., and Mohan, B. (2010). “Complex trauma in children and adolescents. Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 390-397.
Merry L. (2001). Elementary school children with behavior problems: teacher-child relations and self perception. a prospective study. merrill-palmer quarterly, 50(2), 111-138.
Miller, D. (2012). Academic outcomes in school classes with markedly disruptive pupils. Social Psychology of Education, 12, 461-479.
Mukherji T., (2001). “School personnel response to children exposed to violence.” school social work journal, 35(1), 60-82).
Perry, B. (2008). Childhood trauma, the neurobiology of adaptation, and ‘usedependent’ development of the brain: How states become traits. Infant Mental Health Journal, 16 (4), 271-289.
pienaar, a.l. (2003). stress predicts brain changes in children: a pilot longitudinal study on youth stress, posttraumatic stress disorder, and the hippocampus. journal of pediatrics, 119(3), 509-516.
Rayment, G.J. (2006). “Traumatic events and posttraumatic stress in childhood. General Psychiatry, 64, 577-584.
Romi , L.T and Freund T . (2003). The relation of elementary teachers’ experience, stress, and coping resources to burnout symptoms. The Elementary School Journal, 109(3), 282-300.
Rossouw, A.J. (2003). The epidemiology of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (adhd): A public health view. Mental retardation and developmental disabilities research reviews. 8, 162-170.
Smit, P. (2003). Frequency of mental health disorders in a sample of elementary school students receiving special educational services for behavioral difficulties. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 49(11), 769-775.
Walsh, J.D., & , Williams K. (2012). Disruptive and inattentive-withdrawn behavior and achievement among fourth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 95(5), 421-434.
Wet, B. (2003). Oppositional defiant disorder and the need for family-centered practice in schools. national association of social workers, 73-83.
Woelfolk, A.G. (2008). Developmental repair model. Retrieved from http://www.washburn.org/pdf/wccdevrepair-grayscale-singlepagessmallerfile. pdf.
Wolhuter, R., & Oosthuizen. (2003). A. making the grade in middle school. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(3), 114-118.
CAUSES OF DISRUPTIVE CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR QUESTIONNAIRE (CDCBQ)
Department of Educational Foundation and Management,
Faculty of Education,
Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma,
Edo State.
Dear Respondent,
I am carrying out a research work on teacher’s perception of causes of disruptive classroom behaviour among primary school pupils in Esan West Local Government Area Edo State.
Your genuine response will be highly appreciated and information supplied will be treated in strict confidence.
Yours Sincerely,
Ikhianosimhe Theresa
Researcher
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the statement below. I promise your view will be held with outmost confidentiality.
Key
Strongly Agree - SA
Agree - A
Disagree - D
Strongly Disagree - SD
S/N
|
Variables
|
SA
|
A
|
D
|
SD
|
Question 1: Forms Of Disruptive Behaviour Among Primary School Pupils
| |||||
1
|
Quarrel and fighting are forms of disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils
| ||||
2
|
Stealing and telling lies are regarded as forms of disruptive behaviour
| ||||
3
|
Disobedient to the headmaster or class teacher is a major disruptive behaviour among pupils
| ||||
4
|
Wearing long finger nails, bushy hairs and dirty clothes are also disruptive behaviour among pupils
| ||||
Question 2: Causes of Disruptive Behaviour Among Primary School Pupils
| |||||
5
|
Lack of parental management and families can result to the causes of disruptive behaviour among pupils
| ||||
6
|
School related factors such as overcrowded and teachers incompetence can result to disruptive behaviour among pupils in school
| ||||
7
|
Influence of peers can also result to disruptive behaviour among student
| ||||
8
|
Influence of media also result to disruptive behaviour
| ||||
Question 3: Differences Of Disruptive Behaviour Among Primary School Pupils
| |||||
9
|
Male students has more disruptive behaviour than female students
| ||||
10
|
Children from small family size are more organized than those in larger one.
| ||||
11
|
Children in larger home are more prone to disruptive behaviour than those in the smaller one.
| ||||
Question 4: ways of curbing disruptive behaviour among primary school pupils
| |||||
12
|
Rules and the consequences of breaking them should be clearly stated
| ||||
13
|
Social awards such as smiling, praising and complimentary can also be introduce to reduce disruptive behaviour
| ||||
14
|
Qualified teachers and effective teaching may also help to reduce disruptive behaviour among student
|
No comments:
Post a Comment