Abstract

Disruptive behaviour of students in a classroom is a serious hurdle for effective learning and teaching process. This quantitative study was conducted to explore the strategies used by the teachers to reduce disruption in the classroom and data was collected through a survey. The population of this study was all female and male teachers teaching in public sector colleges of District Chakwal. To represent the entire population, through a convenient sampling technique, 13 public sector colleges were selected from District Chakwal and 176 teachers were randomly selected for data collection purposes. A self-developed research questionnaire was used for data collection after validation and reliability assessment. The results showed that most of the teachers practice proactive, reactive, recognition and reward strategies. In the light of findings, it is recommended that teacher training institutions should introduce modern behaviour management strategies in the curriculum of teacher training programs so that, teachers can perform their teaching activities in an excellent manner.

Key Words

Students' Behavior; Causes; Behavior Management Strategies

Introduction

Review of Literature

Disruptive behaviour is also known as negative behaviour, misbehaviour or negative participation of a student in the class. These behaviours often disrupt teaching and learning procedures and have a negative effect on teachers and students. According to Latif (2016) university teachers and students think that larger class sizes, the injustice of teachers, the desire for seeking attention and power, emotional problems of students, poor teaching and classroom management styles are the main causes of disruptive behaviour of students in a classroom. Murphy (2006) states that all teachers are often not sure about the causes and ways in which to control the disruption in the classroom. These behaviours are not related to normal procedures of classroom management. According to Ali and Gracey (2013), the methods of dealing with students' disruptive behaviour are the most noteworthy and important thing for teachers. Sirichantr (2009) indicated that teacher use behaviour modification strategies to prevent and control undesirable, inappropriate, and negative behaviours of students in a supportable manner. These strategies can be positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement, ignore or extinction techniques, punishment, modelling, improvement, time-out, shaping and response cost. Maggin et al. (2011) stated that most teachers are confident to use evidence-based techniques for reducing the disruptive behaviour of students nowadays. Sorcinelli (1994) states that it is easier for the teacher to prevent the students' disruptive behaviours than dealing with them after their exhibition. According to Whiteneck (2005) for creating a favourable environment for efficient teaching and learning, teachers try to use prevention strategies as well as intervention strategies. Nordstrom et al. (2009) are of the opinion that a teacher can easily solve the problem of a student's disruptive behaviour by telling the specific student how his/her negative behaviour creates a disturbance in the process of teaching-learning. Faculty members can give reminders to disruptive students and warn them to behave in a suitable way. Sometimes, if the disruptive student continuously shows disruptive behaviour administrative or disciplinary action can be taken against that student. In some cases of extreme misbehaviour, teachers have to use corporal punishment, and special fines and students can be expelled from the classroom (Suleman et al., 2013). Goldstein and Mather (2001) indicate that the behaviours of students can be managed and modified by the consequences faced by students for that classroom behaviours. Saleem et al. (2021) found that the majority of teachers use moral lessons, keep students involved in studies and give extra attention to disruptive students. He concluded that before the start of the class shuffling students and showing cold behaviours to students were effective strategies for managing the challenging behaviour of students. According to Mottram et al. (2002) for effecting prevention of students' disruptive behaviour token economy is very effective. Bartlett (2004) and Whiteneck (2005) indicated that teachers must use both prevention and intervention strategies as both are important for the creation of a conducive and healthy environment for teaching and learning. Wangdi and Namgyel (2022) recommended that proper seating arrangement is helpful for reducing classroom disruptive behaviour. Mahvar et al. (2018) found that most of the studies focus on the use of problem-solving and cooperative strategies, emphasising establishing mutual interaction and communication with students, training teachers for effective coping with the negative behaviour of students and use different teaching methods and suitable approaches according to the situation of the classroom. Different avoidance and punishment strategies such as expelling a student from the classroom and humiliating of student are not recommended. Disrespect, violating and threatening behaviours of students can significantly influence the environment of the classroom and institution. It is very essential for teachers to have sufficient knowledge about students' negative behaviours.       

Research Methodology

In order to explore behaviour management strategies used by teachers, the study is quantitative and descriptive in nature and data was collected through a survey.




Population

The population of this study was all the male and female teachers serving in the public sector colleges of District Chakwal.




Sample and Sampling Technique

From the whole population of the study through a convenient sampling technique, 13 Public sector colleges were selected from District Chakwal. To represent the entire population, 176 teachers were randomly selected from 13 colleges. 




Data Collection Instrument

A self-developed questionnaire was administered for getting the perspectives of college teachers about strategies used in the classroom to reduce disruption in the classroom. It consisted of 29 items on a 5-point Likert scale under six factors, involvement/proactive strategies, reactive strategies, discussion strategies, punishment strategies, recognition/reward strategies, and aggression strategies.




Validity and Reliability

Before administering the questionnaire to the sample of the study, the questionnaire was validated by consulting 5 experts. After the validation process, to test the reliability of the questionnaire a pilot investigation was made over a sample of 30 teachers from public sector colleges of District Chakwal to check the reliability of the questionnaires. Cronbach Alpha Reliability was computed by using SPSS. The Alpha coefficient value of the questionnaire is 0.809.




Data Analysis

After the collection of data from the sample of the study, data were analysed by using SPSS. Descriptive statistics were used to represent the frequencies, percentages, mean and standard deviation of the variables.

Results

Descriptive statistics were used to represent the

frequencies, percentage, mean and standard deviation.




 

Table 1. Teachers' Perceptions of Involvement/proactive Strategies.

Involvement/Proactive Strategies	NA	M	S	HE	N	Mean	SD
Prepare and announce classroom rules	68	69	38	1	0	4.16	0.777
Involve students in decisions	40	85	43	5	3	3.87	0.853
Seating arrangement	54	79	31	12	0	3.99	0.872
Reinforce classroom rules	43	98	28	6	1	4.00	0.771
Role model/ideal behaviour demonstration	56	85	27	8	0	4.07	0.807
Religious and moral directions	71	82	19	4	0	4.25	0.737
Modify teaching strategies	60	82	25	9	0	4.10	0.826

 




In Table 1 with respect to "Involvement/Proactive Strategies", results showed that among 176 teachers, 77.8% of teachers always prepare and announce classroom rules at the start of the session. 71% of teachers involve students in the decision-making process regarding classroom discipline. 75.6% of teachers always arrange a classroom that encourages positive behaviour. 80.1% of teachers always reinforce classroom rules and values. 80.1% of teachers always act as role models and demonstrate ideal behaviour expectations. 86.9% of teachers always use religious, moral and motivational directions for reducing the negative behaviour of students. 80.7% of teachers always modify their teaching strategies to make teaching interesting and properly manage students' behaviour.




 

Table 2. Teachers' Perceptions of Reactive Strategies

Reactive Strategies	NA	M	S	HE	N	Mean	SD
Constant monitoring of behaviour	44	84	32	16	0	3.89	0.887
Non-verbal communication	41	71	44	12	8	3.71	1.043
Warning and chance	63	91	20	2	0	4.22	0.689
On-the-spot correction	27	89	47	10	3	3.72	0.853
Answer irrelevant questions	25	75	43	21	12	3.45	1.089
Investigate causes of disruptive behaviour	30	87	39	20	0	3.72	0.879
Force students to complete an assignment	54	80	35	5	2	4.02	0.852

                                                                                                 




Table 2 shows the results with respect to "Reactive Strategies", that among 176 teachers, 72.7% of teachers always constantly monitor the unwanted and aggressive behaviour of students. 63.6% of teachers always use non-verbal communication to refocus students in the learning process. 87.5% of teachers always give a warning or chance to a disruptive student before any drastic action. 65.9% of teachers correct inappropriate behaviour on the spot. 56.8% of teachers always satisfy students for asking irrelevant questions during lectures. 66.4% of teachers always investigate the causes of students' disruptive behaviour. 76.2% of teachers always force students to complete assignments on time.  




 

Table 3. Teachers' Perceptions of Discussion Strategies

Discussion Strategies	NA	M	S	HE	N	Mean	SD
Discussion with the class	25	80	26	39	6	3.45	1.089
Instructed politely rather than harshly	17	130	22	7	0	3.89	0.609
Letters to Parents	47	82	23	21	3	3.85	1.005
Students are forgiven on an excuse	48	112	15	1	0	4.18	0.593
After class discussion	35	115	18	8	0	4.01	0.697
Sent to principal’s office	34	84	30	23	5	3.68	1.021

 




With respect to "Discussion Strategies", Table 3 shows that among 176 teachers, 59.7% of teachers always discuss with the class what should be done to disruptive students. 83.6% of teachers always instruct rude students politely rather than harshly. 73.3% of teachers inform parents of disruptive students. 90.0% of teachers forgive disruptive students for their valid reason for a behaviour. 85.2% of teachers always talk with disruptive students when class is over. 67% of teachers send disruptive students to the principal office.




 

Table 4. Teachers' Perceptions of Punishmentstrategies

Punishment Strategies	NA	M	S	HE	N	Mean	SD
Give out consequences	36	95	27	18	0	3.85	0.865
Corporal punishment	18	34	46	46	32	2.77	1.244
Expelled from the classroom	25	84	32	23	12	3.49	1.101
Punishment/increase level of punishment	20	68	34	43	11	3.24	1.133
Impose special fine	30	88	29	23	6	3.64	1.021

 




Table 4 represents that with respect to "Punishment Strategies", results illustrated that among 176 teachers, 74.5% give out consequences to disruptive students such as moving their seats and detention. 44.3% of teachers did not use corporal punishment while 45.4% of teachers were in favour of corporal punishment. 61.9% of teachers always expel disruptive students from the classroom. 50% of teachers always give punishment to disruptive students. 67% of teachers always impose special fines on students in case of an extreme discipline problem. 




 

Table 5. Teachers' Perceptions of Recognition/reward Strategies

Recognition/Reward Strategies	NA	M	S	HE	N	Mean	SD
Offer praise/ rewards to individual student	61	93	17	5	0	4.19	0.723
Offer praise/ rewards to the entire class	53	102	20	1	0	4.18	0.639

 




Table 5 represents that with respect to "Recognition/ Reward Strategies", among 176 teachers, 87.5% of teachers always offer praise or reward to the individual student for positive behaviour. 88.1% of teachers always offer general praise or reward to the entire class for good behaviour.




 

Table 6. Teachers' Perceptions of Aggression Strategies

Aggression Strategies	NA	M	S	HE	N	Mean	SD
Shout angrily at students	27	34	31	69	15	2.94	1.243
Make sarcastic comments	10	30	21	67	48	2.36	1.211

 




With respect to "Aggressive Strategies", Table 6 revealed that among 176 teachers, 34.6% of teachers shout angrily at students who create discipline problems, while 47.7% of teachers do not shout at disruptive students. 65.4% of teachers do not embarrass, make sarcastic comments and degrade disobedient students in front of others.     

Findings

1. The findings of the study indicated that most of the teachers practice proactive strategies to reduce students' disruptive behaviour like preparing and announcing class rules at the start of the session, involving students in the decision-making process, seating arrangement, reinforcing classroom rules, and role model ideal behaviour, religious and moral directions, modification of teaching methodology.

2. It was found that most of the teachers always use reactive strategies to reduce students' disruptive behaviour like constant monitoring of behaviour, non-verbal communication, warning or a chance before any severe action, on-the-spot correction, investigating the causes of disruptive behaviour and forcing students to complete assignments. 

3. The results showed that teachers use discussion strategies to reduce students' disruptive behaviour like instructing politely rather than harshly, letters to parents, students are forgiven the excuse, talking with disruptive students at the end of class and sending disruptive students to the principal's office.

4. The study revealed that some teachers use punishment strategies like giving out consequences, moving seats, expelling a disruptive student from the classroom and special fines in case of extreme disturbance. While some teachers were not in favour of punishment e.g corporal punishment.

5. This study also exposed that most teachers always use recognition and reward strategies like offering praise or reward to individual students and general praise or reward to the entire class for good behaviour.

6. It was also found that most of the teachers were not in favour of aggression strategies to reduce students' disruptive behaviour like shouting angrily at disruptive students and making sarcastic comments at disobedient students. 

Conclusion and Discussion

It was concluded that most of the teachers frequently apply proactive, and reactive and discuss strategies to reduce students' disruptive behaviour. Some teachers use punishment and fines in case of extreme disturbance while some teachers were not in favour of punishment strategies, such as corporal punishment. Teachers use recognition and reward strategies to offer praise for good behaviour. Most teachers do not practice aggression strategies to reduce students' disruptive behaviour.

According to Whiteneck (2005), different behaviour management strategies should be practised for the improvement of students' behaviour. This study identifies behaviour management strategies used by the teachers as carried out an exploratory study to determine the nature and the root causes of classroom disruptive behaviour of adult students. He also tried to develop intervention and prevention strategies for the effective management of students' disruptive behaviour. He conducted a survey to explore the perceptions and experiences of pre-service adult educators at a college in New York State about disruption in the classroom. He highlighted the need to identify intervention and prevention strategies for effectively dealing with students' disruptive behaviour in classrooms. The results of this study were supported by the study conducted by Suleman et al. (2013). He found that the performance of teachers is satisfactory in managing the disruptive behaviour of students. Teachers use appropriate and constructive techniques. In case of extreme misbehaviour, teachers are also in favour of corporal punishment and special fines. He recommended that rules should be formulated at the start of the session, parents should be informed and should keep a record of disruptive students.

Some Suggested Behavior Management Strategies

1. Teachers should create interest in students by using a variety of teaching methods, A/V aids and instructional technology.

2. Teachers should involve all the students in learning activities. 

3. Teachers should prepare classroom rules with students and announce appropriate behaviour expectations to students in the first lecture or at the start of the session. 

4. Teachers should always appreciate and reward students for appropriate behaviours in the classroom. 

5. Teachers should constantly monitor the negative behaviour of students and keep a record of aggressive and disruptive students. It should be discussed with parents and staff members.

6. Teachers may avoid practising corporal punishment and go for alternative behaviour modification techniques.

7. Teachers should use religious, moral and motivational directions to prevent students from negative behaviour.

8. Teachers should deal with disruptive students politely and find out if there are some underlying psychological problems. 

9. Teachers should expel extremely mischievous students from the class or impose special fines so that other students may not be affected by those students.

Recommendations

In light of the findings, the recommendations are as follows:

1. It is recommended that the teacher training institutions should introduce modern behaviour management strategies in the curriculum of teacher training programs, therefore, teachers can perform teaching activities in an excellent manner.

2. College administration should ensure proper arrangements of a healthy environment for effective learning in classrooms.

3. A teacher should always practice appropriate modern behaviour management strategies.

References

• Ali, A., & Gracey, D. (2013). Dealing with student disruptive behavior in the classroom–A case example of the coordination between faculty and assistant dean for academics. In Proceedings of the Informing Science and Information Technology Education Conference, 10, 1-15.
• Bartlett, T. (2004). Taking control of the classroom. Chronicle of Higher Education, 9(17), 8-9.
• Ghazi, S. R., Shahzada, G., Tariq, M., & Khan, A. Q. (2013). Types and causes of students’ disruptive behavior in classroom at secondary level in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(9), 350-354
• Goldstein, S., & Mather, N. (2001). Behavior modification in the classroom. Intervention and Classroom Management, 1, 96-117.
• Khasinah, S. (2017). Managing disruptive behavior of students in language classroom. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 4(2), 79-89.
• Latif, M., Khan, U. A., & Khan, A. N. (2016). Causes of students’disruptive classroom behavior: A comparative study. Gomal University Journal of Research, 32(1), 44- 52.
• Maggin, D. M., Chafouleas, S. M., Goddard, K. M., & Johnson, A. H. (2011). A systematic evaluation of token economies as a classroom management tool for students with challenging behavior. Journal of school psychology, 49(5), 529-554.
• Mahvar, T., Farahani, M. A., & Aryankhesal, A. (2018). Conflict management strategies in coping with students’ disruptive behaviors in the classroom: Systematized review. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 6(3), 102- 114
• Mottram, A. M., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., Broudy, M., & Jenson, W. R. (2002). A classroom-based intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(1), 65-74.
• Murphy, S. P. (2006). Dealing with disruptive students: A faculty perspective. College of Lake County.
• Nordstrom, C. R., Bartels, L. K., & Bucy, J. (2009). Predicting and curbing classroom incivility in higher education. College Student Journal, 43(1), 74-86.
• Saleem, A., Muhammad, Y., & Masood, S. (2021). Managing elementary classrooms: Experiences of Novice Public- Schools teachers regarding behavioral challenges of students. Asian Social studies and Applied Research, 2(3), 354-366
• Sirichantr, P. (2009). Student leadership as a behavioral modification in controlling disruptive behaviors of classmates: A study of mathayom 3 students at Sirisuksa school. Scholar: Human Sciences, 1(1).
• Sorcinelli, M. D. (1994). Dealing with troublesome behaviors in the classroom. Handbook of college teaching: Theory and applications, 365-373
• Suleman, Q., Aslam, H. D., Ali, N., Hussain, I., & Ambreen, S. (2013). Techniques used by secondary school teachers in managing classroom disruptive behaviour of secondary school students in Karak District, Pakistan. International Journal of Learning & Development, 3(1), 236-256.
• Turi, J. A. (2019). Types and causes of students’ disruptive behavior in classroom at comprehensive level in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. International Journal of Humanities Technology and Civilization, 1(6), 25-30.
• Wangdi, T., & Namgyel, S. (2022). Classroom to reduce student disruptive behavior: An action research. MEXTESOL Journal, 46(1), 1-11.
• Whiteneck, P. (2005). Teaching the difficult student. Community College Week, 17(14), 3-4.