<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.3/JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<journal-meta>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">52</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="short-title">gesr</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.31703/gesr</journal-id>
  <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Global Educational Studies Review</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">gesr</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group>
  <issn publication-format="print">2708-2113</issn>
  <issn publication-format="electronic">2708-3608</issn>
  <self-uri xlink:href="https://gesrjournal.com"/>
  <publisher>
    <publisher-name>Humanity Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Pakistan</publisher-loc>
  </publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
  <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">393777</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.31703/gesr.2022(VII-II).52</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="manuscript">00</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="other" specific-use="submission-id">4246</article-id>
  <article-version article-version-type="publisher">1.0</article-version>
  <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
      <subject>article</subject>
    </subj-group>
  </article-categories>
  <title-group>
    <article-title xml:lang="en">Strategies Used by the Teachers to Reduce Students&apos; Disruptive Behavior in Classroom</article-title>
  </title-group>
<contrib-group>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="1" corresp="yes">
    <name>
      <surname>Zuhra</surname>
      <given-names>Um e Baneen</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Conceptualization" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualization</role>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – original draft" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Writing – original draft</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/>
    <xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"/>
  </contrib>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="2">
    <name>
      <surname>Parveen</surname>
      <given-names>Qaisara</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – review &amp; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"/>
  </contrib>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="3">
    <name>
      <surname>Yousaf</surname>
      <given-names>Imran</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – review &amp; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"/>
  </contrib>
  <aff id="aff1">
    <label>1</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>Department of Education, Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <named-content content-type="author-role">MPhil Scholar</named-content>
    <addr-line>Punjab</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
  <aff id="aff2">
    <label>2</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>Department of Education, Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <named-content content-type="author-role">Associate Professor</named-content>
    <addr-line>Punjab</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
  <aff id="aff3">
    <label>3</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>Department of Education, Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <named-content content-type="author-role">Professor</named-content>
    <addr-line>Punjab</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
</contrib-group>
<author-notes>
  <corresp id="cor1">Corresponding Author: Um e Baneen Zuhra, MPhil Scholar, Department of Education, Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Punjab, Pakistan.</corresp>
<fn fn-type="COI-statement" id="fn-coi">
  <p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="ethics-statement" id="fn-ethics">
  <p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="data-availability-statement" id="fn-data">
  <p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
</fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="epub" date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
  <day>30</day>
  <month>06</month>
  <year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="collection">
  <month>06</month>
  <year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="print">
  <day>02</day>
  <month>06</month>
  <year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
  <volume>7</volume>
  <issue>2</issue>
  <season>Spring</season>
  <fpage>555</fpage>
  <lpage>562</lpage>
  <history>
    <date date-type="accepted">
      <day>02</day>
      <month>06</month>
      <year>2022</year>
    </date>
  </history>
<funding-group>
  <funding-statement>
<p>The authors received no specific funding for this work.</p>
  </funding-statement>
</funding-group>
<permissions>
  <copyright-year>2022</copyright-year>
  <copyright-holder>Humanity Publications</copyright-holder>
  <license license-type="open-access" xml:lang="en" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
    <license-p>This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</license-p>
  </license>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="text/html" xlink:href="https://gesrjournal.com/article/strategies-used-by-the-teachers-to-reduce-students-disruptive-behavior-in-classroom"/>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gesrjournal.com/pdf/gesr/jk4gXfi5aw.pdf"/>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gesrjournal.com/pdf/gesr/jk4gXfi5aw.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  <abstract>
    <p>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.</p>
  </abstract>
<kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-keywords">
  <kwd>Students&apos; Behavior</kwd>
  <kwd>Causes</kwd>
  <kwd>Behavior Management Strategies</kwd>
</kwd-group>
  <custom-meta-group>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>views</meta-name><meta-value>901</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>downloads</meta-name><meta-value>1</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>html-views</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>google-scholar-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>crossref-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
  </custom-meta-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="sec-1">
  <title>Introduction</title>
<p><break/></p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-2">
  <title>Review of Literature</title>
<p>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&apos; 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&apos; 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&apos;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&apos; 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&apos; negative behaviours.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-3">
  <title>Research Methodology</title>
<p>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.</p><p><break/></p><p>Population</p><p>The population of this study was all the male and female teachers serving in the public sector colleges of District Chakwal.</p><p><break/></p><p>Sample and Sampling Technique</p><p>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.</p><p><break/></p><p>Data Collection Instrument</p><p>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.</p><p><break/></p><p>Validity and Reliability</p><p>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.</p><p><break/></p><p>Data Analysis</p><p>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.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-4">
  <title>Results</title>
<p>Descriptive statistics were used to represent the</p> <p>frequencies, percentage, mean and standard deviation.</p> <p><break/></p>  <table-wrap id="table1"><label>Table 1</label><caption><title>Teachers&apos; Perceptions of Involvement/proactive Strategies.</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Involvement/Proactive
  Strategies</p> </td><td> <p>NA</p> </td><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>S</p> </td><td> <p>HE</p> </td><td> <p>N</p> </td><td> <p>Mean</p> </td><td> <p>SD</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Prepare and announce classroom
  rules</p> </td><td> <p>68</p> </td><td> <p>69</p> </td><td> <p>38</p> </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>0</p> </td><td> <p>4.16</p> </td><td> <p>0.777</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Involve students in decisions</p> </td><td> <p>40</p> </td><td> <p>85</p> </td><td> <p>43</p> </td><td> <p>5</p> </td><td> <p>3</p> </td><td> <p>3.87</p> </td><td> <p>0.853</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Seating arrangement</p> </td><td> <p>54</p> </td><td> <p>79</p> </td><td> <p>31</p> </td><td> <p>12</p> </td><td> <p>0</p> </td><td> <p>3.99</p> </td><td> <p>0.872</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Reinforce classroom rules</p> </td><td> <p>43</p> </td><td> <p>98</p> </td><td> <p>28</p> </td><td> <p>6</p> </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>4.00</p> </td><td> <p>0.771</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Role model/ideal behaviour
  demonstration</p> </td><td> <p>56</p> </td><td> <p>85</p> </td><td> <p>27</p> </td><td> <p>8</p> </td><td> <p>0</p> </td><td> <p>4.07</p> </td><td> <p>0.807</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Religious and moral directions</p> </td><td> <p>71</p> </td><td> <p>82</p> </td><td> <p>19</p> </td><td> <p>4</p> </td><td> <p>0</p> </td><td> <p>4.25</p> </td><td> <p>0.737</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Modify teaching strategies</p> </td><td> <p>60</p> </td><td> <p>82</p> </td><td> <p>25</p> </td><td> <p>9</p> </td><td> <p>0</p> </td><td> <p>4.10</p> </td><td> <p>0.826</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p> <p>In Table 1 with respect to &quot;Involvement/Proactive
Strategies&quot;, 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&apos;
behaviour.</p> <p><break/></p>  <p>Table 2. Teachers&apos; Perceptions of Reactive
Strategies</p> <table-wrap id="table2"><label>Table 2</label><caption><title>Table 2</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Reactive
  Strategies</p> </td><td> <p>NA</p> </td><td> <p>M</p> </td><td> <p>S</p> </td><td> <p>HE</p> </td><td> <p>N</p> </td><td> <p>Mean</p> </td><td> <p>SD</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Constant monitoring of
  behaviour</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>84</p> </td><td> <p>32</p> </td><td> <p>16</p> </td><td> <p>0</p> </td><td> <p>3.89</p> </td><td> <p>0.887</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Non-verbal communication</p> </td><td> <p>41</p> </td><td> <p>71</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>12</p> </td><td> <p>8</p> </td><td> <p>3.71</p> </td><td> <p>1.043</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Warning and chance</p> </td><td> <p>63</p> </td><td> <p>91</p> </td><td> <p>20</p> </td><td> <p>2</p> </td><td> <p>0</p> </td><td> <p>4.22</p> </td><td> <p>0.689</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>On-the-spot correction</p> </td><td> <p>27</p> </td><td> <p>89</p> </td><td> <p>47</p> </td><td> <p>10</p> </td><td> <p>3</p> </td><td> <p>3.72</p> </td><td> <p>0.853</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Answer irrelevant questions</p> </td><td> <p>25</p> </td><td> <p>75</p> </td><td> <p>43</p> </td><td> <p>21</p> </td><td> <p>12</p> </td><td> <p>3.45</p> </td><td> <p>1.089</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Investigate causes of
  disruptive behaviour</p> </td><td> <p>30</p> </td><td> <p>87</p> </td><td> <p>39</p> </td><td> <p>20</p> </td><td> <p>0</p> </td><td> <p>3.72</p> </td><td> <p>0.879</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Force students to complete an
  assignment</p> </td><td> <p>54</p> </td><td> <p>80</p> </td><td> <p>35</p> </td><td> <p>5</p> </td><td> <p>2</p> </td><td> <p>4.02</p> </td><td> <p>0.852</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p> <p>Table 2 shows the results with respect to
&quot;Reactive Strategies&quot;, 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&apos; disruptive behaviour. 76.2% of teachers
always force students to complete assignments on time.</p> <p><break/></p>  <p>Table 3. Teachers&apos; Perceptions of Discussion
Strategies</p> <table-wrap id="table3"><label>Table 3</label><caption><title>Table 3</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th valign="top"> <p>Discussion Strategies</p> </th><th> <p>NA</p> </th><th> <p>M</p> </th><th> <p>S</p> </th><th> <p>HE</p> </th><th> <p>N</p> </th><th> <p>Mean</p> </th><th> <p>SD</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Discussion with the class</p> </td><td> <p>25</p> </td><td> <p>80</p> </td><td> <p>26</p> </td><td> <p>39</p> </td><td> <p>6</p> </td><td> <p>3.45</p> </td><td> <p>1.089</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Instructed politely rather than
  harshly</p> </td><td> <p>17</p> </td><td> <p>130</p> </td><td> <p>22</p> </td><td> <p>7</p> </td><td> <p>0</p> </td><td> <p>3.89</p> </td><td> <p>0.609</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Letters to Parents</p> </td><td> <p>47</p> </td><td> <p>82</p> </td><td> <p>23</p> </td><td> <p>21</p> </td><td> <p>3</p> </td><td> <p>3.85</p> </td><td> <p>1.005</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Students are forgiven on an
  excuse</p> </td><td> <p>48</p> </td><td> <p>112</p> </td><td> <p>15</p> </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>0</p> </td><td> <p>4.18</p> </td><td> <p>0.593</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>After class discussion</p> </td><td> <p>35</p> </td><td> <p>115</p> </td><td> <p>18</p> </td><td> <p>8</p> </td><td> <p>0</p> </td><td> <p>4.01</p> </td><td> <p>0.697</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Sent to principal’s office</p> </td><td> <p>34</p> </td><td> <p>84</p> </td><td> <p>30</p> </td><td> <p>23</p> </td><td> <p>5</p> </td><td> <p>3.68</p> </td><td> <p>1.021</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p> <p>With respect to &quot;Discussion Strategies&quot;, 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.</p> <p><break/></p>  <table-wrap id="table4"><label>Table 4</label><caption><title>Teachers&apos; Perceptions of Punishmentstrategies</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Punishment
  Strategies</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>NA</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>M</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>S</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>HE</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>N</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Mean</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>SD</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Give out consequences</p> </td><td> <p>36</p> </td><td> <p>95</p> </td><td> <p>27</p> </td><td> <p>18</p> </td><td> <p>0</p> </td><td> <p>3.85</p> </td><td> <p>0.865</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Corporal punishment</p> </td><td> <p>18</p> </td><td> <p>34</p> </td><td> <p>46</p> </td><td> <p>46</p> </td><td> <p>32</p> </td><td> <p>2.77</p> </td><td> <p>1.244</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Expelled from the classroom</p> </td><td> <p>25</p> </td><td> <p>84</p> </td><td> <p>32</p> </td><td> <p>23</p> </td><td> <p>12</p> </td><td> <p>3.49</p> </td><td> <p>1.101</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Punishment/increase level of
  punishment</p> </td><td> <p>20</p> </td><td> <p>68</p> </td><td> <p>34</p> </td><td> <p>43</p> </td><td> <p>11</p> </td><td> <p>3.24</p> </td><td> <p>1.133</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Impose special fine</p> </td><td> <p>30</p> </td><td> <p>88</p> </td><td> <p>29</p> </td><td> <p>23</p> </td><td> <p>6</p> </td><td> <p>3.64</p> </td><td> <p>1.021</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p> <p>Table 4 represents that with respect to &quot;Punishment Strategies&quot;, 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.</p> <p><break/></p>  <p>Table 5. Teachers&apos; Perceptions of Recognition/reward
Strategies</p> <table-wrap id="table5"><label>Table 5</label><caption><title>Table 5</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Recognition/Reward
  Strategies</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>NA</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>M</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>S</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>HE</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>N</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Mean</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>SD</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Offer praise/ rewards to
  individual student</p> </td><td> <p>61</p> </td><td> <p>93</p> </td><td> <p>17</p> </td><td> <p>5</p> </td><td> <p>0</p> </td><td> <p>4.19</p> </td><td> <p>0.723</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Offer praise/ rewards to the
  entire class</p> </td><td> <p>53</p> </td><td> <p>102</p> </td><td> <p>20</p> </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>0</p> </td><td> <p>4.18</p> </td><td> <p>0.639</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p> <p>Table 5 represents that with respect to &quot;Recognition/ Reward
Strategies&quot;, 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.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <p>Table 6. Teachers&apos; Perceptions of Aggression
Strategies</p> <table-wrap id="table6"><label>Table 6</label><caption><title>Table 6</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Aggression
  Strategies</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>NA</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>M</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>S</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>HE</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>N</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Mean</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>SD</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Shout angrily at students</p> </td><td> <p>27</p> </td><td> <p>34</p> </td><td> <p>31</p> </td><td> <p>69</p> </td><td> <p>15</p> </td><td> <p>2.94</p> </td><td> <p>1.243</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Make sarcastic comments</p> </td><td> <p>10</p> </td><td> <p>30</p> </td><td> <p>21</p> </td><td> <p>67</p> </td><td> <p>48</p> </td><td> <p>2.36</p> </td><td> <p>1.211</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p><p>With respect to &quot;Aggressive Strategies&quot;, 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.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-5">
  <title>Findings</title>
<p>1.	The findings of the study indicated that most of the teachers practice proactive strategies to reduce students&apos; 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.</p><p>2.	It was found that most of the teachers always use reactive strategies to reduce students&apos; 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.</p><p>3.	The results showed that teachers use discussion strategies to reduce students&apos; 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&apos;s office.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>6.	It was also found that most of the teachers were not in favour of aggression strategies to reduce students&apos; disruptive behaviour like shouting angrily at disruptive students and making sarcastic comments at disobedient students.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-6">
  <title>Conclusion and Discussion</title>
<p>It was concluded that most of the teachers frequently apply proactive, and reactive and discuss strategies to reduce students&apos; 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&apos; disruptive behaviour.</p><p>According to Whiteneck (2005), different behaviour management strategies should be practised for the improvement of students&apos; 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&apos; 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&apos; 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.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-7">
  <title>Some Suggested Behavior Management Strategies</title>
<p>1.	Teachers should create interest in students by using a variety of teaching methods, A/V aids and instructional technology.</p><p>2.	Teachers should involve all the students in learning activities.</p><p>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.</p><p>4.	Teachers should always appreciate and reward students for appropriate behaviours in the classroom.</p><p>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.</p><p>6.	Teachers may avoid practising corporal punishment and go for alternative behaviour modification techniques.</p><p>7.	Teachers should use religious, moral and motivational directions to prevent students from negative behaviour.</p><p>8.	Teachers should deal with disruptive students politely and find out if there are some underlying psychological problems.</p><p>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.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-8">
  <title>Recommendations</title>
<p>In light of the findings, the recommendations are as follows:</p><p>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.</p><p>2.	College administration should ensure proper arrangements of a healthy environment for effective learning in classrooms.</p><p>3.	A teacher should always practice appropriate modern behaviour management strategies.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<fn-group content-type="conflict-of-interest">
  <title>Conflict of Interest</title>
  <fn fn-type="conflict">
<p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="ethics-statement">
  <title>Ethics Statement</title>
  <fn fn-type="ethics">
<p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="data-availability">
  <title>Data Availability</title>
  <fn fn-type="data-availability-statement">
<p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<app-group>
  <app id="app-suppl">
    <title>Supplementary Materials</title>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gesrjournal.com/pdf/gesr/jk4gXfi5aw.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  </app>
</app-group>
<ref-list>
  <title>References</title>
<ref id="Ali">
  <label>1</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Ali, A., &amp; Gracey, D</person-group>
    <year>2013</year>
    <article-title>. Dealing with student disruptive behavior in the classroomâ€“A case example of the coordination between faculty and assistant dean for academics</article-title>
    <source>In Proceedings of the Informing Science and Information Technology Education Conference</source>
    <volume>10</volume>
    <fpage>1</fpage>
    <lpage>15</lpage>
    Ali, A., &amp; Gracey, D. (2013). Dealing with student disruptive behavior in the classroomâ€“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.
    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.28945/1793</pub-id>
    <ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.28945/1793">10.28945/1793</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Bartlett">
  <label>2</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Bartlett, T</person-group>
    <year>2004</year>
    <article-title>. Taking control of the classroom</article-title>
    <source>Chronicle of Higher Education</source>
    <volume>9</volume>
    <issue>17</issue>
    <fpage>8</fpage>
    <lpage>9</lpage>
    Bartlett, T. (2004). Taking control of the classroom. Chronicle of Higher Education, 9(17), 8-9.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Ghazi">
  <label>3</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Ghazi, S. R., Shahzada, G., Tariq, M., &amp; Khan, A. Q</person-group>
    <year>2013</year>
    <article-title>. Types and causes of studentsâ€™ disruptive behavior in classroom at secondary level in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan</article-title>
    <source>American Journal of Educational Research</source>
    <volume>1</volume>
    <issue>9</issue>
    <fpage>350</fpage>
    <lpage>354</lpage>
    Ghazi, S. R., Shahzada, G., Tariq, M., &amp; Khan, A. Q. (2013). Types and causes of studentsâ€™ disruptive behavior in classroom at secondary level in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(9), 350-354
    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.12691/education-1-9-1</pub-id>
    <ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.12691/education-1-9-1">10.12691/education-1-9-1</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Goldstein">
  <label>4</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Goldstein, S., &amp; Mather, N</person-group>
    <year>2001</year>
    <article-title>. Behavior modification in the classroom</article-title>
    <source>Intervention and Classroom Management</source>
    <volume>1</volume>
    <fpage>96</fpage>
    <lpage>117</lpage>
    Goldstein, S., &amp; Mather, N. (2001). Behavior modification in the classroom. Intervention and Classroom Management, 1, 96-117.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Khasinah">
  <label>5</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Khasinah, S</person-group>
    <year>2017</year>
    <article-title>. Managing disruptive behavior of students in language classroom</article-title>
    <source>Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities</source>
    <volume>4</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>79</fpage>
    <lpage>89</lpage>
    Khasinah, S. (2017). Managing disruptive behavior of students in language classroom. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 4(2), 79-89.
    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.22373/ej.v4i2.1661</pub-id>
    <ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.22373/ej.v4i2.1661">10.22373/ej.v4i2.1661</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Latif">
  <label>6</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Latif, M., Khan, U. A., &amp; Khan, A. N</person-group>
    <year>2016</year>
    <article-title>. Causes of studentsâ€™disruptive classroom behavior: A comparative study</article-title>
    <source>Gomal University Journal of Research</source>
    <volume>32</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>44</fpage>
    Latif, M., Khan, U. A., &amp; Khan, A. N. (2016). Causes of studentsâ€™disruptive classroom behavior: A comparative study. Gomal University Journal of Research, 32(1), 44- 52.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Maggin">
  <label>7</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Maggin, D. M., Chafouleas, S. M., Goddard, K. M., &amp; Johnson, A. H</person-group>
    <year>2011</year>
    <article-title>. A systematic evaluation of token economies as a classroom management tool for students with challenging behavior</article-title>
    <source>Journal of school psychology</source>
    <volume>49</volume>
    <issue>5</issue>
    <fpage>529</fpage>
    <lpage>554</lpage>
    Maggin, D. M., Chafouleas, S. M., Goddard, K. M., &amp; 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.
    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jsp.2011.05.001</pub-id>
    <ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.05.001">10.1016/j.jsp.2011.05.001</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Mahvar">
  <label>8</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Mahvar, T., Farahani, M. A., &amp; Aryankhesal, A</person-group>
    <year>2018</year>
    <article-title>. Conflict management strategies in coping with studentsâ€™ disruptive behaviors in the classroom: Systematized review</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Advances in Medical Education &amp; Professionalism</source>
    <volume>6</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>102</fpage>
    Mahvar, T., Farahani, M. A., &amp; Aryankhesal, A. (2018). Conflict management strategies in coping with studentsâ€™ disruptive behaviors in the classroom: Systematized review. Journal of Advances in Medical Education &amp; Professionalism, 6(3), 102- 114
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Mottram">
  <label>9</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Mottram, A. M., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., Broudy, M., &amp; Jenson, W. R</person-group>
    <year>2002</year>
    <article-title>. A classroom-based intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Applied School Psychology</source>
    <volume>19</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>65</fpage>
    <lpage>74</lpage>
    Mottram, A. M., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., Broudy, M., &amp; Jenson, W. R. (2002). A classroom-based intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(1), 65-74.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Murphy">
  <label>10</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Murphy, S. P</person-group>
    <year>2006</year>
    <article-title>. Dealing with disruptive students: A faculty perspective</article-title>
    <source>College of Lake County</source>
    <page-range>erspective</page-range>
    Murphy, S. P. (2006). Dealing with disruptive students: A faculty perspective. College of Lake County.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Nordstrom">
  <label>11</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Nordstrom, C. R., Bartels, L. K., &amp; Bucy, J</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <article-title>. Predicting and curbing classroom incivility in higher education</article-title>
    <source>College Student Journal</source>
    <volume>43</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>74</fpage>
    <lpage>86</lpage>
    Nordstrom, C. R., Bartels, L. K., &amp; Bucy, J. (2009). Predicting and curbing classroom incivility in higher education. College Student Journal, 43(1), 74-86.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Saleem">
  <label>12</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Saleem, A., Muhammad, Y., &amp; Masood, S</person-group>
    <year>2021</year>
    <article-title>. Managing elementary classrooms: Experiences of Novice Public- Schools teachers regarding behavioral challenges of students</article-title>
    <source>Asian Social studies and Applied Research</source>
    <volume>2</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>354</fpage>
    <lpage>366</lpage>
    Saleem, A., Muhammad, Y., &amp; 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
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Sirichantr">
  <label>13</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Sirichantr, P</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <article-title>. Student leadership as a behavioral modification in controlling disruptive behaviors of classmates: A study of mathayom 3 students at Sirisuksa school</article-title>
    <source>Scholar: Human Sciences</source>
    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).
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Sorcinelli">
  <label>14</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Sorcinelli, M. D</person-group>
    <year>1994</year>
    <article-title>. Dealing with troublesome behaviors in the classroom</article-title>
    <source>Handbook of college teaching: Theory and applications, 365-373</source>
    Sorcinelli, M. D. (1994). Dealing with troublesome behaviors in the classroom. Handbook of college teaching: Theory and applications, 365-373
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Suleman">
  <label>15</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Suleman, Q., Aslam, H. D., Ali, N., Hussain, I., &amp; Ambreen, S</person-group>
    <year>2013</year>
    <article-title>. Techniques used by secondary school teachers in managing classroom disruptive behaviour of secondary school students in Karak District, Pakistan</article-title>
    <source>International Journal of Learning &amp; Development</source>
    <volume>3</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>236</fpage>
    <lpage>256</lpage>
    Suleman, Q., Aslam, H. D., Ali, N., Hussain, I., &amp; 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 &amp; Development, 3(1), 236-256.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Turi">
  <label>16</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Turi, J. A</person-group>
    <year>2019</year>
    <article-title>. Types and causes of studentsâ€™ disruptive behavior in classroom at comprehensive level in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan</article-title>
    <source>International Journal of Humanities Technology and Civilization</source>
    <volume>1</volume>
    <issue>6</issue>
    <fpage>25</fpage>
    <lpage>30</lpage>
    Turi, J. A. (2019). Types and causes of studentsâ€™ disruptive behavior in classroom at comprehensive level in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. International Journal of Humanities Technology and Civilization, 1(6), 25-30.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Wangdi">
  <label>17</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Wangdi, T., &amp; Namgyel, S</person-group>
    <year>2022</year>
    <article-title>. Classroom to reduce student disruptive behavior: An action research</article-title>
    <source>MEXTESOL Journal</source>
    <volume>46</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>1</fpage>
    <lpage>11</lpage>
    Wangdi, T., &amp; Namgyel, S. (2022). Classroom to reduce student disruptive behavior: An action research. MEXTESOL Journal, 46(1), 1-11.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Whiteneck">
  <label>18</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Whiteneck, P</person-group>
    <year>2005</year>
    <article-title>. Teaching the difficult student</article-title>
    <source>Community College Week</source>
    <volume>17</volume>
    <issue>14</issue>
    <fpage>3</fpage>
    <lpage>4</lpage>
    Whiteneck, P. (2005). Teaching the difficult student. Community College Week, 17(14), 3-4.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>