Factors Contributing to Disruptive Classroom Behaviour in Brunei Darussalam
Fathimath Muna1*
1 Kulliyyah of Education, Islamic University of Maldives, Maldives
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Accepted: 15 October 2020 | Published: 15 November 2020
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Disruptive behaviour in classrooms is a challenge for teaching and learning. The act of disruptive behaviour by young adolescents in the contemporary classrooms is a significant cause of teachers’ stress and burnout. The current study examined the factors contributing to disruptive classroom behaviour in secondary schools of Brunei Darussalam.
Data was collected through semi-structured interviews from three secondary schools in the capital city. Six local teachers teaching to age 13 to 15-year-old young adolescents were selected using purposive sampling. A total of 12 interviews were conducted to elicit information from these local teachers on the factors contributing to disruptive behaviour. A thematic analysis was carried out and the findings revealed that the teachers from the three schools identified different factors influencing the disruptive behaviour of the young adolescents in their particular classrooms. The themes emerged in the analysis include family, home environment, peer influence, social community, socioeconomic status and social media. Based on the findings of the study, the implications of these findings for teachers and future research are discussed.
Keywords: disruptive behaviour, young adolescents, factors, classroom, qualitative study _________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Young adolescents are growing up in a rapidly changing world that is increasingly shaped by global influences such as economic changes and global information, which are just some of the forces shaping the environment within which adolescents are growing up. According to UNICEF’s (2006) report, the unhealthy development found in some young adolescents stems from the social environment. Additionally, individual characteristics such as age, sex, marital status, and domicile, as well as contextual factors, such as poverty and unemployment, gender and ethnic discrimination and the impact of social change on family and communities all interplay (UNICEF, 2006).
Young adolescents with these challenges operate in a macrosystem - the larger socio-cultural context and since they are part of the microsystem as well (such as family, friends, and school), there is uncertainty that they are disrupting the normal functioning of these systems.
As a result, the microsystems, such as the schools they attend, are trying to cope with different types of behaviours. Adolescents with disruptive behaviour (DB) pose a greater challenge to all school staff at all levels. In most countries, the concern of DB and the research focus is mainly narrowed down to secondary schools as this level of schooling has experienced a major rise in DB (Yahaya, Hashim, Ibrahim, Rahman & Yahaya, 2009; Sun &
Shek, 2012; Glass, 2013; Koutrouba, 2013; Driessens, 2015; Gyan, Baah-Korang, Mccarthy,
& Mccarthy, 2015; Trotman, Tucker, & Martyn, 2015). Thus, the purpose of this study is to investigate the factors contributing to disruptive behaviour among young adolescents in secondary schools of Brunei Darussalam.
2. Literature Review
This investigation of ecological development argues that child development takes place in terms of the correlative influences between the child and his/her environment. The concept of
‘impacting’ environments is broken down into “various realms based upon their proximity to the child” (McPhee, Alastair, Craig, 2009, p. 5). Hence, the main focus is to look at tangible factors which can influence the student’s behaviour together with the various factors which theorists and observers have argued can impact upon their behaviour in schools. There are many reasons behind the disruptive behaviour of young adolescents which can reflect a complex relationship between a variety of personal and social factors. The situation, environment and social actors vary, as a result, two students will not have the same experiences.
One of the closest structures to the child is indeed the family and it is regarded as an important support system both to the child and, later, the adolescent (Gasa, 2012). The family home is a dominant part of a child’s immediate environment where the child interacts with a parent or parents/carers and most usually, with siblings (McPhee et al. 2009). Therefore, the way the family at home act and behave has a direct effect on how a child will model viewed behaviour, and subsequently display similar behavioural traits and as a result the child then replicates such behaviour at school (Bandura, 1977). Taking a psychological point of view on students behaviour, Nasha, Schlösserb and Scarra (2016) contend that some of the most troubled pupils find it exceptionally hard to adjust their behaviour, due to difficulties experienced in their home environment. It could be hard for teachers to envisage what some of their pupils bear in the negative home environments. Nasha et.al (2016) point out that challenging behaviour in the young person can be a direct consequence of not feeling safe in adult–child relationships, due to neglect, inconsistent caring or experiences of abuse. The behaviour that is learned and exhibited due to these negative experiences at home may serve them well at home, as it minimises danger and ensures survival. However, Nasha et.al., (2016) argue that at school this learned pattern of behaviour would be regarded as maladaptive and warranting disciplinary procedures. Thus, several studies show family, home and community being a factor to contirbute students disruptive behaviour. Gasa (2012) study showed significant traces of aggressive behaviour in the family, the community and school which lead to students to exhibit aggressive behaviour in school. He highlighted that any disturbance in the family whether as a result of domestic violence, negative parenting style, abusive parents, parental separation or divorce, substance dependency and low socioeconomic status (of the parents) – has implications for adolescent functioning.
Consequently, Shireen and Malik (2015) found that negative home and family environment (broken and divorced parents and family problems), unfriendly parents’ are the major causes of aggressive behaviour of students at secondary level. Another study which supports these findings is Ghazi, Shahzada, Tariq and Khan (2013) study which revealed that inconsistent parenting, uncaring parents , over-protective parents and bad influences on a student’s local community were reported significant by the respondents as the causes of the students’
disruptive behaviour. Interestingly, literature reveals that most of the teachers regarded family or home background (Suppiah & Lourdusamy, 1998; Dekovicá, Wissink, & Meijer, 2004; Gibbs & Gardiner, 2008; Yahaya et al. 2009; Koutrouba, 2013) as the most prominent
cause of behaviour problems in children. However, it could be argued that when teachers blame the home and parents, they are doing so because they have failed to engage with the child and their learning, thus not fulfilled the responsibility of developing a holistic child under the roof of school which meant to provide and nurture a civilized citizen through education.
It is clear that antisocial children disproportionally come from low socioeconomic status (SES) families (Murray & Farrington, 2010) as substantial literature shows SES as a factor of disruptive behaviour. However, according to Piotrowska, Stride, Croft and Rowe (2015) previous research on the association between SES and adolescent antisocial behaviour showed mixed findings presenting variation in the strength of association. The meta-analysis by Piotrowska et al. (2015) showed that lower family socioeconomic status was associated with higher levels of antisocial behaviour. The relationship between family SES and antisocial behaviour, however, was independent of higher-level constructs such as national income inequality. They believed that the results indicate that SES can be considered a robust correlate of broadly conceptualised antisocial behaviour. Accordingly, a study conducted in Greece on the correlation between adolescents’ aggressive behaviour and economic factors revealed that students who had experienced household food insecurity (anxiety/uncertainty about food, insufficient food quality or insufficient food intake) or had their pocket money decreased scored on average significantly higher in the Aggression Questionnaire compared to their counterparts who did not (Lazaratou, Kalogerakis, Economou, & Xenitidis, 2017). It was concluded by Lazaratou et al. (2017) stating that shortage in basic goods due to the actual Greek economic crisis seems to be related to aggressive behaviours during adolescence. However, Murray and Farrington (2010) argued that the relation between low SES and delinquency varies. They further stated that the link between low SES families and antisocial behaviour is facilitated by family socialization practices as low SES predicts delinquency since low SES families use poor childrearing practices. This is similar to the findings revealed in Repetti, Sears and Bai (2015) study.
Other people's actions and beliefs can have a significant impact on our own behaviour. It also changes the behaviour because of social norms or to get acceptance from others. The level of conformity is age-dependent, with children and young adolescents who shows a higher vulnerability to social influence than adults (UNICEF, 2006; Knoll, Leung, Foulkes and Blakemore (2017). Adolescents is a period of life during which they become less family- centered and spend more time with friends (Dekovicá et al. 2004; UNICEF 2006) What their peers think about them have more influence on adolescents evaluation of their social and personal worth (Knoll et al. 2017). Young adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behaviour when with their peers than when alone or with their parents and heightened peer influence due to social approval and being hypersensitive to peer rejection (Howe & Mercer, 2007; Gasa, 2012) . Deviant peers offer chances to engage in antisocial behaviour and supply the adolescents with attitudes, motivation, and rationalization to support such behaviour (Dekovicá et al. 2004). In addition, they may foster antisocial behaviour through positive reinforcement and through modelling of new types of problem behaviour. However, it is not always the case of negative influence from peers. Research shows positive influence from peers lead the adolescent for prosocial development.
The results of the study by Allen, Chango, and Szwedo (2014) showed establishing oneself as a socially desirable companion with one’s adolescent peers appeared most strongly predictive of qualities of relationship functioning in adulthood. They state that it could be the qualities that lead to acceptance by peers in adolescence, such as empathy and perspective taking to
impulse control and good humour also set the adolescent up to experience similar positive relationship outcomes in adulthood. Further, being viewed as a desirable companion by both close friends and the broader peer group in adolescence may also set up a self-reinforcing chain of positive expectations for the adolescent, leading to more prosocial behaviour which turns to more positive relationships going forward (Allen et al. 2014). A similar outcome was revealed from the study by Bru, Murberg and Stephans (2001) where most of the adolescents reported receiving a high level of support from peers. Especially girls were more likely to evaluate peers as more supportive than adolescent boys, and that adolescent girls develop close and supportive relations with peers to a greater extent than adolescent boys.
Apart from peers, the present generation of adolescents are highly attached with their electronic gadgets and spend more time on social media. As such, they are bombarded with immense information received through different social media and web applications and due to this, they are more susceptible to various forms of online risks. One cannot deny the fact that the internet offers several online opportunities for learning and social networking, at the same time, it provides an ideal environment for risk-taking, and some are tempted to engage in risky behaviour. Hence, extensive access and use of the internet by adolescents and its potential consequences for adolescents’ development compels to investigate further the potential online risks and opportunities.
A study by Lau and Yuen (2013) explored the influence of gender, religion, and parenting style on risky online behaviours in secondary students in Hong Kong. It was found that males tended to be involved in riskier online behaviours than did females. In terms of risky online behaviours, it was revealed that Christians were no different from non-Christians. As for the parenting style, it did not seem to be effective in reducing risky online behaviours. Hence, taken together, gender, religion, and parenting style predicted risky online behaviours significantly. However, a different outcome showed from the three studies that Ferguson, San Miguel and Hartley (2015) examined on violent game play in youth in terms of the role of video games in the development of aggression. They concluded that none of the studies provided evidence for concerns linking video game violence to aggressive behaviours or reduced empathy in youth. Contrastingly, Gentile, Lynch, Linder, and Walsh (2004) study revealed that adolescents who expose themselves to video game violence were more hostile, and having frequent arguments with teachers. It also showed that these adolescents were more likely to be involved in physical fights and performed more poorly in school.
Furthermore, in aiming to analyse the prevalence of adolescent aggressors (cyberbullies) through modern information and communication technologies (the internet and cellular phones), a study conducted by Buelga and Pons (2012) revealed that through new technologies almost one third of adolescents have made an attack on their peers. It was observed that cyberbullying mainly occurs for less than a month and with moderate intensity, no more than once a week.
Based on the literature, it can be argued that there are implications for schools and teachers relating to factors which may be out of their control. Nevertheless, the school and teachers’
can put up their measures and assist the young adolescents facing such problems so that the prevalence of these in schools can be minimised.
3. Methodology
This is a qualitative study exploring the factors contributing to DB secondary classrooms.
Three public secondary schools were selected based on the prevalence of disruptive
behaviour and from each school, two local teachers teaching to students of 13 to 15 years age range were purposefully selected as informants. Six teachers, two males and four females participated in this study. Pseudonyms were used for the anonymity of teachers.
A self-constructed semi-structured interview guide was used for each individual interview.
During the interview, further questions, prompts and probes were done to explore the participant’s experiences on the phenomenon. The participants were asked to describe the factors contributing to DB that are being exhibited by the young adolescents in their classrooms based on their experience.
Data was analysed by general qualitative analysis in which codes and categories were derived inductively from the data. The six transcripts were read repeatedly and compared. First level of coding was done by clustering similar words and phrases that formed meaningful units.
Second level of coding and categorization was carried out by grouping the similar codes which reflected the themes. Thus, four major themes were derived from the data. The themes are presented in the following section.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
From the interviews, the teachers revealed common reasons as what they perceived and what they found out being involved in DB issues in their teaching career. Hence, six themes emerged, and they were family, home environment, socioeconomic status, peer influence, social community and social media. The themes are discussed in detail below.
4.1 Family
One of the major factors that all six teachers from the three schools stated was the family as a contributing factor to the students DB. According to the teachers, students behave disruptively because of the family that they are from. In other words, due to the students’
family background as highlighted in the following excerpts.
I think because they are from different family background… the background of the student’s… the main causes the family background usually (Mohamed, School B).
families…family background might; maybe (Mariyam, School B).
maybe due to the family background (Aisha, School C).
I think the family (Sharma, School A)
Further elaborations of the family issues were provided by Nadiya (School A) and Mariyam (School B).
Most of the students here got family problems like mother divorced, marry another man, and then got another big conflict so family issue are a lot here (Nadiya, School A).
It might be the parents are separated and they are not brought up by their parent…
they are with different families, lot of families, extended family (Mariyam, School B).
The teachers talked about the care and love given by the family and highlighted that these behaviours were due to lack of these affections provided to them by their family. Nadiya (School A) and Aisha (School C) shared their views in the following statement.
Their parents don’t care about them (Nadiya, School A).
Sometimes their backgrounds...may be the students lack affections and love from their family (Aisha, School C).
It is evident from the excerpts that these teachers have found out these factors while dealing with disruptively behaved students in their long serving teaching life. While these teachers articulate same sentiments of family love and care for the student, Hassan (School, C) brings a different view of family having an impact on the child. Hassan (School C) describes.
Some of them have a very dominant father figure who beats them up and is very aggressive towards everyone else, the way they speak and the way they behave. Their children will copy these, and they will bring it to class (Hassan, School C).
Hassan further adds that whenever he asks his students to stop doing disturbing behaviours, the students perceive that they are being asked to “submit” themselves which they view as a weakness of themselves as described below.
When I tell them to sit down, be quiet, it’s like telling them to submit themselves to me and they learn from their father or some male character role model. Submitting to someone else is a sign of weakness. So, they can’t really go against me, so they prefer they divert that frustration to someone next to them. someone who they can, you know, get down or something. So, over time they feel that, I have the right to do this because I’m a dominant man…that’s why they won’t go against me …so they go towards others (Hassan, School C).
It is evident from the narrative excerpt of Hassan (School C) that he has come across students who have dominant family figures that has a negative influence on the child creating a similar figure in the community to carry on for generations.
4.2 Home Environment
Another recurring factor that all the teachers stated that contribute to DB is the home environment. Teachers in this study attributed the character of the disruptively behaved student to home environment which the student is nurtured as reflected by Sharma in the following statement.
The way they are brought up at home…the home you know the home climate (Sharma, School A).
While Sharma reflects on the upbringing of the student and the home climate, Mariyam specifically speaks about the student being neglected at home. As a result of this, the child behaves disruptively in class as Mariyam articulates below.
May be at home, there is no attention given (Mariyam, School B).
According to Mariyam, due to the lack of attention at home, students are seeking teachers’
attention through DB. Nadiya articulates the same sentiment.
That is how they do in their home…even their parents are not talking politely, how can they (students) know how to talk politely (Nadiya, School A).
The narrative of Nadiya reflects the way students communicate to each other as well as to teachers. The following statement by Hassan (School, B) surmise what all the rest of teachers said regarding home environment as a contributing factor in the following statement.
most of the time they are just acting out because of problems they are facing at home (Hassan, School, C).
Although, the teachers are from different schools where the schools are situated in different context or social settings, all six teachers in this study attributed the students DB to the students’ family and their home environment that they are from, the way students are brought up in the family without love and care, the students’ home climate such as parents not speaking to the children politely. Literature also reveals that most of the teachers regarded family or home background (Dekovicá et al. 2004; Gibbs & Gardiner, 2008; Koutrouba, 2013; Suppiah & Lourdusamy, 1998; Yahaya et al. 2009 ) as the most prominent cause of behaviour problems in children. Some teachers in this study expressed that disruptive students were having family issues such as parents divorced or separated, re-marrying and conflict in the family due to this, no parental figure to look after the students and students not living with their parents. This result of the current study lends support to the previous research by Bru et al. (2001), which revealed negative life events such as parents divorcing or re-marrying were significantly associated with student misbehaviour among both male and female adolescents in Norwegian junior high schools. Similarly, in another study Shireen and Malik (2015) found that a negative home and family environment (broken and divorced parents and family problems) and unfriendly parents are the major causes of aggressive behaviour of students at secondary level. Another study which supports the current study’s finding is Ghazi et al. (2013) study which revealed that inconsistent parenting, uncaring parents , over-protective parents were reported as significant by the respondents as the causes of the students’ DB.
Additionally, the data also revealed that having a dominant or abusive father was a reason for aggressive behaviour of the students. This finding is similar to what Gasa (2012) found in his study and the findings of Bandura’s (1977) study. The study also revealed that lack of attention at home is a cause of disruptive behaviour in classrooms. Studies show that children who do not receive attention at home increase their disruptive behaviour in school in the hope that the attention they receive will also increase (McPhee at el. 2009). However, at school this learned pattern of behaviour would be regarded as maladaptive and warranting disciplinary procedures (Nasha et al. 2016).
The findings suggest that family and home environment is a major factor that influences the students’ DB. This is a worrying issue as Brunei is a homogeneous society, where the beliefs lie on the Islamic religion which teaches the importance of a family and where the culture is based on Islamic values and norms, implying that no other different beliefs impact on the child’s development. The strong hold on Malay Islamic Beraja (MIB), the philosophy of Bruneians does not seem to reflect on the closest structure to the child, the family of the disruptive students of these three particular schools. Additionally, an important support
system both to the child and, later, the adolescent (Gasa, 2012) and family home being a dominant part of a child’s immediate environment. Although, the issues highlighted by all six teachers regarding family are things out of their control, the results indicate that teachers need to be proactive in identifying the disruptive students with family issues so that the right support is provided within the school. Furthermore, the findings of the present study have several implications for the policy makers and school leaders in establishing screening mechanisms, early intervention programmes and also protocols and procedures set to report abusive cases to relevant authorities in order to provide the right support to the child. Thus, this will assist the collective effort of the nation in trying to build healthy and productive citizens for nation building.
4.3 Socioeconomic Status
The teachers in this study stated that socioeconomic status of the family is also another factor leading to DB. Unlike the rest of the teachers in this study, Sharma and Nadiya from School A described the economic status of students’ family in more detail than the rest of the teachers. These two teachers’ student family’s economic status have a great impact on the student’s behaviour as highlighted in the following statements by Sharma and Nadiya.
By looking at your parents. Most of their parents here don’t work. They get, what we call, help from the government as long as they have children under 18. Then they still can earn that two hundred something or two hundred so easily without even working so they just sit at home doing nothing (Nadiya, School A).
The economy of the family most of my year 11 umm not most of umm around 5 to 6 from my year 11 they are working part time because of family economy uh so because as I said from the socioeconomic background that’s the only thing that they see as can be as stable security financially (Sharma, School A).
Similarly, but in a more simplistic way, the economic status of the family being a contributor to DB is being expressed by Mohamed from School B as well. He remarks:
Their family yeah from their status…from the poor side (Mohamed, School B).
The above excerpts prove that the socioeconomic status of the family has an impact on the students’ DB. Sharma and Nadiya from School A identified that disruptively behaved students are from low socioeconomic status families and substantial literature shows that SES as a factor of DB (Murray & Farrington, 2010). The teachers in this study reported that most of the parents were unemployed and lived on government benefits. As a result, some of the students worked part time or were involved in the economic activities of the family directly or indirectly to support themselves and the students’ families. Therefore, students come late to school or show no interest to study in class and behave disruptively in class. This finding is consistent with previous studies conducted on factors contributing to DB (Lazaratou et al.
2017; Piotrowska et al. 2015). The study by Lazaratou et al. (2017) concluded that students who had experienced household food insecurity seems to be related to aggressive behaviours during adolescence. However, Murray and Farrington (2010) argued that the link between low SES families and antisocial behaviour is facilitated by family socialization practices, since low SES predicts delinquency because low SES families use poor childrearing practices. Therefore, teachers and schools need to identify such students and offer support within the school system so that the expected performance would be seen from the students.
4.4 Social Media
With the rapid development in technology each one of us is connected via a media device regardless of where in the world we are residing. The young generation is quite advanced in using these media devices and learning quickly about these devices. All the teachers in this study reported that the social media having an impact on the students in terms of their behaviour. Mohamed from School B expresses the extent that students are on social media by terming ‘they are always into their social media’ as seen from the statement below.
May be on social media they see their friends…I think. t they are always into their social media (Mohamed, School B).
Further elaborations on this factor revealed that teachers find students using different types of social media such as, internet games, social platforms, gadgets and action movies. Moreover, all the teachers acknowledge the fact that one way or the other the influence of social media is seen from the student’s behaviour. Aisha shared one such encounter with one of her students in the following narrative.
Recently I have this student who calls other students with vulgar names. Vulgar words, names…he is just saying because he heard the words from his friends who he is playing games with. Wrestling, it’s famous…the ros game and the mobile legend game, I think. I’m not so sure that internet game. So, in that game people can communicate with each other so from there the student get the words from other people whom he doesn’t know (Aisha, School C)
The excerpt of Aisha tells the magnitude of the impact of social media on the students, here in this case the internet game had on this particular child. Furthermore, Nadiya from School A and Mariyam from School B state that the students find the social activities from their smart gadgets are more interesting and spend their time with, than their studies as seen from the statements below.
The social activity with gadgets…they think that school is boring they rather play games (Nadiya, School A).
Smart phone, that’s much better to update that than updating my work (laughs) (Mariyam, School B).
It is evident from the teachers’ excerpts that social media has dominated the students and their lives. As a result, it affects their behaviour as well as deviates their attention from learning. Students spent most of their time on social media via their smart gadgets or playing games on the internet. For example, the case of Aisha’s student who used verbal aggression in class which he learnt from the group, that he plays with the wrestling game. This finding lends support to Gentile et al. (2004) study which showed that adolescents who expose themselves to video game violence were more hostile. Hence, extensive access and use of the internet by adolescents and its potential consequences for adolescents’ development has implications if not monitored well by the responsible people. However, the current study’s finding contradicts with the three studies of Ferguson et al. (2015) which concluded that none of the studies provided evidence for concerns linking video game violence to aggressive behaviours. Notwithstanding this, the fact that the internet offers several online opportunities for learning and social networking cannot be denied. Additionally, in an open world the
students cannot be refrained from the use of these technologies or internet social activities as it has advantages for student’s development. Therefore, what needed is the advice on safe surfing of social media and monitoring of their activities by the responsible people whether it is parents, teachers or care givers.
4.5 Peer Influence
At adolescent age, students tend to spend more time with their friends than others. It is a time when a child undergoes a lot of changes physically, mentally and emotionally. Children at this age tend to get attracted to new things and get the urge to experience new things. One of the factors that are recurring in the teacher’s interviews is peer influence. Four teachers in this study stated that peer influence is a factor for DB, however, each of the teacher’s perspective on how it influences varies. It is interesting to find that Nadiya and Sharma from school A did not mention anything about peer influence whereas the rest of the teachers did. Mariyam and Mohamed from School B viewed peer influence as something that is due to ‘hanging’ around with their friends as stated in the following statements.
Peer influence is there I think that’s the way…hanging around with their friends.
(Mariyam, School B).
They tend to go out middle of the night together with their friends (Mohamed, School B).
The process of making friends and the time spent with them are crucial for the social development of the students. However, parents and teachers must guide or advise them to choose the right kind of friends to be with. The kind of friends with good nature and those who encourage them to do things which brighten their future. Unlike Mariyam and Mohamed from School B, Hassan from School C explicates peer influence while going through their adolescent stage and shared one of his accounts of a scenario that he experienced. He describes his encounter below.
Problems they are facing here is growing up with peer pressure…the students behave differently in front of their friends…he just, of course, being in front of the other friends or his classmates he feels like e a big man talking back to me (Hassan, School C).
This excerpt of Hassan from School C reveals that due to peer pressure the students tend to behave in a certain way in front of their peers. In addition to this, Aisha from the same school shares a similar story. Aisha believes that the students follow their friend’s bad behaviour’ in order ‘to look cool to people” and to avoid being called a ‘nerd’ and also to ‘get accepted’ in the peer circle. While Hassan’s experience is on the student's DB due to peer influence which in turn led the student to confront the teacher, Aisha’s story is on the students themselves as described in the narrative below.
When they see that they are cool guy, so they try to join in their group and then they say if they want to join the group, they have to do something in order to be
accepted…so my student, he was told if he wants to join the group, he had to do something. What he did was he shaved his both eyebrows so that he will be accepted in this group. It’s daring action so that he can be accepted. Maybe the student is trying to get accepted in the group circle (Aisha, School C).
The narrative of Aisha reveals the extent a student goes due to peer influence. It also indicates that it may harm the student and may result in unforeseen consequences to the students. Thus, considering the adolescence time of the students, this study showed how the students are influenced by certain particular unacceptable and risky acts of the students of these schools due to peer influence (Gasa, 2012; Howe & Mercer, 2007). For instance, Aisha’s student shaving off his both eye eyebrows to get accepted in the peer circle and Hassan’s student arguing in front of his classmates. This is consistent with numerous previous studies on factors of DB (Gasa, 2012; Suppiah et al., 2001; Tahirović, 2015; Titus, 2017). Moreover, the findings reveal the magnitude of peer pressure prevailed in these schools; showing disrespect to teachers by confronting and changing the student’s appearance are going against social norms. Thus, there is no one but the teachers who understand their students well, therefore, attention should be given to those students who are mingling with disruptive students so that help could be provided to those students to prevent DB. Likewise, identify the peer groups who operate in the school’s against the norms and provide relevant help, either by counselling and support groups as these are the individuals who need the help most. Additionally, teachers, as well as the school management, need to work together to create awareness on how the students can say ‘no’ to such peer pressure.
4.6 Social Community
Schools are situated in communities and consist of students who usually live in a diverse neighbourhood. The teachers in this study reported that the social community is also a factor that influences the student’s behaviour. throughout the interviews, Nadiya and Sharma from School A, both teachers kept on referring to the social community as ‘this area’ or ‘this part of Brunei’ frequently when sharing their experiences of DB. Nadiya and Sharma from School A described the social community in the following excerpts.
Here most of their parents are not originally from here anymore; they are from other countries like Sarawak…so a lot of migrants are here so the social community is disturbed already…the students follow what is the environment there in their village and bring it here. Like in the village they like to talk, non-stop talking until midnight.
They sleep over in their friend’s house and then it continues here. They don’t want to stop talking. So, it’s about their social community that is also one of the factors (Nadiya, School A).
The narrative of Nadiya highlights many aspects of the social community, such as, migrants from neighbouring countries which has affected the already existing community. The narrative also describes the environment that the students live in and how it reflects in their behaviour while they are in the classroom. Therefore, it could be said that the students are residing in a diverse neighbourhood where they may have different issues among the neighbourhoods. However, Sharma’s experience was a bit different as she recounts in the narrative below.
Grouping them is even a challenge because this area is made up of many villages.
Some villages they don’t mix they say, ‘I don’t want to be with them. She is from (speaks Malay). I said why we are all like Bruneians, you all are together in this school. All are your friends. No... because I hate them because she’s from this kampong and I don’t want to mix and to be in the group. They tell me ‘I don’t want Cha to be with her because she is from other village’, I said why all the villages are the same and we are all Muslims, you know. But they say ‘no, I don’t like’ (Sharma, School A).
It is evident from the narrative of Sharma that there are huge problems among the community. It is interesting to note that this factor is also raised by Nadiya and Sharma from school A as the previous SES factor. The findings revealed that this school context is contrastingly different in terms of SES and social community than school B and C. The findings revealed that the social community was disturbed by migrants from neighbouring countries. The students exhibit DB in the classroom that they observe and live in as being residents of the community or the village. For example, non-stop talking was identified as the most common DB in the classroom. It was also found that students were not willing to mingle with those who are from a particular village, as the community consists of many villages. This was highlighted as a disruption to the teaching and learning process where the teacher was compelled to intervene. These findings lend support to Gasa (2012) study which determined the community as one of the factors that contributed to DB of adolescents. Hence, teachers should explore the complexities, relationships, the social and cultural dynamics of the students in order to carry out a smooth and effective teaching and learning process.
The present study explored the factors contributing to disruptive behaviour of young adolescents in three public secondary schools of Brunei Darussalam. The findings showed six major factors influencing the DB. The results of this study complement similar studies conducted in different contexts. The findings have implications for social change as it could help the teachers to better understand their students. By learning the factors that contribute to DB, the teachers’ may be able to attend the student's individual issues. Hence, this would assist in inculcating acceptable social behaviour in the students and improve the classroom climate. By creating such an environment, the teachers will be ready to carry out their roles more effectively, thus nurturing the future leaders of the nation. Future research can study the same issue from the students and parents’ perspective as this would help in identifying the school factors that contribute to DB.
References
Allen, J. P., Chango, J., & Szwedo, D. (2014). The adolescent relational dialectic and the peer roots of adult social functioning. Child Development, 85(1), 192–204.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12106
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hal
Bru, E., Murberg, T. A., & Stephens, P. (2001). Social support, negative life events and pupil misbehaviour among young Norwegian adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 24(6), 715–727. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2001.0434
Buelga, S., & Pons, J. (2012). Aggressions among adolescents through mobilephones and the internet. Psychosocial Intervention, 21(1), 91–101.
https://doi.org/10.5093/in2012v21n1a2
Dekovicá, M., Wissink, I. B., & Meijer, A. M. (2004). The role of family and peer relations in adolescent antisocial behaviour: Comparison of four ethnic groups. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.06.010 Driessens, C. M. E. F. (2015). Extracurricular activity participation moderates impact of
family and school factors on adolescents’ disruptive behavioural problems. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 1110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2464-0
Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., & Hartley, R. D. (2009). A multivariate analysis of youth violence and aggression: The influence of family, peers, depression, and media violence. Journal of Pediatrics, 155(6), 904–908.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.06.021
Gasa, V. (2012). The Determinants of Learners ’Aggressive Behaviour. J Soc Sci, 30(2),
147–152.
Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance.
Journal of Adolescence, 27, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.10.002 Ghazi, S. R., Shahzada, G., Tariq, M., & Khan, A. Q. (2013). Types and causes of ctudents’
disruptive behavior in classroom at secondary level in khyber pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
American Journal of Educational Research, 1(9), 350–354.
https://doi.org/10.12691/education-1-9-1
Gibbs, S., & Gardiner, M. (2008). The structure of primary and secondary teachers’
attributions for pupils’ misbehaviour: a preliminary cross-phase and cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 8(2), 68–77.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2008.00104.x
Glass, C. S. (2013). Perception of misbehavior: Understanding the process of labeling and the role of cultural capital in the disciplinary process. Urban Review, 46(3), 372–394.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-013-0268-z
Gyan, E., Baah-Korang, K., Mccarthy, P., & Mccarthy, P. (2015). Causes of Indiscipline and Measures of Improving Discipline in Senior Secondary Schools in Ghana: Case Study of a Senior Secondary School in Sunyani, 6(11). Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1081804.pdf
Howe, C., & Mercer, N. (2007). Children’s social development, peer interaction and classroom learning. Primary Review. Cambridge.
Knoll, L. J., Leung, J. T., Foulkes, L., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2017). Age-related differences in social influence on risk perception depend on the direction of influence. Journal of Adolescence, 60, 53–63.
Koutrouba, K. (2013). Student misbehaviour in secondary education : Greek teachers views and attitudes, 65(1) 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.628122
Lau, W. W. F., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2013). Adolescents’ risky online behaviours: The
influence of gender, religion, and parenting style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2690–2696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.005
Lazaratou, H., Kalogerakis, Z., Economou, M., & Xenitidis, K. (2017). Socioeconomic crisis and aggressive behaviour of Greek adolescents. International Journal of Social
Psychiatry, 63(6), 488–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764017719737 McPhee, Alastair, Craig, F. (2009). Disruptive behaviour within the classroom: an
ecosystemic view of pupil behaviour, (February).
Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). Risk factors for conduct Disorder and delinquency:
Key findings from longitudinal studies. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(10), 633–642
Nasha, P & Schlösserb.A and Scarra.T (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of disruptive behaviour in schools: a psychological perspective. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 21(2), 167–180.
Piotrowska, P. J., Stride, C. B., Croft, S. E., & Rowe, R. (2015). Socioeconomic status and antisocial behaviour among children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta- analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 35, 47–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.11.003
Repetti, R. L., Sears, M. S., & Bai, S. (2015). Social and Emotional Development in the Context of the Family. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edi, Vol. 22). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.23046-8 Shireen, F., & Malik, S. (2015). Causes of students’ aggressive behaviour at secondary
school level. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, 11, 49–66.
Sun, R. C. F., & Shek, D. T. L. (2012). Student classroom misbehavior: An exploratory study
based on teachers’ perceptions. The Scientific World Journal, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/208907
Suppiah C., Lourdusamy, A. (1998). Student misbehaviour in secondary school: Perceptions of discipline techaers in Brunei Darussalam. Studies in Education, 3, 22–35.
Trotman, D., Tucker, S., & Martyn, M. (2015). Understanding problematic pupil behaviour:
perceptions of pupils and behaviour coordinators on secondary school exclusion in an English city. Educational Research, 57 (3), 237-253.
UNICEF (2006). Adolescent Development in East Asia and the Pacific: Realizing Their Potential. New York
Yahaya, A., Ramli, J., Hashim, S., Ibrahim, M. A., Rahman, R. R. R. A., & Yahaya, N.
(2009). Discipline Problems among Secondary School Students in. European Jounal of Social Sciences, 11(4), 659–675.s
