Students Misbehavior In Jordanian High Schools Education Essay

Purpose- The main purpose of the study presented in this paper is to explore the degree of students’ misbehavior in Jordanian high schools. This study also tried to explore how variables such as gender, grade level, and types of schools may influence students’ misbehavior.

Design/methodology/approach- The quantitative research design survey instrument contained 3 demographic items, and 30 questions address students misbehavior at Jordanian high schools.

Findings- Data revealed that 45.4 per cent of respondent had committed misbehavior, while ………….of respondents had. Furthermore, the result of this study revealed that students’ misbehavior have significant differences based on gender, grade level, types of school in Jordanian high schools.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

Originality/value- the research revealed the existence of programming to reduce students’ misbehavior at Jordanian high schools and some obvious implication for the teachers, headmasters, and policy makers. It profiled the experience of respondents and identified strategies to eliminate or reduce misbehavior at Jordanian high schools.

Keywords Student misbehavior, Gender, Grade level, Type of schools

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Despite the number of studies examining students’ misbehavior in school, there is still much to be learned, therefore, the present study was designed in an attempt to better understand predictor of student’s misbehavior in Jordanian high school.

Student misbehavior is one of the most troubling realities in today’s public education (Kulinna, et al, 2010; Charles, 2008). Student misbehavior at school has become a prominent national issue and continues to be the major cause for concern among educators, teachers, administrators, parents, and communities — despite the numerous and varying efforts to reduce it (Kulinna, et al, 2010; Schwartz and Kassabri, 2008; Crowder, 2008; Rachel and Karen, 2007; Todras, 2007; Oswald, Safran and Johanson, 2005, Simons-Merton, et al, 1999). Charles (2008) notes that in many schools misbehavior interferes with teaching, stifles learning, produces great stress, leads to poor class morale and causes more teachers to fail achieve their target than does any other factor.

Student misbehavior is an issue which both parents and educators identify as having the most problematic and negative effect on society. However, it is also an issue that both parents and educators cannot fully understand. On one hand, most parents and teachers blame each other for it while, on the other hand, the blame is put on the students themselves. It is argued that a certain emotional instability or vulnerability inherent in a child may cause him or her to misbehave. Laying the blame for student misbehavior on the students themselves may constitute a counterproductive approach as it does not have any positive effect on past misbehavior nor does it prevent similarly disruptive behavior in the future (Giancola, 1998).

Toby (1998) found that students usually commit incidents of misbehavior on a daily basis. Jeremy, Reva and Leslie (2008) have reported that school misbehavior is related to low academic achievement and dropping out of school. Students’ misbehavior at school is potentially harmful to the individual student if it interferes with learning, interrupts lessons for all students, wastes the teachers’ and students’ limited time in class and – which is most alarming — reduces the likelihood of students completing their high school education. Misbehavior also harms teachers and their students because it interrupts classroom instruction. It increases the teachers’ stress levels, diverts the teachers’ attention and thus negatively influences the quality of teaching and learning and subsequently interferes with academic achievement and success. In addition, misbehavior also creates an atmosphere of discomfort, insecurity and fear and school administrators are forced to spend a disproportionately high amount of time dealing with discipline problems (Jeremy, et al., 2008; Qwaidat and Hamadi, 1997; Gaustad, 1992) instead of appraisal and motivation (Todras, 2007). Not surprisingly, Gonzalez, Brown and Slate (2008) identified school misbehavior as one of the primary factors for teachers leaving the teaching profession.

Dealing with discipline problems at school seems to be one of the most difficult problems administrative staff and teachers have to face on a frequent basis. To facilitate and improve student behavior inside and outside the classroom using discipline strategies, the teachers need to produce an atmosphere of acceptance. (Bacon, 1990)

Thus, teachers consistently report that students with extremely disruptive behavior and classroom management are among the most difficult and disturbing aspects of teaching (Herrera and Little, 2005: Jenkins, 1997: Peter, 1995: Menaker, Weldon, and Hurwitz, 1989). Herrera and Little (2005) found that 95% of teachers reported problems with student behavior. Jenkins (1997) found that 41% of the students had hit someone at school, 20% of the students vandalized school property, and 12% had stolen something at school. Peter (1995) (as cited in Herschell,1999) records that almost 48% of teachers have students who exhibit serious problems and 41% of teachers indicate that they lose at least a fair amount of teaching time due to students’ disruptive behavior.

Present student misbehavior is likely to escalate into future social aberrations. Thus, as the disruptive behavior among students’ increases, more and more students feel that it hinders their ability to learn. In the same manner, teachers feel that misbehavior interferes with their ability to teach as well as contributes to their stress. From the viewpoint of educators, the greater significance of the problem of student misbehavior is its connection with later school dropout. Not surprisingly, it has been estimated that student indiscipline in general is regarded as an important predictor of school dropout (Dunham and Alpert, 1987; Loughrey and Harris, 1990; Wells and Hamby, 1989).

The body of existing research suggests that the increase of disruptive classroom behavior is associated with higher dropout rates, academic failure, drug use, alcohol abuse as well as poverty and unemployment in adulthood. Several studies confirm this general prediction (Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 2007; Snyder and Sickmund, 2006; Arum & Beattie, 1999; Sherman, 1997; Olweus, 1997; Thornberry et al., 1985; Nagin and Tremblay, 1999; Farrington, 1994; Haapasalo and Tremblay, 1994;; White, 1990; Toby, 1998). Furthermore, Loeber and Dishion (1998) assert that misbehavior becomes a gateway to other negative behaviors in adolescence, such as vandalism, drug use, and to more serious crimes committed in adulthood.

Toby (1998) concludes that students involved in misbehavior are more likely to drop out from high school. Other research has indicated that students who drop out of school are subsequently more likely to engage and commit crime that leads to incarceration (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006; Arum and Beattie, 1999; Sherman, 1997; Sherman, 1997; Thornberry et al., 1985). Furthermore, students who misbehaved on school grounds for more than four times are more likely to be convicted of a serious crime by age 24 (Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 2007). Similar studies have shown that disruptive behavior in children can lead to future criminality (Nagin and Tremblay, 1999; Farrington, 1994; Haapasalo and Tremblay, 1994; White, 1990).

In regard to student misbehavior in Jordan, Qwaidat and Hamdi (1997) observe that schools are facing greater challenges and higher expectations than ever before. Jordanian administrators, teachers, parents, and educators have sought solutions concerning how to solve problems related to student behavior at school. Managing student misbehavior is a major concern for public schools because the number of students displaying inappropriate behavior is increasing, and schools are expected to manage and contain severe behavioral problems among students.

The research conducted by Qwaidat and Hamdi (1997) shows that quarrel, beating other students, cheating in exams and late coming are the most frequent behavioral problems. The most frequently applied disciplinary measure was beating. Significant is the observed relationship between behavioral problems and exposure to mass media such as television, as well as peer behavior.

At Jordanian high schools, there is an increasing concern about student misbehavior, particularly in the classroom. Qwaidat and Hamdi (1997) report that student misbehavior has become a serious problem at Jordanian high schools. Jeremy, et al., (2008) defines classroom misbehavior as students cutting class or being late, leaving their seats, speaking out of turn or otherwise disrupting instruction, failing to follow directions or complete assignments, and cheating. Teachers frequently complain that they spend more time trying to control students than teaching them. Administrators are also concerned about frequent truancy to assaults on teachers. In addition, students express fear of walking in school corridors and of losing possessions. Parents are very concerned about the frequent lack of respect for authority and the apparent lack of discipline at schools. Acts of misbehavior committed in and around schoolyards has caught the media’s attention. Moreover, there is a general feeling among educators and the community at large that student misbehavior at high schools is steadily corroding the learning environment.

It does not seem justified to assume that by identifying the predictor of student misbehavior in daily school activities, student misbehavior will automatically be reduced or even eradicated. Furthermore, there is a need to gather more conclusive data on student misbehavior at Jordanian high schools. Without a definite understanding of student misbehavior in all its existent forms, any measures to eradicate such misbehavior cannot be effectively implemented and appropriate recommendations cannot be formulated.

Student misbehavior is one of the most troubling realities in education today (Charles, 2008), not only in the USA but also in other parts of the world, such as Jordan (Qwaidat and Hamdi, 1997). The rising level of student misbehavior is becoming a serious problem and has increased dramatically over the past few years. The lack of positive data in regard to student misbehavior at Jordanian high school is one of the main reasons why this problem persists. It is important to note that student misbehavior is not only a serious problem for parents, teachers, headmasters, administrative staff, and educators but permeates into the rest of society at large and the level of productivity of developing nations. This problem has raised serious concerns in regard to the quality and employability of graduates produced by public high schools nationwide.

Student misbehavior is the most urgent problem faced by school administrators and teachers in Jordan (Qwaidat and Hamdi, 1997). This situation has prompted attempts at early intervention, recognizing as most crucial the need to prevent a further increase of student misbehavior. There seems to be a lack of insight into the factors that influence student misbehavior which would enable policy makers to design the successful and effective policies needed.

More specifically, there is insufficient information and a lack of comprehensive studies to determine the predictors of student misbehavior. Furthermore, an in-depth study to identify the predictors of student misbehavior is essential to determine the relationships between student misbehavior and gender, grade levels, and types of school.

The aims of the study

The main purpose of the study presented in this paper is to explore the degree of students’ misbehavior in Jordanian high schools. This study also tried to explore how variables such as gender, grade level, and types of schools may influence students’ misbehavior through answering the following questions:

What types of misbehavior exists among students of Jordanian high schools?

What is the degree of the student’s misbehavior?

Is there a significant difference in the mean scores of students’ misbehavior based on gender?

Is there a significant difference in the mean scores of students’ misbehavior based on grade level?

Is there a significant difference in the mean scores of students’ misbehavior based on type of school?

1.4 Research Hypotheses:

To address the objective of the current study, the following null hypotheses are investigated.

Hypothesis 1: There is a significant difference between the mean score of students’ misbehavior for male and female students in Jordanian high schools.

Hypothesis 2: There is a significant difference between the mean score of students’ misbehavior for grade 11 and grade 12 students in Jordanian high schools.

Hypothesis 3: There is a significant difference between the mean score of students’ misbehavior for vocational and academic schools in Jordanian high schools.

Conceptual definition: student misbehavior is defined by Charles (2008) as behavior that is inappropriate for the setting or situation in which it occurs.

Operational definition: In this study, the term student misbehavior is defined by the researcher as any inappropriate behavior occurring at school and caused by a student, such as bothering other students, being disrespectful toward teachers, inappropriate physical contact, etc. It is measured by the frequency of misbehavior.

Social learning Theory

Theories within this paradigm are based on the assumption that individuals learn to behave aggressively by direct engagement in aggressive behavior or by observing it in others. Thus, aggressors are formed by expectations of what the outcomes of their behavior will be. Most research that applies social learning theories to educational achievement as in healthy behavior or risk behavior emphasizes the modeling component of social learning, particularly children’s observations of parental conflict behavior. Children experience more negative emotions when parental aggression is physical than when it is verbal and that children learn to imitate their parents’ aggressive behavior and scripts.

The salience of aggressive models increases from exposure to verbally aggressive models to physically aggressive models and predicts that the child is more likely to experience anger and hostility when exposed to physical conflict than to verbal conflict. (Bandura, 1973, pp.28-29).

In addition, studies based on social learning theories have hypothesized that same sex parent models — when aggressive — are more influential where girls imitate their aggressive mothers and boys imitate their aggressive fathers.

In one of the earliest formulations of social learning theory, Rotter (1954) described behavior as “a function of the expected probability of occurrence of a particular reinforcement (expectancy) and the degree of preference attached to that reinforcement (reinforcement value)” (p. 440). These concepts were later refined by Bandura (1973; 1986) as outcome expectancies and outcome values and further interpreted by Hall et al., (1988) in the context of aggression:

Children engage in aggressive behavior to the extent that both expect certain outcome to result from that aggression and attach value to those outcomes. A child who expects aggression to result in outcomes such as tangible rewards, peer respect, and positive self-evaluation will be more aggressive than a child who does not hold similar outcome expectations. Also, children who care more about the positive outcomes of aggression, and less about the negative outcomes, should likewise show elevated levels of aggressive behavior (Hall et al., 1988p.440).

Social learning theory was applied by Akers (1985), whose work was based on the premise that “the principle behavioral effects come from interaction in or under the influence of those groups which control individuals’ major sources of reinforcement and punishment and expose them to behavioral models and normative definitions” (Akers et al., 1979, p.638). In Akers’s view, four variables explain aggressive behavior; (a) the extent of imitating role models, (b) the extent of definition of deviant behavior, (c) the extent of differential association, and (d) the extent of an individual’s differential reinforcement” (Akers, 1985, p. 4). He defines primary terms as follows:

Differential association means the processes by which an individual aligns himself or herself with the group that controls the individual’s major source of reinforcement, such as the family or peer groups. Differential reinforcement means the process by which deviant behavior becomes dominant over conforming behavior. Given two models of behavior that both reinforce, the one that is reinforced in the grater mount, more frequently, and with the higher probability (that is, greater likelihood of occurring) will become dominant (Akers, 1985, p.7-8)

This research uses social learning theory to support the theoretical framework of this study.

Social bond theory framework was used to guide the current study. This framework provides an understanding of social bond that influence the behavior and functioning of students’ misbehavior.

Research Design

The present study was carried out in Jordanian high school governorate of Jarash.

This study is quantitative in nature and is conducted using a descriptive method and inferential statistics. The study instrument, employed to answer research questions, is a questionnaire designed to predict students’ misbehavior at Jordanian high schools. The questionnaire was developed by the researcher and derived from related literature of students’ misbehavior. The questionnaire were presented to group of experienced of professors in University of Jordan and Hashemite University in Jordan to ascertain whether the questionnaire items were appropriate for measuring what is intended to measure, and to elicit their viewpoints about the clarity of its items and if each suits measuring the dimensions related to. The comments were taken into consideration, and the items were modified accordingly.

The population of this study consisted of all public high schools students in governorate of Jarash in academic year 2010/2011, the population was approximately 6700 students. Therefore, because the population is very large, and to be more economical of time and money, stratified random sampling was employed to break up this large population into smaller feasible groups and is the most precise sampling technique (Lodico, & Spulding and Voegtle, 2006). This research study was conducted in the high school governorate of Jarash. Thus, schools selected in this study are government schools and have similar characteristics. These schools offered academic oriented classes, provide similar education facilities, and are comparable in educational program. In addition, study population was chosen because of the severity of students misbehavior were exists. This belief is driven from the research who is a teacher in this area.

The population of this study consists of several sub-populations (males, females, grade 11th, grade 12th, academic schools, and vocational schools) identified by the Department of Education in governorate of Jarash. A sample for this study was chosen from Jordanian high schools governorate of Jarash. Therefore, in order to select representative sample from the target population. The proportional stratified random sampling technique was used.

During the 2009-2010 school years which the data was selected, the school enrolled a student population with the following demographic characteristics to represent the school population parameters based on gender, grade level, and types of school: Male 48.7%, Female 51.3%, Grade Eleven 53.9%, Grade Twelve 46.1%, Academic 80.1%, Vocational19.9%. In the current study the researcher was used the sample size according to Cochran (1977). Therefore, the total sample selected for this study consists of 443 male and female high school students.

Table (3.2): demographic Sample Size

Population Size

Sample Size

Gender

Grade Level

Male

11th 12th

Female

11th 12th

Male

11th 12th

Academic School

1375 1156

1646 1445

91 76

Vocational school

422 314

170 172

28 21

Total

3267

3433

216

6700

443

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate demographic characteristics of the final sample (n=443)

Research Instruments

After the researcher has been reviewing the literature, it is important to emphasize that the researcher conducted a self-report questionnaire modified by the researcher based on a review of several instruments. The measures have been used extensively to predict students’ misbehavior. Therefore, the entire of the instrument is widely used in educational research studies, and the instrument met a large number of criteria of construct, concurrent, and predictive validities. Moreover, the measures are the most appropriate for the present study which has been shown to have high reliability. In addition, the instrument is similar to those used in (Booth and Farrell, et al., 2008; Huwaidi and Al-Yammain, 2007; Lee and Adcock, 2005; Stewart, 2003; Jang, 2002; Welsh, 2001; Jenkins, 1997; Gottfredson, 1984; Jill, 1984; Diperte, et al et, 1981).

The independent variables in this study was gender, grade level, types of school were code dichotomy for each respondent which were nominal in nature, while the demographic the dependent variable was students’ misbehavior divided into three categories disobedience, classroom disruption, and vandalism; this was measured on a continuous scale and was code as interval.

The survey has two sections: set (A) demographic data of the respondents was developed to collect general background information about the participants regarding their gender, grade level and types of schools. Furthermore, a set (B) include, students’ perception towards misbehavior. Each section presents questions or statements that students are asked to respond as honesty as possible. In addition, section (B) provides responses based on a-4 point Likert scale (never, rarely, sometime, and always).

Dependent Variables

The dependent variable was measured by variables which measure students’ misbehavior divided into three category disobedience, classroom disruption and vandalism in the school based on Huwaidi and Al-Yammain (2007) unacceptable behavior at school, which uses a 4-point Likert-type scale to ask participants about their acts in school, each question provides responses on a Likert scale with a range of Frequencies of behavior form 1= Always, 2= Sometime, 3= Rarely, 4= Never. The respondents were asked to indicate how often she/he behaves in the following manner in the current school year.

Statistical procedures

Out of 600 questionnaires distributed, a total of 443 students completed the survey and returned them during class time. It took an average of 50 to 60 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Approximately 443 responses were fully valid and could be used as the final sample of this study. The response rate was 73%. Therefore, total of 443 responses were entered into a SPSS for the analysis.

This study is quantitative in nature and was conducted using questionnaire methodology. The relevant statistics (frequencies, percentages, mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum) were used to describe socio-demographic variables such as gender, grade level, and types of school. In addition, descriptive statistics were used for respondents’ perceptions towards misbehavior. Furthermore, an independent sample t-test was used in order to examine whether they were statistically significant differences between students’ misbehavior based on gender, grade level, and types of school. The data collected from all participants were coded, entered, and analyzed using software package SPSS version 19. Descriptive statistics of all variables in the current study were examined by using frequencies. The minimum and maximum values of each variable were examined for the accuracy of data entry by inspecting out of range values.

Result of the Study

Demographic Descriptive Statistics of the sample based on Gender, Grade Level, and Types of Schools

Table 4.1 presents the distribution of the students based on gender, grade level, and type of schools. It can be seen from Table 4.1 that participants in this study consisted primarily of 443 students, which 216 (48.8%) were males while 227 (51.2%) were females. Among the respondents, there were 239 (54.0%) of grade eleven while 204 (46.0%) were of grade twelve. Analysis by the type of schools shows that, there were 71 (16.0%) vocational while 372 (84.0%) were academic. The descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the respondents is tabulated in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Distribution of Respondents based on Gender, Grade Level, and Types of school (n=443)

Variables

Frequency

Percentage

Gender

Male

216

48.8

Female

227

51.2

Grade levels

Grade Eleven

239

54.0

Grade Twelve

204

46.0

Type of Schools

Vocational

71

16.0

Academic

372

84.0

Total Respondent

443

100.0

Question 1 addressed the degree of students’ misbehavior in Jordanian high schools. In order to determine the level of students’ misbehavior in Jordanian high schools it seems reasonable to set a specific cut point to interpret the level of students’ misbehavior in Jordanian high schools. The response scale of each item which ranged from 1 to 4 was used to determine these cut points according to following manners: from 1 to 2 (low), from 2.01 to 3 (moderate), and from 3.01 to 4 (high).

Table 4.28 presents the distribution of the students by degree of student’s misbehavior in Jordanian high school. Table 4.28 shows that the majority of the students in the sample 62.5% had a low level of misbehavior in Jordanian high schools. The remaining 37.2% and .2% perceived that their misbehavior at school as was at moderate and high levels respectively. The mean score of student’s misbehavior was 1.91 with a standard deviation of .39, suggesting that they had a low misbehavior in Jordanian g high schools.

Table 4.28 Distribution of Students by Degree of students’ Misbehavior in Jordanian High School Scores

Levels

Mean

Frequency

Percentage

Low

1-2

227

62.5

Moderate

2.01-3

165

37.2

High

3.01-4

1

.2

Mean= 1.91 Std. deviation= .39 Minimum= 1.13 Maximum= 3.20

Question 2 concerns the significant differences among students’ misbehavior in Jordanian high schools based on gender.

The first hypothesis was: There is a significant difference between the mean score of students’ misbehavior for male and female students in Jordanian high schools.

To examine whether there are differences between students misbehavior based on gender. An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the students’ misbehavior scores for male and female students. A preliminary assumptions testing was conducted to check for normality and from the results of Leven’s test for equality of variance.

It can be seen from the Table A1 (Appendix E), that the value of Skewness and Kurtosis were below 1. Therefore, the value of Skewness and Kurtosis on students’ misbehavior scales revealed that the shapes of distributions for the males and females were normal. Moreover, the Levene test of homogeneity of variances detailed in Table A2 (Appendix A) revealed that the significant value is (.144). As this is greater than (.05), therefore, it has not violated the homogeneity of variance assumption.

Table 4.29 indicates that there was a significant difference in scores for males (M= 2.05, SD= .39), and females [(M= 1.78, SD= .34; t(441)= 7.68, p= .001]. Therefore, it can be concluded that male students are more likely to misbehave than female students in Jordanian high schools. Moreover, the resulting eta-square value is .11, which in Cohen’s (1988) terms, would be considered a large effect size. Cohen’s criteria is (0.01 = small effect, 0.06 = moderate effect, and 0.14 = large effect).

Table (3) T-test analysis comparing scores of students’ misbehavior based on gender

Gender

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

t-Value

P

Male

216

2.05

.39

7.68

.001

Female

227

1.78

.34

Question 3 concerns the significant differences among students’ misbehavior in Jordanian high schools based on grade level.

The second hypothesis was: There is a significant difference between the mean score of students’ misbehavior for grade 11th and grade 12th students in Jordanian high schools.

To examine whether there are differences between students misbehavior based on grade levels. An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the students’ misbehavior scores for grade eleven and grade twelve. A preliminary assumption testing was conducted to check for normality and from the results of Leven’s test for equality of variance.

It can be seen from the Table A3 (Appendix E), that the value of Skewness and Kurtosis were below 1. Therefore, the value of Skewness and Kurtosis on students’ misbehavior scales revealed that the shapes of distributions for the grade 11th and grade 12th were normal. Moreover, the Levene test of homogeneity of variances detailed in Table A2 (Appendix A) revealed that the significant value is (.370). As this is greater than (.05), therefore, it has not violated the homogeneity of variance assumption

Table 4.29 indicates that there was a significant difference in scores for grade eleven (M= 1.95, SD= .35), and grade twelve [(M= 1.87, SD= .43, t(390.19)= 2.09, p= .037]. Therefore, it can be concluded that students from a grade 11 group were more likely to misbehave than those from grade 12 in Jordanian high schools. Moreover, the resulting eta-square value is .01, which in Cohen’s (1988) terms, would be considered a small effect size. Cohen’s criteria is (0.01 = small effect, 0.06 = moderate effect, and 0.14 = large effect).

Table (3) T-test analysis comparing scores of students’ misbehavior based on grade level

Grade Level

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

t-Value

P

Grade 11

239

1.95

.35

2.09

.037

Grade 12

204

1.78

.43

Question 4 concerns the significant differences among students’ misbehavior in Jordanian high schools based on type of schools.

The third hypothesis was: There is a significant difference between the mean score of students’ misbehavior for vocational and academic schools in Jordanian high schools.

To examine whether there are differences between students misbeh