ArticlePDF Available

آراء المعلم والطلاب تجاه السلوك العدوانی في إدارة الصف فی مستوى الكلية

Authors:

Abstract

يركز البحث الحالي في التعليم على معرفة وجهات نظر مختلفة حول إصلاح إدارة الصف الدراسي. فإن التعامل مع السلوك العدوانی و مواجهـته في الصف يسبب مصدر قلق كبير للمعلمين. بشكل عام السلوكيات التي تم تحديدها في هذا البحث تعتبرالقضايا التي تشغل بال المعلمين الجامعات على جميع الأصعدة هذه الأيام مثل، عدم الالتزام ، وعدم الاصغاء ، وضعف التركيز وعدم الانتباه ، والتحدث المستمر مع زملاء الدراسة ، وإزعاج الآخرين والجدل عند التوبيخ والتأخيرهو أكثر شيوع من سلوك العدوانی لدی الطلبة أعلن عنه المعلمون ، واستخدام الهواتف المحمولة في الصف ،ومنع الآخرين من المشاركة في أنشطة الصف. حدد المعلمون أيضاً أن عدم وجود الحافز وتجنب الواجب الصف لدی الطلبة یعتبر من سوء سلوك متكرر. من الواضح أن هذه السلوكيات يتداخل مع إلقاء المحاضرات وینقص فرص تعلم الطلبة. بالإضافة، عندما تحدث السلوكيات العدوانیة شائعة في الصف التعليم العالي يكون لدى المعلمين خيارات للتعامل مع كل موقف في عملية التدريس والتعلم.و مع ذلك ، أفضل غایة التربوين والمعلمين هو إنهاء ارتکاب وجعل الطلاب المزعجين يواصلون مشاركتهم المدنية وتقدمهم في الصف. فإن البحث الحالی تستهدف إجراء مقارنة بين وجهة نظرکل الاساتذة و الطلاب الجامعی حول أسباب السلوك العدوانی لدی طالبة ، والبحث في الممارسة التقنيات الحالية لتحسین السلوك في الصف من قبل الاساتذة الجامعة. لتحقيق الغرض الرئيسي للبحث تم تصميم استبيانين مختلفين، وللتحقق من کیفیة طریقة استخدام استراتيجيات الاساتذة لتحسین سلوك العدوانی لدی الطلبة ، تم تطوير استبيان عن استراتيجيات تحسین السلوك ، وفي هذا الصدد ، تم اختيار ١٠٠ طالب وطالبة و ٥٠ استاذً من أساتذة الجامعة من مختلف الأقسام بشكل عشوائي في كلية التربية الأساسية / جامعة صلاح الدين للعام الدراسی ٢٠١٩-٢٠٢٠. بالإضافة إلى ذلك ، هذا البحث هو محاولة للعثور على إجابة عدد من الأسئلة المتعلقة بسلوك العدوانی للطالب: وجهات نظر المعلمين والطلاب تجاه عوامل السلوك العدوانی ، واختلاف بين وجهات نظرهم حول أسباب السلوك العدوانی للطلاب.





Teacher and Students' Perceptions towards Disruptive Behavior in
Managing The Class at College Level
Assist. Lecturer Shano A. Ahmed Assist Lecturer Ameera M. Abdullah
Eshano.ahmed@su.edu.krd ameera.abdullah@su.edu.krd
College of Basic Education/ Salahaddin University
ABSTRACT
The current research in education is focusing on exploring various
reforming ideas about classroom management. Therefore, dealing with
disruptive and challenging behavior in the classroom is of significant concern
to teachers. The behaviors generally identified in this research ,as of most
concern to college teachers include non-compliance ,not -listening ,poor
concentration ,inattention ,constant talking with classmates,disturbing others
and arguing when reprimand and coming late is the most frequent student
misbehavior type reported by teachers,using cell phones in the class, and
preventing others from engaging in classroom activities. Teachers have also
identified students' lack of motivation and task avoidance as frequent
misbehavior. These behaviors can obviously interfere with lecture delivery
and reduce student-learning opportunities.
Moreover, disruptive behaviors are common in higher education classrooms.
When they occur, teachers have options for dealing with each situation in the
process of teaching and learning. Ultimately, the preferred goals of the
educators and teachers are to end the distraction and to have the disruptive
students continue their civil participation and progress in class.
The main purpose of this research is to make a comparison between the
perceptions of university teachers and students about the causes of students‟
disruptive behavior, and investigating the current practice of behavior
modification techniques in classroom by the university teachers. Two
different questionnaires are designed in order to achieve the main research
objective, and for checking the attitude of university teachers regarding the
use of behavior modification strategies in classroom, a questionnaire is





developed about behavior modification strategies, in this regard, 100 senior
students and 50 university teachers from different departments are selected
randomly at Basic Education College/Salahaddin University. Additionally,
this research is an effort to find answer to a number of questions related to
students‟ disruptive behavior; teachers‟ and students‟ perspectives toward
factors of disruptive behavior, and the difference between their perspectives
about the causes of students‟ disruptive behavior.
Key words: Disruptive behavior definitions, Types and causes of disruptive
behavior, strategies to reduce disruptive behavior.




      

             
     






  







    


 
            








INTRODUCTION
Classroom environment is an important component of a student‟s educational
experience, and it impacts an instructor‟s professional satisfaction. Feldmann
(2001) argues that A pleasant, cooperative classroom environment, however,
is not always the norm. Instructors frequently complain about students who
walk in late or leave class early; about students who talk with friends during
class, who leave their cell phones on during lectures, who read the newspaper
in class, etc. In turn, students complain about instructors who are unfair,
uncaring, irritable, and unprepared. Regardless of who originates classroom
discourteousness, be it the students or the faculty, their presence in this
manner is distracting to all in the learning process, and insight into the causes
of these behaviors could potentially lead educators to successfully develop
methods of reducing their prevalence correspondingly.
Disruptive behavior of students is also recognized as students' misconduct or
negative class participation. This kind of behaviors often disrupts classroom
teaching and learning process since it affects teachers and other students by
no means at the same time. According to Hubbell and Hubel (l,2010,p.1),





anyone who has taught in college classroom or for that matter any classroom
has, on occasion, been confronted with an unruly student. Therefore, the
kinds of behavior that a disruptive student might exhibit include sleeping in
class, chatting in class, entering late, preparing to leave early, Mobile phone
ringing in class, Texting in class, Eating, entering loudly, chewing gum in
class , acting bored (apathetic), reading magazine or newspapers, not being
prepared for sessions, use of offensive language, inappropriate attire, poor
personal hygiene, physical intimacy, writing assignments for other modules,
threatening other students will be considered as a hamper that impedes the
process of teaching and learning.
Worth mentioning, Ur (1996) states that some of the behaviors can be
tolerated if they only aggravate the class but they do not escalate or bother
the whole class. He further states that this issue is closely related to
disciplinary matter that warrants focused treatment from teachers. Thus,
teachers should be prepared to this kind of classroom climate even before the
problem arises, when the problem is beginning and chiefly when the problem
has blasted. For this reason, the capability of teachers to manage those
constraints is really required. Knowing students closely, indeed, help teachers
in dipping behavior related problems in English classroom. In
addition,Richards and Renandya( 2002) climes that classroom management,
methodology, lesson planning and students' motivation can be a potential
control of teachers to impede disruptive behavior in their classroom. Since
motivation in language classes is crucial to develop students' interest for
learning and achieving their goals.
As college teachers of higher learning, it is in our interest to teach and
promote responsible and respectable behavior. Our mission in this study is to
endorse a culture of respect and respectful exchanges, which themselves
facilitate outstanding teaching and learning. Because disruptive behavior can
influence everyone's satisfaction, it must be taken seriously and tackled
straight way to support teachers to deliver excellent education and to work in
a dignified and agreeable environment.





Disruptive behavior
Hernandez &Fister (2001) define disruptive behavior as being intentionally
rebellious, defiant, disrespectful or antagonistic in nature. Meanwhile, (Clark
2008; Fledmann (2001) define classroom disruptive behavior as any action
that interferes with a harmonious and cooperative learning atmosphere in the
classroom. Nilson and Jackson (2004) extent this definition to incorporate
unacceptable student behavior that may occur both inside and outside of the
class.
Moreover, the university of Houston Student Handbook (2017, p. 68) defines
disruption as "obstructing or interfering with university regulations or any
university activity. Disturbing the peace and good order of the university,
among other things, quarreling, excessive noise, including but not limited toa
disruption by use of cell phones ,and /or communication devices".In
addition, (Young, 2003) notes that disruptive behavior negatively influences
faculty comfort and satisfaction, as well as the satisfaction of other essential
university employees such as those working in the bookstore, financial and
academic service offices, etc.Charles (2004) states that, assessing disruptive
behavior can be a highly subjunctive process. For instance, some behavior
patterns, such as students talking in class, can be experienced as disruptive or
in some situations or simply exasperating and frustrating in others".Although
all definitions above give general understanding of the meaning of disruptive
behavior in language classroom, analyzing the terms and understanding their
meanings gives deeper insight into what disruptive behavior is.
Types of Disruptive behavior
Disruptive behaviors are widespread in higher education classrooms. For
Meyers (2032), Albert (2003) , and Scrivener (2012) disruptive behavior
implies learner behavior that impedes achievement of the teacher‟s purposes.
Young (2003) climes that disruptive behavior is any behavior that
significantly and /or constantly interferes with the learning process, the rights
, safety and security of those in the teaching-learning atmosphere .Thus,
Scrivener(2012)and Young(2003) classify disruptive behavior into five basic
categories and low level of disruptive behavior





1- Behavior that interferes with the teaching and learning process (e.g. a
learner who distracts other learners during lesson time, who rejects to follow
directions, or demonstrates aggressive behavior
2- Behavior that interferes with the rights of other learners to involve into the
process of learning (e.g. a learner who continually talks out while the teacher
is presenting the lesson
3- Behavior that is psychologically or physically is insecure (e.g. bending on
the back legs of a chair, unsafe use of tools or class equipment, threats to
other learners, and steady abusing and harassment of classmates
4- Behavior that causes the destruction of property (e.g. vandalism in the
classroom
5- Behavior that causes inappropriate atmosphere for learning by using
mobile phone and music player in class.
Albert(2003),Savage &Savage (2010) note that misbehavior ranges from
very subtle actions to physically aggressive behavior. Thus they categorize
the most commonly exhibited misbehaviors as inappropriate talking,
inappropriate movement inattentiveness, daydreaming, and mild verbal and
hostile acts.
As teachers, it is important to keep in mind that there is no foolproof method
for correcting misbehavior. No single discipline technique will solve the
variety of behavior problems exhibited in today's classrooms. To respond to
misbehavior in an effective, professional way, teachers must carefully
consider the type, the context of misbehavior, and the student's motivation
before choosing how to react. Thus, they must be good classroom monitors
and problem solvers respectively.
Causes of Student’ Disruptive Behavior
Clayton(2000)and Marzano et al.(2003) Anderson (1991) clime that ,
although disruptive, rude, and troublesome behavior has become increasingly
prevalent in the college classroom, knowledge of the causes of inappropriate
behavior is important for changing it into appropriate one. According to
Seidman (2005) larger classes lead to misbehavior .Thus, effective classroom
teachers can respond appropriately to misbehavior if they understand why
students misbehave. He also affirms that students may disturb the classroom





because they disagree with something said or done by the teacher or another
student during the class. Consequently, Cruickshank, Jenkins, and Metcalf
(2012) state that classroom managers underline three causes of disruptive
behavior as physical problems, emotional challenges, or environmental
factors. Hence, Physical causes beyond permanent physical impairments may
include the use of medications, drugs, and other substances .It may also
include injury or illness which leads to behavior that disrupts the normal
classroom environment. Emotional challenges is the second cause that many
students experience include feeling of isolation and loss, immaturity,
misdirected aggression , and struggles associated with identity development.
Worth mentioning, these issues can manifest themselves through misbehavior
in the college classroom, such as being angry before and bringing emotion
into the classroom. The third cause is environmental factors which can
influence a student‟s misbehavior include norm of conduct, class size, and
cultures. Certainly, norm of conduct deals with what the students are adapted
to or what they consider „disruptive‟ verses „not disruptive‟. For instance, a
student may consider talking with other students sitting beside them as
perfectly normal not aware of their effect on the other students or the class.
Worth mentioning, Albert(2003); and Savage et al. (2010) argue that students
misbehave in order to meet four basic needs in college classes. First, most
misbehavior, at least in inclusive and heterogeneous classes is due to students
seeking attention of their teachers and to establish their identity. These
students need extra attention and want to be center stage. They distract and
entertain classmates by making noises, using foul language, and causing
interruption during class. Second, students misbehave if they treated with
disrespect in front of others. Third, students seeking revenge. Students may
become disruptive, when the teacher, other students, or both may be the
target of their revenge. A fourth reason that students misbehave is that they
are seeking isolation. These students feel inadequate and believe they can‟t
live up to their own. They procrastinate, pretend to have disabilities, and they
reject working up to their potential.
While much misbehavior is due to students‟ attempts to meet their needs,
some misbehavior is actually caused by teachers. According to Harmer
(2007), four teacher behaviors cause misbehavior in the classroom. First,





inadequate preparation is perhaps the most common such as failure to plan,
structure, and supervise the pace of learning activities causes students to
become restless and misbehave. Second, differential treatment of students
often causes misbehavior because students think the teacher has certain
favorites and enemies .Verbal abuse, especially friendly‟ sarcasm, also
causes student reactions and misbehavior. Finally, if students feel that a
teacher responds unfairly to misbehavior, further misbehavior often results.
In order to manage misbehavior, teachers need to be aware of what motivates
students to misbehave and how their own behavior influences the behavior of
the students. This suggests that teachers must develop sensitivity, enthusiasm,
warmth, humor, and a broad range of skills and techniques to draw upon
when reacting to misbehavior in the classroom.
Teachers’ Reaction to Misbehavior:
Albert (2003) ,Marzano et al(2003) and Martin (2003) state that ,when
misbehavior erupts , teachers must decide when and how to react as quickly
as possible. They also interpret four concerns that at least should shape the
decision in the classroom appropriately: whether the reaction will interrupt
the lesson, the nature and severity of the misbehavior, the student involved,
and the time the misbehavior occurred. Accordingly, Albert (2003) and
Marzano et al (20003) clime that teachers must decide to what extent the
intervention will interrupt or interfere with the instructional activity since the
most successful teachers are those who kept students on task and being
engaged in the teaching and learning process. Further, decisions on how to
intervene should be based on the nature and severity of the misbehavior, the
student involved, and the time the misbehavior occurred.
Strategies to reduce Students’ Disruptive Behavior
Student misbehavior is any action that the teacher perceives as disruptive to
the learning environment. It ranges from very subtle actions to physically
aggressive behavior. In the light of this statement ,Bear (2005), Seidman
(2005) state that students‟ disruptive classroom behavior retards the
effectiveness as well as the smoothness of the teaching learning process and
it also hinders the learning of other class mates. He further says that students





„disruptive behavior escalates with the passage of time, lowers the academic
achievement and coverts into delinquency. Hence, Bellon et al (1996) climes
that teachers who are good classroom managers are also good decision
makers to know when and how to intervene. Correspondingly, he discusses
several powerful strategies and techniques that can prevent problem
behaviors and improve the general learning environment in classrooms.
Using Intervention in the Classroom
Cruickshank, Jenkins, and Metcalf (2012) describe intervention as any
strategy or procedure that, when implemented, reduces the likelihood of
challenging or inappropriate behavior in the class. According to them, the
most effective interventions for teachers are antecedent or proactive strategy
that prevent problems from occurring and shape behavior by reinforcing
appropriate choices and actions. Definitely, antecedent strategy includes
establishing clear rules and predictable routines, monitoring behavior,
anticipating behavior problems and responding immediately. One can say
that to be effective, intervention strategies must be delivered calmly and
firmly, immediately after the misbehavior and must be confined to the
offending students.
Worth mentioning, according to Albert (2003),” planned ignoring “is a type
of extinction within a classroom intervention in which teachers are aware of
but generally choose not to react to minor distractions. The principle of
extinction suggests that the teacher communicates indirectly with disruptive
students by pointing out appropriate behaviors in others i.e. he communicates
his awareness to students.Hense, Scrivener (2012) climes that, It is important
to realize that although extinction is a nondirective response and it has been
used effectively to eliminate disruptive behavior, off-task behavior, tantrums,
and aggression are quite difficult to practice. Based on Gable et al. ( 2009) ,in
some cases ,extinction takes time to change behavior and ignoring students‟
behavior leads to aggression , presumably in reaction to increasing frustration
in the class . Nevertheless, Gable et al. (2009) refer to another type of
intervention which is mild desists. Certainly, Teachers deal with potentially
serious disruptions early by using nonverbal intervention and mild desists.
Nonverbal strategies, such as establishing eye contact, shaking the head,





using facial expressions, moving closer, touching or gesturing, and
redirecting attention, are highly effective. Yet, they do not interrupt the flow
of the lecture or distract other students in the class. On the other hand,
Scrivener (2012) climes that subtle verbal desists are also effective, which
teachers show their speaking rate, pronouncing things more distinctly,
speaking more softly, or pausing briefly and looking around are all
nonintrusive ways of conveying to students that they need to adjust their
behavior. One can say that, such subtle but direct public interventions are
often more effective than ignoring misbehavior of the student in the class as
well.
Worth mentioning, Gable et al. (2009), refer to two other types of strategy
that are reprimands and time-out. Hence, Verbal reprimands such as „Stop
Talking NOW‟ are widely used in classrooms by teachers for not listening,
breaking class rules, or making noise. Thus, verbal reprimands usually bring
about an immediate change in behavior, but the change is temporary.
Although they seem effective, reprimands give the misbehaving student
attention “Time-out on the other hand, refers to more serious misbehavior.
Scrivener (2012) states that using a time-out strategy may be effective since it
reduces unwanted behavior by removing the offending student from the
situation or an activity. He further states that time out is a silent period used
especially as a disciplinary measure.
Rewarding and Reinforcing Students:
Early psychologists like Thorndike and Skinner recognized the importance of
positive reinforcement; that is, providing something that an individual needs,
values, or desires as perhaps the most effective means of encouraging
appropriate behaviors. According to Kazdin (2001) Reinforcement is the
effect of a reinforcer. According to him, a reinforce is an event that follows a
response and that changes the probability of a response‟s occurring again. He
elucidates that reinforcement may be subdivided into two categories; positive
reinforcement and negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs
when the consequences of the behavior, when added to a situation after a
response, increase the probability of the response‟s occurring again in similar
conditions. A reward is an example of positive reinforcement. Negative





reinforcement, on the other hand, occurs when the probability of a response‟s
occurring increases as a function of something being taken away from a
situation. A feeling of relief is an example of negative reinforcement. Based
on psychological awareness, Cruickshank, Jenkins, and Metcalf (2012)
claime that modeling is an effective technique of psychotherapy in which a
learner learns by imitation without verbal direction by the therapist.
According to him, modeling is a technique in which persons serve as models
for other people, showing behavior which is imitated by the others. Kazdin
(2001) asserts that the term Systematic desensitization is a technique used in
psychology for overcoming phobias and anxiety disorders. He further states
that the use of praise by the instructor when students show appropriate
behavior maintains and increases the proper behavior. Finally, he discusses
that a faculty member should ask the disruptive or troublesome student to
meet him in private.
In conclusion, one can deduce form the above mentioned strategies and
techniques for reducing disruptive behavior, that teachers should behave
respectfully and they should manage the students‟ behavior by using the
active listening. Moreover, they have to use civil language with their students
and maintain inclusive attitudes for all the students. Besides, they should
teach them the appropriate language for disagreements and teachers should
define the appropriate and inappropriate behaviors. Finally, teachers have to
establish a collaborative and interactive learning environment.
Guidelines for Dealing with Students Disruptive Behavior
According to Anne (2009) psychological problems such as depression,
anxiety, eating disorders, substance abuse, problem of development and
adjustment are common in college campuses currently. As a result, staff
members will be frequently uncertain about the ways in which the disruptive
students should be dealt with as they fall outside of the normal classroom
behavior. Hence, Harmer (2007) claims that if a disruption is minor, the
teacher can simply speak to the student during or after the class but for more
serious problems, the instructor should discuss it with the department chair.
The situation can become worse if the disruptive behavior is ignored.
Therefore, the faculty member should set values and communicate them with





the students, act as a role of model. They should deal with an empathetic
concern and student‟s disruptive behavior should be addressed firmly and
fairly. Students should be held responsible for their actions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The following literature review will describe the nature of disruptive
behavior, how it affects the classroom environment and how teachers handle
the challenging students in their classrooms. A wide range of studies have
been achieved to explore the various aspects of student‟s disruptive behavior.
The following studies cover the nature, causes and types of disruptive
classroom behavior in classroom circumstances. According to Nordstrom,
Bartels and Bucy (2009) there are very few number of studies about
disruptive behavior at university level. Meyers (2003) states that about
twenty percent of students are revealing disruptive behavior in university
classrooms.Simillarly, Knepp (2012) states that student‟s disruptive behavior
is being very obvious in university and reached to an upsetting rate
Worth mentioning, Nordstrom, Bartels and Bucy (2009) clime that there is a
direct relationship between involvement in learning, student behavior and
academic achievement. In their study, they use the terms „productive‟ and
„unproductive‟ behaviors rather than the more commonly used terms in the
literature of „appropriate‟ and „inappropriate‟ behaviors to reflect the link
between behavior and teaching and learning. Hence, in their study, they
focused their attention on the relationship between classroom behavior and
academic performance in which teachers were inquired to rate their students
on a checklist of some unproductive behaviors defined as actions that
obstruct a student‟s academic development. The unproductive behaviors
included the following: Low- level disruptive behavior, disengaged
behaviors, aggressions, anti social behaviors, and lack of motivation. It is
worth noting that the authors found that 60% of students were considered to
be productively, 20% were consistently unproductive and 20% were
disengaged. In regard to academic performance, the unproductive group,
characterized by aggression, non-compliance and disruptive, they performed
worst. But the disengaged group were complaint and not aggressive
performed better. Furthermore, students in the disengaged group who were
generally cooperative but considered their school work uninteresting, gave up





on tasks , were easily agitated, did not prepare for lessons and opted out of
class activities. Thus, the authors realized the importance of increasing
student‟s level of engagement and involvement in learning via changes to
policy, pedagogy and resources. Additionally, they attempted to recognize
the importance of creating classroom conditions that promote academic
engagement and productive behavior. The classroom is thought of as an
ecosystem involving interactions between the physical environment, teacher
characteristics, curriculum (including pedagogy and resources) , and a
multitude of student variables in examining specific productive and
unproductive behaviors and teacher response. In summary, their results
suggest that low-level disruptive and disengaged student behaviors are very
concerning in classrooms. These behaviors occur frequently and teachers find
them difficult to manage, nevertheless, they take very little responsibility for
such behavior. Therefore, teachers need a greater understanding of how the
broader ecology of the classroom can influence engagement and behavior
METHODOLOGY
Sample
The real sample of the present research are university teachers and senior
students at different departments such as; English, Mathematics, General
Science, Social Science, and Kurdish departments in the College of Basic
Education /Salahaddin University. As it is assumed that university teachers
and students can provide the most reliable information about the causes of
disruptive classroom behavior as they have a direct relation with the aspect of
classroom disruption and student's disruptive behaviors inside the classroom.
Also, university teachers are directly concerned with the use of behavior
modification strategies in classroom, in this respect, 50 teachers and 100
students have been selected randomly.
The Instrument of the Research
Two different questionnaires are used as a research tool to find out the causes
of students‟ disruptive behavior. The first one is for students that includes 39
items. The other one, is for university teachers, which consists of two parts;
the first part is a questionnaire about the causes of disruptive classroom





behavior, it contains 29 items, and the second part is a questionnaire about
behavior modification strategies in classroom by the teachers which includes
17 items. Both questionnaires are simplified with reference to its language
and content, and developed in five point Likert type format. It is categorized
as; always 5, often4, sometimes 3, rarely 2, and never 1 respectively.
The Research Questions
The goal was to find answers to the following questions about the causes of
disruptive classroom behavior:
1. What are the perceptions of university students about the causes of
disruptive behavior?
2. What are the perceptions of university teachers about the causes of
disruptive behavior?
3. Is there any difference between the perceptions of teachers and students
about the causes of students‟ disruptive behavior?
Procedures:
Initially, the researchers presented a general idea about the goal of the
research, and a description of the questionnaire with an explanation of the
steps involved in completing it. Then, a questionnaire package was
distributed to 100 senior students, and 50 lecturers.
Validity and Reliability of the Test
A number of experts (PhD's in general and special education) were consulted
as jury members for the content validity of the questionnaire and its format.
Some items were changed, others modified according to the
recommendations and suggestions of the jury members, only those items
were selected on which 80% of the experts agreed in both questionnaires. To
check the reliability, the questionnaire was assessed through calculating item
total correlation and Cronbach alpha that was considered to be the most
appropriate technique as stated by Cronbach, (1951).
The output of reliability of 39 items associated with students indicates the
Cronbach‟s Alpha is 0.997, also the reliability of 29 items related to teachers
shows that the Cronbach‟s Alpha is 0.994. and, the reliability of 17 items
which connected to the behavior modification strategies indicates Cronbach‟s
Alpha is 0.778, If it is between 0.50 and 1, the reliability is quite high and
acceptable, as it has shown in table(1).





Table (1) Reliability Statistics
Type of Questionnaire
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items
No. of
Items
Students‟ Questionnaire about
The Causes of Disruptive
Behavior
.996
.997
39
Teachers‟ Questionnaire
about The Causes of
Disruptive Behavior
.994
.995
29
Teachers‟ Attitude
Questionnaire for Behavior
Modification strategies.
.778
.746
17
Results
Statistical Package for Social Sciences SPSS was used for the analysis of the
collected data respectively. Statistically, the below three tables display the
frequency, mean, and st.deviation in each item. The results represent that the
students‟ questionnaire which included 39 items, and was given to 100
students for knowing students‟ perceptions regarding classroom disruptive
behavior, the mean is 3.133333, this output is positively acknowledged and
the std.deviation is 1.045538462, so the data are widely spread around the
mean, and the concentration is weak. On the contrary, table (3) which reveals
teachers‟ perceptions about classroom disruptive behavior, contained 29
items, and was handed out to 50 lecturers, represents that mean is 2.602759,
this output is negatively acknowledged and the std.deviation is 0.8922759 so
the data are slightly spread around the mean, and the attitudes are somehow
far from each other.
The last table which is about the statistics of university teachers' attitude in
using behavior modification strategies in the classroom, the mean is 3.26,this
output is positively acknowledged and the std.deviation is 1.012375, so the
data are widely spread around the mean, and the concentration is weak.





Table (2) Simplify Frequency, Mean, and St. Deviation in Each Item
Statistics of the Perceptions of University Students about The Causes of Disruptive Behavior
Items
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Valid
Missing
Students exhibit more disruptive behavior if the class consists
of students from different cities and towns.
2
13
37
32
16
100
0
2.53
.979
Students show aggressive behavior when others misbehave
with them.
4
37
45
10
4
100
0
3.27
.851
Students become hostile because of competition in class.
5
20
40
27
8
100
0
2.87
.991
Students ask irrelevant questions for enjoyment.
5
13
46
28
5
97
3
2.85
.905
Students make hooting for fun and enjoyment.
3
10
16
41
27
97
3
2.19
1.054
Students submit their assignments late due to their laziness.
2
35
45
11
5
98
2
3.18
.854
Financial difficulties lead students to rude behavior.
6
20
35
24
14
99
1
2.80
1.106
Students ask irrelevant questions to divert teacher‟s attention.
5
21
36
31
5
98
2
2.90
.968
Students ask irrelevant questions to clear their confusions.
8
20
36
23
11
98
2
2.91
1.104
Student ask personal question from their teachers because
they want to know about their personal life.
13
34
29
14
8
98
2
3.31
1.125
Students leave the class early constantly to answer their cell
phones.
8
36
33
15
5
97
3
3.28
.997
Students arrive late in the class room particularly in the1st
lecture.
14
55
21
9
0
99
1
3.75
.812
Students display disruptive behavior when they are tired.
8
22
45
15
8
98
2
3.07
1.018
Students become quarrelsome because of their social
environment.
6
28
45
10
9
98
2
3.12
.998
Students make fun if they note some strange habit in a
teacher.
9
25
36
16
12
98
2
3.03
1.135
Students use their cellphones in the class room for enjoyment
and fun.
8
21
34
22
11
96
4
2.93
1.117
Students sleep in class room due to lack of interest in lecture.
17
33
31
12
6
100
0
3.40
1.146
Students prepare assignments for other modules during the
lecture.
12
19
50
8
8
97
3
3.20
1.037
Students exhibit disruptive behavior if the temperature of the
classroom is very high or very low.
8
32
36
15
9
100
0
3.15
1.067
Students display disruptive behavior if their seats are not
comfortable.
16
31
31
14
7
99
1
3.35
1.128
Students show more disruptive behavior if the class size is
larger or smaller than their numbers.
11
20
35
17
15
98
2
2.95
1.205
Students demonstrate misbehavior in traditional seating
arrangement classroom.
3
21
30
26
18
98
2
2.63
1.107
Students‟ misbehavior is often a result of their efforts to meet
their basic needs.
4
18
39
26
9
96
4
2.81
.987
Students misbehave if the classroom does not have proper
light.
17
24
24
24
8
97
3
3.19
1.228
Students with hearing or vision problems exhibit more
disruptive behavior than those with normal eye-sight or
hearing ability.
15
33
29
17
5
99
1
3.36
1.092
Chronic diseases cause students misbehavior such as (cough,
kidney infection,….)
7
20
35
21
16
99
1
2.81
1.149





Students indulge in gossip during the class because of the
teacher‟s weakness of the subject.
14
37
29
10
8
98
2
3.40
1.110
Students sleep in classroom if a teacher does not involve all
the students in the lesson and activities.
27
37
22
10
3
99
1
3.76
1.060
Students exhibit more disruptive behavior when they could
not hear teachers‟ sound.
19
36
31
10
3
99
1
3.59
1.010
Students show more troublesome if teachers‟ sound is not
clear.
19
38
23
8
5
93
7
3.62
1.073
Students exhibit disruptive behavior if a teacher does not
communicate the expectations for being capable of
instructing and managing the class appropriately.
18
34
27
13
6
98
2
3.46
1.123
Teachers do not remind students the suitable prior procedures
of an activity or correct them if they follow routines
improperly.
5
20
49
20
5
99
1
3.00
.904
Teachers‟ failure to plan, and supervise the pace of learning
activities lead students to misbehave.
9
29
44
10
6
98
2
3.26
.977
Differential treatment of students by the teacher causes
misbehavior.
11
41
23
19
4
98
2
3.37
1.049
Teachers sometimes cause misbehavior by verbally abusing
students.
19
27
30
17
5
98
2
3.39
1.136
Teachers cause misbehavior if students feel that the teacher
responds unfairly to misbehavior.
14
29
32
19
4
98
2
3.31
1.069
Student‟s misbehavior is due to students seeking attention.
8
18
43
24
3
96
4
3.04
.951
Students misbehave because they are seeking power (they
want to be in control and want things done their way).
6
26
30
28
9
99
1
2.92
1.075
Misbehavior sometimes caused by a student seeking revenge
in which the student felt embarrassed or treated with
disrespect in front of peers.
11
30
39
10
9
99
1
3.24
1.079
Figure (1) Displays the Frequency, Mean, and St.Deviation in Each Item
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1357911 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Always Often Sometimes Rarely
Never Missing Mean Std. Deviation





Table (3) Identifies Frequency, Mean, and St. Deviation in Each Item
Statistics of the Perceptions of University Teachers about The Causes of Disruptive Behavior
No.
Items
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Valid
Missing
1
Students ask irrelevant questions about the subject.
0
8
29
11
2
50
0
2.86
.729
2
Students behave impolitely and in a rude manner inside the
classroom.
1
3
13
26
7
50
0
2.30
.863
3
Students become excessive emotional toward their
classmates.
1
11
29
9
0
50
0
3.08
.695
4
Students develop hostile feelings about others.
0
7
19
19
5
50
0
2.56
.861
5
Students feel jealousy for others.
1
13
27
8
1
50
0
3.10
.763
6
Students indulge in inter-personal talking/gossip during the
class.
2
7
25
12
4
50
0
2.82
.919
7
Students become aggressive during the class.
0
2
9
23
16
50
0
1.94
.818
8
Students‟ timeless interruption during the lecture.
2
4
19
20
5
50
0
2.56
.929
9
Students make complaints against fellows or teachers.
3
6
20
14
7
50
0
2.68
1.058
10
Students‟ cross questioning during the class.
4
7
31
8
0
50
0
3.14
.783
11
Students make fun of the teachers or fellows.
0
3
11
19
17
50
0
2.00
.904
12
Students‟ lack of motivation.
3
18
22
6
1
50
0
3.32
.844
13
Students are hooting for their friends.
1
0
10
7
32
50
0
1.62
.945
14
Students‟ lack of interest in the subject or the teachers‟
teaching method.
2
6
24
15
3
50
0
2.78
.887
15
Students try for monopolization, dominance and
prominence.
1
4
23
16
6
50
0
2.56
.884
16
Students‟ chronic avoidance of sharing in the learning
activities.
1
15
23
11
0
50
0
3.12
.773
17
Students‟ quarrelsome behavior.
3
10
12
13
12
50
0
2.62
1.260
18
Persistently, students arrive late to class or leaves early in a
manner which is disruptive to the regular flow of the class.
2
15
24
6
3
50
0
3.14
.904
19
Students ask personal questions from teachers.
1
2
15
19
13
50
0
2.18
.941
20
Students disobey or refuse to carry out instructions set by
their teachers.
2
7
23
14
4
50
0
2.78
.932
21
Students‟ lack of readiness for learning.
3
18
20
9
0
50
0
3.30
.839





Figure (2) displays the Frequency, Mean, and St.deviation in each item
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1357911 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Always Often Sometimes Rarely
Never Missing Mean Std. Deviation
22
Students write timeless and irrelevant romantic poetry or
gestures.
0
4
13
16
17
50
0
2.08
.966
23
Students are doing something in private (e.g dealing with
personal stuff, irrelevant drawing,…..)
0
6
20
15
9
50
0
2.46
.930
24
The class environment is not safe for both students and
teachers.
1
5
16
22
6
50
0
2.46
.908
25
Students‟ misusing of technology tool in the classroom
(watching videos, playing games, etc).
1
5
21
14
9
50
0
2.50
.974
26
Students irregularly attend or not attend at all.
1
4
19
20
6
50
0
2.48
.886
27
Students use vulgar language in class.
1
6
13
17
13
50
0
2.30
1.055
28
Students talk incessantly while teacher is talking..
1
2
22
22
3
50
0
2.52
.762
29
Students bring their family members or friends to class.
1
2
13
25
9
50
0
2.22
.864





Table (4) Identifies Frequency, Mean, and St. Deviation in Each Item
Statistics of University Teachers' Attitude in Using Behavior Modification Strategies in Classroom
No.
Items
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Valid
Missing
1
I tell the students my expectations about appropriate classroom
behavior in the first lecture of the year.
32
10
5
3
0
50
0
4.42
.906
2
I use a seating chart to reduce chatting among students.
7
16
13
8
6
50
0
3.20
1.229
3
I apply some scientific techniques for decreasing students‟
disruptive behavior.
9
31
8
2
0
50
0
3.94
.712
4
I provide tips of conduct for a student‟s undesirable behavior.
15
17
13
5
0
50
0
3.84
.976
5
I ask the disruptive student to leave the class.
0
5
19
10
16
50
0
2.26
1.026
6
I ask the disruptive student to meet me after the class.
3
9
23
10
5
50
0
2.90
1.015
7
I plan a small group activity at the end of the class to reduce
restlessness among students.
1
7
26
11
5
50
0
2.76
.894
8
I use a variety of teaching methods instead of a single method
to maintain student‟s interest in the lesson.
18
27
5
0
0
50
0
4.26
.633
9
I ignore the student‟s unwanted behaviors.
1
7
20
11
11
50
0
2.52
1.054
10
I use negative reinforcement when a student exhibits an uncivil
or disruptive behavior.
3
7
18
13
9
50
0
2.64
1.120
11
I teach the students desirable behaviors by modeling.
12
23
11
0
4
50
0
3.78
1.075
12
I especially pay attention to the seating arrangement of the
classroom.
10
14
12
10
4
50
0
3.32
1.236
13
I use "Assertiveness Training" for anxious students.
0
9
20
8
13
50
0
2.50
1.074
14
I use "Shaping" technique for teaching desirable behaviors to
students.
1
10
19
11
9
50
0
2.66
1.062
15
I document details of the behavior and the students‟ reactions
for myself.
3
15
12
11
9
50
0
2.84
1.218
16
Before full-scale disruptions occur, I caution students who are
nearing the line.
19
19
7
5
0
50
0
4.04
.968
17
I inform my colleague and the head of the department about
students‟ misbehavior.
11
18
11
7
3
50
0
3.54
1.164
Figure (3) Displays the Frequency, Mean, and St.deviation in Each Item
0
50
100
150
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
University Teachers' Attitude in using Behavior
Modification Strategies in Classroom
Always Often Sometimes
Rarely Never Valid





Consequently, the researchers have tried to make a statistical comparison
between both questionnaires “students and teachers‟ perspectives about
disruptive behavior causes” to find out if there is a difference between both
perceptions, for this reason; the mean average of both questionnaires are
compared. It is seen in table (5) that the P-value for the two tail analysis is
1.17611525248897, which is higher than the alpha level of
significance(P>0.05), that accepts the null hypothesis and conclude that there
is no significant difference between both students‟ and teachers‟ perspectives
about the causes of disruptive behavior and they have the same point of view
regarding inappropriate behaviors inside the classroom, and it interprets the
answer of the third research question, See figures (4 and 5).
Table (5) simplify the comparison between both questionnaires
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
students
teachers
Mean
3.13333333333333
2.59137931034483
Variance
0.107128070175436
0.180969458128079
Observations
39
29
Pooled Variance
0.138454719609891
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
df
66
t Stat
5.93998582145871
P(T<=t) one-tail
5.88057626244486
t Critical one-tail
1.66827051422763
P(T<=t) two-tail
1.17611525248897
t Critical two-tail
1.99656441895231





Fig.(4) Presents the Comparison between both Teachers and Students Perspectives towards
The Causes of Disruptive Behavior
Fig.(4) Displays Positive and Negative Views towards The Causes of
Disruptive Behavior by Teachers and Students
0
1
2
3
4
Teachers Perspective Towards
Classroom Disruptive Behavior
Students Perspective Towards
Classroom Disruptive Behavior
Mean 2.602759 3.133333
St.Deviation 0.8922759 1.045538462
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Students
Negative
Perspectiv
e
Students
Positive
Perspectiv
e
Teachers
Negative
Perspectiv
e
Teachers
Positive
Perspectiv
e
ةلسلس1 2.776923 3.311538 2.402857 3.171429





DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Depending on the statistical results and calculating the frequency and
percentage of each item, the researchers were able to recognize the most
frequent misbehavior and the least frequent misbehavior. Accordingly, The
research outcomes signify that both students and teachers agree with the
factors which cause classroom disruptive behavior. Depending on their
views, the researchers have investigated that having misbehaviors inside the
classroom relate to the following factors:
- Psychological and physical factors which include; arriving late to the
classroom especially in the first lecture, asking irrelevant questions for
enjoyment, submitting assignments late due to students laziness, leaving the
class early constantly to answer cell phone, having uncomfortable seats, and
sometimes financial difficulties lead students to rude behavior.
- Teaching methodology and teachers factor, such as; differential treatment of
students by the teacher causes misbehavior, sleeping in classroom when a
teacher does not involve all the students in the lecture and activities, trouble
making when teachers‟ sound is not clear, teacher‟s weakness of the subject
leads students to indulge in gossip during the class, misusing of technology
tool in the classroom (watching videos, playing games) by the students,
chronic avoidance of sharing in the learning activities, and students‟ lack of
motivation.
As well as, it reveals the students‟ and teachers perspectives about the cause
of disruptive behavior, and that will be the answer of the first and second
research questions.
Furthermore; it is found that lecturers mostly use the following strategies to
deal with students‟ disruptive behavior inside the classroom, which are;
telling the students teachers‟ expectations about appropriate classroom
behavior in the first lecture of the year, applying some scientific techniques
for decreasing students‟ disruptive behavior, using a variety of teaching
methods instead of a single method to maintain student‟s interest in the
lesson, paying attention to the seating arrangement of the classroom, teaching
the students desirable behaviors by modeling, giving attention for those
students who are nearing the line, before full-scale disruptions occur, and
Informing colleague and the head of the department about students‟ misbehavior.





Fig.(5) Displays the Frequency and Percentage of the Disruptive Behavior
Causes (Students’ Perspectives)
Fig.(6) Displays the Frequency and Percentage of the Disruptive Behavior Causes
(Teachers’ Perspectives)
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
Always often Sometimes Rarely Never Missed
ةلسلس1 10.15% 27.26% 34% 18.10% 8.18% 1.92%
Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never
2.69%
13.79%
38.97%
30.07%
14.48%





RECOMMENDATIONS
- Teachers need to be aware of the different external and internal factors that
may affect the teaching and learning process. As a result, teachers should
consider classroom strategies to create a positive environment which might
decrease the possibility of students from behaving disruptively and also when
it is necessary to be able to react accurately.
- It is suitable that pre-service teachers develop a rich range of strategies in
advance to handle situations that may modify plans of action as well as to
consider all types of factors involved in the teaching process such as:
behavior strategies, classroom management, motivation, and social
background, among others.
-Teachers need to acquire with classroom management skills in order to deal
with classroom behavioral patterns.
-The process of behavior modification should be sensitive to the unique
socio- emotional needs of the disruptive student.
-Positive language should be used with the disruptive students as it is the
base of relationship.
-Positive behavioral responses are generated through positive messages
whereas negative behavioral responses are generated through negative
messages.
-Instead of critical messages, positive and supportive messages from teachers
can be helpful in shaping good behaviors by students.
-Disruptive behaviors can be reduced by communicating positive
expectations to the students.
-Student‟s behaviors can be changed if a teacher approaches the classroom
situations in a variety of ways.
-Students‟ disruptive behaviors should be seen as an opportunity to help them
to improve their ways in which they think, feel, and behave.
-Disruptive behavior does not mean disruptive students because disruptive
behaviors are actions that can be changed.





-Disruptive behavior can be managed if students believe that they can control
their behavior. As well, student's personal understanding and decision
making skills are important for successful behavior change.
REFERENCES
-Albert,L.(2003). Cooperative discipline. (5thed.).Circle Pines,MN:American Guidance
Service.
- Anderson,L.W. (1991).Classroom environment and climate. In Increasing Teacher Applied
behavior for teachers. (6thed.). Upper Saddle River,NJ:Merrill.
- Bear,G. (2005).Developing self-discipline and preventing and correcting
misbehavior.Boston:PersonAllyn&Bacon.
- Bellon,J.J.,E.C.,&Blank,M.A. (1996).Teaching from a research knowledge
base.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice Hall.
- Brown,H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: an interactive approach to language
Pedagogy. San Francisco: Longman.
- Charles,C.M. (2004). Building Classroom Dicipline (7thed.).New York:Longman.
- Clark C. (2008) Student voices on faculty incivility in nursing education: A conceptual
model. Nursing Education Perspectives,31(4),37-17.
- Clyton,M. (2000). Professors struggle to root out rudeness. Christian Science
Monitor,(3/21):16.
- Cruickshank,D.R.,Jenkins,D. B.,&Metcalf,K. K. (2009). The Act of
Teaching.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
- Fledman,L. J. (2001). Classroom civility is another of our instructor responsibilities,
College Teaching,49,137-140.
-Gable,R.H.,Hester,P.H.,Rock,M.L.,&Hughes,K.G.(2009).Back to basics:
Rules,praise,ignoring,and reprimands revisited.Intervention in School and Clinic,44,195-205.
- Harmer,J. (2007).The Practice of English Language Teaching.London:Person Education.
- Hernandez,T.&Fister, D. (2001). Dealing with Disruptive and Emotional College
Students:A Systems Model.Journal of college Counceling.(4)49-13.





- Hirschy,A.&Braxton,J. (2004) Effects of classroom incivilities on students.New Direction
in Teaching and Learning.99 (Fall)67-9.
- Hubbell,L. & Hubbell, K. (2010). When a College Class Becomes a Mob: Coping with
Student Cohorts, College Student Journal,44(2).
- Kazdin,A.E. (2011). Behavior modificationin applied settings.(6th
ed.).Belmont,CA:Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
- Knepp,K. A.F. (2010). Understanding Student and Faculty Incivility in Higher
Education.The journal of effective teaching. 12(1),32-45.
- Martin,S.H. (2002).The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of
teachers.Juneral of Enviromental Psychology,22(1),139-156.
- Meyers,S. (2003). Strategies to prevent and reduce conflict in college
classrooms.CollegeTeaching (Summur):94-98.
- Nilson,L.&Jakston,N. (2004). Combating Classroom Misconduct (Incivility) with Bills of
Rights.The 4th Conference of the International Consortium for Educational
Development.Ottawa.Canada.
- Seidman, A. (2005).The Learning Killer: Disruptive Student Behavior in the Classroom.
Reading Improvement (spring):40-46.
- Harmer, J. (2OO7). The Practice of English Language Teaching.London:Longman.
- Marzano,R,J. , Marzano,J.S.,&Pickering,D.J.(2003).Classroom management that
works:research-based strategies for every teacher. Alexandria: Association for
Supervision&Curriculum Development.
- Nordstorm,C.R.,Bartels,L.K.&Bucy,J. (2009).Predicting and curbing classroom incivility in
higher education.Colloge Student Journal,43,74-85.
- Rechards,J.C.&Renandya,W.A.(2002).Methodology in Language Teaching:an anthology of
current practice.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
- Savage,T.W.,&Savage,M.K. (2010). Successful classroom management and discipline.
Teaching self-control and responsibility(3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage.The University of
Houston Student Handbook.(2017).Retrieved from Civilityfilter.pdf
- Ur, P. (1996).A course in language teaching.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
- Young,J. (2003). Sssshhh.We „re Taking Notes here.Chronicle of Higher
Education.V49(48).





APPENDIX1 Questionnaire for University Students
Dear Participants:
This questionnaire is a tool of a research entitled “Teachers and Students Perceptions
towards Disruptive Behavior in Managing Classes at College Level”.
The main aim of this research is to find out the factors which cause disruptive
classroom behavior. Then, identifying a number of significant strategies to respond and reduce
disruptive classroom behavior.
Please read the following statements carefully and tick the behaviors which are problematic /
disruptive to the teaching-learning process.
The responses will be given weighting under the following criteria:
always often - sometimes - rarely- never.
Factors
Statements
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
1
Psychological Factors
Students exhibit more disruptive behavior if the class consists of
students from different cities and towns.
Students show aggressive behavior when others misbehave with
them.
Students become hostile because of competition in class.
Students ask irrelevant questions for enjoyment.
Students make hooting for fun and enjoyment.
Students submit their assignments late due to their laziness.
Financial difficulties lead students to rude behavior.
Students ask irrelevant questions to divert teacher‟s attention.
Students ask irrelevant questions to clear their confusions.
Student ask personal question from their teachers because they want
to know about their personal life.
Students leave the class early constantly to answer their cell phones.
Students arrive late in the class room particularly in the1st lecture.
Students display disruptive behavior when they are tired.
Students become quarrelsome because of their social environment.
Students make fun if they note some strange habit in a teacher.
Students use their cellphones in the class room for enjoyment and
fun.





Students sleep in class room due to lack of interest in lecture.
Students prepare assignments for other modules during the lecture.
2
Physical Factor
Students exhibit disruptive behavior if the temperature of the
classroom is very high or very low.
Students display disruptive behavior if their seats are not
comfortable.
Students show more disruptive behavior if the class size is larger or
smaller than their numbers.
Students demonstrate misbehavior in traditional seating arrangement
classroom.
Students‟ misbehavior is often a result of their efforts to meet their
basic needs.
Students misbehave if the classroom does not have proper light.
3
Health
Factors
Students with hearing or vision problems exhibit more disruptive
behavior than those with normal eye-sight or hearing ability.
Chronic diseases cause students misbehavior such as (cough, kidney
infection,….)
4
Teacher & teaching methods factors
Students indulge in gossip during the class because of the teacher‟s
weakness of the subject.
Students sleep in classroom if a teacher does not involve all the
students in the lesson and activities.
Students exhibit more disruptive behavior when they could not hear
teachers‟ sound.
Students show more troublesome if teachers‟ sound is not clear.
Students exhibit disruptive behavior if a teacher does not
communicate the expectations for being capable of instructing and
managing the class appropriately.
Teachers do not remind students the suitable prior procedures of an
activity or correct them if they follow routines improperly.
Teachers‟ failure to plan, and supervise the pace of learning
activities lead students to misbehave.
Differential treatment of students by the teacher causes misbehavior.
Teachers sometimes cause misbehavior by verbally abusing
students.
Teachers cause misbehavior if students feel that the teacher responds
unfairly to misbehavior.
Student‟s misbehavior is due to students seeking attention.
Students misbehave because they are seeking power (they want to be
in control and want things done their way).





Misbehavior sometimes caused by a student seeking revenge in
which the student felt embarrassed or treated with disrespect in front
of peers.
Note// kindly add your own comments that cause disruptive behavior in the classroom if
they are not mentioned in the above list.
APPENDIX2
Questionnaire for University Teachers
Part 1//
Please read the following statements carefully and tick the behaviors which are problematic
/ disruptive to the teaching-learning process.
The responses will be given weighting under the following criteria:
always often - sometimes - rarely- never.
No
Statement
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
1
Students ask irrelevant questions about the subject.
2
Students behave impolitely and in a rude manner inside the
classroom.
3
Students become excessive emotional toward their
classmates.
4
Students develop hostile feelings about others.
5
Students feel jealousy for others.
6
Students indulge in inter-personal talking/gossip during the
class.
7
Students become aggressive during the class.
8
Students‟ timeless interruption during the lecture.
9
Students make complaints against fellows or teachers.
10
Students‟ cross questioning during the class.
11
Students make fun of the teachers or fellows.
12
Students‟ lack of motivation.
13
Students are hooting for their friends.





14
Students‟ lack of interest in the subject or the teachers‟
teaching method.
15
Students try for monopolization, dominance and prominence.
16
Students‟ chronic avoidance of sharing in the learning
activities.
17
Students‟ quarrelsome behavior.
18
Persistently, students arrive late to class or leaves early in a
manner which is disruptive to the regular flow of the class.
19
Students ask personal questions from teachers.
20
Students disobey or refuse to carry out instructions set by
their teachers.
21
Students‟ lack of readiness for learning.
22
Students write timeless and irrelevant romantic poetry or
gestures.
23
Students are doing something in private (e.g dealing with
personal stuff, irrelevant drawing,…..)
24
The class environment is not safe for both students and
teachers.
25
Students‟ misusing of technology tool in the classroom
(watching videos, playing games, etc).
26
Students irregularly attend or not attend at all.
27
Students use vulgar language in class.
28
Students talk incessantly while teacher is talking..
29
Students bring their family members or friends to class.
Note// kindly add your own ideas that cause disruptive behavior in the classroom if they are not
mentioned in the above list.





Part 2//
Teachers’ Strategies to Deal with Classroom Disruptive Behavior
Please read the following statements carefully and tick the response that best describes
your opinion to reduce/ respond disruptive behavior.
N
o
Statement
always
often
sometimes
rarely
never
1
I tell the students my expectations about appropriate classroom
behavior in the first lecture of the year.
2
I use a seating chart to reduce chatting among students.
3
I apply some scientific techniques for decreasing students‟ disruptive
behavior.
4
I provide tips of conduct for a student‟s undesirable behavior.
5
I ask the disruptive student to leave the class.
6
I ask the disruptive student to meet me after the class.
7
I plan a small group activity at the end of the class to reduce
restlessness among students.
8
I use a variety of teaching methods instead of a single method to
maintain student‟s interest in the lesson.
9
I ignore the student‟s unwanted behaviors.
10
I use negative reinforcement when a student exhibits an uncivil or
disruptive behavior.
11
I teach the students desirable behaviors by modeling.
12
I especially pay attention to the seating arrangement of the classroom.
13
I use "Assertiveness Training" for anxious students.
14
I use "Shaping" technique for teaching desirable behaviors to students.
15
I document details of the behavior and the students‟ reactions for
myself.
16
Before full-scale disruptions occur, I caution students who are nearing
the line.
17
I inform my colleague and the head of the department about students‟
misbehavior.
Note// kindly add your own ideas to enrich the strategies more which are not mentioned in
the above list.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Petroleum hydrocarbons contamination of soil, sediments and marine environment associated with the inadvertent discharges of petroleum-derived chemical wastes and petroleum hydrocarbons associated with spillage and other sources into the environment often pose harmful effects on human health and the natural environment, and have negative socioeconomic impacts in the oil-producing host communities. In practice, plants and microbes have played a major role in microbial transformation and growth-linked mineralization of petroleum hydrocarbons in contaminated soils and/or sediments over the past years. Bioremediation strategies has been recognized as an environmental friendly and cost-effective alternative in comparison with the traditional physico-chemical approaches for the restoration and reclamation of contaminated sites. The success of any plant-based remediation strategy depends on the interaction of plants with rhizospheric microbial populations in the surrounding soil medium and the organic contaminant. Effective understanding of the fate and behaviour of organic contaminants in the soil can help determine the persistence of the contaminant in the terrestrial environment, promote the success of any bioremediation approach and help develop a high-level of risks mitigation strategies. In this review paper, we provide a clear insight into the role of plants and microbes in the microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in contaminated soil that have emerged from the growing body of bioremediation research and its applications in practice. In addition, plant-microbe interactions have been discussed with respect to biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons and these could provide a better understanding of some important factors necessary for development of in situ bioremediation strategies for risks mitigation in petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soil.
Article
Full-text available
The overall objective of this research project was to investigate the heavy metals environmental security control of resource utilization of shale gas’ drilling cuttings. To achieve this objective, we got through theoretical calculation and testing, ultimately and preliminarily determine the content of heavy metals pollutants, and compared with related standards at domestically and abroad. The results indicated that using the second Fike’s law, the theoretical model of the release amount of heavy metal can be made, and the groundwater environmental risk as main point compared with soil. This study can play a role of standard guidance on environmental security control of drilling cuttings resource utilization by the exploration and development of shale gas in our country.
Article
Full-text available
In a mangrove forest in Pattani Bay, Thailand, rhizosphere soil and leaf, stem and root tissue from various plant species were tested for concentrations of Cd, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb and Zn. Of these metals, Pb concentrations in the mangrove sediment were somewhat elevated. Mn occurred in highest concentrations in tissue of all mangrove species whereas Cd contents were lowest. Both sediment physicochemical properties (e.g., pH, EC, redox potential) and plant species characteristics have likely influenced metal concentrations in plant tissue. Several mangrove species fit the criteria for excluder plants as they accumulated metals mainly in roots, with a resultant translocation factor (TF) < 1 and a bioconcentration factor (BCF) > 1. These include Cyperus involucratus for Cu, Ipomoea pes-caprae for Zn, Typha angustifolia for Mn, and Phragmites karka for Pb. Furthermore, some species have accumulator potential, as metals accumulated in aboveground biomass (leaves and stem), and have TF > 1 and BCF > 1; however, these species (e.g., Thespesia populnea for Ni and C. involucratus for Cr) did not accumulate metals to the extent that they fit the criteria for hyperaccumulators. Continued investigation of metals in sediment and plant organs must be carried out to determine additional species suitable for phytoremediation, and to ensure healthy food chains in coastal ecosystems.
Article
Mycorrhizal fungi are essential for the survival of orchid seedlings under natural conditions. The distribution of these fungi in soil can constrain the establishment and resulting spatial arrangement of orchids at the local scale, but the actual extent of occurrence and spatial patterns of orchid mycorrhizal (OrM) fungi in soil remain largely unknown. We addressed the fine‐scale spatial distribution of OrM fungi in two orchid‐rich Mediterranean grasslands by means of high‐throughput sequencing of fungal ITS 2 amplicons, obtained from soil samples collected either directly beneath or at a distance from adult Anacamptis morio and Ophrys sphegodes plants. Like ectomycorrhizal and arbuscular mycobionts, OrM fungi (tulasnelloid, ceratobasidioid, sebacinoid and pezizoid fungi) exhibited significant horizontal spatial autocorrelation in soil. However, OrM fungal read numbers did not correlate with distance from adult orchid plants, and several of these fungi were extremely sporadic or undetected even in the soil samples containing the orchid roots. Orchid mycorrhizal ‘rhizoctonias’ are commonly regarded as unspecialized saprotrophs. The sporadic occurrence of mycobionts of grassland orchids in host‐rich stands questions the view of these mycorrhizal fungi as capable of sustained growth in soil.
Article
Petroleum hydrocarbon pollutants are recalcitrant compounds and are classified as priority pollutants. Cleaning up of these pollutants from environment is a real world problem. Bioremediation has become a major method employed in restoration of petroleum hydrocarbon polluted environments that makes use of natural microbial biodegradation activity. Petroleum hydrocarbons utilizing microorganisms are ubiquitously distributed in environment. They naturally biodegrade pollutants and thereby remove them from the environment. Removal of petroleum hydrocarbon pollutants from environment by applying oleophilic microorganisms (individual isolate/consortium of microorganisms) is ecofriendly and economic. Microbial bidegradation of petroleum hydrocarbon pollutants employs the enzyme catalytic activities of microorganisms to enhance the rate of pollutants degradation. This article provides an overview about bioremediation for petroleum hydrocarbon pollutants. It also includes explanation about hydrocarbon metabolism in microorganisms with a special focus on new insights obtained during past couple of years.