Conflict of Interest
The authors of this article declare no conflict of interest.
This study examines how teacher perceptions of student misbehaviour correlate with their perceptions of school climate and student self-reports, using multi-informant two-level multilevel modelling. School climate questionnaires completed by 4,055 teachers and 16,017 students (1rd to 4th year of compulsory secondary education from 187 schools) showed that teachers’ characteristics are marginally related to perceived disruption. Fair rules and support of students’ families acted as protective factors, while a lack of educational leadership was a risk factor. Furthermore, the student variable of pro-violence messages from parents acted as a moderator for leadership and rules, while perceived coercive treatment from teachers acted as a moderator for family support of teachers.
Esta investigación examina en qué medida la percepción del profesorado sobre el comportamiento disruptivo correlaciona con la percepción del clima escolar y los autoinformes del alumnado, mediante una modelización multi-informante y multinivel. Los cuestionarios sobre el clima escolar, cumplimentados por 4,055 profesores y 16,017 estudiantes (de 1º a 4º curso de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria pertenecientes a 187 centros educativos), muestran que las características de los profesores se relacionan solo marginalmente con la disrupción percibida. La existencia de unas reglas justas y el apoyo de las familias de los estudiantes se mostraron como factores de protección, mientras que la ausencia de un adecuado liderazgo en el equipo directivo aparecía como factor de riesgo. Además, los mensajes que los alumnos reciben de sus padres a favor de la violencia actuaron como moderadores del liderazgo y las reglas, mientras que el trato coercitivo de los profesores que percibían los estudiantes actuó de moderador del apoyo de la familia hacia el profesorado.
As recognised in the TALIS study from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (
Along the same lines, since the pioneering work by
The available evidence reflects the complexity of the problem of student misbehaviour, which must be analysed taking into account the interaction between the individual characteristics of its protagonists and the context in which it occurs. This requires an analysis at different levels, as recognised in the ecological approach (
As shown in the study by
Differences have been found in the perception of disruptive behaviour depending on teacher’s gender. Although both female and male teachers report misbehaviour more frequently in secondary education, men perceive more disruptive behaviour than women in secondary education, while the opposite occurs in primary education (
Teaching experience appears to be a teacher’s characteristic that is most related with the perception of student misbehaviour in the classroom. The problem is found to be much more frequent for new teachers than for experienced teachers (
In relation to teachers’ training in classroom management, it is worth considering one of the conclusions of the TALIS study (
To understand and prevent disruptive behaviour, it is important to analyse the type of student-teacher interaction in the context in which it occurs (
Research conducted in this area highlights two school climate variables as particularly significant due to their relationship with misbehaviour management: school leadership and fairness of rules and discipline (
In accordance with the foregoing, it is also worth considering findings of other studies along the lines that interactions among school personnel and administrative support are very important conditions of the quality of a school (
Research on the role played by families in student misbehaviour has found that this problem is reduced with quality in family relationships, adult support, and supervision, and more effective, constructive, and consistent family discipline processes (
Family messages on how to address problems can have a significant influence on adolescent behaviour, with violence representing one of the most studied aspects in this regard. Studies have found that young people whose parents advise them to respond aggressively to violence are more likely to resolve conflicts using violence and to face school suspension (
There is a general consensus as to the need for families to be involved in schools to reduce disciplinary issues and improve school and learning climate. Previously mentioned findings on the efficacy of distributed leadership, favouring the involvement of families in school decisions, should be interpreted as supporting this approach (
The series of studies conducted in Spain investigating high-school environment (
To develop an understanding of how to improve education, it is necessary to identify potential interactions and moderating effects between what happens at school and what happens in the family. Studies carried out on this subject suggest that although a good school climate acts as a protective condition for general student performance, it is particularly important for those from family contexts classified as at-risk due to family’s poverty or structure (
A review of research on school climate (
With respect to characteristics of a teacher and a group of students, a higher level of perceived misbehaviour is expected to be found among men than among women (hypothesis 1.1) – the younger the teacher (hypothesis 1.2), the shorter the time they have spent at the school (hypothesis 1.3) –, among teachers who have not been on any specific disruption-related course (hypothesis 1.4), and among those working in curriculum diversification groups (hypothesis 1.5).
As regards school climate variables, a higher level of perceived misbehaviour is expected to be found the lesser the school leadership from the school’s principals (hypothesis 2.1). In contrast, lower levels of disruption are expected to be found the greater the presence of two protective conditions: fairness of rules and discipline at school (hypothesis 2.2); and family support for a teacher (hypothesis 2.3).
Contextual risk variables are studied from students’ perspective: pro-violence messages in family environment and coercive treatment from teachers are evaluated, with increased misbehaviour expected at centres where families have more frequently recommended the use of violence to resolve conflicts (hypothesis 3.1) and where there is more coercive treatment from teachers (hypothesis 3.2).
Finally, a potential moderating effect is expected from other contextual variables (coercive treatment from teachers and pro-violence family messages) in terms of relationships between perceived misbehaviour and school climate variables (family support for teachers, leadership from school’s principals, quality of rules and discipline), though specific hypotheses are not proposed in this regard.
Participants were selected via a two-stage stratified cluster sampling method, proportional to size. Strata were Spain’s regions (16, as one refused to participate) and centre’s status (public and private), with a total of 16 x 2 = 32 strata. The sample was allocated in proportion to strata size and high schools were the primary sample unit. Sampling frame, duly stratified by status, was provided by each participating region. This resulted in the selection of 187 secondary schools. For the second phase, classrooms from each selected school were chosen on a simple random basis (one per academic year), from ESO’s (standing for mandatory secondary education) 1st to 4th year. For some third- and fourth-year groups, defined as curriculum diversification groups, students with difficulties following standard third- and fourth-year teaching programmes are grouped together in order to adapt teaching to particular needs of those students and thereby to facilitate their learning. Participation rates were very high, with an overall rate of 94.65%, of which 93.85% in public centres and 95.93% in private centres.
Teachers duly completed 4,090 questionnaires, but in 35 cases (0.9%) it was not possible to obtain teachers’ perceived disruption indicator, which is the main dependent variable analysed. These cases were removed insofar as they represented a small percentage of responses (far below the 5% limit established by Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007), leaving a total of 4,055 valid questionnaires.
Out of the group of valid responses, 56.8% came from women and 43.2% from men. Responses were divided into 31.1% who taught at private centres and 68.9% teaching at public schools. Of the latter, 64.9% were permanent members of staff and 35.1% were teachers with fixed-term contracts. Distribution of respondents in terms of age and seniority is presented in
With respect to students, 16 (0.1%) of 16,033 completed questionnaires were rejected as it was not possible to calculate the perceived disruption indicator for students, leaving 16,017 cases. Of these, 49.9% were women and there was a very even distribution of participants (26.1%, 25.1%, 25.0%, and 23.8%) from each academic year, ranging from ESO’s 1st to 4th year. Ages ranged from 11 to 18, with a mean value of 14.22 (
School principals selected were notified and their participation requested for the study. We also asked for informed consent from parents of the students chosen. Data were collected online at the schools. All teachers of the selected centres were invited to participate. Regarding students, all selected classes participated. Students were instructed that the survey was voluntary, that they could withdraw at any time, and that their responses were anonymous. A teacher remained in the room as the survey was administered in order to answer questions and resolve potential computer problems. Average time required to complete the questionnaire was 50 minutes.
All measures had been validated in previous research conducted in Spain (
The indicators used were obtained via factor analysis after conducting
A Likert-type four-point scale was used for all the variables described below, constructed as presented below and following a generic question.
This study was based on a multilevel data structure in which information from teachers and students was nested within their educational centre (
As such, level 1 (individual) is focused on teacher perceptions, while level 2 is made up of the information relating to each school, meaning that the scores of all students at the same school are aggregated (averaged) for each variable in the study.
The multilevel analysis was conducted with HLM software (version 7;
Measures of the individual characteristics of teachers or of student groups with difficulties were maintained on their original scale (or recoded as dummy variables as previously stated). All other measures were centred with respect to the global mean, facilitating their interpretation (
The results of the descriptive analyses and correlations for level-1 school indicators are shown in
With respect to level-2 indicators, the aggregated data for the 187 centres (see
The results show significant coefficients for various predictors that, as a whole, reduce intra-centre variance by 2.24% (2 = 1.88) compared with the null model (see
At school level, only family advice on violence shows a clear and positive relationship with perceived disruption, which points to an increase in disruption perceived by teachers when pro-violence messages are more frequent in students’ family environments. The perception of coercive treatment from teachers does not show a significant relationship.
More interesting is the study of the moderating effects of these two student indicators on teachers’ predictors. Applied to the three level-1 predictors, the results show significant interactions on three occasions. The indicator of family advice on the use of violence shows a moderating effect in two of the three level-1 predictors. With respect to the indicator of lack of leadership from the school principal (γ = -.06,
With respect to fairness of rules and discipline, family advice on violence also shows a significant moderating effect (γ = -.09,
In the case of family support for teachers, the perception of coercive treatment from teachers shows a significant moderating effect (γ = -.1,
Finally, the multilevel analysis enables us to explore random effects (see
Level 1 Model
Level 2 Model
With respect to the controlled variables and comparing the results with those of model 1, the variables of gender, diversification and disruption training courses were excluded from the model, with age and years of seniority at the school retained (see
In turn, level-1 predictors also maintain a similar share in the equation (see
Interactions between levels remain at values indistinguishable from those obtained in model 2, as well as the interpretation of the moderating role of the variables considered. Random effects also remain at similar levels (see
An analysis of the results related to hypotheses 1.1 through 1.5 initially showed all the expected variables other than having received disruption training courses to be significant predictors, although both gender and teaching of special groups disappeared from the final model. Men were found to perceive higher levels of disruption in comparison to women, which confirms for Spain a similar result as the one obtained by
Our results show that disruptive conduct is perceived to be higher among teachers working with groups that contain more students with difficulties, as has also been found in other studies (
In accordance with hypotheses 2.1 to 2.3 and along the lines of findings in previous research, our results confirm that misbehaviour perceived by teachers is reduced with three important measures to improve school climate: fairness of rules and discipline (
Hypothesis 3.1, which predicted increased disruption in contexts with pro-violence family messages, is confirmed. The results do not support hypothesis 3.2, as student perception of coercive treatment from teachers only shows a marginally significant effect on teacher perception of misbehaviour (
As an expression of the interaction between risk conditions at school and in the family, the results for the moderating effect of pro-violence family messages should be interpreted as showing that the risk of low-quality rules being associated with misbehaviour is higher in schools where students have more frequently heard these messages. A possible explanation would be that these students could have more difficulty in complying with school rules when they involve learning via the so-called hidden curriculum (
As recognised in reviews of school climate-focused studies (
As a result, we have observed that although sociodemographic factors show a relationship with perceived disruption, it is generally a slight one, the predictive capacity of which disappears (except for seniority at the same school) when other factors are taken into account.
School’s contextual variables, such as lack of leadership from the management team (associated with higher levels of disruption) and family support for teachers and fairness of school rules and discipline (both associated with less disruption) are significant at a predictive level.
The information provided by students did not show a clear relationship with disruption when studied in isolation, but there was a clear relationship to the interaction with the information provided on the school by teachers. For example, teachers feeling valued and respected by families was observed to be a protective factor against students’ perceived coercive treatment from teachers, restricting the level of classroom disruption. Moreover, students having heard messages in favour of reactive violence represented an important risk factor which can be partly neutralised with high levels of fairness of school rules and discipline, but which is associated at high levels with high disruption, regardless of whether there is good school leadership at the school.
The results of this research suggest the need to include practical classroom management exercises in the initial and continuous training of high-school teachers, supervised by teachers with experience in effective management of misbehaviour. These exercises enable teachers, particularly when they are new to the profession, to learn proactive strategies to prevent disruption-coercion escalations. This training should include development of skills allowing the teacher to obtain support from students and families. From an ecological perspective, this means intervening at mesosystem level and encouraging communication between school and family, two microsystems that have traditionally had very little opportunity to collaborate. Feedback provided via this supervision should help to increase both the effectiveness of strategies used by teachers and teachers’ security and empowerment, which is particularly important among teachers working with adolescents. Opportunities to learn via this feedback should be supplemented with the chance to observe how other teachers manage misbehaviour. Until recently, the majority of continuous training programmes provided for teachers in Spain did not include this type of practical exercise. The lack of a relationship found in the present study between teachers having attended courses on misbehaviour and perceiving misbehaviour in the classroom could be attributed to this.
Along the lines of previous findings (
School principals should foster opportunities to extend classroom management best practices. Our results also show the importance of these teams extending to students and their families the opportunity to participate in school decisions and plans. This may encourage consensus in terms of identifying what is happening at school and how to improve it through collaboration on a project between all of those whose support is needed. This distributed leadership could contribute to increasing family support for teachers, fairness of rules and discipline, and opportunities to develop consistency between family and school with regard to the messages that are transmitted and their educational effectiveness. Despite the importance of this type of leadership (
In the context of collaboration between families and schools based on shared objectives, families could be encouraged to communicate to teachers the need to replace the coercive treatment that some staff use for confronting disruption with the proactive treatment that a majority of families demand (
Among the most important limitations of this study, it is first necessary to emphasise the fact that a non-experimental methodology was used via a transversal design in the collection of study data, which limits the possibility of establishing causal relationships between variables. The relationships identified from the analyses performed should be interpreted in this light and prudence should be applied to any interpretation seeking to infer any causality. Longitudinal studies and experimental research into the efficacy of the proposed measures are required in order to overcome these limitations.
It should also be stated that all the indicators used are from a questionnaire that investigates personal perceptions and experiences of respondents, which represent measures that are of undoubted interest but are not equivalent to other possible objective measures with respect to indicators evaluated. It would be useful to overcome this limitation with observational studies to examine classroom interactions and analyse them in light of school’s social climate.
It should finally be noted that the variables studied contemplate significant aspects for both individual teachers and schools, but do not exhaust all possible study dimensions.
Cite this article as: Martínez-Fernández, M. B., Díaz-Aguado, M. J., Chacón, J. C.; Martín-Babarro, J., & Martínez-Arias, R. (2020). Student misbehaviour and school climate: A multilevel study.