VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYEN THI THANH TAM STUDENTS’ MISBEHAVIOURS AND VIETNAMESE EFL TEACHERS’ RESPONSES: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF HIGH SCHOOLS IN HANOI M. MAJOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Language Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231.01 HANOI - 2024 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYEN THI THANH TAM STUDENTS’ MISBEHAVIOURS AND VIETNAMESE EFL TEACHERS’ RESPONSES: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF HIGH SCHOOLS IN HANOI M. MAJOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Language Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231. Tran Thanh Nhan HANOI - 2024 DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP I hereby declare that this thesis was carried out by myself under the guidance and supervision of Dr.
Tran Thanh Nhan; and that the work contained and the findings in it are true by author and have not violated research ethics. No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in this thesis. All references and verbatim extracts have been quoted, and all sources of information, including graphs and data sets, have been acknowledged and explicitly cited. I will take full responsibility for any plagiarism and/ or other fraud detected in my thesis.
University of Languages and International studies is unrelated to any copyright infringement caused on my work (if any). Hanoi, 2024 Nguyen Thi Thanh Tam Approved by SUPERVISOR (Signature and full name) Dr. Tran Thanh Nhan Date:. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express our deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Mrs.
Tran Thanh Nhan for her vital guidance and feedback. Her sharing expertise and encouragement were invaluable to me throughout the research process. Besides, I want to give thanks to the teachers of several high schools in Hanoi for their cooperation. Their passionate participation in the interviews and questionnaires played a crucial part in my research.
Last but not least, I hope to send my appreciation to constructive comments and feedback from the fellow members of class QH2021.D2 and to the endless emotional support from my beloved families. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them. li ABSTRACT Management of students’ misbehaviour has long been an indispensable part of classroom management. This presents distinct challenges for EFL teachers who make attempts to use the target language as the medium of instruction and involve students in a range of communicative activities in order to realize lesson objectives.
As a consequence, the researcher made the decision to investigate into this group within Vietnamese high school setting by means of a survey, whose items were both adapted from previous literature and generated from a cognitive interview. Only after the processes of piloting, measuring the reliability of each construct and reviewing items carefully were the questionnaire handed out to 114 participants. The quantitative data demonstrates that in general, teachers did not encounter inappropriate behaviours frequently, with misconducts related lesson preparation and engagement more likely to occur than those indicating low attendance, disturbance, dishonesty and disrespect while items unique to EFL classes did not record high figures. In response to misbehaviour, outside class intervention is most common, followed by non-verbal responses, in contrast to the rarity of punishment.
In other studies whose particpants either teach foreign languages or other subjects, teachers also showed preference for subtle forms of coping with misbehaviours. Considering the impact of experience, the negative correlations proved that the more experienced teachers are, the less frequently they have to deal with inappropriate behaviours. Based on the finding, suggestions on pragmatic approaches to prevent misbehaviour and handle it in a time- saving, non-disruptive and emphatic way were provided. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .1 Statement of the problem and rationale for the study .3 Significance of the Study .- --- c1 1119119111 TH HH HH HH 6 1.4 Scope of the SfUỈy.- 5L TH HH HH HH th 7 1.
Gvnh 7 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REV HE .1 The concept of classroom ManageMent .1 Definition of classroom manaØ€Im€IIE.2 Classroom management in foreign language Classes .2 The concept of misbehaviour 1 .1 Definition of misbelaVIOUT.- --- c1 9v TH ng ng ngự 11 2.2 Classification Of mIsbelaVIOUL.-- -- «+ + 1 vn ng ng nưàp 12 2.3 Causes Of mIsbelhaV1OUT.-- - 6s x2 91193 9119301911 9v HH TH ng nhờ 17 2.3 The concept Of rESDOIS€S. - -- G1 3119111111191 9 11H HH HH HH 19 2.1 Definition of f€SDOTISGS.2 Types Of T€SDOTS€S.4 Review of previous ÏI€TAfUIC. «1x t1 ngàng ng rệt 21 2.1 Past research on common misbehaviour .2 Past research on common teachers’ reSDOTIS€S .3 Summary and gap of the literature oo. cece eceeeeeeeeeeeeeseeseeaeeaeeaeeeens 27 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOG YY .1 Setting of the SUy.- - cv SH TH HH HH ghi 29 3.- --- G1119 HT HH Tp 30 3.3 Participants and sampling methOd.-- - -- ¿6 +22 1+ E**xE*EE+EEE+EeEEskksreerkerke 30 3.4 Data collection 1nSETUTT€TIL.
- 25 51019911931 1 20 nh ni nh nh ng ngư 31 3.1 Justification for the use Of QU€SfIOTI4ITG.- 5 5 E2 E1 1930 E9 910190 9 nh ng re 31 3.ó- 5 (3 9011231 91 9319 119v nh ng nh Hư 36 3.5 Procedures of data €OlÏ@CfIOI.6 Procedures of data anaÏyS1S.- ó- s1 HH nh ng HH gà 38 3.7 Ethical COnSIC€TAfIOTNS.- - -- << 1119311311 11 191191 HH HH TH HH 38 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS.1 Findings of the Study. Q5 HH HH TH HH TH Ti HH nh 39 4.3 The correlation between student misbehaviour, teacher responses and years of EXPCTICNCE. ees eeeeeeeecssecescecssecsseeescecssecsseessaecssecsseeeseecesecsseeseecssecsseesseecsaecsseesseessneones 43 “2Ä oion .1 Student misbehaviour in EFL CÏSS€S.2 EFL teachers’ responses to student misbehaviour .1 Summary of findings 0.3 Limitations and suggestions for further research. -- «+ ss + kk+seessseessee 61 REFERENCES.
o5 (5 GHI HH HH 00000900090 VII APPENDIX Ô. 0008050 XVII TABLE OE FIGURES Figure I. Ecological Model of the Classroom (adapted from Conway, 2012). Antecedents to Student Misbehavior (Johnson et al.
Past research on common misbelhaVIOUT-. Participants of the SUTV€Y. chHH HH Hệp 31 Table 4. Participants of the cognitive IMtervieW.
Participants of the pilot SUrVey 00. ee eee cee eseeceseeseeeeeeceeceeesecaesaeeaeeaeeaseaesaees 35 Table 6. Reliability analysis of the COTSẨTUCẨS.- 5 1v ng ng 36 Table 7. Description of the qu€SfIOT'ITIATTC.-- -- 5 3 1 E231 91 91 E1 9v vn ng ng 37 Table 8.
Frequency of student misbehaviour. Frequency of student misbehaviour and years of teaching. Frequency of teacher T€SDOTS€S.-- 5 ng ng kh 41 Table 11. Frequency of teacher responses according to their experlence.
Correlation between student misbehaviour and years of experience. Correlation between teacher responses and years of experience. 45 vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The initial chapter provides an overview of the research, which consists of six main points (1) statement of the problem and rationale for the study, (2) aims and objectives, (3) method of the study, (4) significance of the study, (5) scope of the study and (6) organization of the study.1 Statement of the problem and rationale for the study The concept of education can be understood in various ways, but in broad terms, it serves as a mechanism of knowledge enrichment and indicates a period which witnesses changes in learners’ behavioural patterns (Mansor et al. Although education is not merely confined to schools, they are specialized environments which are designated for educational purposes as well as social establishments accommodating students from varied cultural and ethnic backgrounds (Mansor et al.
Because of its significance, attending schools is perceived as a central and formative stage of children’s life (Chevalier & Buckles, 2013). Schools contribute to the development of the society by creating competent individuals who not only acquire necessary understanding and skills but also a sense of responsibility, accountability and particularly discipline to conform to behavioral norms (Chevalier & Buckles, 2013). In fact, not all students are involved in the classroom in a positive way. The learning climate is negatively affected by rulebreaking, disruptive “actions and interactions” (Johnson et al.
5), which can be referred to as “misbehaviour” (Kearney& Bensaheb, 2006; Plax & Kearney, 1999). These are not limited to students with special needs but are common even among normal students (Conway, 2005). Misbehaviour has become an inexorable facet of the relationship between instructors and students in an academic setting, “a feature of nearly every classroom” (Beaman et al. 46), despite teachers’ attempts to establish a conducive environment, implement equitable practices, and communicate in a co-operative manner (Johnson et al.
Therefore, students’ behavioural issues are increasingly a subject of shared concern (Beaman et al., 1 2007) due to the fact that ‘behaviour is one of the dominant discourses of schooling’ (Ball et al. Therefore, researchers have the duty to provide in-depth understanding of the matter to inform the public and educational professionals (Beaman et al. Conoley and Goldstein (2014), Kulinna et al. These problematic behaviours can be placed in a continuum according to different degrees of intensity (mild, moderate, intensive), with minor actions like talking, not paying attention and severe ones such as fighting and bullying.
It is important to note that even minor conducts can cause trouble, given their persistence. Mensah (2021), Conoley and Goldstein (2014), Wiseman and Hunt (2008), therefore, found out how problematic they were to the teachers. Some of the instructors in Levin and Nolan’s study (2007) spent a substantial percentage of their classroom time, ranging from 30 to 80 percent, tackling students’ misconducts. In a survey carried out by American Federation of Teachers (AFT), 17 percent of teachers responded that they wasted four or more hours of teaching per week on dealing with misbehaving students, while 19 percent of them had to spare two to three hours.
Not only does students’ misbehaviour reduce valuable time for teaching and learning but they also slow down academic progress (Wagner et al., 2005; Wiseman & Hunt, 2008), undermines the quality of education (Mensah, 2021) and make certain students fall behind. Problematic students are subjected to isolation as their peers are more likely to avoid or reject them, preventing them from participating in teamwork and group discussions while teachers may also treat them differently from their friends, providing less assistance while consistently paying attention to their misbeaviours (Beaman & Wheldall, 1997; Little & Hudson, 1998). If the misbehaviour continues for a long time, it may develop into violence and other antisocial traits (Angus et al., 2009; Lewis et al. As for teachers, students’ misconducts jeopardize safety, and overwhelm teachers (Wiseman & Hunt, 2008) and lead to greater work-related stress, lower levels of well-being (Klassen & Chiu, 2010) and even early job quitting (Ingersoll, 2001).
In Vietnam, tackling misbehaviour also presents a particular concern for teachers (Gao & Benson, 2012) due to its increasing prevalence, especially that of school violence, according to the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) in 2010 (Tran, 2016). The number of misbehaving cases, ranging from dishonesty, disrespect to physical attacks was estimated to rise to 16. In response to the trend, MOET is drafting a circular stipulating the charter of junior high schools, high schools and high schools with many levels of education, which clearly stipulates seven acts that students cannot do, including: 1. Insulting the dignity, honor, physical abuse of teachers, officials, school employees, other people and other students.
Cheating in studies, tests, exams, and admission. Buying, selling and using alcohol, beer, cigarettes, narcotics and other stimulants. Using mobile phones or other devices while studying in class is not for learning and is not allowed by the teacher. Fighting, disrupting order and security in schools and public places.
Using or exchanging products with content that incites violence and depravity; Do not use toys or play games that are harmful to your own healthy development. Activities that violate the law.