Malaysian primary pre-service teachers’ perceptionsof students’ disruptive behaviour

Norzila Zakaria • Andrea Reupert •

Umesh Sharma

Received: 5 November 2012 / Revised: 19 May 2013 / Accepted: 11 June 2013 / Published online: 20 June 2013

� Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2013

Abstract The purpose of this paper was to investigate

Malaysian primary pre-service teachers’ perceptions of

students’ disruptive behaviour and their self-reported

strategies to prevent and to manage such behaviours.

Results indicate that Malaysian pre-service teachers

understand disruptive behaviours to be those that disrupt

the learning and teaching process. They identified the cause

of student disruptive behaviour as factors residing within

the individual student. Pre-service teachers here reported

preventative strategies in terms of changing teaching

strategies and threats to use punishment. When addressing

students’ disruptive behaviour, pre-service teachers repor-

ted that they would use one-to-one counselling with stu-

dents and remove tokens or hold back rewards. A

discussion regarding the implications for teacher education

institutions and future research concludes this paper.

Keywords Behaviour management � Classroom

management � Pre-service teachers � Malaysia

Introduction

Classroom management is an essential skill for teachers to

acquire, for teachers’ own well-being and for students’

academic progress and wellbeing. In this article, we define

classroom management as teacher actions that contribute to

effective teaching and learning environments (Walker and

Shea 1991). While most studies in this area were conducted

in Western countries (Giallo and Little 2003; Kaufman and

Moss 2010; Kyriacou et al. 2007; Moore 2003; Putman

2009; Reupert and Woodcock 2011; Stephens et al. 2005;

Stoughton 2007; Tulley and Chiu 1995), the present study

sought the views of Malaysian pre-service primary teachers.

Such information may inform teacher education institutions

and beginning teacher programmes in Malaysia. Addition-

ally, exploring the attitudes of Malaysian pre-service

teachers potentially provides cultural understandings about

the way in which classroom management strategies might be

valued or promoted in an Asian country.

International perspectives on classroom management

Classroom management is an important issue for many

teachers in Australia (Little et al. 2000; Reupert and Dal-

garno 2011), the USA (August et al. 1996), Pakistan (Syed

et al. 2007) and India (Srinath et al. 2005). At the same

time, many pre-service teachers report feeling inadequately

prepared in classroom management. For example, a study

in the USA found that 80 % of pre-service teachers were

unsure which strategies to use in classrooms with students

with special needs (Moore 2003). Again in the USA, Smart

and Igo (2010) found that novice teachers reported being

relatively more confident to manage students considered to

have mild behaviour problems but not at all confident in

managing students displaying aggression, defiance and

deviant behaviour. In Australia, graduate and pre-service

primary teachers indicated being only moderately prepared

in classroom management, with over 80 % indicating they

N. Zakaria � A. Reupert (&) � U. Sharma

Faculty of Education, Krongold Centre, Monash University,

Wellington Road, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia

e-mail: andrea.reupert@monash.edu.au

N. Zakaria

e-mail: norzila.zakaria@monash.edu

U. Sharma

e-mail: umesh.sharma@monash.edu

123

Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2013) 14:371–380

DOI 10.1007/s12564-013-9268-7

required additional training in this area (Giallo and Little

2003).

Pre-service teachers and behaviour management

Other studies have identified the specific classroom man-

agement strategies that pre-service teachers report

employing. Atici (2007) interviewed nine pre-service

teachers in Turkey, who described using nonverbal mes-

sages, such as eye contact, physical proximity and warn-

ings to manage classroom behaviour. From a sample of just

over 300 Australian and Canadian primary pre-service

teachers, Reupert and Woodcock (2011) found a preference

for corrective or reactive strategies such as ‘‘nonverbal

body language’’ and ‘‘saying the student’s name as a

warning’’, as opposed to strategies that serve to prevent

classroom behaviour problems from occurring. When the

two cohorts were compared, they found that Australian pre-

service teachers employed rewards more often than Cana-

dian pre-service teachers. The authors speculated that this

difference might be due to broader contextual factors

inherent in the two school systems in Australia and Canada.

In another international study about pre-service teach-

ers’ perception of disruptive behaviour, Stephens et al.

(2005) compared the responses of 100 English and 86

Norwegian secondary pre-service teachers and found that

the Norwegian cohort was generally more tolerant of stu-

dent misbehaviour. At the same time, both cohorts regar-

ded aggressive, delinquent and anti-social student

behaviour as unacceptable. In another study of the same

cohorts, both English and Norwegian pre-service teachers

indicated that students were disruptive because of family

factors, in particular because parents did not instil pro-

school values in their children (Kyriacou et al. 2007). The

two cohorts also reported that the most frequently

encountered behaviour problem was students talking out of

turn and the most frequently employed strategy to manage

this behaviour was to establish rules. In a similar study that

explored classroom management strategies in relation to

context, Lewis and colleagues (Lewis et al. 2005) studied

teachers in China, Israel and Australia, and found that

Chinese teachers were more inclusive and supportive of

student voices and were less punitive and aggressive, than

teachers in Israel and Australia.

The Malaysian education system

Of particular relevance to the present study is that the

Malaysian education system endorses inclusive education,

which encapsulates the full participation of students with

disabilities into mainstream settings (UNESCO 1994).

However, there are several barriers to inclusive practice in

Malaysia, primarily around the lack of teacher prepared-

ness to teach students with diverse needs (Jelas 2010). A

subject around ‘‘special education’’ is not compulsory in

Malaysian teacher education programmes (Jelas 2010).

Accordingly, Malaysian teachers reported that the training

required for teaching students with diverse needs was

inadequate, particularly when dealing with students with

challenging behaviours (Bosi 2004; Jantan 2010; Jelas

2010; Lee 2004).

As well as in-service teachers, Malaysian pre-service

teachers have identified problems addressing classroom

management issues (Faizah 2008; Goh and Matthews 2011;

Rahman et al. 2011). For example, in a study of 150

Malaysian secondary pre-service teachers, Rahman et al.

(2011) found that managing students’ behaviour was

among the main challenges they faced. Similarly, the most

pressing concern for Malaysian pre-service teachers, as

ascertained from fourteen secondary pre-service teachers’

reflective journals, was managing students’ behaviour (Goh

and Matthews 2011). Another Malaysian study also

employed a reflective journal, written by one secondary

pre-service teacher who was undertaking her teaching

practicum in a large class of students with mixed abilities

(Faizah 2008). The teacher documents her struggles with

students’ disruptive behaviour and her resorting to yelling

at students. Thus, the limited research conducted in

Malaysian settings demonstrates that pre-service teachers

feel inadequately trained in classroom management (Faizah

2008; Goh and Matthews 2011; Rahman et al. 2011); what

we are not able to ascertain are the specific strategies they

might employ and the subsequent strengths and gaps in

their skill base.

With some exceptions as highlighted above (Faizah

2008; Goh and Matthews 2011; Rahman et al. 2011), most

studies investigating pre-service perceptions on classroom

management are located in Western countries (such as

Australia, Canada, Norway, England and the USA). Iden-

tifying those classroom management strategies that

Malaysian pre-service teachers employ, and those they do

not, can inform the development of courses at Malaysian

teacher education institutions. Moreover, research exam-

ining pre-service teachers’ perceptions about classroom

management from within an Asian context may also shed

light on the role of factors that are context specific (for

example, based on culture and/or teacher education insti-

tutions), with implications for researchers, teacher educa-

tors and policy makers. Notwithstanding the importance of

ongoing professional development for teachers and the

experiences they obtain once in the classroom, one critical

period for the acquisition of classroom management skills

is during teacher education (Emmer and Stough 2001;

Reupert and Woodcock 2010; Sharma et al. 2013;

372 N. Zakaria et al.

123

Woodcock and Reupert 2012). Thus, this study will focus

on Malaysian pre-service teachers.

Research aims

This study aims to explore final-year Malaysian primary

pre-service teachers’ perceptions regarding classroom

management. More specifically, the study will investigate:

• How do Malaysian primary pre-service teachers

describe students’ disruptive classroom behaviour?

• What do Malaysian pre-service teachers regard as being

the cause of students’ disruptive behaviour?

• How do Malaysian primary pre-service teachers pre-

vent disruptive behaviour in the classroom?

• How do Malaysian primary pre-service teachers man-

age disruptive behaviour in the classroom?

Methodology

A qualitative approach to data collection, analysis and

interpretation was employed as a means of tapping into

pre-service teachers’ perceptions of classroom manage-

ment. Within this framework, participants were invited to

identify instances of disruptive behaviour, what they saw as

being the cause of these disruptive behaviours and indicate

how they might prevent and manage such behaviours. An

open-ended questionnaire was constructed, based on the

literature review and the research questions.

Context of the study

The study is situated within a primary teacher training

centre in Malaysia. At this centre, pre-service teachers

undertake a compulsory, second-year subject related to

behaviour and classroom management. The subject covers

information regarding models of classroom management

and the issues involved in working with students with

diverse needs, particularly those who have learning diffi-

culties. In addition, they also undertake the ‘‘Guidance and

Counselling for Children’’ subject. This subject emphasizes

the role of teachers as mentors to students and aims to

ensure teachers are able to provide basic counselling for

students. Both subjects run for 45 contact hours and are

taught over 15 weeks. Additionally, over the course, pre-

service teachers participate in several school practicums,

starting in year 3 (twice) and another one in year 4. The

duration of each practicum is 4, 8 and 12 weeks, respec-

tively. The practicum provides opportunities for pre-ser-

vice teachers to apply their knowledge and skill to

classroom settings. Classroom management is a skill,

among several others, that is assessed during the practicum

by their supervising teachers.

More generally, in Malaysia there are three major cul-

tural groups, namely Malay, Chinese and Indian. Children

go to either national primary schools (where everyone

might attend) or national-type schools (where a specific

cultural group mostly attends). National primary schools

(Sekolah Kebangsaan) provides Bahasa Malaysia as the

main medium of instruction, while national schools, which

include Chinese national-type schools (Sekolah Jenis Ke-

bangsaan Cina) and Tamil national-type schools (Sekolah

Jenis Kebangsaan Tamil), employ Chinese or the Tamil

language as the main language of instruction. Hofstede

(2001) describes Malaysia as an Alpha culture, where

inequalities are both acknowledged and required across the

three major ethnicities. In such a context, those in a more

subordinate position wait for direction, while supervisors

or those in charge expect to receive obedience and to be the

decision-makers. This means that at home, parents expect

children to obey rules, while in schools, teachers exercise

full initiative and communicate their ‘‘knowledge and

wisdom’’ (Talib 2010, p. 29).

Participants

From 100 primary pre-service teachers enrolled in a 4-year

teacher education programme at teacher training centre in

Malaysia, 94 questionnaires were obtained, resulting in 90

completed questionnaires. Pre-service teachers were in

their final year and had completed their final practicum.

Most participants were Malays, and all listed Islam as their

religion (see Table 1 for participant demographics). It

should also be noted that most participants (91 %) report

having prior experience teaching students with disruptive

behaviour, with 30 % of those surveyed indicating that

their level of success when teaching such students was

either good or very good.

Questionnaire

In order to collect data from participants, a questionnaire

was designed. Several demographic items were included

related to participants’ age, gender, race, religion and

qualifications. Additional questions were framed around

participants’ prior experience of teaching students with

disruptive behaviour and their reported level of confidence

and success when teaching such students, in order to

ascertain whether these factors might impact on responses.

Following these, the questionnaire included the subsequent

items:

Students’ disruptive behaviour 373

123

1. How do you define students’ disruptive behaviour in

the classroom?

a. Provide three examples of behaviour that you

consider to be disruptive.

2. Why do you think children are disruptive in the

classroom?

3. List three things you would do to prevent disruptive

behaviour in the classroom.

4. List three strategies you would do to respond to

disruptive behaviour in the classroom.

The first author, who is Malay, translated the question-

naire, conceptually rather than literally, from English into

Malay. The questionnaire was then given to a panel con-

sisting of two child psychiatrists, a clinical psychologist

and a teacher from Malaysia to obtain feedback on clarity

and to ensure that the translated questions matched the

research aims. Questions were revised based on their

feedback to produce the final questionnaire employed here.

Procedure

With the lecturers’ permission, questionnaires were dis-

tributed during class time and, when completed, partici-

pants were invited to return the questionnaire at a box

placed at the back of the lecture hall.

Data analysis

Once again, the first author translated Malaysian responses

to English, conceptually rather than literally. Participant

responses to each of items were analysed using a qualitative

approach. Thematic content analysis was conducted, which

is a systematic means of describing and analysing phe-

nomena, and is considered to be a useful process for the

exploratory phase of broader research tasks (Anfara et al.

2002). In this process, the first author read participant’s

responses for each item and developed labels based on these

responses that were then conceptualized into a theme. For

example, in response to the question ‘‘Why do you think

children are disruptive in the classroom?’’ some participants

wrote, ‘‘a student’s lack of respect,’’ ‘‘students’ emotional

and other health problems’’ and ‘‘students wanting atten-

tion’’; these were grouped under the theme ‘‘student fac-

tors’’. Sometimes the label itself became the theme, for

example, in response to the question ‘‘List three things you

would do to prevent disruptive behaviour’’ some wrote

‘‘change teaching strategies’’ and others wrote ‘‘increase

attractive learning strategies’’. The final theme here was

‘‘change teaching strategies’’. After the first author identified

themes, across participant responses, she met with the sec-

ond author (native English speaker) to further clarify and

elaborate an identified theme, in English. After themes were

identified, responses were counted, to show the frequency

counts presented here. Frequencies in relation to gender

were also determined. Given the small sample size in some

of the demographic groups, further analysis of the data based

on participant demographics was not conducted.

Results

The results are presented according to the four research

questions of this project.

Table 1 Participants’ demographic profile

Demographic Frequencies

N (%)

Age

\25 years 90 (100 %)

Gender

Male 54 (60 %)

Female 36 (40 %)

Race

Malay 88 (97.8 %)

Chinese 1 (1.1 %)

Indian 1 (1.1 %)

Religion

Islam 88 (97.8 %)

Hindu 1 (1.1 %)

Buddhist 1 (1.1 %)

Highest qualification obtained

Master 21 (23.3 %)

Degree 31 (34.4 %)

Diploma 1 (1.1 %)

High school 37 (41.1 %)

Prior experience in teaching students

with disruptive behaviour

Yes 82 (91.1 %)

No 8 (8.9 %)

Reported level of success when

teaching students with disruptive behaviour

Minimum 8 (8.9 %)

Moderate 47 (52.2 %)

Good 25 (27.8 %)

Very good 2 (2.2 %)

Confidence when teaching students

with disruptive behaviour

Low 0 (0 %)

Average 48 (53.3 %)

High 42 (46.7 %)

374 N. Zakaria et al.

123

Pre-service teachers’ definition of disruptive behaviour

Participants’ responses to the question ‘‘How do you define

disruptive behaviour?’’ primarily centred on those student

behaviours that interrupted the teaching and learning process,

and those behaviours that disturbed others (see Table 2). Four

participants described disruptive behaviour as any ‘‘unpleas-

ant behaviour’’ and given the nebulous nature of this response

(in Malaysian and English), these responses were removed.

When invited to provide examples of disruptive behav-

iour, participants described various behaviours that were

grouped under the following themes: ‘‘making a noise’’,

‘‘disturbing peers’’ and ‘‘not doing school work’’ (see

Table 3). The ‘‘making a noise’’ theme included responses

such as talking to peers, singing and shouting. Many par-

ticipants provided the response ‘‘disturbing peers’’, so this

was grouped as a theme. The ‘‘not doing school work’’ theme

included responses such ‘‘not handing in assignments,’’

‘‘being uncooperative’’ and ‘‘not giving attention’’. It is

acknowledged that many of these themes overlap.

Causes of students’ disruptive behaviour

In response to the question regarding why students might

be disruptive, most participants attributed disruptive

behaviour to student-centred factors, which included

responses such as ‘‘a student’s lack of respect,’’ ‘‘students’

emotional and other health problems’’ and ‘‘students

wanting attention’’ (see Table 4). The second most fre-

quent response pertains to family and parenting factors,

such as ‘‘a lack of discipline at home’’ and ‘‘the child is too

pampered by parents’’. A sizable minority reported that

teacher factors contributed to student disruptive behaviour

with representative responses including ‘‘unattractive

teaching and learning activities’’ and ‘‘teacher provides less

attention to these students’’. One participant indicated that

the media was responsible for students’ disruptive

behaviour.

Strategies to prevent students’ disruptive behaviour

When asked to identify the ways they might prevent dis-

ruptive behaviour in their classroom, a total of 255

responses were provided (see Table 5). The most fre-

quently reported theme was to ‘‘change teaching strate-

gies’’; this theme included strategies such as ‘‘increase

attractive learning activities’’ and ‘‘use better teaching

aids’’. Another theme labelled ‘‘threaten or warn students’’

included responses such as ‘‘warn students about time out’’

and ‘‘threaten students with the cane’’. Another group of

responses was labelled ‘‘reinforcements’’ with responses

involving a token- or merit-based system. Another signif-

icant group of responses was categorized as ‘‘instil good

values in students’’, which encompassed the provision of

moral, ethical and/or religious education to students.

Strategies to manage students’ disruptive behaviour

Finally, participants were invited to identify ways in which

they would respond to students’ disruptive behaviour in the

classroom. Responses were identified under the category of

‘‘provide counselling’’, which included reports that they

would ‘‘counsel the student’’, ‘‘advise the student’’ and

‘‘give the student a motivational talk’’. Another category

involved holding back rewards or withdrawing tokens for

disruptive behaviour. Being positive with students included

‘‘giving the student more attention’’, ‘‘communicate with the

student more’’, ‘‘get to know the student more’’ and ‘‘give

Table 2 Defining disruptive behaviour

Themes No. Male Female

Interrupt teaching and learning 62 29 33

Disturbing others 23 16 7

Disturbing teachers 1 0 1

Total 86 45 41

Table 3 Examples of disruptive behaviour

Disruptive behaviours No. Male Female

Making a noise 71 46 25

Disturbing peers 52 38 14

Not doing schoolwork 22 12 10

Moving around 16 15 1

Aggression/fighting 13 4 9

Disrespectful attitude to teacher 12 7 5

Interrupting the teacher 9 5 4

Destroying things 5 3 2

Nonattendance 5 5 0

Bullying 4 2 2

Spitting 2 1 1

Sleeping 6 3 3

Total 216 141 75

Note that the frequency count here is greater than the sample size, as

participants were asked to provide three examples

Table 4 Reason for students’ disruptive behaviour

Why students misbehave No. Male Female

Student factors 74 39 35

Family and parenting issues 48 26 22

Teacher related factors 40 25 15

Media 1 0 1

Total 163 90 73

Students’ disruptive behaviour 375

123

encouragement’’. Participants also described changing

teaching strategies when dealing with disruptive students,

for example ‘‘create attractive activities’’, ‘‘involve students

in all activities’’ and ‘‘use teaching aids’’ (Table 6).

Discussion

This study explored final-year Malaysian primary pre-ser-

vice teachers’ perceptions regarding students’ disruptive

behaviour and the classroom management strategies they

report employing. Malaysian primary pre-service teachers

described disruptive behaviour in terms of hindering the

teaching and learning process, with specific examples

including students making a noise and disturbing peers, as

well as students not doing their school work. Predomi-

nately, pre-service teachers indicated that children are

disruptive because of factors related to students, though

there was some acknowledgement that behaviour was also

the result of family and/or teaching factors. The strategies

that pre-service teachers would utilize to prevent disruptive

behaviour were to change teaching strategies, threaten

students with punishment (such as a caning) and reinforce

positive behaviour. On the other hand, the strategies par-

ticipants indicate they would employ to respond to student

disruptive behaviour were to counsel or advise the indi-

vidual student, to withdraw tokens and generally be posi-

tive with a student.

Similar to the findings of this study, Atici (2007) found

Turkish pre-service teachers described students’ disruptive

behaviour in terms of students disturbing the lesson and

hindering their peers. In Australia, Arbuckle and Little

(2004) found that early childhood, primary and secondary

teachers also described disruptive behaviour in terms of

interrupting the learning of others. Thus, it might be said

that for many pre-service teachers, student disruption is

closely related to hindering the teaching and learning

process, as opposed to major violent behaviour, or in terms

of problematic interpersonal relationships between stu-

dents, such as bullying.

Additionally, according to the Malaysian pre-service

teachers surveyed here, students misbehave primarily

because of student-centred factors or because of a student’s

own emotional issues. The second most frequently reported

reason for student disruption, identified by those surveyed

here, was related to family and parenting factors, while the

final reasons related to teaching practices. In comparison,

pre-service teachers in Turkey (Atici 2007), Norway and

England (Kyriacou et al. 2007) regard family background

as the primary reason for student misbehaviour, as opposed

to teacher and/or student factors.

This difference of attribution might be linked to the

diverse training and practicum experiences across the UK,

Norway and Malaysia and the ways in which behaviour

management is taught. Additionally, or instead, the dif-

ference might be the result of the authoritarian culture

prevailing in Malaysia in which there are clear authority

figures that, for many, must be obeyed (Kesharavarz and

Baharudin 2009). Accordingly, disobedience might well be

the ‘‘fault’’ of the student, rather than the type of

upbringing he or she has experienced or the tasks the tea-

cher has asked the student to do. Nonetheless, that many

Malaysia pre-service teachers in this study attribute dis-

ruptive behaviour to students, as opposed to teaching or

family factors, has implications for their motivation to

address behaviour issues in the classroom. McCready and

Table 5 Preventing disruptive behaviour

Preventative strategies No. Male Female

Change teaching

strategies

60 29 31

Threat/warn about

punishment

51 33 18

Reinforcements 45 25 20

Enforce rules 31 22 9

Being positive with

students

12 10‘ 2

Provide counselling 25 18 7

Seating rearrangement 11 6 5

Instil good values 7 2 5

Constant monitoring 3 3 0

Referral to counsellor 6 6 0

Report to parents 4 3 1

Total responses 255 157 98

Table 6 Responding to disruptive behaviour

Responding to disruptive behaviour No. Male Female

Provide counselling 47 40 7

Tokens are removed or

rewards are held back

29 10 19

Being positive with

student

29 25 4

Change teaching

strategies

23 14 9

Make changes to the

seating arrangement

14 9 5

Specific individual

behaviour strategies

12 3 9

Punish (unspecified) 11 8 3

Discuss with parents 10 9 1

Enforce rules 5 3 2

Monitor behaviour 5 2 3

Total 185 123 62

376 N. Zakaria et al.

123

Soloway (2010) argue that that student misbehaviour is

adaptive and a result of interactions between students,

teachers and environment. Accordingly, preventative and

reactive behavioural strategies need to be based on the

reasons students misbehave or disrupt the teaching and

learning process (Reupert and Woodcock 2011).

Interestingly, even though Malaysian pre-service

teachers primarily attributed disruptive behaviour to stu-

dent-centred factors, the most commonly reported pre-

ventative strategy (namely, to change teaching strategies)

targeted the teacher’s own behaviour. Such a stance dem-

onstrates awareness that it is their responsibility to engage

students with appropriate academic tasks, in direct contrast

to their view that student misbehaviour is the result of

factors pertaining to the student. Teachers are held in high

esteem in the Malay community, typified by their title,

‘‘Cikgu’’ (teacher), which they retain after retirement. It

could be that teachers’ high status means that they ‘‘blame’’

the student for any disruptive behaviour while at the same

time taking responsibility for ensuring that behavioural

issues are prevented. Follow-up interviews are required to

further clarify such a result.

Even though the first preventative strategy identified in

this study was to change teaching strategies, pre-service

teachers here also reported warning or threatening students

with punishment, for example letting students know that

they could be caned or sent to time out. The third pre-

ventative strategy was to provide some form of reinforce-

ment or reward for positive behaviour. Warning students

and the use of rewards are both indicative of a teacher-

centred classroom, in which the teacher is responsible and

in control, cognizant with an authoritarian approach to

teaching and learning.

In terms of responding to students’ disruptive behaviour,

Malaysian pre-service teachers indicate that they would

primarily talk to students individually, to advise, counsel,

or have ‘‘a motivational talk’’ about how they should

behave in the classroom. The next response was to employ

a reinforcement system, but by taking tokens away and

finally by being more positive with students. So, while pre-

service teachers here report preventing behavioural dis-

ruptions by changing teaching strategies and warning stu-

dents with the cane, when students are actually disruptive

they would prefer to talk with the student one to one and be

positive, by building a relationship with the targeted stu-

dent and getting to know him or her better. In other words,

the pre-service teachers here are ‘‘full of bark but have no

bite’’, namely threaten with the cane but they don’t actually

follow through (even though they do describe removing

tokens for student misbehaviour). It should be noted though

that only specialist teachers in Malaysia are actually per-

mitted to cane students, so pre-service teachers are not in a

position to actually follow through on this threat. In this

study, we found that pre-service teachers advocate building

a relationship and being positive, though some also (or

instead) reported removing tokens or holding back rewards

as a corrective classroom management strategy.

The comparatively softer approach advocated by

Malaysian pre-service teachers may have been acquired

while completing the compulsory subject ‘‘Guidance and

Counselling for Children’’, which emphasizes the role of

teachers as mentors. Therefore, counselling might be con-

sidered a legitimate way of addressing behavioural issues in

the classroom. However, Talib (2009) highlighted the heavy

teaching workload of many Malaysian teachers coupled with

other time-consuming administrative demands. Thus, given

time constraints, the provision of counselling as the primary

corrective management strategy is problematic, especially

when there are other strategies, such as selective ignoring

and signalling that are potentially more effective in

addressing the immediate and low-level types of disruptive

behaviour described here (see, for example, Rogers 2007).

The preference for one-to-one discussions with students,

rather than the fore-mentioned other corrective strategies

highlights a potential professional learning issue for the

Malaysian pre-service teachers surveyed in this study.

Talib (2010) points out that Malaysians value harmony,

where most prefer compromise to confrontation. It might

be said that for the Malaysian pre-service teachers sur-

veyed, a student’s disruptive behaviour needs to be handled

as courteously as possible, such as via one-to-one discus-

sions or counselling. Similarly, the Alpha cultural context

of Malaysia means that not only do supervisors (and so,

one would assume, teachers) expect to be obeyed, but those

very supervisors are ‘‘obliged to provide patronage. The

supervisor must protect and guide the subordinates’’ (An-

sari et al. 2004, p. 115). This paternalistic form of

authoritarianism, coupled with their reluctance to confront,

might explain Malaysian pre-service teachers’ preference

for providing one-to-one discussions with students, rather

than comparatively more direct corrective strategies.

As well as providing counselling and advice to students,

other reactive or corrective strategies reported by Malay-

sian pre-service teachers include removing tokens or

holding back rewards, becoming more positive with stu-

dents (encouraging, providing more attention) and chang-

ing teaching strategies. It needs to be noted that the latter

two of these strategies are normally considered to be

strategies employed to minimize or prevent problems from

occurring in the first place rather than to correct behaviours

after they have occurred. As reported earlier, Rogers

(2007) advocates a range of strategies to address immedi-

ate, low-level disruptive behaviour, which serve to mini-

mize disruption to learning and the potential for the

behaviour to escalate. From this study, there is no indica-

tion that pre-service teachers are employing such strategies.

Students’ disruptive behaviour 377

123

Overall, in the present study, the first preference among

Malaysian pre-service teachers to prevent behavioural

issues from occurring was to change teaching strategies,

while their second preference was to threaten students with

the cane or time out. At the same time, they indicate that in

response to students’ disruptive behaviour, they would not

necessarily follow through with these threats but would

instead engage in counselling students, remove tokens and

be more positive with students. The use of the cane (even if

to threaten students) is of interest. According to Busienei

(2012), the use of corporal punishment, such as the cane,

has ancient historical and religious roots, though he con-

tends that its modern-day practice violates the rights of the

child (according to the United Nations Convention on the

Rights of the Child). Kiprop and Chepkilot (2011) point out

that corporal punishment is not only ineffective as a dis-

cipline strategy, but can trigger students’ unrest and make

their behaviour worse. Further investigation as to how

corporal punishment is regulated, sanctioned and under-

stood in the Malaysian educational system is required.

It is interesting to note that 91 % of participants claim

prior experience in dealing with disruptive behaviour and

over 80 % of participants report having moderate or better

success at managing behaviour, especially given that some

of the strategies identified in this study are not necessarily

supported in the literature as evidence based. For example,

while threatening students with the cane was a strategy

identified by some to prevent behavioural disturbances, we

would strongly dissuade its use. Teacher educators might

need to spend some time with pre-service teachers dis-

cussing what is meant by an ‘‘effective’’ classroom man-

agement strategy, in conjunction with a close reading and

discussion of the relevant research literature. Even though

pre-service teachers might perceive an action as being

‘‘effective’’, ongoing discussions about what this means for

students and the teaching and learning process might be

required.

This study has several other important implications for

Malaysian teacher education institutions as well as

Malaysian schools working with beginning teachers.

Research conducted, albeit predominately in schools

located in Western countries, clearly demonstrates the

value of proactive behavioural strategies and plans, which

serve to prevent or lessen the likelihood of disruptive

behaviour, as opposed to reactive strategies, that are

delivered as a consequence of a student’s disruptive

behaviour. As Clunies-Ross et al. (2008) point out, reactive

strategies are primarily remedial in nature. A substantial

body of literature supports the use of preventative strate-

gies, such as providing praise and an engaging curriculum

and pedagogy (for selective examples, see Burden 2003;

Charles and Senter 2008). Similarly, it has been argued that

when teachers employ positive, preventative strategies,

students’ disruptive behaviours will be eliminated or min-

imized (De Jong 2005; Simonsen et al. 2008; Tulley and

Chiu 1995). Houghton et al. (1990) noted that student on-

task behaviour increased when teachers employ preventa-

tive strategies, as opposed to when teachers use private

reprimands of disapproval. Thus, the importance of posi-

tive and proactive strategies as a means of preventing

behavioural issues needs to be stressed to pre-service and

beginning teachers.

Many of the behaviours described by the pre-service

teachers in this study might be aligned to teacher-centred, as

opposed to student-centred, teaching and learning practices.

For example, pre-service teachers here reported a prefer-

ence for employing reinforcements and threatening students

with a cane or time out, strategies that might be considered

to be teacher-centred, as opposed to student-centred,

approaches. The research on the efficacy of student- versus

teacher-centred classrooms is less than clear; our reading of

the literature would indicate that views on this topic tend to

be based on philosophical ideology, as opposed to evidence-

based research. Malaysia has a long history of authoritari-

anism, where an authority figure such as a teacher is

respected and obeyed and thus appears to be closely aligned

to the teacher-centred approach described here. Accord-

ingly, without disrespecting or disregarding these values,

pre-service teachers need to learn the importance of a

positive approach to classroom management, which incor-

porates both proactive strategies as well as reactive strate-

gies. Given the strong emphasis on teacher control, Canter’s

Assertive Discipline model (Canter and Canter 2001) might

be one approach that could be usefully applied in this

Malaysian teacher education institution, with adaptations

made for local contextual issues. This model might serve to

provide an alternative to the one-to-one counselling

approach, indicated by many here, to deal with student’s

disruptive behaviour but at the same time still incorporate a

proactive approach within a teacher-centred framework. At

the same time, however, it is important to note that we are

not necessarily justifying or advocating a teacher-orientated

approach to classroom management for Malaysian pre-

service teachers. Indeed, we are strongly advocating for a

positive, proactive approach to working with students,

employed within evidence-based framework, but, at the

same time, an approach that is sensitive to the cultural

milieu of those involved. Developing an evidence base for

classroom management in different cultural settings is an

obvious area for future research.

There are limitations to this study, which future research

might consider. As the study was implemented in one

teacher preparation institution, future research might be

conducted in other institutions in Malaysia. In addition, the

open-ended nature of the questionnaire, which was useful

to generate themes at a broad level, requires follow-up

378 N. Zakaria et al.

123

interviews to further clarify and extend the results found

here. Similarly, some of the questionnaire responses were

difficult to define and require further investigation. Given

the reliance on self-report used in this study, future studies

might incorporate classroom observations. Further research

is also required to ascertain those models of discipline that

might be effectively adapted for Asian contexts.

This study adds to the literature on Malaysian pre-ser-

vice teachers’ experience and perceptions on students’

disruptive behaviour. In summary, the present study dem-

onstrated that Malaysian pre-service teachers primarily

attributed the cause of student disruptive behaviour to

student-centred factors, but at the same time owned some

responsibility for preventing behavioural issues from

occurring by indicating that they would change teaching

strategies. Another strategy to prevent behavioural issues

from occurring was to threaten students with time out or

the cane. Conversely, when responding to student’s mis-

behaviour, pre-service teachers indicated that they would

work closely with students on an individual basis and

remove tokens. The stance being advocated by the pre-

service teachers here might be aligned to a teacher-centred

approach, in which the teacher makes decisions about

discipline, pedagogy and relationships. Future training in

classroom management might well need to be respectful of

such a stance, in the acknowledgement of both proactive

and reactive elements of classroom management plans and

the cultural context in which such training occurs.

References

Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative

analysis on stage: Making the research process more public.

Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38. doi:10.3102/0013189X

031007028.

Ansari, M. A., Ahmad, Z. A., & Aafaqi, R. (2004). Organizational

leadership in the Malaysian context. In D. Tjosvold & K.

E. Leung (Eds.), Leading in high growth Asia: Managing

relationship for teamwork and change (pp. 109–138). Singapore:

World Scientific Publishing Co. Retrieved from http://people.

uleth.ca/*mahfooz.ansari/2004%20Book%20Chapter%205-

Leading%20in%20High%20Growth%20Asia.pdf.

Arbuckle, C., & Little, E. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions and manage-

ment of disruptive classroom behaviour during the middle years

(years five to nine). Australian Journal of Educational &

Developmental Psychology, 4, 59–70. Retrieved from http://

www.newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Research%20Centres/SORTI/

Journals/AJEDP/Vol%204/v4-arbuckle-little.pdf.

Atici, M. (2007). A small-scale study on student teachers’ perceptions

of classroom management and methods for dealing with

misbehaviour. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 12(1),

15–27. doi:10.1080/13632750601135881.

August, G. J., Realmuto, G. M., MacDonald III, A. W., Nugent, S. M., &

Crosby, R. (1996). Prevalence of ADHD and comorbid disorders

among elementary school children screened for disruptive behavior.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24(5), 571–595.

http://www.springerlink.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/content/

r23666246428n222/fulltext.pdf.

Bosi, W. (2004). The pilot implementation of inclusive education in

Malaysia: A review. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massey

University. Retrieved June 8, 2012 from http://muir.massey.ac.

nz/handle/10179/1735.

Burden, P. R. (2003). Classroom management: Creating a successful

learning community. Hoboken: Wiley/Jossey-Bass Education.

Busienei, A. (2012). Alternative methods to corporal punishment and

their efficacy. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational

Research and Policy Studies, 3(2), 155–161.

Canter, L., & Canter, M. (2001). Assertive discipline: Positive

behaviour management for todays’s classroom (3rd ed.). Los

Angeles, CA: Canter & Associates.

Charles, C. M., & Senter, G. W. (2008). Elementary classroom

management (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008). Self-reported and

actual use of proactive and reactive classroom management

strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and student

behaviour. Educational Psychology, 28(6), 693–710. doi:

10.1080/01443410802206700.

De Jong, T. (2005). A framework of principles and best practice for

managing student behaviour in the Australian educational

context. School Psychology International, 26(3), 353–370. doi:

10.1177/0143034305055979.

Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A

critical part of educational psychology, with implications for

teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103–112.

doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3602_5.

Faizah, A. M. (2008). The use of reflective journals in outcome-based

education during the teaching practicum. Malaysian Journal of

ELT Research, 4, 32–42. http://www.melta.org.my/modules/

tinycontent/Dos/Faizah_V2.pdf.

Giallo, R., & Little, E. (2003). Classroom behaviour problems: The

relationship between preparedness, classroom experiences, and

self-efficacy in graduate and student teachers. Australian Journal

of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 3, 21–34. http://

www.newcastle.edu.au/journal/ajedp/.

Goh, P. S., & Matthews, B. (2011). Listening to the concerns of

student teachers in Malaysia during teaching practice. Australian

Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 91–103. http://ro.ecu.edu.

au/ajte/vol36/iss3/3.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values,

behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

Houghton, S., Wheldall, K., Jukes, R. O. D., & Sharpe, A. (1990). The

effects of limited private reprimands and increased private praise

on classroom behaviour in four British secondary school classes.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(3), 255–265. doi:

10.1111/j.2044-8279.1990.tb00943.x.

Jantan, A. (2010). Inclusive education in Malaysia: Mainstream

primary teachers’ attitudes to chance of policy and practices.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northumbria University.

Retrieved June 7, 2012, from http://hdl.handle.net/10145/99675.

Jelas, Z. M. (2010). Learner diversity and inclusive education: A new

paradigm for teacher education in Malaysia. Procedia—Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 7, 201–204. http://www.sciencedirect.com/

science/article/B9853-51JPPMH-11/2/7c2193d7374e0a2bd7fc47f

8528df7e4.

Kaufman, D., & Moss, D. M. (2010). A new look at preservice

teachers’ conceptions of classroom management and organiza-

tion: Uncovering complexity and dissonance. The Teacher

Educator, 45(2), 118–136. doi:10.1080/08878731003623669.

Kesharavarz, S., & Baharudin, R. (2009). Parenting style in a

collectivist culture of Malaysia. European Journal of Social

Students’ disruptive behaviour 379

123

Sciences, 10(1), 66–73. http://www.eurojournals.com/ejss_10_

1_07.pdf.

Kiprop, C., & Chepkilot, R. (2011). Factors influencing Kenyan

school discipline in the post-caning era. International Journal of

Current Research, 3(11), 270–276.

Kyriacou, C., Avramidis, E., Høøie, H., Stephens, P., & Hultgren, A.

(2007). The development of student teachers’ views on pupil

misbehaviour during an initial teacher training programme in

England and Norway. Journal of Education for Teaching, 33(3),

293–307. doi:10.1080/02607470701450288.

Lee, M. N. N. (2004). Malaysian teacher education into the new

century. Paper presented at the reform of teacher education in

Asia-Pacific in the New Millennium: Trends and challenges. doi:

10.1007/978-1-4020-2722-2_6.

Lewis, R., Romi, S., Qui, X., & Katz, Y. J. (2005). Teachers’

classroom discipline and student misbehavior in Australia, China

and Israel. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 729–741.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.008.

Little, E., Hudson, A., & Wilks, R. (2000). Conduct problems across

home and school. Behaviour Change, 17(2), 69–77. Retrieved

from http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/

documentSummary;dn=328697966988937;res=IELHEA.

McCready, L. T., & Soloway, G. B. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of

challenging student behaviours in model inner city schools.

Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 15(2), 111–123. doi:

10.1080/13632752.2010.480883.

Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiences of pre-service

teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 31–42. doi:

10.1177/0022487102238656.

Putman, S. M. (2009). Grappling with classroom management: The

orientations of preservice teachers and impact of student

teaching. The Teacher Educator, 44(4), 232–247. doi:10.1080/

08878730903180226.

Rahman, S. B. A., Abdullah, N., & Rashid, R. A. (2011). Trainee

teacher’s readiness towards teaching practices: The case of

Malaysia. Paper presented at the Joint Conference UPI-UiTM

2011 Strengthening Research Collaboration on Education,

Auditorium FPMIPA UPI. http://repository.upi.edu/operator/

upload/pros_ui-uitm_2011_rahman_trainee_teachers_readiness.

pdf.

Reupert, A., & Dalgarno, B. (2011). Using online blogs to develop

student teachers’ behaviour management approaches. Austra-

lian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(5), 48–64.

Reupert, A., & Woodcock, S. (2010). Success and near misses: Pre-

service teachers’ use, confidence and success in various class-

room management strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education,

26, 1261–1268.

Reupert, A., & Woodcock, S. (2011). Canadian and Australian pre-

service teachers’ use, confidence and success in various behav-

iour management strategies. International Journal of Educa-

tional Research, 50(5–6), 271–281. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2011.07.

012.

Rogers, B. (2007). Behaviour management: A whole school approach

(2nd ed.). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Deppeler, J., & Yang, G. (2013). Reforming

teacher education for inclusion in developing countries in the

Asia Pacific region. Asian Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(1),

3–16.

Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., & Sugai, G. (2008).

Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Consider-

ations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of

Children, 31(3), 351–380. doi:10.1353/etc.0.0007.

Smart, J. B., & Igo, L. B. (2010). A grounded theory of behavior

management strategy selection, implementation, and perceived

effectiveness reported by first-year elementary teachers. The

Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 567–585. doi:10.1086/

651196.

Srinath, S., Girimaji, S. C., Gururaj, G., Seshadri, S., Subbakrishna,

D. K., Bhola, P., & Kumar, N. (2005). Epidemiological study of

child & adolescent psychiatric disorders in urban & rural areas of

Bangalore, India. Indian Journal of Medial Research, 122(July),

67–79. http://search.proquest.com/docview/195971564?

accountid=12528.

Stephens, P., Kyriacou, C., & Tønnessen, F. E. (2005). Student

teachers’ views of pupil misbehaviour in classrooms: A Norwe-

gian and an English setting compared. Scandinavian Journal of

Educational Research, 49(2), 203–217. doi:10.1080/0031383

0500049004.

Stoughton, E. H. (2007). How will I get them to behave? Pre service

teachers reflect on classroom management. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 23(7), 1024–1037. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.

05.001.

Syed, E., Hussein, S., & Mahmud, S. (2007). Screening for emotional

and behavioural problems amongst 5–11-year-old school chil-

dren in Karachi, Pakistan. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric

Epidemiology, 42(5), 421–427. doi:10.1007/s00127-007-0188-x.

Talib, J. (2009). Profesionalisma caunselor sekolah rendah [Primary

school counselor professionalism]. MALIM: Journal Pengajian

Umum Asia Tenggara, 10, 156–182. http://www.ukm.my/jmalim.

Talib, M. A. (2010). Cultural influences and mandated counseling in

Malaysia. Asian Culture and History, 2(1), 28–33.

Tulley, M., & Chiu, L. H. (1995). Student teachers and classroom

discipline. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(3),

164–171.

UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action

on special needs education. Paper presented at the World Confer-

ence on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Retrieved

from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF.

Walker, J. E., & Shea, T. M. (1991). Behavior management: A

practical approach for educators (5th ed.). New York: Macmil-

lan Publishing Company.

Woodcock, S., & Reupert, A. (2012). A cross-sectional study of

student teachers’ behaviour management strategies throughout

their training years. The Australian Educational Researcher, 39

(2), 159–172.

380 N. Zakaria et al.

123