Advertisement

What Is Disruptive About Disruptive Behavior?

  • Thomas SzuleviczEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Cultural Psychology of Education book series (CPED, volume 10)

Abstract

Most educational systems have over the last 20 years increased their focus on definable and measurable student learning outcome. Concurrently, disruptive behavior and disciplinary problems have globally been identified as growing concerns. After describing the shift in educational philosophy and practice toward more outcome-based education, this chapter will follow two tracks. The first track describes how and why disruptive behavior is a major concern in most educational systems as both teachers and students report being plagued by noise and disruptive behavior in schools. In the second track of the chapter, it is discussed how the described changes toward measuring student learning outcome have changed our understanding and attitudes toward student’s disruptive behavior. The chapter by no means makes light of the problems related to disruptive behavior in schools, and it acknowledges that disruptive behavior is one of the biggest problems in most Western educational systems. The aim of the chapter is rather to stress how the notion of disruptive behavior—from a cultural–historical perspective—is changed with an increasingly outcome-based educational practice and how this practice potentially creates new problems related to disruptive behavior by changing the general approach to disruptions and disruptive students.

References

  1. Angus, L. (2015). Scholl choice: Neoliberal education policy and imagined futures. Br. J. Sociol. Educ., 36(3), 395–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, S. J. (2012). Performativity, commodification and commitment: I-spy guide to the neoliberal university. British Journal of Educational Studies, 60(1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biebricher, T. (2014). Power in neoliberal thought. Journal of Political Power, 7(2), 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biesta, G. (2001). How difficult should education be? Educational Theory, 51(4), 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Biesta, G. (2014). The beautiful risk of education. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Biesta, G. (2015). Resisting the seduction of the global education measurement industry: Notes on the social psychology of PISA. Ethics and Education, 10(3), 348–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bru, E. (2009). Academic outcomes in school classes with markedly disruptive pupils. Soc. Psychol. Educ., 12, 461–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education., 20(3), 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fredholm, A. (2017). Reconsindering school politics: Educational controversies in Sweden. The Curriculum Journal, 28(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibbs, S. (2019). Immoral education: The assault on teachers’ identity, autonomy and efficacy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Hardy, I. (2017). Governing teacher learning: Understanding teacher’s compliance with and critique of standardization. Journal of Education Policy, 33(1), 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1325517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hart, R. (2010). Classroom behavior management: educational psychologists’ views on effective practice. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties., 15(4), 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jenkins, A., & Ueno, A. (2016). Classroom disciplinary climate in secondary schools in England: What is the real Picture? Br. Edu. Res. J., 43(1), 124–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keddie, A. (2015). Prioritizing social and moral learning amid conservative curriculum trends: Spaces of possibility. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(3), 355–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kristiansen, J., Lund, S. P., Persson, R., Shibuya, H., Nielsen, P. M., & Scholz, M. (2014). A study of classroom acoustics and school teachers’ noise exposure, voice load and speaking time during teaching, and the effects on vocal and mental fatigue development. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health, 87, 851–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kristensen, K.-L., & Mørck, L. L. (2016). ADHD medication and social self-understanding (Social practice research with a first grade in a Danish Primary School). European Journal of Psychology in Education, 31, 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Langager, S. (2014). Children and youth in behavioural and emotional difficulties, skyrocketing diagnosis and inclusion/exclusion processes in school tendencies in Denmark. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 19(3), 284–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, J., & McLellan, A. (2013). The education of selves: How psychology transformed students. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2013). In defence of the school. A public issue. Leuven: Education, Culture & Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 430–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pongratz, L. A. (2011). Controlled freedom—The formation of the control society. Pedagogicky Casopis, 2(2), 161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pongratz, L. A. (2013). Voluntary self-control: Education reform as a governmental strategy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(4), 471–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Robbins, C. G., & Kovalchuk, S. (2012). Dangerous disciplines: Understanding pedagogies of punishment in the neoliberal states of America. Journal of Pedagogy, 3(2), 198–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sahlberg, P. (2011). The fourth way of Finland. Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Slee, R. (2014). Evolving theories of student disengagement: A new job for Durkheim’s children? Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 446–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stevenson, H. (n.d.). The “Datafication” of teaching. Can teachers speak back to the numbers? (in press).Google Scholar
  29. Stoller, A. (2015). Taylorism and the logic of learning outcomes. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(3), 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sugarman, J. (2015). Neoliberalism and psychological ethics. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 35(2), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Szulevicz, T. (2016). FAQ om uro (FAQ about disruptive behavior). København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
  32. Szulevicz, T. (n.d.). Psychologists in schools—What kind of marriage? (in press).Google Scholar
  33. Timimi, S. (2009). Why diagnosis of ADHD has increased so rapidly in the west: A cultural perspective. In S. Timimi & J. Leo (Eds.), Rethinking ADHD. From brain to culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vassallo, S. (2012). Critical Pedagogy and Neoliberalism: Concerns with Teaching Self-Regulated Learning. Studies in Philosophy and Education., 32(6), 563–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1929). The problem of the cultural development of the child. J. Genet. Psychol., 36, 415–434.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and PsychologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations