INFLUENCE OF SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY STYLES ON STUDENTS’
DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOURS AND MOTIVATION TO LEARN IN
OBOLLO-AFOR EDUCATION ZONE OF ENUGU STATE
BY
ANEKE, CHUKWUMA C
PG/M.ED/08/48409
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
SUPERVISOR: PROF. ELSIE C. UMEANO
APRIL, 2012
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Mean scores and standard deviations of school disciplinary styles
on students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours.
Table 2: Multiple regressing analysis of the influence of school disciplinary
styles on students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours (calculated
R, R Square and Adjusted R Square).
Table 3: Multiple regression analysis of school disciplinary styles on
students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours: F-test analysis.
Table 4: Multiple regression analysis of the influence of school disciplinary
styles on students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours:
Unstandardized and standardized coefficient t-test analysis.
Table 5: Mean scores and standard derivations of school disciplinary styles
on students’ motivation to learn.
Table 6: Multiple regression analysis of the influence of school disciplinary
styles on students’ motivation to learn (calculated R, R Square, and
Adjusted R Square).
Table 7: Multiple regression analysis of school disciplinary styles on
students’ motivation to learn: F-test analysis.
Table 8: Multiple regression analysis of the influence of school disciplinary
styles on students’ motivation to learn: Unstandardized and
standardized coefficient t-test analysis.
ABSTRACT
The study was carried out to investigate the influence of school disciplinary styles on students’ disruptive behaviours and motivation to learn. The study was guided by two research questions and four null hypotheses. The design of the study was ex-post-facto design. Purposive and simple random sampling techniques were respectively adopted to select 10 schools and draw sample of 400 SSII students. The instrument used for data collection was a questionnaire on disruptive behaviour and motivation to learn. Cronbach Alpha method was employed to ascertain the internal consistency coefficient of the instrument. Mean and standard deviation were used to answer the research questions and step-wise multiple regression analysis for testing the null hypothesis at 0.05 level of significance. The findings of the study showed that: the disciplinary styles have significant influence on students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours, with the influence of democratic and laissez faire styles being dominant; and also the disciplinary styles have significant influence on students’ motivation to learn with the influence of autocratic style being dominant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page-------------------------------------------------------------------------- i
Approval page -------------------------------------------------------------------- ii
Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iii
Dedication --------------------------------------------------------------------- iv
Acknowledgement ------------------------------------------------------------ v
Table of Contents ------------------------------------------------------------- vi
List of Tables ---------------------------------------------------------------------- vii
Abstract ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION------------------------------------------ - 1
Background of the Study------------------------------------------------------------- 1
Statement of Problem ---------------------------------------------------------------- 10
Purpose of the Study------------------------------------------------------------------ 12
Significance of the Study ------------------------------------------------------------ 12
Scope of the Study -------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
Research Questions ------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
Hypotheses ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Conceptual Framework -------------------------------------------------------------- 17
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concept of Motivation --------------------------------------------------------------- 17
Concept of Motivation to learn ----------------------------------------------------- 18
Concept of Disruptive Behaviour --------------------------------------------------- 19
Concept of Discipline ---------------------------------------------------------------- 22
Concept of Disciplinary style ------------------------------------------------------- 25
Relationship among disciplinary style, disruptive behaviour, and
motivation to learn -------------------------------------------------------------------- 31
Theoretical framework ------------------------------------------------------------- 33
Maslow’s theory of motivation ----------------------------------------------------- 33
Douglas McGregor’s theory X and theory Y of leadership --------------------- 34
Behaviour modification theory by skinner --------------------------------------- 35
Empirical Studies -------------------------------------------------------------------- 36
Studies on disciplinary styles in secondary schools ------------------------------ 36
Studies on common disruptive behaviours among secondary school students. 37
Studies on disciplinary styles and students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours. 38
Studies on disciplinary style and students’ motivation to learn ---------------- 39
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHOD
Design of the Study ------------------------------------------------------------------- 42
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area of the Study --------------------------------------------------------------------- 43
Population of the Study -------------------------------------------------------------- 43
Sample and Sampling Technique -------------------------------------------------- 44
Instrument for Data collection ------------------------------------------------------ 44
Validation of the Instrument--------------------------------------------------------- 45
Reliability of the Instrument -------------------------------------------------------- 46
Procedure for Data collection ------------------------------------------------------- 46
Method of Data analysis ------------------------------------------------------------- 46
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS
Research Question One ------------------------------------------------------ 48
Hypothesis One ---------------------------------------------------------------- 49
Hypothesis Two ------------------------------------------------------------ 50
Research Question Two ---------------------------------------------------- 51
Hypothesis Three ------------------------------------------------------------ 54
Hypothesis Four ------------------------------------------------------------ 56
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Summary of Findings -------------------------------------------------------- 58
Discussion of Findings ---------------------------------------------------- 59
Educational Implications --------------------------------------------------- 61
Limitations of the study --------------------------------------------------- 64
Suggestions for further studies -------------------------------------------- 65
Summary of the study --------------------------------------------------- 65
References
Appendices
A: Validated instrument
B: Reliability test
TITLE PAGE
INFLUENCE OF SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY STYLES ON STUDENTS’
DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOURS AND THEIR MOTIVATION TO LEARN
IN OBOLLO AFOR EDUCATIONAL ZONE OF ENUGU STATE
A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF DEGREE OF MASTER IN
EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS, UNIVERSITY
OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA.
BY
ANEKE, CHUKWUMA. C.
REG. NO: PG/M.ED/08/48409
APRIL, 2012
APPROVAL PAGE
This project has been approved by the Department of Educational Foundations,
Faculty of Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
BY
_________________________ _______________________ PROF. ELSIE C. UMEANO ASSO. PROF. J.C OMEJE Supervisor Internal Examiner ____________________ _________________________ PROF. G.C. UNACHUKWU PROF. I.C.S. IFELUNNI External Examiner Head of Department
_____________________________ PROF. S.A. EZEUDU
Dean of Faculty
CERTIFICATION
ANEKE CHUKWUMA C. is a postgraduate student in the Department of
Educational Foundations (Educational Psychology) with registration number
PG/M.ED/08/48409. He has satisfactorily completed the requirements for the
courses and research work for the award of Master in Education (M.ED). The
work embodied in this thesis is original and has not been submitted in part or in
full for any other Master Degree or Diploma in this university or any other
university.
_________________________ _________________________ ANEKE CHUKWUMA C. PROF. ELSIE C. UMEANO Student Supervisor PG/M.ED/08/48409
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my amiable wife Evelyn, and my daughters
Osinachi and Chinaemego.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher expresses profound gratitude to the Almighty God for
seeing him through this programme. His special thanks and regards go to his
supervisor Prof. Elsie C. Umeano who despite her tight schedules ensured that
this work was given thorough supervision. The researcher equally remains
indebted to his proposal defense committee members namely Dr. D. Ngwoke
(Chairman), Dr. Mrs. J. N. Igbo (Content Reader), Dr Mrs. J.T.U. Chiagha
(Design Reader) and the Departmental PG Co-ordinator Asso. Prof. J. Omeje.
He also thanks immensely his lecturers Prof. U.N Ezeh, Prof. A. Ali, and Prof
Ama Nwachukwu.
He sincerely thanks his amiable wife Evelyn, and his two daughters
Osinachi and Chinaemego. Their moral support, and the deprivations suffered
as the programme lasted are appreciated. May God bless them in a special way.
The researcher wishes to thank his mother Mrs. T. Aneke for her moral
support. May God the Almighty give her good health, peace of mind and long
life.
He also expresses his regards fro his brothers Chinedu and Kenechi, and
sisters Ijeoma and Chinyere. Their understanding and the various forms of
moral support are hereby appreciated. May God bless their endeavours and give
them good health.
The researcher cannot fail to recognise his course mates especially Adene
Friday, Alpheus, Offordile, Christopher, Ignatius, Fidelis and others. They were
good companions.
He finally thanks his friends namely Obeta K.C., Ezugwu Alphonsus,
Eze Emmanuel (MEZ), Eze Paulinus and Ugwu James. Their encouragement
was fantastic.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The process of being educated requires a high level of commitment on
the part of the learner. Motivation is a very important factor in the learner,
without which teaching and learning become difficult or fruitless, as the desired
objectives cannot be attained. To psychologists, motivation is a need or desire
that serves to energize and direct a behaviour towards a goal (Myers, 2007). A
good level of motivation makes one to channel all the efforts towards the
accomplishment of some foreseeable goals. When the student finds meaning in
things that go on in the school including of course the teaching and learning, the
urge or drive to learn are implanted. The urge or drive to learn which can
originate from within the learner or from without are attributes of motivation.
Mehta (2006) rightly indicated that a pre-condition of all good learning is an
urge from within and a clear picture of the goal outside. Succinctly put,
students’ motivation to learn is a factor which enhances the teaching and
learning process. According to Mark (1988) a student who is intrinsically
motivated undertakes an activity for it’s own sake, for the enjoyment it
provides, the learning it permits, or the feeling of accomplishment it evokes.
Students’ motivation to learn is a necessary condition for academic
success. Motivation to learn according to Ngwoke (1995) has to do with the
internal state or mental and psychological set in an individual which compels,
energizes, sustains, and directs the individual’s activity towards a goal.
According to Ames (1990) motivation to learn is characterized by long-term
quality involvement in learning and commitment to the process of learning.
For the purpose of this study, motivation to learn is an inner urge or
desire to make sustained effort towards the attainment of worthwhile
educational objectives. Effort geared towards ensuring that students see the
academic work and similar activities that go on in the school as being
meaningful or goal-oriented is a worthwhile one. It is important to note that
once children start school, they begin to form beliefs about their school-related
successes and failures. The sources to which children and even adolescents
attribute their successes and failures have important implications on how they
approach and cope with learning situations. In the opinion of Lumsden (1994)
school wide goals, policies and procedures interact with classroom climate and
practices to affirm or alter students’ increasingly complex learning related
attitudes and beliefs. A student who has a good level of motivation to learn
shows more commitment to the educational activities than the one who has no
motivation to learn. There is no doubt that success in any endeavour largely
depends on commitment which emanates from motivation.
The ugly situation in Nigerian secondary schools has been persistent
indifference on the part of students to learn. This has resulted in high level of
examination malpractices and the consequent poor performance of students in
such examination. To buttress this, Ikerionwu (2006) noted that results of eight
percent or 86,657 students who took the 2005 SSCE were withheld based on
well documented reports of cases of examination malpractice.
On a similar note, Igwesi (2008) noted that except for 1996, the number
of students who got involved in examination malpractice had been increasing
on a yearly basis. If secondary school students are motivated to learn, and
therefore, show commitment to their academic works, the ugly situation would
probably not exist. Observation from the trend of events in Nigerian Secondary
Schools show a high level of indifference on the part of most students regarding
their academic works. Raffini (1993) noted that a large number of students,
more than one out of every four, leave school before graduating, and many who
are present in the classroom are largely mentally absent, being that they fail to
invest themselves fully in the experiences of learning.
For one to make success in school, desirable or adaptive behaviours
ought to be exhibited. However, where there is persistent disruptive behaviours
amongst students in the school system, a cog is constituted in the attainment of
educational goals. A disruptive behaviour is that behaviour which does not
enhance the attainment of instructional objectives. According to Des in
Montgomery (1989) disruptive behaviour was defined as that which interferes
with the learning and opportunities of other pupils and imposes undue stress
upon the teacher. National Teachers’ Institute (2000) noted that disruptive
behaviours are those behaviours of children which are against school or class
routines, practices, and rules. The institute went further to indicate that the
behaviours disturb lesson and cause discipline problems in the class. According
to the institute, disruptive behaviours can be classified into two broad categories
namely: minor disruptive behaviours and major disruptive behaviours. Under
minor category include; inattention, lack of interest in class work, lateness to
school, being suggestible. The major ones include physical aggression (pushing
others, arguing and interrupting), moving or wandering around in class,
challenging of authority, talking aloud in the class, disobedience to teachers and
noise making. In their own perspective, Onyechi and Okere (2007) indicated
some of the disruptive behaviours to include: calling teachers provocative
nicknames, walking out on the teacher, noise making, sleeping in class,
pinching, aggression, vandalism, pilfering, lies, truancy, lateness,
irresponsibility, cheating, immorality, alcoholism, use of drugs, cultism, and
examination malpractices.
A student may misbehave at one time or the other but this misbehavior
cannot make such a student to be considered a disruptive student, if it is an isolated
event. Montgomery (1989) noted that it is when students’ misbehaviours create
problems for teachers and themselves; and when they begin to occur frequently
and pervade many areas of activity. Montgomery listed the following as
disruptive behaviours: attention seeking, continuous talking and muttering,
making annoying noises, lack of attention, poor concentration, distractibility,
shouting out, wandering about, snatching other students’ property, annoying
and distracting other students and teachers, provoking each other by name
calling, unpleasant comments, lack of interest and motivation to work.
For this study, disruptive behaviours are those behaviours which when
they are exhibited by students can interfere with the teaching and learning
process. Such behaviours include: noise making in class, lateness to school,
hatred for teachers, distracting others, interrupting the teacher, drinking alcohol,
being domineering, pushing, fighting others. Also included are use of hand set
in class, lack of interest, stealing, not having a locker and seat, engaging in
subject other than the one being discussed, attention seeking, staying outside the
class as lessons go on, sleeping in class, and malpractices in assessments. These
behaviours are obviously cases of indiscipline amongst students, and when they
are exhibited by pupils or students especially in the classroom interfere with the
instructional process. It takes the good observation of a teacher to know when a
student has started exhibiting one or more of these behaviours.
When disruptive behaviours become sustained among students they could
manifest in drop out from schools, frictions between students and authorities,
examination malpractices or poor performance in school. Onyechi and Okere
(2007) observed the existence of disruptive behaviours like calling teachers
provocative nicknames, walking out on teachers, noise making in class,
aggression, truancy, lateness and others among secondary school students.
Nwosu, (1997) and Okolo, (2003) equally observed the prevalence of disruptive
behaviours in Nigerian secondary schools. Eze and Umaru (2007), noted that in
Nigerian schools teachers believe they spend a disproportionate amount of time
dealing with behaviour problems compared with time spent on instruction and
academic activities. Montgomery (1992), noted clearly that disruption and other
associated behaviour problems seem to be on the increase particularly in some
schools. According to him this increase seems to be associated with a
curriculum which emphasizes academic competition, places little value on non-
academic pursuits or individual needs and aspirations, streams its students in
this setting, imposes a heavy and inflexible code of school rules, and fails to
involve students and staff in corporate development. In line with these
observations, Bolarin (1996) indicated that the effects of such disruptive
behaviours is remarkably felt in the adolescent academic achievement as it
manifests in constant poor grades in class and repetition of classes. The
situation affects both boys and girls.
Eliminating the disruptive behaviours helps in enhancing students’
disposition to focus on their academic work. Montgomery (1989) noted that
because students come to be regarded by teachers or the school as being
disruptive, it is usual for such students to be regarded as owners of such
problems and for discipline and correction to be directed towards such students
with disruptive behaviours. Such instrument is not only directed at students
with disruptive behaviours but generally to maintain an orderly, purposeful and
stable system.
In order to facilitate the attainment of educational objectives, discipline
amongst student is very necessary. School discipline is the system of rules,
punishments, and behaviour strategies appropriate to the regulation of children
and maintenance of order in schools (Arum, 2003). Jordan in Nkomo (2010)
simply puts discipline to mean teaching a child those behaviours that are
acceptable and what behaviours are not acceptable.
For this study, school discipline entails the externally imposed and self-
generated conducts that produce orderliness in behaviour and enhance the
attainment of educational goals. Hall in Myers (2007) made it clear that
unrestrained freedom for students should never be tolerated. He was of the
opinion that students must be ever mindful that reasonable measures of control
have been established by the school to preserve both the freedom of the
individual and that of the group.
The school is always concerned with appropriate adolescent behaviours
that will protect the rights of the group as well as those of the individual
(William, 1984). Large proportion of failure results from a teacher’s inability to
maintain good class discipline. Children’s Aid Society in Nkomo (2010) made
it clear that discipline involves the following; the process of education,
guidance and learning to help children develop self control; is characterized by
mutual respect and trust; and aims at development of internal controls that helps
the child relate to others in a positive and responsible way. The teacher has the
primary responsibility of maintaining school discipline and the principal has the
obligation to support the teacher and assist him in maintaining order in the
school.
Sequel to the need for discipline in secondary schools, one ought to be
bothered about the kind of discipline existing in a school and the results that
emanate from the approach adopted, in terms of whether it enhances students’
motivation to learn or not, and also if it helps to reduce or increase students’
disruptive behaviours. The importance becomes immense considering the fact
that motivation and emotion are related concepts. According to Zurbriggen and
Sturwan (2002) emotion and motivation are often intertwined as motivation
can cause emotion, while emotion can cause motivation. Both motivation and
emotion are expressed in behaviour. Unpleasant emotions such as fear and
anger are usually powerful, and they exert a lot of influence on behaviour. If for
example, a student is severely punished, it can cause the generation of a
negative emotion in the child such as fear which in-turn will affect the
behaviour, and probably the motivation to learn. It is clear that emotions,
whether pleasant or not can trigger off certain types of behaviours in students.
When students probably as a result of certain negative emotions or some other
factors, develop and adopt behaviours which are capable of impeding their
learning, such behaviour can be termed disruptives behaviour. Apparently, there
are different approaches to put discipline in place in a school.
Shankar (2006) summarized the approaches as the authoritarian, the
democratic, and the Laissez-faire types. The authority of a school normally
adopts the approach which they deem suitable for achieving discipline in the
school. By the disciplinary style, the researcher means the approach which the
school authority deems suitable and adopts to maintain discipline in the school.
The critical issue here is how the students perceive the disciplinary style with
regard to whether they see it as being the autocratic type, the democratic type,
or the Laissez-faire type. The need arises considering the nature or character of
students in the area of study who are disposed to indiscipline. If parents do not
devote time to inculcate the spirit of discipline in their children, disciplinary
problems develop right from homes. Where parents spend most hours of the day
carrying on their businesses or other activities as observed in the area under
study, there cannot be adequate time to stay with the children, which would
enhance the imparting of discipline. The situation is not helped by the seeming
financial autonomy which many students do have. A good number of the
students make little incomes through some means e.g barrow pushing.
Consequently, such students develop feeling of independence. The feeling of
independence arises from parents’ failure to impart discipline on their children
at home, coupled with the seeming financial autonomy such children or
adolescents have. When students feel that they are independent, imparting
discipline on them always poses problems with regards to their behaviours and
motivation to learn
Observation and interviews made by the researcher in some secondary
schools indicate that the use of punishment especially the corporal type to
impart discipline has continued to be the practice. The use of cane is a very
common phenomenon, often with the intent to get the students change
undesirable behaviours. For the students who feel they are independent starting
from home, the fact remains whether the approach has been able to achieve the
desired results in them or whether the approach has been resulting in disruptive
behaviours and lack of motivation to learn. It is worthy to note that the
disciplinary style of a school is a product of whichever of the different
approaches adopted to maintain discipline. The subtle matter of concern is then,
the influence students’ perception of each of these approaches in place
(disciplinary style) can have on the students’ disruptive behaviours and their
motivation to learn.
Statement of Problem
The rate of disruptive behaviours exhibited by secondary school students has
continued to be on the increase with the attendant negative consequences.
Coupled with this phenomenon is students’ lack of commitment to academic
work or display of lack of motivation to learn. The aims of education cannot be
attained under conditions where students persistently exhibit disruptive
behaviours and do not show commitment to their academic activities. The high
rate of examination malpractices and poor performances of students could be
largely attributed to lack of motivation to learn on the part of students.
On another note, many parents do not have time to impart discipline in their
children. To worsen the matter, such children have one way or the other to
make little incomes that make them have a feeling of independence. Such
feeling results in students’ display of undisciplined behaviours at school.
Discipline ought to be maintained in the school, as a state of indiscipline can
never allow for the attainment of educational objectives. However, the style of
discipline must be such that encourages students’ display of desirable
behaviours and motivation to learn. In line with students’ predisposition to
indiscipline and a feeling of independence, the salient issue is the students’
perception of the style of discipline in the school, with regard to whether the
style is perceived as being autocratic, democratic, or laissez-faire. There is
paucity of work on the influence of the style of discipline in a secondary school
on students’ disruptive behaviours and also students’ motivation to learn
especially in Obollo-Afor Educational Zone of Enugu State. The problem of
this study posed as question therefore is. “What influence does the students’
perception of the disciplinary style in their school have on their exhibition of
disruptive behaviours and also their motivation to learn”?
Purpose of the Study
The general purpose of this study is to ascertain the influence which the
disciplinary style in a secondary school has on the students’ disruptive
behaviours and their motivation to learn. Specifically, the researcher is
interested in:
- Ascertaining the influence which the styles discipline have on
students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours.
- Ascertaining the influence which the styles of discipline have on
students’ motivation to learn.
Significance of the Study
The findings of this study will be beneficial to the students, parents, the
society at large and the educational system. This is based on the various
contributions the findings will make.
Theoretically, the findings will help to lay credence to and strengthen
Maslow’s theory of motivation in his hierarchy of needs. Students’ perception
of the tone of discipline as being friendly would create a feeling of safety in the
students which in turn could propel them into more efforts to learn. The same
thing is applicable to the theory of behaviour modification as is applicable in
correcting disruptive behaviour problems. The influence of teachers’
orientation to Douglas McGregor’s theory X or theory Y in their approach to
discipline is also highlighted.
The findings will assist schools to know what type of disciplinary
approach to put in place for the good running of the school. When the school
authorities know and adopt good disciplinary measures, it is hoped that
meaningful results are definite to be achieved in terms of better students’
behaviours. A properly disciplined and well behaved student is of course an
asset to the parents and the society.
The findings will be helpful to students. If the right style of discipline is
put in place, students will feel happy and safe in the school. Most students as a
consequence would see the school as a friendly and purposeful place and be
ready to show interest and commitment to the educational activities which go
on in the school, including of course the teaching and learning. There will be
improved students’ behaviours and also they will be willing to show more
commitment to their school or academic works.
The findings will equally help schools to eliminate those disciplinary
approaches that could lead to disruptive behaviours in students, and total lack of
interest in the educational activities of the school. Teachers will therefore
experience less stress in the instructional process the likelihood of the
attainment of the instructional objective will be very high. Also clashes
between the school authorities which often emanate from students disruptive
behaviours will be reduced to a minimal level.
On another note, the findings will assist educational planners in making
decisions regarding the disciplinary practices in secondary schools that would
enhance good students’ conduct and academic performance. Further researchers
will equally find the work useful in studying the probable critical relationship
between disruptive behaviours amongst students and poor academic
performance in schools.
Scope of the Study
The study is focused on ascertaining the disciplinary styles in schools. In
other words, whether it is perceived by the students as being democratic,
autocratic, or laissez faire.
The study then went on investigate the influence the disciplinary styles
have on students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours and their motivation to
learn. The study covered only public secondary schools in Obollo-Afor
Educational Zone of Enugu State. Students of SSII who are deemed to have
gathered substantial experience of activities in the school were used for the
study.
Research Questions
The following questions are intended to be answered in course of this
study:
- What influence do the disciplinary styles in secondary schools namely
autocratic, democratic, and laissez faire styles have on students’
exhibition of disruptive behaviours.?
- What influence do the disciplinary styles in secondary schools have on
students’ motivation to learn?
Hypotheses 1:
Four Null hypotheses were formulated which will serve as a guide to this
study. These were tested at P0.05 level of significance.
HO1: The influence of school disciplinary styles on students’ exhibition of
disruptive behaviours will not be significant.
HO2: The influence of school disciplinary styles namely autocratic, democratic,
and laissez faire styles on students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours
will not differ significantly.
HO3: The influence of school disciplinary styles on students’ motivation to
learn will not be significant.
HO4: The influence of school disciplinary styles namely autocratic, democratic
and laissez faire styles on students’ motivation to learn will not differ
significantly.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter presents a review of literature related to the present study.
The review is done under four broad headings which include conceptual
framework, theoretical framework, empirical studies and summary.
Conceptual Framework
Concept of Motivation
Concept of Motivation to learn
Concept of Discipline
Concept of Disciplinary Styles
Concept of Disruptive Behaviour
Relationship among disciplinary style, disruptive behaviour, and
motivation to learn.
Theoretical Framework
Maslow’s theory of motivation Douglas McGregor’s theory X and theory Y of leadership
Behaviour modification theory by Skinner.
Empirical Studies
Studies on disciplinary styles in secondary schools
Studies on common disruptive behaviours among secondary school
students.
Studies on disciplinary approach and students’ exhibition of disruptive
behaviours.
Studies on disciplinary styles and students’ motivation to learn.
Conceptual Framework
Concept of Motivation
Anything which moves an individual to action may be described as a
motive. Motives are the needs, wants, interests, and desires that propel people
in certain directions. Wayne (2007), noted that motivation involves goal-
directed behaviour. According to Harackiewicz (1997), motivation is the
driving force behind all the actions of an individual. Wayne pointed out the
drive and incentive models of motivation. He indicated that drive theories
emphasize how internal states of tension push people in certain directions while
incentive theories emphasize how external stimuli push people in certain
directions. For the drive theories, the source of motivation lies within the
organism, while for the incentive theories, the source of motivation lies outside
the organism in the environment. Motivation is seen here to be a function of
both drive theories and incentive theories. This is because factors in the
environment such as the approach to discipline can make or mar the motivation
generated by the internal states of tension.
Motivation is a hypothetical concept and we infer it from the behaviour
we observe. Baron (1997) opined that motivation refers to the dynamics of our
behaviour which involves our needs and ambitions in life. In the view of
Ngwoke (1995) “motivation explains why some persons who can afford the
luxury of doing no work choose not just to stay alive, eat, sleep and grow like
vegetables but rather to work for self competence”. Motivation can also be low,
moderate, or high, each achieving different results. Low motivation is a poor
level of motivation which could only result in very little or no achievement or
performance. Moderate motivation is a good level of motivation that enhances
goal directed behaviour and sustained effort of an individual until result is
achieved. A very high level of motivation normally boarders on anxiety and is
not associated with achievement of desired goals. Motivation can be extrinsic or
intrinsic. Bulter (1999) observed that intrinsic motivation is defined as striving
to engage in activity because of self satisfaction. A student who is intrinsically
motivated undertakes an activity “for its own sake, for the enjoyment it
provides, the learning it permits, or the feelings of accomplishment it evokes”
(Lepper, 1988). He equally made it clear that an extrinsically motivated student
performs “in order to obtain some rewards or avoid some punishment external
to the activity itself”.
Concept of motivation to learn
Motivation to learn is an important factor in any students’ success.
Hermine in Brophy (1986) defined the term motivation to learn as “the
meaningfulness, value, and benefits of academic tasks to the learner –
regardless of whether or not they are intrinsically interesting”, Mehta (2006)
saw motivation in education as inculcating and stimulating interest in studies
and other such activities in students’. It involves the understanding and use of
natural urges of the student and also assisting him in acquiring new desirable
motives. According to Brophy (1987) motivation to learn is a competence
acquired through general experience but stimulated most directly through
modeling, communication of expectations, and direct instruction or
socialization by significant others (especially parents and teachers). The
organization of the school can have a direct influence on students’ motivation to
learn. Such organization includes amongst other things the style of discipline in
the school. Downey and Kelly (1984) noted that the organization of the school
can have a further though indirect effect on students’ motivation.
Teachers can reinforce the poor opinion a student has of himself, but
fortunately they can also help to reverse this opinion and to create in the student
a more positive view of himself and his capacities (Downey in Downey and
Kelly, 1984). Mehta (2006) made it clear that the interaction of an individual
with his environment provides a constant source of modification of his old
motives and acquisition of new ones. He went further to explain that by
providing suitable and adequate environmental conditions at home and school
(for example a proper style of discipline), the student can be motivated to do his
best. It here implies that a good approach to discipline could create a favourable
atmosphere that would enhance students’ motivation to learn.
Concept of disruptive Behaviour
The behaviour of students in the school especially in the classroom is one
of the determinants of success in the school. Inappropriate behaviours can mar
the purpose of education especially when such behaviours become sustained.
According to Montgomery (1989) disruptive behaviours are those misbehavior
which prevent the teacher from teaching and the learner from learning. He went
further to indicate that teachers tend to centre on those problems which interrupt
them and their teaching, but it is worthy also to include those which prevent the
students from learning because, in the end, they will hamper the teaching
process. He indicated that included are those behaviours which hamper the
teaching process and prevent the students from learning. It is important to note
here that disruptive behaviours affect not only the teacher’s effectiveness but
also the students’ learning. Des in Montgomery (1989) defined disruptive
behaviour as that which interferes with the learning and opportunities of other
students’ and imposes undue stress upon the teacher. Disruptive behaviours are
counter productive in nature and they impede the instructional process in the
classroom.
Disruptive behaviour do not just begin to occur as any behaviour
exhibited always has a stimulus behind it. Pringle (1973) linked violent and
disruptive behaviour with a curriculum which placed too little emphasis on
individual, non-academic achievement and too much on competition. Pringle
also indicated that a heavy and inflexible use of school rules was linked with
bad behaviour. Hargreaves in Montgomery (1992) noted that disruptive
behaviour seem to be associated with a curriculum which emphasizes academic
competition, places little value on non-academic pursuits or individual needs
and aspirations, imposes a heavy and inflexible code of school rules, and fails
to involve students’ and staff in corporate development. This could be summed
up as inappropriate curriculum and bad management. Montgomery (1992) on
his own part noted that the more boring the lessons are, the more likely the
students will feel alienated and need to seek other forms of excitement through
disruption. He went further indicating that a bad or disruptive behaviour can
have an origin in the social context outside school and may also arise from
bullying, harassment and oppression from peers or teachers within schools and
it may arise in response to the curriculum task.
Umeano (2007) observed that poor pedagogical communication manifest
in students’ exhibiting uncivil or unruly behaviours. In his opinion Eze (2009)
noted that the physical and psychological environment of the classroom, the
characteristics of the teacher and the nature and needs of the students influence
classroom behaviour. A teacher who fails to prepare his lessons, or who teaches
without students’ learning is a source of disruptive behaviour. In line with this,
Okoli (1997) noted that teachers who adopt methods of teaching which cannot
elicit satisfaction in students make them hate the teachers, hate the subjects,
consequently fail and repeat classes. Denga (1982) noted that “when
institutional leadership is indifferent to the needs and aspirations of students, a
situation is easily created whereby administration becomes invisible in the
minds of the students. In the view of Johnson (1979) much of the blame is on
the school in the sense that the school is the setting where frustrations are most
sharply felt. He opined that successful completion of school career serves as a
bedrock for economic success in adulthood as well as immediate success in the
adolescent social world. He consequently observed that negative experiences in
school produce a lowering of expectations, a heightened sense of stress, and the
consequent projection into disruptive activities. William (1984) identified many
environmental factors that lead to student misconduct to include poor
curriculum, oversized classes, inadequate supervision of non-class activities,
inexperienced teachers, lack of administrative supports, and school and
community indifferences to maintaining good standards of conduct. The
curriculum and factors in the environment such as the disciplinary style
(imposition of rigid rules) are seen to be linked with disruptive behaviours
which students’ exhibit.
Concept of Discipline
Discipline is a very important issue in any society. Shankar (2006) put it
explicitly that all events of living beings, in fact all cosmic events, are regulated
and controlled by certain rules and regulations or natural laws. He noted further
that if every human being were free to follow the momentary words and
impulses or self-made rules, there would be confusion and anarchy. To him,
unchecked and complete freedom is not in the interest or the good of the
individual himself or the society. According to Children’s Aid Society (CAS
2006) discipline covers all methods used to train and teach children self control
and socially acceptable behaviour.
Discipline is a personality construct which can be recognized through
some overt behaviour such as honesty, self control, punctuality to school,
respect for constituted authority and others. It requires an individual’s attempt
to subordinate his immediate wishes, impulses, desires and interest for the sake
of an ideal or for the purpose of gaining more effective dependable action that
could be in line with societal or school norms.
Igwe (1990) defines discipline in the context of the school system and
sees it as the socially approved training which pupils and students should be
made to acquire during the transitional period from childhood to adulthood
through adolescence. According to him, this training is essentially to prepare
them for the roles which they are expected to play as the adult members of their
communities. Ezeocha (1995) viewed discipline to be synonymous with order
and self-control; that is, “as a system of controls and as a process of healthy
character functioning”. He therefore, defined discipline as a process by which
school children are enabled to develop an acceptable personality through such
democratic methods as rational, non-arbitrary and non-threatening strategies.
The opinion of Shankar (2006) is that really speaking, discipline is not an
imposition of self emanating rules and regulations in the following of which the
true nature of the individual manifests itself and one becomes his best self. To
him true discipline really means self discipline and it is for the individual to
acquire knowledge, habits, interests and ideals which conduce to his well being,
that of his fellow beings and that of the society as a whole.
Shankar (2006) emphasized that the object of discipline in school is to
train the child in those virtues, sentiments and habits which fit him to be a good
citizen and a good man so that he loves and does things which society values
most and without which society disintegrates. William (1984) noted that some
administrators view the goal of discipline as self-discipline; some, as designing
“learning situations which develop acceptable behaviour”, and others, as a
means of “enforcing behaviour acceptable to school authorities. Arum (2003)
pointed out that the aim of school discipline is ostensibly, to create a safe and
conducive learning environment in the classroom.
Disciplinary techniques ought to be well packaged otherwise the
approach to discipline may produce unintended results. To this end Nkomo
(2010) emphasized that discipline does not inflict physical or psychological
harm to the child or student.
Coloroso (2001) observed the following as basic facts of good discipline:
It is not punishment; discipline teaches; it is not a power struggle; it never involves physical violence or threats of violence; it does not involve insulting or demeaning comments; it does not involve anger and over reactions; it uses clear expectations, clear consequences and consistence enforcement; it is neither permissive nor punitive; and also it solves problems.
Snowman (1993) emphasized that though negative consequences for
misbehavior can be applied, those that might cause psychological or physical
harm have to be avoided. Also Hyman and D'Alessandro in Snowman (1993)
pointed out that many feel that discipline, meaning the willingness to behave
consistently in desired ways – is best developed through fear of punishment.
Their alternative point of view holds that discipline is the result of internal
controls and is best learned through approaches that enhance self-esteem and
encourage co-operation. It is very necessary that considering the various views
of what good discipline should be, the school authorities who package
discipline have to be cautious of the nature of such disciplinary approach. Any
approach which could result to physical or psychological harm on the students
may increase the strength of undesirable behaviours and equally dampen
students’ desire or urge to learn.
Concept of Disciplinary styles
Disciplinary style is the method adopted in a school to maintain
discipline among students. A number of approaches to discipline exist based on
the conception of various scholars. Shankar (2006) identified three basic
approaches namely the authoritarian, the laissez-faire and the democratic
approaches. Arubayi (1984) identified what he termed the most popular four out
of other approaches which classroom teachers can adopt to establish control and
maintain discipline. These include; the iron-handed approach, diagnostic
approach, the freedom approach, and the educational engineering approach.
Some scholars also categorize the styles into authoritarian, authoritative,
neglectful, and indulgent styles. The last two (neglectful and indulgent) are seen
as being permissive in nature.
Shanker (2006) saw the authoritarian approach as being in line with
training the students’ for obedience with the help of a rod or whip such that the
arbitrary will of the teacher and outside force prevailed. He observed that under
such authoritarian instruction in schools no abiding and permanent gains
resulted. The teacher did not touch the inner springs of conduct and he at best
only treated the symptom and not the disease. In line with the authoritarian style
is the iron-handed approach by Arubayi (1984). This relies heavily on use of
force and also the assumption that the students are inherently disposed to
exhibiting inappropriate behaviours. Adherents of this system continuously
threaten, ridicule, embarrass, and use the cane on students regularly. Mudrey in
Onyegbule (1991) noted that it does not work, being because according to him,
when students are treated like convicts, they learn to act like convicts since their
action is a reflection of their treatment. Also Carnot (1973) remarked that a
child becomes apathetic, timid, hostile or rebellious if discipline is harsh and
punitive. Psychologists like Larke and Mckenzie (1970) pointed out the
emotional side effect elicited by punishment such as anxiety and fear. They
equally identified the social outcome of punishment which takes the form of
aggression. Ozigi (1981) discourages the use of punishment as a means of
effecting discipline. To him students’ should be encouraged to cultivate the
habit of self-discipline rather than use of authoritarian methods of controlling
their behaviours. Use of force and forms of physical or punitive methods may
only work to some extent, at least, for a time but it is a disciplinary measure
based on fear. Once the source of fear is removed or students’ become used to
it, the externally imposed punishment rather than serve as a corrective measure
will produce only negative results.
Not minding the number of those who condemn the use of punishment–
an authoritarian or iron-handed approach, there are still some traditionalists who
advocate it’s use. These traditionalists go by the dictum “spare the rod and spoil
the child. According to Obioha (1979) “punishment is valid even if a necessary
evil”. He advocates that punishment, when necessary, must be positively
directed and in direct proportion and relationship with the offence. Similarly
Ajayi (1984) contended that children nowadays need to be handled with an iron
hand. They should be scolded and caned when occasion demands it. According
to him, punishments are to reform not to kill.
Snowman (1993) equally pointed out that punishment does not
permanently eliminate undesirable behaviour but at best suppresses them
temporarily. He noted that punished behaviours may continue to occur when the
punisher is not present, and also that punishment may actually increase the
strength of undesirable behaviour and produce undesirable emotional side
effects. Skiba and Peterson (2000) made it clear that harsh and punitive
disciplinary strategies have not proven sufficient to foster a school climate that
can prevent the occurrence of school violence. In their view, a broader
perspective, stressing early identification, comprehensive planning, prevention,
and instruction in important social skills is necessary if schools are to prevent
the tragedies that happen too often in our schools.
Shankar (2006) equally noted that the laissez faire approach was adopted
from Montessori who believed that children should be left to themselves
without being interfered with by the teacher. The laissez faire style by Shankar
corresponds with the permissive style as conceptualized by some scholars. Eze
(2009) noted that the permissive teacher permits considerable autonomy with
little or no monitoring of students’ activities. This style also has the
characteristics of the freedom approach by Arubayi (1984). An assumption here
is that students are mature enough to exercise self-discipline and thus can
decipher right from wrong. It is equally believed here that a peaceful
environment will exist in the classroom only if the curriculum applies to the
immediate environment of the students. Misbehaviour is therefore, caused by
the fact that the subject matter is not relevant to the students to whom it is being
taught.
The main purpose of the freedom approach is to encourage the
students’ to bear the responsibility for his own behaviour and to avoid the
possible psychological damage which many psychologists have attributed to
inhibition caused by repression. Shankar (2006) condemned this approach by
emphasizing that there should be no such thing as absolute freedom and
unqualified self expression. According to him such a practice of complete
freedom to the youngsters led to chaotic conditions; juvenile lawlessness and
increase in crime.
Shankar (2006) saw the democratic style as a synthesis of the
authoritarian and Laissez faire approaches. Under such a synthesis the students
and the teacher, the educand and the educator are partners and co-workers. In
such a democratic setting as emphasized by John Dewey, opportunities are
provided for all round development and the tasks are carried out at the students’
own desire in cooperative participation. In the democratic style according to
Shankar the teacher does not assume absolute authority of a despot but rather is
a participant and co-worker with the students in the common task. He indicated
that the democratic treatment of students makes them responsible persons with
self confidence, emotional stability and sense of security. Contributions are
made both by the teachers and students who equally mix together freely. The
authoritative style of discipline has some attributes of the democratic approach.
In the authoritative style students are encouraged to be independent but still
limits and controls are placed on their actions. There is extensive verbal give-
and –take between the teacher and students. Students are seen to be self –
reliant and socially responsible. According to Eze (2009) authoritative teachers
set appropriate limits and effectively monitor the students’ activities. He
indicated that standards are set, and rules and regulations made with the input of
the students taken into consideration.
Also related to Shankar’s democratic style is the diagnostic approach by
Arubayi (1984). This approach apart from suggesting practical approaches
which help to reduce deviant or disruptive behaviour, it attempts also to gather
relevant information about the student which when carefully analysed, will help
reveal the main cause of the discipline problem. Mouly (1967) noted that on
dealing with misbehavior, the task of the school in connection with discipline is
not so much a curbing of misbehaviour , as it is of promoting constructive and
positive behaviours. He was of the opinion that teachers’ approach should be
positive, that he (the teacher) must first convince himself that the students’
misbehaviour sterns from a need and that a diagnostic approach, while taking a
little longer, generally accomplishes a great deal more than repressive and
punitive measures.
In another view, while writing on non-violent techniques of discipline,
Nkomo (2010) suggested such techniques as soft verbal reproofs or social
isolation in addition to the persistent use of rewards (as love, praise and
attention by teachers). He equally suggested non-violent punishment such as
extinction, distractions, and rewarding appropriate behaviour. This style is in
line with the educational engineering approach by Arubayi (1984) which he
indicated is sometimes referred to as behaviour modification. These non-violent
techniques of discipline and educational engineering style are anchored in the
restructuring of human behaviour from inappropriate to appropriate behaviour.
Use of rewards rather than punishment is the main instrument of behaviour
modification approach. The rewards are either negative or positive depending
on the nature of the behaviour. The teacher as a positive reinforcer, brings about
an increase in the rate of a behaviour pattern. Negative reinforcement, on the
other hand, is a stimulus which through its withdrawal from a situation will
bring about an increase in the rate of a behaviour pattern. Akinboye in
Onyegbule (1995) condemns this approach nothing that a teacher who practices
this approach deals with the symptoms of the discipline problem rather than the
cause. However, Nkomo (2010) suggested that behaviour modification
techniques for classroom control can be effectively utilized by school officials
as such techniques are non-violent.
Relationship among disciplinary style, motivation and disruptive problem
behaviour
Mehta (2006) pointed out that provision of motives in school would
depend upon a number of factors. The educational measures and techniques
which he wrote may prove very useful in creating motivation and conditions of
good learning amongst others include rewards and punishments, and better
teacher-students relationship. He noted that providing suitable and adequate
environmental conditions at home and school motivates the child to do his best.
Lumsden (1994) on a similar note explained that classroom climate is
important, noting that if students experience the classroom as a caring,
supportive place where there is a sense of belonging and everyone is valued and
respected, they will tend to participate more fully in the process of learning.
Proper disciplinary style no doubt helps in fostering or contribution to a
favourable environment or climates that enhance motivation to learn.
According to Bandura (1974), as a child observed others engage in norm-
violation without being punished the tendency of the disruptive behaviour
would increase. This opinion espouses what happens under a laissez-faire
approach to discipline.
In the view of Pringle (1973), a heavy and inflexible use of school rules
was linked with bad behaviour amongst students. Hargreaves (1984) similarly
believes disruptive behaviour among students is a product of an over-academic
curriculum and too rigid disciplinary techniques.
Theoretical Framework
(i) Maslow’s theory of Motivation (1908 – 1970): Abraham Maslow identified five potent needs of man. These needs are
rated in their order of urgency starting from the lowest and upwards. According
to him, the needs are physiological needs, safety needs, love and affection
needs, self-esteem and self-actualization needs. These are grouped into
deficiency needs and higher level or being needs. The needs that are mostly
significant in this study are the safety needs, love and affection needs, and self-
esteem needs.
The security and safety needs represent man’s desire to be free from
danger in the present and in the future. Included here are self preservation,
protection against bodily harm, danger, environmental harzards, loss of
employment, and lack of fair treatment. It is important to note that according to
the theory, the learning environment can threaten the learner’s safety
physically. This is especially when there is arbitrary use of corporal punishment
on students by the school authorities. When students perceive lack of safety in
the school it could in turn lead to low or apparently no motivation.
The love and belongingness need represent the desire of human beings to
belong, to be accepted, to be liked, and to be respected by their friends. It calls
for interpersonal communication, needs of belonging, control and affection.
Accordingly, the learning environment should not in any way make the student
appear as a stranger or an unimportant person in the classroom.
Self-esteem has to do with the worth of the individual. It focuses on the
desire for a stable and positive self-concept which others have to support. This
is the ego need which propels one to prove ones’ worth in terms of self–respect
, positive image, equal or superior to others and personality traits. Students who
have favorable and realistic self-concept or self worth set realistic and attainable
goals. The point here is that the kind of discipline meted out to a student can
have a profound effect on the student’s self-concept and can thus make for or
mar motivation to learn.
(ii) Douglas McGregor’s theory X and theory Y (1906 – 1964):
McGregor perceives of the managers leadership style as being closely
associated with his/her fundamental beliefs about human beings. Cunningham
and cordiro in Nwankwo (2007) highlighted two contradictory views of human
behaviour – theory X and theory Y as postulated by McGregor.
Some of the basic assumptions of theory X include:
i. The average man is by nature indolent; he works as little as possible and
as such must be coerced, controlled or threatened with punishment to
achieve goals.
ii. He lacks ambition, dislikes responsibility and prefers to be led, and others.
Some of the basic assumptions of theory Y include:
i. The motivation, the potential for development, the capacity for assuming
responsibility, the readiness to direct behaviour towards organizational
goals are all present in people.
ii. The average human being does not inherently hate work.
iii. External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means of
bringing about organizational objectives. Man will exercise self-direction
and self control in the service of objectives to which he is committed, and
others.
The fact is that the theory X manager has a negative view of human
being’s nature while the theory Y manager has a positive perception. The
relevance of this theory lies in the fact that the teacher who has theory X
oritentation is bound to be autocratic in effecting discipline on students. On the
other hand, a teacher who has theory Y orientation will tend to approach
discipline in a more open manner. However, a point in the middle of the two
theories may seem to be a better approach to discipline.
(iii) Behaviour Modification Theories by Skinner (1953)
Behaviour modification involves the systematic approach to changing
behaviour through the application of the principles of classical and operant
conditioning. Here behaviour is seen to be mainly a product of learning,
conditioning, and environmental control. The implication here is that what is
learned can be unlearned. Therefore, people can be “reconditioned” to produce
more desirable and effective patterns of behaviour.
The notion here is that students with disruptive behaviour can have their
behaviours turned around or changed through the conditioning process. The
effective application of this principle is seen to be very helpful in changing
undesirable behaviours. A number of behaviour modification techniques
derived from conditioning theories exist. Such include proximity control, time
out, ear shooting, separation, and including others. Reinforcement antecedents
play important roles in behaviour modification.
Empirical Studies
Some studies have been done in the area of approaches to discipline in
schools, students’ disruptive behaviours and also students’ motivation to learn.
However, there is dearth of literature related to influence of secondary schools’
disciplinary style on students’ disruptive behaviour and their motivation to learn
in Obollo-Afor Educational Zone of Enugu State of Nigeria.
Studies on disciplinary styles in secondary schools
Ude (1990) investigated on disruptive behaviours encountered by
teachers among secondary school students in Udi Local Government Area. He
made use of questionnaire to collect data from a sample of 140 teachers and
analysed the data using percentages, mean, and t-test. The researcher found out
that the teachers favoured negative corrective measures for most of the
disruptive behaviours. He indicated the negative measures to include scolding,
corporal punishment and sending the student away from the class.
Ohemu (1991) carried out a study on effectiveness of principals’ control
measures on post-primary students’ indiscipline: a case study of Okpokwu
L.G.A of Benue state. The researcher made use of 200 teachers and collected
data with questionnaire. Percentages were used to analyse the data. The finding
indicated that corporal punishment, hard labour, suspension and expulsion
orders were widely used as correction measures against indiscipline. These
measures were however found not to have deterrent effects on students’
indiscipline.
Studies on common disruptive behaviours among secondary school
students
Ude (1990), while investigating on disruptive behaviours encountered by
teachers among secondary school students in Udi Local Government Area made
use of questionnaire to collect data from a sample of 140 teachers. He analyzed
the data using percentages, mean, and t-test. His study indicated that the most
frequent disruptive behaviours encountered by teachers include: bullying,
truancy, stealing, cheating in test, fighting fellow students, noise making,
gossiping, telling lies, frequent loitering, disrespect for authorities, rudeness,
lateness to school, failure to do home work, improper dressing.
Eke (1997) investigated on causes of students’deviant behaviours in
secondary schools in Ngor-Okpala L.G.A in Imo state: implications for
counseling. She used a sample of 300 students and used questionnaire to collect
data. Mean was used to answer research questions and Chi-Square (x2) was
used to test the hypotheses. Her study identified the following as the prevalent
disruptive behaviours: violence to fellow students, truancy, cheating in
examinations, gross disobedience, writing on the walls, noise making,
gossiping, and careless use of money.
Studies on disciplinary styles and students’ exhibition of disruptive
behaviours
Nzulumike (2000) carried out a study titled philosophical analysis of
indiscipline in secondary schools in Nsukka Zone. His sample was made up of
312 teachers and 588 students. The researcher made use of questionnaire to
collect data. Mean and standard deviation were used to answer the research
questions and t–test was used for testing the hypotheses. His finding showed
that the ready resort to unconvincing punishments by teachers is one of the
major causes of undisciplined behaviour among students.
Onah (1990) carried out a study on factors related to students’ unrest in
secondary schools in Nsukka Education Zone; implication for guidance and
counseling. He made use of interview and questionnaire to collect data from
sample of students from 78 secondary schools. He analysed his data using
percentages and t-test. His findings indicated that the principal’s autocratic
administrative style is one of the major causes of students’ unrest.
Ejionueme (2004) studied strategies for curbing disciplinary problems of
students in Nsukka Zone of Enugu State. Using a student population of three
hundred and fifty (350), he was able to find out among other things that lack of
clear rules of behaviour, school environment not being conducive for learning;
and excessive application of punishment for correcting misbehaviour as causes
of bad behaviour among schooling adolescents.
Studies on disciplinary styles and students’ motivation to learn.
Chiejina (1991) carried a study on students’ perception of the factors
contributing to truancy among secondary school students in Idemilli Local
Government Area. The sample for his study was made up of 600 students on
whom she administered questionnaire to collect data. Percentages and t-test was
employed in the data analysis. Her findings showed that when school
authorities are not strict over the behaviour of their students, some students stay
away from classes without permission. She indicated further that when teachers
are too strict on late comers, those who happen to be later for classes often
prefer to stay back to escape punishment or embarrassment. On another note,
she found out that hatred for a teacher and his subject cause students to stay
away from his class.
Summary of Literature Review
The review of literature made shows that the disciplinary style of a
secondary school can have influence on students’ disruptive behaviours and
their motivation to learn. It was observed that the way students perceive the
disciplinary style of their school has influence on their disruptive behaviours
and motivation to learn.
Disruptive behaviours were also seen to be prevalent in secondary
schools. These are those behaviours which impede on the teaching and learning
in the classroom. The behaviours are problematic
in nature and make attainment of educational objectives difficult or impossible.
A number of reasons were discovered to be behind students’ exhibition of
disruptive behaviours, such as the curriculum nature, the teachers’ instructional
pattern and above all the approach to discipline.
Motivation to learn was seen as a vital factor in the learner for success in
school. This motivation has to do with the inner desire or urge to pursue the
attainment of educational objectives. The level of motivation in a student
determines effort channeled towards learning. It was observed that motivation
to learn can be determined by a lot of factors such as the classroom
environment including of course the type of discipline students are exposed to.
The need for discipline in the school was highlighted with emphasis placed on
self-discipline or self-control as the major purpose of discipline. The rudiments of
good discipline were examined. It was observed that discipline should be well
packaged for the intended result to be achieved. Frequent use of punishment as an
approach to discipline was condemned.
Theories highlighted in the work found to be relevant include Maslow’s
theory of motivation, Douglas McGregor’s theory X and theory Y, and
Behaviour Modification theory.
Some related studies were equally highlighted under the empirical
studies. However, none of such studies was made on the influence of schools’
disciplinary style on students’ disruptive behaviours and their motivation to
learn in Obollo-Afor Educational Zone of Enugu State. The present study is
however aimed at filling this gap.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODS
In this chapter, the researcher discusses the research design, area of the
study, population of the study, sample and sampling technique. Equally
discussed is the instrument that was used for data collection, validity and
reliability of the instrument, method of data collection and finally method of
data analysis.
Design of the Study
The design adopted for this study is causal-comparative or ex-post-facto
research design. The design sought to determine the influence which a school’s
disciplinary style has on students disruptive behaviours and their motivation to
learn in Obollo-Afor Educational Zone of Enugu State.
The desirability or suitability of this design is anchored on the fact that
the styles of discipline are already in place in schools. The researcher did not
intend to manipulate the style of discipline. The study is to ascertain the
influence of the style of discipline in place on students’ exhibition of disruptive
behaviours and motivation to learn. Nworgu (2006) made it clear that such
design seeks to establish cause-effect relationship though the researcher does
not have control over the variables of interest.
Area of the Study
The study will be carried out in Obollo-Afor Education Zone of Enugu
State. The education zone is made up of three Local Government Areas namely:
Udenu, Igbo-Eze North and Igbo-Eze South. The predominant occupations of
parents in this area are farming and trading. Students also have one way or the
other of making some incomes.
The choice of the area is based on the fact that the rate of indiscipline,
drop out from schools, and examination malpractices are high. Most parents in
the area appear not to exercise enough disciplinary control on their wards. This
is anchored on the nature of their occupation and equally on the fact that most
students have various means of getting some incomes e.g barrow pushing. Such
incomes normally sway students and make them have a feeling of independence
and also to exhibit all sorts of undesirable behaviours in schools. Similarly, the
little incomes such students generate for themselves make them to resent
academic pursuit, especially when exposed to improper disciplinary
approaches.
Population of the Study
The population used for this study comprised all the SSII students in the
forty-five (45) public secondary schools in the Obollo-Afor Education Zone of
Enugu State. There are four thousand, eight hundred and twenty seven (4,827)
SSII students in the area under study.
The rational behind the use of SSII students is because of their relative
long stay in their schools. The figures for the various local governments are:
Udenu (1330 students), Igbo-Eze South (1,144 students), and Igbo-Eze North
(2,353 students).
Source: Post Primary Schools Management Board, Obollo-Afor Zonal Office,
(2011)
Sample and Sampling Technique
The sample for the study is 400 SSII students. Purposive and simple
random sampling techniques were adopted in the study. Purposive sampling of
all the 45 public secondary schools was done to get a sample of 10 schools
where the disciplinary styles are adopted. Further, samples of students totaling
400 were drawn from all the ten schools where the disciplinary styles are
adopted.
Instrument for Data Collection
The instrument for data collection is titled “Disruptive Behaviour and
Motivation to Learn Questionnaire (DBML)”. The instrument has two sections.
Section A elicits information on respondent’s personal data such as name of
school and students’ gender. Section B is made of three clusters with items for
students to respond. The response options are based on four point scale of
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree for the positively cued
items. For the positively cued items (where positive attitudes or views are
preferable) as in items in clusters A and cluster B of the questionnaire the
scoring are as follows: Strongly Agree (4) Agree (3) Disagree (2) and Strongly
Disagree (1). On the other hand, the negatively cued items (where positive or
responses are not preferred) as in items nos. 2, 3, 9 and 11 of cluster C will be
scored thus: Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Disagree (3) and Strongly disagree
(4). These are in line with Likert-type rating.
In section B, respondents (students) will be required in each item to tick
the options best suitable to them by indicating their degree of agreement or
disagreement. A mean score of 2.5 and above will be regarded as agree while a
mean score below 2.5 will be regarded as disagree for each item.
Validation of the Instrument
The instrument was face validated by three experts. One expert is in
measurement and evaluation from the Department of Science Education,
University of Nigeria Nsukka. The other two experts are in Educational
Psychology from the Department of Educational Foundations, University of
Nigeria Nsukka.
The experts were requested to review the items in the instrument in terms
of their clarity. They also looked into the appropriateness of the language and
instructions to the respondents.
Reliability of the Instrument
The instrument was administered on 30 subjects who were from public
schools in a Local Government not within Obollo-Afor Education Zone.
Cronbach Alpha method was used to measure the internal consistency co-
efficient of the Disruptive Behaviour and Motivation to Learn Questionnaire
(DBML).
The rationale for the use of Cronbach Alpha is based on the fact that the
items were not dichotomously scored and therefore, do not have right or wrong
answers. It also ensured the homogeneity of items on the clusters. Cluster A has
items on autocratic, democratic, and laissez faire tones and .741, .698, .683
obtained as the respective reliabilities. Cluster B has items on disruptive
behaviour and a reliability co-efficient obtained is .709. Cluster C contains
items on motivation to learn and has a reliability of .764. The instrument’s
overall reliability co-efficient obtained is .704. This was considered high
enough and valid to be used for the study.
Procedure for Data Collection
The researcher with the help of well informed research assistants will
deliver and also retrieve the questionnaire.
Method of Data Analysis
Mean scores and standard deviations were used to answer the research
questions while step-wise multiple regression analysis was used to test the four
null hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. A mean score below 2.50 was
regarded as disagree and not accepted as having a high influence on students’
disruptive behaviour and motivation to learn. On the other hand, a mean score
of 2.50 and above was accepted as having a high influence on students’
disruptive behaviour and motivation to learn.
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS
The data generated in course of the study are presented and analyzed in
this chapter.
Research Question I: Influence of school disciplinary styles on
students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours.
Table 1: Mean scores and standard deviations of school disciplinary styles
and students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours.
Disciplinary Styles Disruptive behaviours
N X SD
Autocratic 169 2.7 .56286
Democratic 142 1.91 .33391
Laissez Faire 89 2.7 .66871
Data presented in table I indicate the differences in the mean disruptive
behaviour scores of students based on their school disciplinary styles namely
autocratic, democratic, and laissez faire styles. The data revealed that students
whose schools adopt the autocratic disciplinary style had a mean disruptive
behaviour of 2.7 and a standard deviation of 0.56. Those whose schools adopt
the democratic style had a mean disruptive behaviour score of 1.91 and standard
deviation of .33; whereas, those whose schools adopt the laissez faire style had
a mean disruptive behaviour of 2.6 with standard deviation of .67. These imply
that schools whose schools adopt autocratic style scored highest in disruptive
behaviours followed by those that adopt laissez faire styles. Also those whose
schools adopt democratic style scored low in disruptive behaviour.
To further determine the influence of school disciplinary styles on
students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours and to test hypothesis I and 2,
multiple regression analysis was done.
Table 2: Multiple regression analysis of influence of school disciplinary
styles on students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours.
Model R R Square AR Square Std Error of the
Estimate
1 .72 .52 .517 .45000
Data presented in table 3 show the calculated R, R Square, and the
Adjusted R Square standing at .72, .52, and .517 respectively. The R Square
which is .52 implies that about 52% of the variance in the students’ disruptive
behaviours can be explained by the influence of the school disciplinary styles.
To further determine the extent the disciplinary styles jointly influence
students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviour and to test hypothesis 1, F-test
analysis is presented as shown in table 3.
Hypothesis 1: The influence of school disciplinary styles on students’
exhibition of disruptive behaviour will not be significant.
Table 3: Multiple regression analysis of school disciplinary styles on
students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours: F-test analysis.
Model 1 Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
f Sig
Regression 87.10 3 29.037 14.393 .000
Residual 80.189 396 .202
Total 167.299 399
The result of F-test analysis presented in table 3 shows that the influence
of school disciplinary styles on students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours is
significant at 0.000 and also significant at 0.05 level of probability (F=143.4, P
< .000). This suggests that autocratic, democratic, and laissez faire styles of
discipline significantly influence students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours.
Hypothesis I which states that the school disciplinary styles will not have
significant influence on students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviour is rejected.
The influential variables acted in combination and it is necessary to know
the contribution of each. So long as the variables-autocratic, democratic, and
laissez faire were acting in combination, the influence of one particular
disciplinary style may be obscured or exaggerated by the influence of others.
Table 4 below is presented to show the relative contributions of the variables. It
also helped to test hypothesis 2 which states that the influence of autocratic,
democratic, and laissez faire styles of discipline on students’ exhibition of
disruptive behaviour will not differ significantly.
Hypotheses 2: The influence of school disciplinary styles namely:
autocratic, democratic, and laissez faire styles on students’ exhibition of
disruptive behaviour will not differ significantly.
Table 4: Multiple regression analysis of the influence of school disciplinary
styles on students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviour: Unstandardized and
standardized coefficient t-test analysis.
Model 1 Unstandardized Coefficient Standardized
Coefficient
t Sig
B Std Error Beta
Constant 3.9 .227 17.326 .000
Autocratic -.059 .046 -.067 -1.263 .200
Democratic -.550 .035 -.770 -15.939 .000
Laissez faire -.077 .036 -.095 -2.132 .034
The data presented in table 4 indicate the B-values which are measures of
the slope of regression line or the amount of difference in the dependent
variables for every unit difference in the influential (independent) variables.
The data shows that for every decrease in the autocratic, democratic, and laissez
faire disciplinary styles of 1, there is a corresponding change in students’
disruptive behaviour by -.059, -.550, and -.077 respectively. The data on the
beta column shows the standardized coefficient of the data on B column which
compares directly the influence of the different influential variables with each
other. The calculated beta values are -.067, -.077, and -.095 for autocratic,
democratic and laissez faire disciplinary styles respectively.
The calculated values show that the democratic and laissez faire styles
differed significantly in influencing students’ exhibition of disruptive
behaviours which are significant at .000 and also significant at 0.05 level of
probability (t = -15.939, P < .000; and t = -2.132, P < .034 respectively). Thus
in explaining the disruptive behaviour of students, the democratic and laissez
faire styles of discipline are the dominant variables. Hypothesis 2 which states
that the influence of autocratic, democratic and laissez faire styles of discipline
on students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours will not differ significantly is
rejected.
Research Question 2: Influence of school disciplinary styles on students’
motivation to learn.
Table 5: Mean scores and standard deviations of school disciplinary styles
and students’ motivation to learn.
Disciplinary Styles Motivation to Learn
N X SD
Autocratic
169 3.4124 .27969
Democratic 142 3.5596 .28120
Laissez Faire 89 3.5557 .31477
The data presented in table 5 above indicate the differences in the mean
motivation to learn scores of students based on their school disciplinary styles
namely autocratic, democratic, and laissez faire styles. The data revealed that
students whose schools adopt autocratic disciplinary style had a mean
motivation to learn score of 3.4 and a standard deviation of .33. Those whose
schools adopt democratic disciplinary style had a mean motivation to learn
score of 3.6 and a standard deviation of .3. The students whose schools adopt
laissez faire style of discipline had a mean motivation to learn score of 3.5 and a
standard deviation of .3. The implication is that students whose schools adopt
the autocratic, democratic and laissez faire styles of discipline scored very high
on students’ motivation to learn, with the democratic and laissez faire styles
scoring higher.
To further determine the influence of school disciplinary styles on
students’ motivation to learn, and to test hypothesis 3 and 4, multiple regression
analysis was done.
Table 6: Multiple regression analysis of the influence of school disciplinary
styles on students’ motivation to learn.
Model R R Square AR
Square
Std Error of the
Estimate
1 .255 .065 .058 .26782
Data presented in table 6 show the calculated R, R Square, and the
Adjusted R Square standing at .26, 0.7, and .06 respectively. The R Square
which is .07 implies that about 7% of the variance in the students’ motivation to
learn can be explained by the influence of the school disciplinary styles.
Also to further determine the extent the disciplinary styles jointly
influenced students’ motivation to learn and also test hypothesis 3, F-test
analysis is presented as shown in table 7.
Hypothesis 3: The influence of school disciplinary styles on students’
motivation to learn will not be significant.
Table 7: Multiple regression analysis of school disciplinary styles on
students’ motivation to learn F-test analysis.
Model 1 Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
f Sig
Regression 2.279 3 .760 9.171 .000
Residual 32.805 396 .083
Total 35.084 399
The result of F-test presented in table 7 above shows that the influence of
school disciplinary styles on students’ motivation to learn is significant at .000
and also significant at 0.05 level of probability (F = 9.171, P < 0.000). This
suggests that autocratic, democratic, and laissez faire styles of discipline
significantly influence students’ motivation to learn. Hypothesis 3 which states
that the school disciplinary style will not have significant influence on students’
motivation to learn is not accepted.
It is however important to not that since the variables-autocratic,
democratic, and laissez faire were acting in combination, the influence of one
particular disciplinary style can be obscured or even exaggerated by influence
of others. The data in table 8 below explains the contribution of each influential
variable on the variation observed on the dependent measure which is students’
motivation to learn. This equally helped to test hypothesis 4.
Hypothesis 4: The influence of autocratic, democratic, and laissez faire
styles of discipline on students’ motivation to learn will not differ significantly.
Table 8: Multiple regression analysis of the influence of school disciplinary
styles on students’ motivation to learn: Unstandardized and standardized
coefficient t-test analysis.
Model 1 Unstandardized
Coefficient
Standardized
Coefficient
t Sig
B Std Error Beta
Constant 3.722 .145 25.586 .000
Autocratic -.093 .029 -.233 -3.177 .002
Democratic .018 .022 .054 .806 .421
Laissez
faire
-.017 .023 -.046 -.733 .464
Data presented in table 8 indicate the B-values which are measures of the
slope of the regression line or the amount of differences in the dependent
variable for every unit difference in the influential variables (independent
variables). Thus for every decrease in the autocratic, democratic, and laissez
faire disciplinary styles of 1, there is a corresponding change on students’
motivation to learn by -.093, .018, and -.017 respectively. The data on the beta
column show the standardized coefficient of the data on the B column which
compares directly the influence of the different influential variables with each
other. The calculated beta values are -.233, .054, and -.046 for autocratic,
democratic, and laissez faire disciplinary styles respectively.
The data in table 8 shows that there is a significant negative relationship
between autocratic style of discipline and students’ motivation to learn (t = -
3.177, P < .000). The data shows further a positive but not significant
relationship between a democratic style of discipline and students’ motivation
to learn. Also shown from the data is that the laissez faire style of discipline has
a negative but not significant relationship with students’ motivation to learn.
The implication here is that only the autocratic style of discipline differed
significantly in influencing students’ motivation to learn. This further implies
that hypothesis 4 which states that the influence of autocratic, democratic, and
laissez faire styles of discipline on students’ motivation to learn will not differ
significantly is rejected.
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
In this chapter, the summary of findings are presented, discussed on, and
conclusions drawn. The educational implications are highlighted and
recommendations made based on the findings of the study. Also suggestions for
further studies were made, limitation of the study highlighted and finally the
summary of the work made.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The styles of discipline in schools namely, autocratic, democratic, and
laissez faire styles have significant influence on students’ exhibition of
disruptive behaviours.
The democratic and laissez faire styles of discipline differed significantly
from autocratic styles in influencing students’ exhibition of disruptive
behaviours.
The styles of discipline namely autocratic, democratic and laissez faire
styles of discipline significantly influence students’ motivation to learn.
The autocratic style of discipline differed significantly from other styles
in influencing students’ motivation to learn.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Influence of school disciplinary styles on students exhibition of disruptive behaviours The findings of this study show that the styles of discipline have
significant influence on students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours. This is in
line with the finding of Nzulumike, (2000) that the ready resort to unconvincing
punishments by teachers is one of the major causes of undisciplined behaviour
among students.
The study equally revealed that democratic and laissez faire styles of
discipline differed significantly in influencing students’ exhibition of disruptive
behaviours. The democratic style of discipline with the associated freedoms and
rights given to students probably make students to misconstrue the disciplinary
styles as weakness on the part of school authorities. Being mainly adolescents,
they readily abuse such democracy by behaving unruly. This does not fall in
line with the view of (Shankar, 2006) that the democratic treatment of students
makes them responsible persons with self confidence, emotional stability and
sense of security. Similarly, where there is a laissez faire style of discipline,
disruptive behaviour will increase tremendously. Shankar (2006) has similar
view in indicating that such a practice of complete freedom to the youngsters
led to chaotic conditions, juvenile lawlessness and increase in crime.
The findings further revealed that autocratic style of discipline does not
increase or reduce students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours. This does not
fall in line with the view of (Pringle, 1973) that a heavy and inflexible use of
Hargreaves in Montgomery (1982), in his note that disruptive behaviours seem
to be associated with the imposition of a heavy and inflexible code of school
rules.
Influence of school disciplinary styles on students’ motivation to learn
The study also revealed that the styles of discipline have significant
influence on students’ motivation to learn. In line with this Chiejina (1991), in
his findings indicated that when school authorities are not strict over the
behaviour of their students, some students stay away from classes without
permission. Also his finding indicated that when teachers are too strict on late
comers, those who happen to be late for classes often prefer to stay back to
escape punishment or embarrassment. The two findings above highlighted what
happen on desire to learn under a lax and very rigid disciplinary styles
respectively. The finding is also in line with the view of Lumsden (1994), that if
students experience the classroom as a caring, supportive place where there is a
sense of belonging and everyone is valued, they will tend to participate more
fully in the process of learning.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the findings and discussions of the study, the following
conclusions were drawn:
That the styles of discipline namely autocratic, democratic, and laissez
faire styles significantly influence students’ exhibition of disruptive
behaviour.
That increase or decrease in students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviour
is not a result of autocratic style of discipline. The increase in disruptive
behaviours rather result from adoption of democratic or laissez faire
disciplinary styles.
That the styles of discipline significantly influence students’ motivation
to learn.
That an autocratic style of discipline differed significantly from the
democratic and laissez faire styles of discipline in influencing students’
motivation to learn.
EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
The findings of this study have a lot of implications for teachers and
other school authorities. The main purpose of discipline in schools is to
inculcate in students good behaviours which would enhance teaching and
learning. A well packaged disciplinary style also ensures that students do not
develop negative attitudes towards the teaching and learning that take place in
schools. Most students in secondary schools fall under adolescence and are very
susceptible to indiscipline due to their emotional and psychological
dispositions. Consequently, there is much importance or need for a proper style
of discipline.
If teachers and authorities in schools adopt the disciplinary styles that
expose students to exhibition of disruptive behaviours or dampen the
desire or motivation to learn, students’ academic growth will be affected
negatively.
An autocratic style of discipline does not favour students’ motivation to
learn just as democratic and laissez faire styles of discipline are not
favourable for elimination of students’ disruptive behaviours.
The authoritative disciplinary style where the teacher exercises authority
by setting rules and standards of conduct to be complied with, and
equally accommodating meaningful views from students will produce
good results. The good results will come in the form of bringing up of
students whose self esteem will not be lowered and who will not impose
their self emanating rules and conducts on the school authorities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings, discussions and conclusions of the study, the
following recommendations are made.
Students should be educated on the meaning of discipline and also the
essence. This would enable them to know and appreciate that discipline is
not just put in place to subdue them. When they become fully aware of
the meaning and purpose of discipline and the inherent benefits of being
disciplined students, they will submit themselves to disciplinary
measures.
Considering the nature of the students (mainly adolescents) the
democratic, autocratic, or laissez faire styles of discipline will not be
useful in eliminating students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours.
Teachers should adopt the authoritative disciplinary style in order to give
the students (who are mainly adolescents) the desired good direction.
Teachers and other school authorities should be given workshops on
school discipline to help inculcate in them the knowledge of imparting
good discipline on students.
School administrators should from time to time monitor disciplinary
cases in schools with the view of ascertaining the state of discipline in
various schools.
The communication patterns which teachers use on students should be
characterized by love, care, and genuine concern for the progress of
students. Teachers should avoid communication patterns which portray
disdain and indifference in students’ affairs.
School guidance counsellors should try to live up to the demands of their
profession so as to reduce students’ vulnerability to indiscipline, and also
increase the desire to learn in them.
LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
The generalizability of the findings of this study and conclusion drawn
may have been influenced by a number of limitations.
The use of a sample of 400 schools for the study constituted a limiting
factor as the use of all the SSII students in the zone would probably have
produced different results.
The topic “Influence of school disciplinary styles on students’ disruptive
behavior and motivation to learn” is a limiting factor in itself. There
could have been other factors either operating solely or jointly with the
influential variables that also influence the dependent variable. The
extent to which those other factors influenced the dependent variable may
have constituted limitation to the findings.
The issue of faking in students’ response to the questionnaire cannot be
ruled out. The extent this faking occurred may have also influenced the
findings of this study.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES
The following areas for research by future researchers are suggested.
The influence of teachers’ classroom communication patterns on
students’ disruptive behaviours and motivation to learn.
A replication of this study in junior classes and also other educational
zones.
The influence of teachers’ personality on students’ disruptive behaviours
and motivation to learn.
The influence of an authoritative disciplinary style on students’
disruptive behaviours and their motivation to learn.
SUMMARY OF THE STUDY
The study was carried out to investigate the influence of school
disciplinary styles on students’ disruptive behaviours and their motivation to
learn in Obollo Afor Educational Zone of Enugu State. Two research questions
and four null hypothesis were formulated to guide the study. The null
hypothesis were tested at 0.05 level of significance.
The autocratic, democratic and laissez faire styles of discipline and their
influence on the students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours and their
motivation to learn came within the content scope of this study. Literature
related to the study was reviewed under the following headings:
Conceptual Framework
Theoretical Framework
Empirical Studies
Summary of Reviewed Literature
Causal-comparative or ex-post-facto research design was adopted in the
study. A well structured questionnaire was developed and administered on 400
SSII drawn randomly from 10 schools in the educational zone which were
selected through purposive sampling technique. The data gathered were
analyzed using mean, standard deviation and step-wise multiple regression
analysis. The major findings of the study include:
Influence of school disciplinary styles on students’ exhibition of
disruptive behaviours is significant.
The influence of democratic and laissez faire styles of discipline on
students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviour differed significantly from
that of the autocratic style.
School disciplinary styles have significant influence on students’
motivation to learn.
The influence of autocratic style of discipline on students’ motivation to
learn differed significantly from that of democratic and laissez faire
styles.
REFERENCES
Akinboye, J.O. (1992). Behaviour therapy and other treatment strategies. Ibadan:
Paperback Publishers ltd.
Amajrionwu, S.A. (1980). Psychological approaches to controlling behaviour in
primary schools. Alvan Ikoku College of Education Journal 1(2). 47.
Ames, C. A. (1990). Motivation: what teachers need to know. Teachers’ College
Record. 91,3,409-421.
Arubayi, E.A. (1984). Classroom control and discipline. A guideline for Nigerian
teachers. Sokoto Journal of Education, Vol. I No. 2.
Arum, R. (2003). Judging school discipline: The crisis of moral authority. Harvard
University press ISBN 978-0674011893.
Carnot, J. (1973) Dynamic and Effective school discipline. New York: Clearing
house.
Chiejina, C.C. (1991). Students’ perception of the factors contributing to truancy
among secondary school students. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis. University of
Nigeria, Nsukka.
Children Aids society (CAS) (2006). Child discipline.
http:”psychfullerton.edu/clindquist/aliscipl.html. retrieved 10th November,
2010.
Clark, M. A. & Mckenzie, I.C. (1970). Punishment and its behavioural outcomes:
application of research evidence to the modification of behaviour. Australian
Journal of education.
Coloroso, B. (2001). Kids are worth It. www.hc.sc.ac.cal/hppt/familyviolence/
index/html. retrieved 02/12/2010.
Cunningham, W.C. & Cordiro, P.A. (2000). Educational administration; A problem
based approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Denga, D.I. (1982). Student counseling: A major solution to campus unrest. Lagos:
ogwa orit ltd.
Downey, M. & Kelly, A. V. (1984). Theory and practices of education: an
introduction (2nd ed). London: Harper and Row Publishers.
Eke, C.C. (1997). Causes of students deviant behaviours in secondary schools in
Ngor-Okpala L.G.A. of Imo State: Implications for counseling. Unpublished
M.Ed. Thesis. University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Eze, U.N. (2009). Managing behaviour in the classroom. In Uchenna L.I and Eze,
U.N. (eds). Management for curriculum implementation: applying
psychological principles, 145-170.
Eze, U.N. & Umaru, Y. (2007). Teachers’ perceived strategies for managing
classroom disruptive behaviour in secondary schools. Review of education. 18,
34 – 50.
Ezeocha, P.A. (1990). Educational administration and planning. Nigeria: Optimal
computer solutions Ltd.
Ejionueme, L.K.J. (2004). Strategies for curbing the disciplinary problems of
students. Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Farrant, J.S. (1976). Principles and practice of education. London: longman group
ltd.
Greydamus, D.E., Pratt, H.D; Spates, C,R; Blake, A.E.; & Patel, D.R. (2003).
Corporal punishment in school. Journal of adolescent health. 32(5) 385 – 393.
Haraekiewicz, J.M. & Sansone, K.E. (1997). Predictors and consequences of
achievement goals in the classroom: maintaining interest and making the
grade. Journal of personality and social psychology, 7, 1284 – 1295.
Hargreaves, D.H. (1975). Deviance in classroom: London: Routedge and Kegan Paul
Ltd.
Hargreaves, D.H. (1984). Improving secondary schools. London: I.L.E.A.
Igwesi, B.N. (2008). Examination malpractice: Nigeria’s education pain in the 21st
century. Multidisciplinary journal of research development. ISSN 1596-975X,
10(4) 40 – 45. Published by national association for research development
(NARD) Benue State University Markurdi.
Ikediugwu, N.P.N. (1999). Basic theories and concepts in educational administration.
Enugu: Okfic Publishers.
Ikerionwu, J.C. (2006). Cases of examination malpractice in secondary schools.
Nigerian journal of education management. Vol. 5, ISBN 1118-390X, 139 –
145. Published by the association for promoting quality management in
schools.
Johnson, R.E. (1979). Juvenile delinquency and its origin: an integrated theoretical
approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jordan, D. (2000). Focus on discipline: www.pacer.org.retrieved 10/11/2010.
Lepper, M.R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study of instruction.
cognition and instruction 5,(4) 289 – 309.
Lumsden, L.S. (1994). Student motivation to learn. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Educational Management. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED370200.
Mehta, P. (2006). Motivation and learning. In kuppuswampy (ed) advanced
educational psychology, 129 – 145. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
Meriel, D. & Kelly, A.V. (1984). Theory and practice of education: an introduction
(2nd ed). London: Harper and Row Publishers.
Montgomery, D. (1992). Managing behaviour problems. London: Hodder &
Stonghton ltd.
Mouly, G.J. (1967). Psychology of effective teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Myers, D.G. (2007). Psychology (6th ed). Michigan: Worth Publishers.
Ngwoke, D.U. (1995). School learning: theories and applications. Lagos: Everlead
Communications. Ltd.
Nkomo, W.N. (2010). Non-violent techniques of discipline, an alternative to physical
punishment in Nigerian schools. In Maduewesi, E.J. (ed.) Nigerian journal of
teacher education and teaching, 8(22) ISSN 1117-1855, 106 – 111.
Nwankwo, I. N. (2007). Functional theories of motivation for effective school
management. In Emenike, O. (ed.) Nigerian Journal of Educational
management, vol. 6, ISSN: 118-390x, 121-132, Published by association for
promoting quality management in schools.
National Teachers’ Institute (2000) NCE Distant Learning Course Book on Education
cycle 1.Published by National Teachers Institute, Kaduna.
Nwosu, B. M. (1997). Deviant behaviours in Nigerian secondary schools:
implications for counselling. Journal of counselling and communication, vol.
1(1) 118 – 124.
Nworgu, B.G. (2006). Educational research: basic issues and methodology. Nsukka:
University Trust Publishers.
Nzulumike, C.L. (2000) philosophical analysis of indiscipline in secondary schools in
Nsukka zone. Unpublished M.ED. Thesis, University of Nigeria Nsukka.
Obioha, N.C. (1979). Punishment is valid even if a necessary evil. Journal of
education review, vol. 2, No.1.
Ohemu, S.R. (1991) Effectiveness of principals control measures on post-primary
students’ indiscipline. A case study of Okpokwu L.G.A. Benue State.
Unpublished M.ED. Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Okolo, A. N. (2003). Strategies for handling adolescents psycho-social problems in
secondary school. The educational psychologist. 1(1) 163 – 171.
Onah, S.C. (1990). Factors related to student unrest in secondary schools in Nsukka
education zone. Implications for guidance and counselling. Unpublished M.Ed.
Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Onyechi, K.C. & Okere, A.U. (2007). Deviant behaviour as correlate of academic
achievement among secondary school adolescents: implications for
counselling. In Nworgu, B.G. (ed)., Optimization of service delivery in the
education sector: issues and strategies, 105 – 110.
Onyegbule, C.C. (1991). Attitude of parents towards the use of discipline strategies in
secondary schools within the Orlu education zone of Imo State. Unpublished
M.Ed. Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Ozigi, A.O. (1981). A handbook on school administration and management. Nigeria:
Macmillan publishers.
Pringle, M. R. (1973). Able misfits. London: Longmans.
Raffini, J. (1993). Winners without loser: structures and strategies for increasing
student motivation in learning: Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Reid, K. (1986). Disaffection from school. London: Methuen.
Robbins, S.P. & Sanghi, S. (2005). Organizational behaviour. Delhi: Pearson
education.
Shankar, U. (2006). Psychology of discipline. In kuppuswampy (ed.) advanced
educational psycnology, 434 – 444. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers pvt. ltd.
Skiba, R. J. & Peterson, R.L. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: can punishment
lead to safe schools? Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 372 – 382.
Skiba, R. J. & Peterson, R. L. (2000). Exceptional children. The council for
exceptional children, 3,(66) 3,335 – 347.
Snowman, B. (1993). Psychology applied to teaching. (7th ed.) Boston: Haughton
Mifflin company.
Stones, E. (1972). An introduction to educational psychology. London: George Allen
and Unwin ltd.
Ude, B.O. (1990). Disruptive behaviours encountered by teachers among secondary
school students in Udi L.G. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis. University of Nigeria,
Nsukka.
Umeano, E.C. (2007). Perceived lecturers’ pedagogical communication and students’
classroom incivility, enhancing service delivery in the tertiary education level.
in Nworgu, B.G. (ed.) Optimization of service delivery in the education sector,
198 – 206. Nsukka: University Trust Publishers.
Wayne, W. (2007). Psychology: themes and variations (7th ed.). University of
Nevada, Las Vegas. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage learning.
William, S.W. (1984). Educational administration in secondary schools. New York:
Holt, Rinchart and Winston inc.
Zurbriggen, E.L. & Sturwan, T.S. (2002). Linking motives and emotions: a test of
Mcclelland’s hypothesis. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 28, 521 –
535.
APPENDIX A
Department of Education Foundations University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
2011.
Dear Sir/Madam,
VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT
I am a Post Graduate Student of University of Nigeria, Nsukka in the
Department of Educational Foundation (Educational Psychology Unit). I am
currently carrying out a study on “The Influence of Schools’ Disciplinary Style
on Students’ disruptive behaviours and their Motivation to Learn”.
I humbly request for your professional input in assisting me to correct
and face validate my instrument for this study. The questionnaire is intended to
be responded to by secondary school students.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Yours faithfully, Aneke Chukwuma C. PG/M.ED/08/48409
SECTION A: PERSONAL DATA
Name of School:
Sex: Male Female
Class:
SECTION B:
Instruction: Tick [] those options that represent your opinion. NOTE: SA –Strongly Agree, A –Agree, D –Disagree while SD –Strongly Disagree CLUSTER A: DISCIPLINARY STYLE IN THE SCHOOL. S/N AUTOCRATIC SA A D SD
1 The major method teachers use to discipline students is by caning.
2 Manual labour, is employed in disciplining students. 3 Knocking on the head is also employed. 4 Kneeling down is also regularly employed 5 Scolding students is a regular method. 6 Use of force is common in disciplining students.
7 Students’ opinions or suggestions are not asked for in issues concerning discipline.
8 Teachers do whatever they like in disciplining students DEMOCRATIC
9 School authorities always discuss issues of discipline and rules with students.
10 Teachers always discuss with students to know the causes of students’ misbehavior.
11 Teachers do not discipline students just anyhow the teachers like.
12 Student representatives are always members of school’s disciplinary committee.
LAISSEZ-FAIRE
13 Most teachers are not concerned about anything regarding students’ discipline.
14 Students misbehave without being disciplined. 15 Issues concerning discipline are not given serious attention. 16 Students behave anyhow they like.
CLUSTER B: DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR INVENTORY Instruction: Tick the following as they apply to you. S/N SA A D SD
1 I make noise in the class just as other do.
2 I disobey teachers but not all of them.
3 I sometimes talk in the class without the teacher’s
permission.
4 I come to school late sometimes.
5 I hate some teachers though with reasons.
6 I distract fellow students in the class especially those who
distract me.
7 I interrupt the teacher in the class always.
8 I drink alcohol in school though not always
9 I do not see anything wrong in my always wanting fellow
students to do my wish.
10 I sometime stay outside the class even when a teacher is
there.
11 I push fellow students who annoy me as lessons go on.
12 I use my handset in the class because there is nothing
wrong in it’s use.
13 Though stealing is not good but I sometimes steal in the
school.
14 I do not have a locker and a seat because I can always use
another student’s own
15 I sometimes engage in another subject other than the one
the teacher is teaching.
16 Certain things I do are to make other students know that I
belong.
17 I fight with fellow students though not always
18 Most often the lessons that go on in the class do not interest me.
19 Sometimes due to some reasons, I sleep while lessons go on in the class.
20 I cheat in exams and tests because others equally do so.
21 Walking or running away when the teacher is calling
CLUSTER C: MOTIVATION TO LEARN. S/N SA A D SD 1 I like going to school always.
2 If not because my parents force me, I should not have
been going to school.
3 I like everyday to be a public holiday so that there will
be no school.
4 I feel happy to stay in class always to listen to lessons
5 I feel happy when a teacher comes in to deliver a
lesson
6 I like answering questions in class during lessons.
7 I always ask questions when I am not clear.
8 I like reading my books always
9 If not because I am forced, I should not have been
reading my books.
10 I do my assignments and home works always.
11 I do my assignments and home works only because of
fear of punishment.
12 Studying gives me a lot of joy.
13 I will like to pass well and enter into the higher
institution.