Essay: ‘Motivation in the Classroom: Dealing with Disruptive Behaviour’

INTRODUCTION

Research studies have shown the importance of motivation in supporting learning in education (Lai, 2011) and in raising educational attainment among pupils. A collective theme within the review is that a pupil’s behaviour is closely linked to the theory of motivation (Ikeogu, 2011). The transition into secondary school life has been shown to affect students’ self-competency, reducing their motivation and engagement in the learning process (Klem & Connell, 2004; Jacobs et al., 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Ultimately, understanding what motivates pupils is essential to influence and encourage constructive learning behaviour. It has been proposed that motivating pupils to learn will result in positive behaviour and higher academic achievement and reduce disruptive behaviour (Kane et al., 2004). This literature will investigate how motivational theories elucidate pupils’ behaviour in a classroom environment which will help teachers develop strategies to deal with such behaviour and create a constructive learning environment. The following study will firstly explore the theory of motivation in a pedagogical context, the factors that motivate learners, and the relationship between motivation and disruptive behaviour. Several techniques are reviewed to understand and control disruptive behaviour as well as different theoretical motivational theories such as Maslow, Deci, and Ryan which have been shown to determine the behavioural hierarchy of confident behaviour.

1.1 Theory of Motivation

Korb (2012, p.6) describes motivation as the cognitive state, intramural need, or ‘external goal’ that drives individuals. Romando (2007) agrees, describing motivation as one’s determination and drive that triggers behaviour towards the desired goal. Ball (1977) describes motivation as a series of performances brought upon by stimulating, guiding, and sustaining students’ behaviour. McLean (2003, p.7) defines motivation as the need to learn, and the ability to manage any challenges or hurdles to realise their goal (Martin, 2008). The resulting behaviour depends upon the pupil’s level of motivation (Guay et al., 2010). Motivation plays an influential role in affecting students’ level of enjoyment in learning at school and can trigger either disruptive or constructive behaviour among pupils (Guay et al., 2010, p. 712).

1.2 Factors that Motivate Learners

To understand pupils’ behaviour, the study needs to consider several factors that affect motivation. These are:

• The education they receive by teachers (Teven & McCroskey, 1997)
• Student-teacher relationships (Kelly & Hansen, 1987; Johnson, 2008)
• Pressures and expectations from parents (Dandy & Nettelbeck, 2000) and peers (Wigfield & Tonks, 2002, p.2383)
• Classroom environment (Qin et al., 1995)
• School culture and system (Anderman & Maehr, 1994)

Wright’s (2012) study argues that pupils who have low levels of motivation misbehave out of frustration due to the failure of the school system to meet the needs of the individual i.e., activities are too challenging, and lesson instructions are too vague or monotonous (Skinner et al., 2005; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002). Power et al. (1967) state that family and social background are the key influencers on pupils’ motivational level or lack thereof and ultimately their behavioural outcome in class. Galloway (1995) disagrees, stating that teachers are the main influencers and that home background employs little influence on pupils’ behaviour. He claims that the absence of a positive interaction between teacher and pupils negatively impacts students’ behaviour.

2. Links between Motivation and Classroom Disruptive Behaviour

According to Brophy (1999), the theory of motivation has shifted from a quantifiable measurement to a behaviourist perspective in which the use of a stimulus can be used to reinforce the desired behaviour. Schools use this mechanism to encourage and reward positive behaviour and sanction negative disruptive behaviour with an aversive stimulus i.e., punishment exercise (Ikeogu, 2011, p.12). According to Seifert (2004, p.147) pupils’ motivational level is understood by their display of behaviour. Hudley et al. (2007, p.4) agrees with this assertion that there is a link between behaviour and motivation and that schools need to diminish the desire to disrupt and increase the incentive to succeed.

Disruptive behaviour can be classified as challenging, unacceptable, and interruptive behaviour according to Galloway et al. (1982). Nour (2004) perceives distractedness as the most frequent disruptive behaviour in schools in China (Ding et al., 2008; Shen et al., 2009). According to other studies, disruptive behaviour in England (Arbuckle & Little, 2004) and Australian schools (Ross et al., 2008) is perceived as consistent talking throughout the lesson. Browne (2012) defines disruptive behaviour as being disobedient and aggressive. Aly and Gracey (2013) state that using technology during class, reading unrelated material, etc. is disruptive. Disruptive behaviour can interrupt positive social interaction, engagement, contribution, and overall impede a proactive classroom environment (Doyle, 1986). Pupils’ motivational levels are forecasters of performance in the classroom (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) which helps explain pupils’ cognitive engagement and classroom behaviour (Miller et al., 1996). According to Skinner et al. (2008), using a motivational framework of ‘engagement vs. disaffection’ helps explain pupils’ behavioural and emotional input in classroom activities (Pierson & Connell, 1992; Ryan, 2000; Wentzel, 1993) (see Fig.1). Educators can use this framework to measure students’ engagement levels at school to prevent truancy by recognising early signs of disconnection (Appleton et al., 2008).

Figure 1: A motivational theory of engagement and disaffection in the classroom

According to Seifert (2004), students’ behaviour or motivation is determined by their emotional response to a task (Boekarts, 1993; Seifert & O’Keefe, 2001). In order for students to develop positive classroom behaviour, students must set goals, become more competent and involved, and gain social belonging (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2004).

Ikeogu (2011) states that pupils’ lack of motivation and disruptive behaviour in the classroom is attributable to the teacher’s pedagogy and teaching style (Galloway et al., 1998). In order to achieve an effective learning environment, a supportive and nurtured teacher-student relationship needs to develop (Steer, 2005). Adopting effective motivational techniques can help teachers improve pupils’ engagement in class and ultimately raise classroom attainment.

MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES

To motivate students to climb the hierarchy, teachers need to understand disruptive classroom behaviour in order to achieve appropriate behaviour (Korb, 2012). Abraham Maslow designed a pyramid (Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, see Figure 2) to identify individuals’ basic human needs. When pupils satisfy the most basic deficiency needs (physical and safety), they then climb the hierarchy towards the developed levels. Children with a stable, supportive home (high level of safety and security) tend to climb the hierarchy to achieve self-actualisation, as they do not have the same needs to seek attention. Those who are stagnant at the basic needs level are more susceptible to disruptive behaviour in the classroom as they are more prone to act up. According to Korb (2012, p.6), pupils may seek attention in the classroom, either positive or negative, if they don’t receive this at home. They may display signs of low self-esteem by being destructive and lack powers of concentration.

Figure 2: Basic Human Needs. Source: Adapted from Maslow (1943)

McClelland’s theory (Acquired Needs Theory) states that individuals are motivated according to three basic needs: achievement, power, and relationship (Miner, 2006). Maslow distinguished the discrete stages of needs and the transition amid these needs, while McClelland states that individuals are at different stages of elevated needs than others and their experiences eventually change pupils’ needs (Kirstein, 2010). Motivational theories proposed by Maslow (1970), McClelland (1985), and Deci (1980) associate the growth of self to psychological needs and emotional processes which classify pupils’ behaviour according to their needs. According to Maslow, to satisfy pupils’ deficiency needs, teachers need to create an emotionally and physically protected and secure classroom, and take interest in pupils’ lives to appeal to their sense of belonging etc. (Biehler and Snowman, 1997).

To understand and address disruptive classroom behaviour, Kaplan and Maehr (1999) used the Achievement Goal Theory which established a linkage between disruptive behaviour and performance-approach goals, performance avoidance goals, and positive behaviour was associated with mastery goals. Self-Determination Theory was also critically analysed in relation to disruptive behaviour.

3. Achievement Goal Theory

Achievement Goal Theory refers to individuals’ motives to engage in attainment-based behaviours (Pintrich, 2000, p. 93). This theory can influence how students tackle goals in an achievement scenario (Agbuga et al., 2010, p.279). Undertaking goals results in cognitive and behavioural outcomes, which helps understand pupils’ behaviour (Elliot & Dweck, 1988, p.11). Jagacinski and Nicholls (1987) state that failure in a task can cause negative behavioural outcomes. Nicholls (1984) proposed the dichotomous model consisting of two major goals: mastery (learning goals) and performance (ego goals). Mastery goals focus on the development of pupils’ academic capability and competence while individuals pursuing performance goals are more engrossed with the quality of their performance in relation to others and people’s perception of their performance (Seifert, 2004). Roeser et al. (1996) agree that pursuing mastery goals is centred on gaining knowledge, while performance is focused on demonstrating knowledge. Pupils’ behaviour is determined by which goal they pursue. For example, according to Veiga et al. (2014), pupils who are mastery orientated achieve their goals (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002), are intrinsically motivated (personal enjoyment of the lesson) (Elliot and Harackiewicz, 1996, p.462) and therefore display positive behaviour (Ryan & Patrick, 2001), and higher levels of engagement in class (Ryan & Pintrich, 1997). Encouraging pupils to take control of their learning and boosting self-confidence discourages disruptive behaviour and promotes a more positive behaviour (Pintrich, 2000). While in a performance goal orientated classroom, those pursuing to surpass their peers have a tendency to exhibit disruptive behaviour (Agbuga et al., 2010) and reduced levels of engagement (Hughes et al., 2010). Pupils pursue performance goals as a defence mechanism to protect themselves from negative opinions of their competence, or receive positive acknowledgement of their competence (Dweck & Legget, 1988; Seifert & O’Keefe, 2001), and to come across as superior to others (Nicholls et al., 1990). According to Roeser et al. (1996) performance goals are uncomplimentary to learning, as they lower pupils’ confidence in their competence to successfully complete tasks in class (Dickinson, 1995) by comparing and evaluating pupils against their peers and reducing ‘self-efficacy’, which negatively affects motivation and confidence levels (Schunk & Mullen, 2012). Dweck (1986) states that pupils with low confidence can exhibit maladaptive behaviour. Kaplan and Maehr (1999) found that pupils seeking performance goals displayed signs of disruptive behaviour i.e., talking out of turn, teasing etc., which can lead to cheating and school absenteeism (Anderman & Midgley, 2002; Roeser & Eccles, 1998). Whereas mastery goals are learning orientated which results in more focus on successfully completing tasks and greater task-focused performance (Kaplan et al., 2002).

3.1 Mastery Goal Orientated Classroom

A mastery orientated classroom should be fostered to motivate students effectively and promote positive behaviour and engagement in class. To drive students, teachers should promote self-sufficient learning, recognise and reward achievement, evaluate student’s effort and progress, encourage teamwork, designate a realistic time to complete tasks (Veiga, et al., 2014), communicate clear and concise lesson tasks, use alternative teaching and learning strategies, manage classroom behaviour and encourage pupil to give their opinion (Zyngier, 2007).

Multiple perspectives were proposed in studies to analyse pupil’s behaviour. Dweck (1999) differentiated between performances and learning goals, and Nicholls (1989) proposed performance and mastery goals. Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996) further extended and challenged these two goals and included the performance-avoidance goal, forming a ‘trichotomous’ goal framework (mastery, performance, and performance avoidance goals) as an extension of the dichotomous model (Elliot and Church, 1997; McGregor & Elliot, 2002; Ames, 1992).

3.2 Performance-Avoidance Theory

According to Middleton and Midgley (1997) anxiety is a common emotion related with performance avoidance goals (Bong, 2009; Duchesne & Ratelle, 2010). Avoidance or difficulties completing tasks can cause anxiety which may trigger pupils to play up to alleviate any negative emotions. Pupils may engage in disruptive behaviour as a defence mechanism to avert carrying out the activity to avoid humiliation and safeguard their sense of value (Seifert, 2004, p.144). Covington (1984) concurs that students would rather feel guilty about not doing the work rather than feel shamed due to low ability.

4. Self-Determination Theory

Deci and Ryan (1985, 2000) cultivated the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to understand and develop pupil’s motivation and the anticipated behavioural outcome which follows. SDT explicates how pupil’s interaction with their classroom conditions can either encourage or impede pupil’s positive contribution, drive, and engagement (Reeve, 2012). SDT presumes that students no matter their background, age etc. are self-motivated and integrally motivated to participate academically in class (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Vansteenkiste et al., 2010). SDT addresses the features of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic stimulus is the preferred motivational method to facilitate effective learning (Ryan & Deci, 2009), as it involves one’s own decision to participate in the lesson out of enjoyment and interest. Intrinsically motivated pupils engage in a more profound learning, better quality of work, and exhibit positive behaviour compared to extrinsic motivation. According to SDT, to become intrinsically motivated schools need to facilitate ‘three basic psychological needs’; autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Kusurkar et al., 2011). Structuring lessons based on the needs of the pupils helps to facilitate self-determined motivation. Promoting autonomous motivation contributes to better task-related behaviour which reflects real interest in the subject (Kusurkar et al., 2011). According to Kusurkar et al. (2011) appealing to their intramural needs to effectively stimulate proactive behaviour is more effective than using incentives to reinforce desired behaviour.

MOTIVATIONAL TECHNIQUES TO CONTROL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR

Effective motivational techniques help promote positive behaviour and reduce disruptive behaviour. Positive Behavioural Support (PBS) strategies have proven favourable in studies to transform disruptive and challenging behaviour and promote positive behaviour which aid effective learning in class (Ausdemore et al., 2005; Feinstein, 2003; McCurdy et al., 2007). This proactive approach explores the source of the behaviour, identifying undisruptive responses to manage challenging behaviour, reward desired behaviour and reduce rewarding disruptive actions, and decreasing the course components that initiate difficult behaviour. PBS strategies involve creating a positive, organised and consistent classroom, increasing autonomy, amending and differentiating the curriculum to meet individuals’ needs and abilities, acknowledging and rewarding positive behaviour, and teaching coping skills and behaviours to express pupils’ emotions and needs (Ruef et al., 1998). Carr et al. (1994) agree that PBS does not involve eradicating negative behaviour but rather to understand why pupils behave in that manner and to substitute disruptive behaviour with positive proactive behaviour.

5.1 Motivating Students with Positive Reinforcement (Rewards and Praise)

Rewards and praise are used as a tool to reinforce and develop the desired classroom behaviour, to attain skills or sanction maladaptive behaviour. They are a tool used to inspire pupils to attain skills (Ruef et al., 1998) and should appeal to the pupil’s needs in order to motivate them. According to Ruef et al. (1998) and Walker et al. (1995) sanctioning bad behaviour is counterproductive and such action results in hostility, destruction, tardiness, absenteeism, and quitting school. Positive reinforcement (PR) is more effective (Frisoli, 2008). Wheatley et al. (2009) agree that positively reinforcing desired behaviour decreases undesired behaviour. PR encourages pupils to engage in activities and behaviour out of personal pleasure e.g., reading (Lepper et al., 2005), inevitably enhancing pupil’s intrinsic motivation in and outside of school settings (Willingham, 2005). According to Willie (2002), introducing ‘mystery motivators’ positively reinforces good behaviour which involves providing an unknown reward. Similar studies by Moore and Waguespack (1994) and Kehle et al. (1998) agree that the ‘mystery motivator’ approach shows favourable results in improving disruptive classroom behaviour (DeMartini-Scully et al., 2000; Kehle et al., 2000).

5.2 Curriculum Adaptions

Ferro et al. (1996) showed an association between the curricular content and the pupil’s resulting classroom behaviour. The content of the curriculum needs to be modified to adapt to the pupil’s additional needs and abilities in order to enhance their contribution and engagement in class and reduce the chances of disruptive behaviour. Curricular content that is not age and ability appropriate, lacks creativity, does not emulate the interest of pupils and cannot be applied to other contexts can foster challenging behaviour (Ferro et al., 1996).

5.3 Positive Competition

Using competitive techniques will help motivate pupils to perform academically in class, raising situational interest (Jones et al., 2009). This method has shown favourable results amongst teachers (Ediger, 2001) and enjoyment amid pupils (Bergin & Cook, 2000). However, Kohn (1992) has criticised the use of competition to motivate pupils. Kohn (1993, p.1) argues that setting pupils against each other is destructive and counterproductive, negatively comparing ‘competition is to self-esteem as sugar is to teeth’. He states that disruptive behaviour is triggered by competition, as it fosters hostility and mistrust towards others. Meece et al. (2006) study concurs that competition is demotivating as students are outshone by their peers and the focus is on surpassing your peers rather than the learning process. Gottfried et al. (2001) study agrees, stating that competition has shown a decrease in level of engagement in class and an increase in disruptive behaviour. However, Good and Brophy’s (2008) study disagrees, stating that competitive methods can be used to assist in behaviour management, to promote positive behaviour and reduce disruption within the class. Their study found that competitive methods create a more stimulating and attractive lesson for pupils. Tingstrom et al. (2006, p.245) study shows positive results for effective use of positive rivalry e.g., the ‘Good Behaviour Game’ which motivates pupils and reduces disruptive behaviour. He suggests that competitive activities are usually accompanied with rewards for the desired learning intention and the fewest behavioural transgressions (Good & Brophy, 2008). This leads to adopting competitive strategies to manage behaviour and results in improved academic performance i.e., meeting deadlines.

5.4 Student Autonomy

Encouraging autonomy increases motivation among students in the classroom (Guthrie et al., 2000; Reeve, 2009; Stefanou et al., 2004). Hidi and Harackiewicz (2000) and Turner (1995) claim that increased self-sufficiency among pupils in their learning process can enhance academic interest in their work improving behaviour in class and educational performance. Stefanou et al. (2004) reference 3 types of support that teachers can offer to students:

1. Organisational autonomy (allowing students some decision in the classroom organisation)
2. Procedural autonomy (choice of alternative media to portray ideas)
3. Cognitive autonomy (providing pupils the opportunity to self-evaluate their own work)

According to Bieg et al. (2011) teachers need to support autonomous behaviour which involves listening to pupils’ contribution and creating more individual-based tasks for pupils to work on by themselves, promoting improved learning behaviour.

5.5 Student-Teacher Relationship

Ikeogu (2011, p.74) study found that positive relations with pupils resulted in reduced levels of disruptive behaviour, and those who experienced disruptive behaviour felt this was due to unstable relationships among peers. Creating a connection with pupils allows teachers to understand their frustrations which helps to resolve any undesired behaviour (Kuhlenschmidt and Layne, 1999). Gest et al. (2005) propose that a close, supportive relationship between pupils and teachers will result in a more positive atmosphere, quality academic performance and good behaviour in class.

SUMMARY

This present study aimed to review an assortment of literature on the connection between motivation in the classroom and disruptive behaviour. Many factors are relevant in influencing disruptive behaviour but paramount is the motivational level which are dependent on the school ethos. The interaction between pupils and social quality of the classroom, educators, and pupils can add to this. Following analysis of a selection of motivational theories, (using multiple academic approaches to understand student’s behaviour and how to motivate them) no single model addresses all the factors influencing motivation and how to control destructive behaviour in the classroom. A lack of evidence on external conditions influencing student’s behaviour requires further research in order to effectively motivate pupils and reduce possible undesired behaviour in the classroom. The findings of this study is that encouraging a mastery orientated classroom displays more positive behaviour than achieving performance goals. Future research needs to focus on adapting the curriculum to address both classroom behaviour and academic motivation.
Word Count: 3,295

REFERENCES

• Agbuga, B., Xiang, P., & McBride, R. (2010). Achievement Goals and Their Relations to Children’s Disruptive Behaviours in an After-School Physical Activity Program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 29 (3), p278-294.
• Aly, A., & Gracey, D. (2013). Dealing with disruptive behaviours in the classroom – a case example of the coordination between the faculty and assistance dean for academics. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology. 3, 1-15.
• Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. J. Educ. Psychol. 84, 261-71.
• Anderman, E. A., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287-310.
• Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (2002). Methods for studying goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. In Goals, Goal Structures, and Patterns of Adaptive Learning, ed. C Midgley, pp. 1-53. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Arbuckle, C., & Little, E. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions and management of disruptive classroom behaviour during the middle years (years five to nine). Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 4, 59-70.
• Ausdemore, K. B., Martella, R. C., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2005). School-wide positive behavioural support: A continuum of proactive strategies for all students. Retrieved October 18th, 2015, from New Horizons.
• Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, J. M. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369-386.
• Ball, S. (1977). Motivation in Education. New York: Academic Press.
• Bergin, D. A., & Cooks, H. C. (2000). Academic competition among students of colour: An interview story. Urban Education, 35 (4), 442-472.
• Biehler, R., & Snowman, J. (1997). Psychology applied to teaching (Chapter 11). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Available Online.
• Bieg, S., Backes, S., & Mittag, W. (2011). The role of intrinsic motivation for teaching, Journal for Educational Research Online, 3 (1), 122-140.
• Boekarts, M. (1993). Being concerned with well-being and with learning, Educational Psychology, 28, 149-167.
• Bong, M. (2009). Age related differences in achievement goal differentiation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 879-896.
• Brophy, J. (1999). Beyond behaviourism: Changing the classroom management paradigm. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Retrieved January 7, 2010, from Curtin University of Technology Library E-Reserve.
• Browne, K. (2012). Challenging behaviour in secondary school students: Classroom strategies for increasing positive behaviour. New Zealand: Journal of Teacher’s Work, 10, 125-147.
• Carr, E. G., Levin, L., McConnachie, G., Carlson, J. I., Kemp, D. C., & Smith, C. E. (1994). Communication-based intervention for problem behaviour: A user’s guide for producing positive change. Baltimore: Brookes.
• Covington, M. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: findings and implications, Elementary School Journal, 85, 5-20.
• Dandy, J., & Nettelbeck, T. (2000). The model student? An investigation of Chinese Australian students’ academic achievement, studying, and causal attributions for academic success and failure. Australian Psychologist, 35, 208-215.
• Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: D. C. Health.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum Press.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-269.
• DeMartini-Scully, D., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2000). A packaged intervention to reduce disruptive behaviours in general education students. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 149-156.
• Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and Motivation: A Literature Review, System 23(2), 165-174.
• Ding, M., Li, Y., Li, X., & Kulm, G. (2008). Chinese teachers’ perceptions of students’ classroom misbehaviour. Educational Psychology, 28(3), 305-324.
• Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan.
• Duchesne, S., & Ratelle, C. (2010). Parental behaviours and adolescents’ achievement goals at the beginning of middle school: Emotional problems as potential mediators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 497-507.
• Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
• Dweck, C. (1999). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
• Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
• Ediger, M. (2001). Cooperative Learning Versus Competition: Which is Better? ERIC ED 461 894, ERIC Web Portal, Date Accessed 10th June 2008.
• Elliot, A., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
• Elliot, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
• Elliott, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.
• Feinstein, S. (2003). School-wide positive behaviour supports. Journal of Correctional Education, 54(4), 163-173.
• Ferro, J., Foster-Johnson, L., & Dunlap, G. (1996). Relation between curricular activities and problem behaviours of students with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 184-194.
• Frisoli, G. (2008). B. f. skinner: Reinforcement theory. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from Adult Learn and Tech.
• Galloway, D. (1995). ‘Truancy, delinquency, exclusion and disruption: differential school influences?’ Education Section Review, 19(ii), 49-53.
• Galloway, D., Ball, T., Blomfield, D., & Seyd, R. (1982). Schools and Disruptive Pupils. London: Longman.
• Galloway, D., Rogers, C., Armstrong, D. & Leo, E. (1998). Motivating the difficult to teach. London, New York: Longman.
• Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2005). Behavioural predictors of changes in social relatedness and liking school in elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 281-301.
• Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2008). Looking in classrooms. 10th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.
• Gottfried, A., Fleming, J., & Gottfried, A. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 3-13.
• Guay, F., Chanal, J., Ratelle, C. F., Marsh, H. W., Larose, S., & Boivin, M. (2010). Intrinsic, identified, and controlled types of motivation for school subjects in young elementary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 711-735.
• Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331-341.
• Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151-179.
• Hudley, C., Graham, S. & Taylor, A. (2007). Reducing aggressive behaviour and increasing motivation in school. Educational Psychologist, 42, 251-260.
• Hughes, J., Wu, W., & West, S. (2010). Teacher performance goal practices and elementary students’ behavioural engagement: A developmental perspective. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 1-23.
• Ikeogu, N. (2011). An exploration of the link between pupil motivation and disruptive behaviour in the classroom. PhD thesis, Institute of Education, University of London.
• Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development, 73, 509-527.
• Jagacinski, C. M., & Nicholls, J. G. (1987). Competence and affect in task involvement and ego involvement: The impact of social comparison information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 107-114.
• Johnson, L. A. (2008). Relationship of Institutional Methods to student engagement in tow public high schools. American Secondary Education, Vol. 36, 69-87.
• Jones, K., Doveston, M., & Rose, R. (2009). The motivations of mentors: promoting relationships, supporting pupils, engaging with communities, Pastoral Care in Education, 27:1, 41-51, DOI: 10.1080/02643940902733167.
• Kane, J., Head, G., and Cogan, N. (2004). Towards inclusion? Models of behaviour support in secondary schools in one education authority in Scotland. British Journal of Special Education, 31 (2), 68-74. DOI: 10.1111/j.0952-3383.2004.00331.x
• Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and student well-being. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 330-358.
• Kaplan, A., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2002). Classroom goal structure and student disruptive behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 191-211.
• Kehle, T. J., Maudas, M. M., Baratta, V. S., & Bray, M. A. (1998). Augmented self-modeling as a treatment for children with selective mutism. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 377-399.
• Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Theodore, L. A., Jenson, W. R., & Clark, E. (2000). A multi-component intervention designed to reduce disruptive classroom behaviour. Psychology in the Schools, 37(5), 475-481. Retrieved from EBSCO MegaFile database.
• Kelly, J. A., & Hansen, D. J. (1987). Social interactions and adjustment. In V. B. Can Hasselt & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 131-146). Pergamon Press: Springer.
• Kirstein, M. (2010). The role of motivation in Human Resource Management: Importance of motivation factors among future business persons. Masters thesis, Aarhus University.
• Klem, A., & Connell, J. (2004). Relationships Matter: Linking Teacher Support to Student Engagement and Achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 264-274.
• Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Korb, R. (2012). Motivating Defiant and Disruptive Students to Learn: Positive Classroom Management Strategies. USA: Corwin Press.
• Kuhlenschmidt, S. L., & Layne, L. E. (1999). Strategy for dealing with difficult behaviour. Retrieved 25th September 2015 here.
• Kusurkar, R. A., Croiset, G., & Ten Cate, T. J. (2011). Twelve tips to stimulate intrinsic motivation in students through autonomy-supportive classroom teaching derived from Self-Determination Theory, 33, 978-982.
• Lai, E. R. (2011). Motivation: A Literature Review. Research Report. New York, NY: Pearson. Available here.
• Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 184-196. Retrieved January 24, 2007, from PsycINFO database.
• Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31, 313-327.
• Martin, A. J. (2008). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a multi-dimensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 239-269.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-96.
• Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.
• McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Dallas: Scott, Foresman.
• McCurdy, B. L., Kunsch, C., & Reibstein, S. (2007). Secondary prevention in the urban school: Implementing the behaviour education program. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 12-19.
• McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement related processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 381-395.
• McLean, A. (2003). The Motivated School. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
• Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487-503.
• Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of a lack of ability: An under-explored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710-718.
• Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nicholls, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388-422.
• Miner, J. (2006). Organisational Behaviour 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
• Moore, L. A., & Waguespack, A. M. (1994). Mystery motivator: An effective and time-efficient intervention. School Psychology Review, 23, 106-118.
• National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.
• Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Nicholls, J. G., Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., & Patashnick, M. (1990). Assessing students’ theories of success in mathematics: Individual and classroom differences. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 109-122.
• Nour, D. M. (2004). University Teachers’ Management Strategies and Students’ Disruptive Behaviour. Retrieved from The American University in Cairo. 25 September 2015. Link.
• Pierson, L. H., & Connell, J. P. (1992). Effect of grade retention on self-system processes, school engagement, and academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 300-307.
• Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
• Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92-104.
• Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
• Power, M. J., Alderson, M. R., Phillipson, C. M., Schoenberg, E., & Morris, J. M. (1967). Delinquent schools, New Society, 10, 19 October: 542-3.
• Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129-144.
• Reeve, J. (2009). Why Teachers adopt a Controlling Motivating Style towards Students and How They can Become More Autonomy Supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44 (3), 159-175.
• Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149-172). New York, NY: Springer.
• Romando, R. (2007). Motivation Theory. Ezine Articles. Retrieved from Link.
• Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents’ self-appraisals and academic engagement: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408-422.
• Roeser, R. W., & Eccles J. S. (1998). Adolescents’ perceptions of middle school: relation to longitudinal changes in academic and psychological adjustment. J. Res. Adolesc. 8:123-58.
• Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008). Self-reported and actual use of proactive and reactive classroom management strategies and relationship with teacher stress and student behaviour. Educational Psychology, 28(6), 693-710.
• Ruef, M. B., Higgins, G., Glaeser, B. J. C., & Patnode, M. (1998). Positive behaviour support: Strategies for teachers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(1), 21-32.
• Ryan, A. M. (2000). Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescents’ motivation, engagement, and achievement in school. Educational Psychologist, 35, 101-111.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation, learning, and well-being. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook on motivation at school. (pp. 171-196). New York: Routledge.
• Ryan, A., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 437-460.
• Ryan, A., & Pintrich, P. (1997). ‘Should I ask for help?’ The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329-341.
• Schunk, D., & Mullen, C. (2012). Self-efficacy as an engaged learner. In S. J. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 219-235). New York: Springer.
• Seifert, T. (2004). Understanding student motivation, Educational Research, 46(2), 137-149, DOI: 10.1080/0013188042000222421.
• Seifert, T., & O’Keefe, B. (2001). The relationship of work avoidance and learning goals to perceived competency, externality and meaning, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 81-92.
• Shen, J., Zhang, N., Zhang, C., Caldarella, P., Richardson, M. J., & Shatzer, R. H. (2009). Chinese elementary school teachers’ perceptions of students’ classroom behaviour problems. Educational Psychology, 29(2), 187-201.
• Skinner, C. H., Pappas, D. N., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Enhancing academic engagement: Providing opportunities for responding and influencing students to choose to respond. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 389-403.
• Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 765-781.
• Steer, A. (2005). Learning behaviour: The report of the practitioners’ group on school behaviour and discipline. Nottingham: DfES.
• Stefanou, A. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting Autonomy in the Classroom: Ways Teachers Encourage Students Decision Making and Ownership. Educationalist Psychologist, 39(2), 97-110.
• Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1-9.
• Tingstrom, D. H., Sterling-Turner, H. E., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2006). The good behaviour game: 1969-2002. Behaviour Modification, 30, 225-253.
• Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 410-441.
• Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. Advances in motivation and achievement: The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement, 16A, 105-167.
• Veiga, F. H., Melo, M., Pereira, T., Frade, A., & Galvão, D. (2014). Students’ engagement in school, achievement goals and grade level: A literature review. In F. Veiga (Coord.) Envolvimento dos Alunos na Escola: Perspetivas Internacionais da Psicologia e Educação / Students’ Engagement in School: International Perspectives of Psychology and Education (pp. 399-412). Lisboa: Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa.
• Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behaviour in school: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behaviour and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 357-364.
• Wheatley, R. K., West, R. P., Charlton, C. T., Sanders, R. B., Smith, T. G., & Taylor, J. (2009). Improving behaviour through differential reinforcement: A praise note system for elementary school students. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 551-571. Retrieved March 11, 2010, from ERIC database.
• Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy – value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
• Wigfield, A., & Tonks, S. (2002). Adolescents’ expectancies for success and achievement task values during middle and high school years. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents. Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
• Willie, J. R. (2002). Reducing Disruptive Classroom Behaviour with Multicomponent Intervention: A Literature Review, Unpublished Manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Stout.
• Willingham, D. L. (2005). Ask the cognitive scientist: How praise can motivate- or stifle. American Educator, 29, 23-27. Retrieved March 11, 2010, from Education Research Complete database.
• Wright, J. (2012). Six Reasons Why Students Are Unmotivated (and What Teachers Can Do), available at Link, accessed on 20/08/2014.
• Zyngier, D. (2007). Listening to teachers-listening to students: Substantive conversations about resistance, empowerment and engagement. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(4), 327-347.