There are several empirical studies which support the notion that addressing disruptive behaviour produces significant positive outcomes among learners. Among other scholars are Frick et al, (1991: 289-294); Hall et al, (1968: 1–12); Colvin et al, (1993: 361–381); Espin et al, (1994:154–169); Sutherland et al, (2000: 2–8); Sugai, et al, (2002: 315–350); Reinke et al, (2007: 247–263). They postulate that various classroom management strategies have been linked to positive student outcomes, including increased student academic engagement and decreased disruptive behaviour.
Frick et al (1991: 289-294) state that academic underachievement and the disruptive behaviour disorders were found to be positively correlated in American Students. Academic underachievement (AU) was studied among 177 clinic-referred boys (aged 7– 12 yrs) reliably diagnosed as having attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or conduct disorder (CD). The study assessed AU using a formula that determined the discrepancy between a child's predicted level of achievement and actual level of achievement while controlling the regression and age effects. AU was associated with both ADHD and CD when the disorders were examined individually, however, when examined in multivariate legit model analyses, the apparent relation between CD and AU was found to be due to its co-morbidity with ADHD. When boys with ADHD were divided into those with attention deficits only and those with co-occurring hyperactivity, findings did not support the hypothesis that the association with AU was stronger for attention deficits without co-occurring hyperactivity.
45
Markus et al. ( 1992: 429-435) found in a 2-year prospective follow-up study of 100% (N = 29) of a sample of children and adolescents with disruptive behaviour disorders, the baseline lumbar cerebrospinal fluid, monoamine metabolite, concentration and autonomic nervous system activity predicted some subsequent outcomes. The results suggest that further investigation of relationships between biological factors and poor academic performance outcomes of children with disruptive behaviour disorders is warranted. This was proved to be true since their concentration would have been compromised by biologicalfactors which constitutes disruptive behaviour
According to Georgia State University (1999), behaviour modification procedures have typically been used to eliminate discipline problems in the classroom through reinforcement of no disruptive behaviour. The report demonstrated an alternative approach whereby discipline problems were eliminated by reinforcing relevant academic skills. Five fifth-grade boys, identified by their teacher as discipline problems, were observed. The teacher conducted 15-min performance sessions in her reading class during which written academic performance and disruptive behaviour was recorded. These measures indicated that the boys' average level of disruption was 34%, while their reading performance was below 50%. The Georgia State University (1999) study notes that when systematic token reinforcement was applied to reading performance only, the rate of disruption fell drastically and reading performance increased and when the reinforcement procedure was withdrawn, disruption rose again and reading performance declined. Therefore the reinstatement of positive reinforcement doubled reading performance and eliminated disruption.
The University of Chicago Press (Duke, 1979) conducted a study to investigate the relation between teachers' ratings of the classroom behaviour of 1,013 fourth graders and student achievement. Students were identified whose behaviour was decreasing as frequently inattentive and withdrawn, and others were identified as being disruptive. Norm-referenced and criterion-referenced achievement tests indicated that inattentive- withdrawn behaviour was associated with depressed academic performance, at least to
46
the extent that disruptive behaviour was. These results have strong implications for research and practice. Disruptive students tend to draw far more attention from teachers, whereas teachers may overlook inattentive students in spite of the potentially- profound effects of non-participation in class. As a result, both student performance achievements are compromised as disruptive students were no better than the non- attentive as the attention they got from the teacher was negative. This has serious implications.
Rosenstein (2006) assessed disruptive behaviour from the medical perspective and its implication on child development, which also includes academic performance among other issues involved. Disruptive behaviours were a common occurrence in the preoperative setting. Disruptive behaviours increased levels of stress and frustration, which impaired concentration, impeded communication flow, and adversely affected staff (teachers) relationships and team collaboration (students). According to Rosenstein (2006), these events were perceived to increase the likelihood of poor deliverance, as well as motivation, by teachers to students and adversely affect students‘ academic performance. They also pointed out that disruptive behaviour is a medical problem that needs to be addressed urgently as it causes serious long-term effects on children because of its spill-over effects on their day-to-day lives.
Research was conducted at the University of Missouri-Columbia by Reinke (2008) using A Class Wide Teacher Consultation Model for Increasing Praise and Decreasing Disruptive Behaviour. The Classroom Check-up (CCU) was developed as a class-wide consultation model to address the need for classroom level support while minimizing treatment integrity problems common to school-based consultation. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of the CCU and Visual Performance Feedback on teacher and student behaviour. Results indicated that implementation of the CCU plus Visual Performance Feedback increased teacher implementation of classroom management strategies, including increased use of praise, use of behaviour such as specific praise, and decreased use of reprimands. Furthermore, these changes in
47
teacher behaviour contributed to decreases in classroom disruptive behaviour. The results are encouraging because they suggest that consultation at the classroom level can create good meaningful teacher and student behaviour which is a prerequisite ingredient to achieve the goal of learning there-by leading to higher academic performance.
Conclusively, disruptive behaviour impact strongly on the quality of education offered and received. It also affects the ability of educators to maintain consistently-high standards and thus, academic performance is compromised at schools.