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.