Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
in middle schools
Haigen Gu
Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, China
Shu-Ling Lai
Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Renmin Ye
Houston Independent School District, Houston, Texas, USA
Abstract
Using the latest international educational database, TIMSS, this study investigates and
compares the occurrences of 11 student problem behaviors as reported by middle
school principals in ten countries. For each country, the study reveals the relationships
of these problem behaviors with teachers’ attitudes and parental involvement, and
discusses the influences of the problem behaviors on students’ academic achievement.
Finally, a longitudinal study analyses the development and changes of student problem
behaviors in 1995, 1999, 2003, and 2007 using the data from TIMSS four regular cycles.
The results find that the student problem behaviors, especially those problem behaviors
related to lessons or conflicting with others, in the Western country schools, have
strong relationships with students’ performances. The findings provide worldwide per-
spectives and meaningful references for intensive research of school psychology, reduc-
tion of student problem behaviors in middle schools, and improvement of students’
academic performance.
Keywords
cross-cultural study, four cycles, middle school, problem behaviors, TIMSS
Corresponding author:
Shu-Ling Lai, College of Creative Design, Asia University, 500 Lioufeng Road, Wufeng, Taichung 41354, Taiwan
Email: sllai@asia.edu.tw
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO RIO DE JANEIRO on June 19, 2016
Gu et al. 21
Introduction
It is important to examine what problems exist in schools today, not only the
perceptions of teachers, but also those of members of the general public who are
often in the position of passing judgement on the health of the education system
and who are instrumental in the policy making process (Salkind et al., 2000).
Student behavior management is one of the greatest challenges that teachers
encounter every day, and misbehaving students have to be dealt with immediately,
because problem behaviors often have a negative effect upon outcomes in the
school environment (Hung & Lockard, 2007). The co-occurrence between poor
academic performance and behavior problems is a significant predictor of school-
related adjustment problems, which continue to hold as children age (Gilbertson,
Duhon, Witt, & Dufrene, 2008; Morgan & Merier, 2008). Educational and psy-
chological researchers have made great efforts on a variety of programs to solve or
reduce student problem behaviors in schools. A program conducted by Holsen,
Smith, and Frey (2008) had significant positive effects on externalizing, but not
internalizing problem behaviors, and the results varied between genders and class-
rooms; Scarpaci (2007) used a rational method to analyse student problem behav-
iors and proposed a practical approach to assist teachers in managing and solving
most behavior problems; Bond’s article (2008) highlighted 12 questioning tech-
niques and offered additional strategies to minimize students’ problem behaviors;
and Peterson (2007) provided ten books and a range of materials with strategies to
manage student problem behaviors. However, a major US national concern is that
student problem behaviors are both ongoing and growing, and similar concerns
are apparent in other countries (De Jong, 2005). It is necessary to investigate,
analyse, and understand the levels of students’ problem behaviors, factors that
influence the development of problem behaviors, and their impacts on multiple
aspects. Student problem behaviors are relevant to school environment and cul-
ture, which have tremendous influences on student values, beliefs, motivations, and
attitudes. School climate has been widely perceived as a critical factor in successful
schools and a litmus test for student academic achievement. Whenever educators
spend excessive time managing student inappropriate behaviors, it is harmful both
for students with and without behavioral problems because it forces teachers to
devote valuable instructional time to address those misbehavers and decreases the
number of learning opportunities for other students. Thus, educational environ-
ments have become complicated and difficult (Shin & Koh, 2008). Parental
involvement serves as an important factor that relates to the number of student
problem behaviors in schools, but current levels of parental involvement in most
schools are meager and infrequent (Koutrouba, Antonopoulou, Tsitsas, &
Zenakou, 2009). Poor parent-child relationships and low parental monitoring
are also important reasons for students’ problem behaviors (Malete, 2007).
Teachers’ responses and actions impact students’ behaviors in the classrooms
more than school policy (Marachi, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2007). Teachers’ behav-
iors contribute to classroom disruptive behaviors, and students’ performance is
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO RIO DE JANEIRO on June 19, 2016
22 School Psychology International 32(1)
Methods
The primary data source of this investigation was the School database of TIMSS
2007 group B (the eighth grade) reported by principals. Major variables were the
number of occurrences of 11 student problem behaviors in schools, and the scale
range was from 1–Never to 5–Daily. The independent variables also included the
items related to the student problem behaviors: teachers’ attitudes (their job satis-
faction and expectations for achievement), parental support for student achieve-
ment and involvement in school activities (see Appendix 1 for details), and student
academic achievement. Students’ academic achievement was worked out by using a
mean combining ten mathematics and science standard testing scores from the
Student Database, and the range was 1.0–5.0.
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO RIO DE JANEIRO on June 19, 2016
Gu et al. 23
Results
Comparison of student problem behaviors in middle schools among
the countries
Overall, the occurrences of the student problem behaviors in middle schools were
not very high. With a Likert-type scale, including five levels (from 1–never to
5–daily), none of the means was larger than 4.0 level (see Table 1). By the com-
parisons of 11 problem behaviors, four were higher: arriving late at school, class-
room disturbance, absenteeism, and violating dress code, which mostly were around
the 3.0 level; and four were rather low: physical injury to other students, theft,
cheating, and vandalism, which were below the 2.0 level. The arriving late at
school behavior had the highest means in eight countries (excluding Australia
and Korea), and school principals in six countries reported that this problem
behavior was often at more than a monthly (>3.0) level. The classroom disturbance
behavior was also frequent, and its occurrences were higher than monthly (>3.0)
level in Australia, Canada, England, and the US, but it was very low in Japanese
schools. The principals in Japan reported very low occurrences of theft, cheating,
classroom disturbance, profanity, and skipping class behaviors, but there were very
high rates of absenteeism and arriving late at school behaviors. In Russia, all student
problem behaviors were lower than those in other countries, and their rates of
vandalism and theft were extremely low. Korean students’ rate of classroom distur-
bance was fairly high as compared to other problem behaviors.
An interesting finding was that there were evident differences between four
Western countries: Australia, Canada, England, and the US and three countries
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO RIO DE JANEIRO on June 19, 2016
24 School Psychology International 32(1)
Australia 220 M 3.59 3.28 2.64 3.29 3.71 2.06 3.20 2.38 2.22 3.15 2.01
SD 1.31 1.29 1.30 1.28 1.17 .71 1.28 .87 .65 1.00 .56
Canada 328 M 3.68 2.98 2.07 2.40 3.30 2.06 2.80 2.12 1.95 2.80 2.04
SD 1.25 1.23 1.22 1.01 1.20 .59 1.09 .81 .69 1.07 .71
England 134 M 3.45 2.94 2.47 3.14 3.30 1.86 2.91 2.15 2.00 2.60 2.06
SD 1.32 1.30 1.12 1.31 1.20 .44 1.19 .68 .52 .92 .56
HK 118 M 2.84 2.38 1.67 2.96 2.48 1.96 2.45 1.92 1.95 1.87 1.54
SD 1.16 1.03 .73 1.21 1.06 .53 1.08 .76 .58 .69 .58
Japan 144 M 3.03 3.00 1.73 2.23 1.64 1.54 1.66 1.84 1.47 1.87 1.69
SD 1.39 1.60 1.06 1.23 .96 .56 .89 .90 .62 .71 .70
Korea 150 M 2.19 1.70 1.42 2.28 2.64 1.27 1.90 1.55 1.47 1.73 1.53
SD 1.07 .85 .68 1.22 1.33 .44 .84 .68 .57 .69 .57
Russia 210 M 2.68 2.29 2.34 1.63 2.19 2.34 1.95 1.15 1.16 1.40 1.48
SD 1.15 1.03 .93 .92 1.03 .95 .92 .40 .37 .66 .51
Singapore 159 M 3.36 2.77 2.33 3.05 2.82 1.91 2.18 2.01 2.06 2.19 1.75
SD 1.32 1.13 .85 1.23 1.10 .28 .80 .53 .43 .64 .54
C-Taipei 151 M 2.65 2.18 1.87 2.52 2.44 2.03 2.84 2.19 1.73 2.09 1.88
SD 1.06 .69 .66 1.05 1.01 .50 1.05 .64 .57 .62 .49
USA 206 M 3.35 3.00 1.74 2.66 3.11 2.15 2.74 1.99 1.96 2.75 1.87
SD 1.22 1.31 .90 1.07 1.04 .60 1.12 .61 .66 .94 .68
with the least problem behaviors: Korea, Russia, and Japan. In the latter three
countries, student problem behaviors were below monthly (mostly <2.0) level,
which illustrated that in these three countries, students had very good school envi-
ronments. Because of the small means of the occurrences, the differences of the
occurrences [Standard Deviations (SD)] among the schools were small, and this
meant there were no large differences between all schools in each country. In Japan,
about 50% of the schools never had student classroom disturbance behaviors, but in
the four Western countries, nearly 30% of schools reported that this problem
behavior occurred daily. The occurrences of student problem behaviors in
Australian middle schools were very high (six problem behaviors >3.0), and
eight problem behaviors had the largest frequency values among all participating
countries with very large SD, which illustrates that these problem behaviors varied
immensely even within Australian schools. Almost all student problem behaviors in
Canada, England, and US also have high frequencies, and more than 20% of
school principals reported student absenteeism behavior daily, but in Korea,
about 23% of schools never had this problem behavior. By comparisons, those
occurrences of problem behaviors in Singapore, Chinese Taipei, and Hong Kong
were mostly at medium levels.
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO RIO DE JANEIRO on June 19, 2016
Gu et al. 25
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO RIO DE JANEIRO on June 19, 2016
26
M SD Late Absent Skip Dress Disturb Cheat Profanity Vandal Theft Abuse Injury
Australia 3.85 .63 0.29*** 0.41*** 0.50*** 0.33*** 0.33*** 0.04 0.29*** 0.45*** 0.21** 0.14* 0.25***
Canada 3.88 .53 0.30*** 0.30*** 0.18*** 0.28*** 0.27*** 0.26*** 0.38*** 0.23*** 0.13* 0.21*** 0.14*
England 3.97 .55 0.21* 0.25** 0.21* 0.24** 0.15 0.02 0.17* 0.19* 0.10 0.24** 0.23**
HK 3.77 .54 0.23* 0.29** 0.20* 0.20* 0.26** 0.21* 0.19* 0.26** 0.25** 0.19* 0.28**
Japan 3.52 .50 0.32*** 0.27** 0.32*** 0.30*** 0.26** 0.25** 0.29*** 0.34*** 0.32*** 0.31*** 0.31***
Korea 3.83 .60 0.39*** 0.32*** 0.21** 0.33*** 0.41*** 0.11 0.22** 0.15 0.26** 0.17* 0.25**
Teachers0 attitudes
Russia 3.29 .39 0.24*** 0.30*** 0.29*** 0.03 0.24*** 0.11 0.19** 0.02 0.13 0.34*** 0.20**
Singapore 3.76 .56 0.15 0.24** 0.19* 0.16* 0.31*** 0.02 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.18* 0.24**
C-Taipie 4.00 .55 0.35*** 0.22** 0.08 0.13 0.17* 0.15 0.39*** 0.41*** 0.15 0.13 0.27***
USA 3.96 .61 0.15* 0.05 0.31*** 0.09 0.27*** 0.13 0.31*** 0.12 0.14* 0.24*** 0.29***
(The range for teachers’ attitudes is 1–5); *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO RIO DE JANEIRO on June 19, 2016
School Psychology International 32(1)
Gu et al.
M SD Late Absent Skip Dress Disturb Cheat Profanity Vandal Theft Abuse Injury
Australia 3.21 .81 0.37*** 0.50*** 0.51*** 0.37*** 0.40*** 0.01 0.42*** 0.40*** 0.17 0.29*** 0.24***
Canada 3.08 .84 0.37*** 0.49*** 0.39*** 0.33*** 0.35*** 0.26*** 0.44*** 0.33*** 0.25*** 0.36*** 0.19**
England 3.15 .73 0.48*** 0.56*** 0.39*** 0.23** 0.33*** 0.03 0.25** 0.22* 0.13 0.26** 0.16
HK 2.96 .81 0.37*** 0.34*** 0.26** 0.35*** 0.22* 0.15 0.20* 0.25** 0.16 0.24** 0.37***
Japan 3.20 .67 0.26** 0.20* 0.38*** 0.28*** 0.27*** 0.13 0.27** 0.38*** 0.22*** 0.23** 0.19*
Korea 3.28 .77 0.33*** 0.31*** 0.23** 0.21* 0.22** 0.07 0.21*** 0.20* 0.26** 0.23** 0.29***
Parental Involvement
Russia 2.81 .48 0.21** 0.29*** 0.19** 0.07 0.28*** 0.07 0.17* 0.09 0.01 0.14* 0.04
Singapore 3.09 .68 0.19* 0.29*** 0.25** 0.12 0.37*** 0.01 0.19* 0.11 0.05 0.16* 0.24**
C-Taipei 3.75 .72 0.16 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.24** 0.25** 0.23** 0.10 0.10
USA 3.14 .94 0.16* 0.43*** 0.47*** 0.18* 0.43*** 0.24*** 0.49*** 0.28*** 0.29*** 0.38*** 0.45***
(The range for parential involvement is 1–5); *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO RIO DE JANEIRO on June 19, 2016
27
28
Table 4. Multiple regression for preditions of students’ academic achievement by student problem behaviors
Late Absent Skip Dress Disturb Cheat Profanity Vandal Theft Abuse Injury r2/Fdf¼11 M/SD
Australia b 0.07 0.17 0.15 0.00 0.11 0.18 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.18 .25/115*** 505.7
t 3.01** 6.05*** 6.31*** 0.00 5.05*** 11.00*** 3.89*** 1.75 3.39*** 1.90 10.77*** 67.9
Canada b 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.02 .06/36*** 519.8
t 2.49* 4.54*** 5.79*** 2.92** 0.32 0.43 4.18*** 3.00** 1.25 4.24*** 1.29 56.7
England b 0.16 0.27 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.04 0.13 0.16 0.05 0.03 .17/67*** 526.4
t 6.07*** 8.47*** 1.93 1.45 1.18 8.43*** 1.62 6.00*** 7.34*** 2.11* 1.37 72.8
HK b 0.07 0.33 0.01 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.15 0.03 .26/103*** 545.4
t 2.51* 11.79*** 0.64 5.82*** 6.23*** 8.31*** 1.70 4.19*** 3.18** 6.38*** 1.20 74.2
Japan b 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.04 .06/25*** 557.5
t 1.40 2.10* 1.21 4.33*** 2.91** 3.70*** 2.56* 1.29 0.05 0.88 1.50 67.6
Korea b 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.09 .01/5*** 569.3
t 3.24** 3.78*** 0.03 0.57 0.25 0.39 0.47 0.67 1.18 2.71** 3.78*** 70.9
Russia b 0.04 0.13 0.03 0.17 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.00 .05/18*** 517.2
t 1.95 6.02*** 1.30 9.30*** 2.47* 1.92 2.71** 1.21 1.40 1.42 0.01 68.1
Singapore b 0.12 0.01 0.17 0.10 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.06 0.12 .13/58*** 572.6
t 5.33*** 0.25 8.21*** 4.84*** 1.69 6.13*** 4.88*** 5.01*** 0.64 3.10** 6.85*** 86.9
C-Taipei b 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.14 0.06 0.00 .02/9*** 573.1
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO RIO DE JANEIRO on June 19, 2016
t 0.48 0.10 2.76** 1.79 1.18 3.71*** 1.42 4.42*** 6.11*** 2.45* 0.01 84.8
USA b 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.09 .06/34*** 512.6
t 3.78*** 4.15*** 3.66*** 4.44*** 0.41 5.03*** 3.48*** 2.58** 0.20 1.23 5.66*** 67.4
(The range for students’ achievement is 200–800); *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
School Psychology International 32(1)
Gu et al. 29
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO RIO DE JANEIRO on June 19, 2016
30 School Psychology International 32(1)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
Australia Canada England H.K. Japan Korea Russia Singapore C-Taipei USA
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
Australia Canada England H.K. Japan Korea Russia Singapore C-Taipei USA
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
95
99
03
07
Australia Canada England H.K. Japan Korea Russia Singapore C-Taipei USA
1-Never to 5-Daily
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO RIO DE JANEIRO on June 19, 2016
Gu et al. 31
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO RIO DE JANEIRO on June 19, 2016
32 School Psychology International 32(1)
What happened in each participating country that led to changes in the numbers of
student problem behaviors in schools? More studies in this field should find and
discuss the relationships of student problem behaviors in school with worldwide
development and changes.
Public opinion over the past 30 years consistently rates lack of discipline in
schools to be one of the biggest problems teachers have to contend with in schools
(De Jong, 2005). Analyses of international databases may help educators find
existing educational states of affairs and relationships from a worldwide perspec-
tive, but its limitations are that the questions are beyond the scope of items in the
databases and are therefore unavailable for analyses and impossible to follow-up.
Thus, clear explanations of causes and internal reasons of the results requires
further investigation.
Notes
1. The term ‘country’ in this article is from the TIMSS unit, which does not involve any
political argument.
2. For the results of students’ Mathematics and Science testing scores, see the Report of
TIMSS, and the results of Reading testing scores from PIRLS.
References
Akin-little, K. A., Little, S. G., & Laniti, M. (2007). Teachers’ use of classroom management
procedures in the United States and Greece: A cross-cultural comparison. School
Psychology International, 28(1), 53–62.
Berthold, K. A., & Hoover, J. H. (2000). Correlates of bullying and victimization among
intermediate students in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 21(1),
65–78.
Bond, N. (2008). Questioning strategies that minimize behavior problems. Education Digest,
73(6), 41–45.
De Jong, T. (2005). A framework of principles and best practice for managing student
behavior in the Australian education context. School Psychology International, 26(3),
353–370.
Gilbertson, D., Duhon, G., Witt, J. C., & Dufrene, B. (2008). Effects of academic response
rates on time-on-task in the classroom for students at academic and behavioral risk.
Education and Treatment of Children, 31(2), 153–165.
Gladman, M., & Lancaster, S. (2003). A review of the behavior assessment system for
children. School Psychology International, 24(3), 276–291.
Holsen, I., Smith, B. H., & Frey, K. S. (2008). Outcomes of the social competence program
‘second step’ in Norwegian elementary schools. School Psychology International, 29(1),
71–88.
Hung, W., & Lockard, J. (2007). Using an advance organizer guided behavior matrix to
support teachers’ problem solving in classroom behavior management. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 22(1), 21–36.
Koutrouba, K., Antonopoulou, E., Tsitsaa, G., & Zenakou, E. (2009). An investigation of
Greek teachers’ views on parental involvement in education. School Psychology
International, 30(3), 311–328.
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO RIO DE JANEIRO on June 19, 2016
Gu et al. 33
Malete, L. (2007). Aggressive and antisocial behaviors among secondary school students in
Botswana. School Psychology International, 28(1), 90–109.
Marachi, R., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishhy, R. (2007). Effects of teacher avoid-
ance of school policies on student victimization. School Psychology International, 28(4),
501–518.
Morgan, P. L., & Meier, C. R. (2008). Dialogic reading’s potential to improve children’s
emergent literacy skills and behavior. Preventing School Failure, 52(4), 11–16.
Peterson, L. Y. (2007). Strategies to manage problem behaviors. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 42(4), 248–249.
Reinke, W. M., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Merrell, K. (2008). The classroom check-up: A class-
wide teacher consultation model for increasing praise and decreasing disruptive behavior.
School Psychology Review, 37(3), 315–332.
Rey, R. B., Smith, A. L., Yoon, J., Somers, C., & Barnett, D. (2007). Relationships between
teachers and urban African American children. School Psychology International, 28(3),
346–364.
Roth, K., & Givvin, K. B. (2008). Implications for mathematics and science instruction.
Principal Leadership, 8(9), 22–27.
Salkind, N., Adams, D., Dermer, C., Heinerikson, J., Jones, B., & Nash, E. (2000). Guns
and chewing gum. School Psychology International, 21(1), 106–112.
Scarpaci, R. T. (2007). IOSIE: A method for analyzing student behavioral problems. The
Clearing House, 80(3), 111–116.
Shin, S., & Koh, M. (2008). A cross-cultural study of students’ behaviors and classroom
management strategies in the USA and Korea. Journal of the International Association of
special Education, 9(1), 13–27.
Tatsuoka, K. K., Corter, J. E., & Tatsuoka, C. (2004). Patterns of diagnosed mathematical
content and process skills in TIMSS-R across a sample of 20 countries. American
Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 901–926.
Thuen, E., & Bru, E. (2009). Are changes in students’ perceptions of the learning environ-
ment related to changes in emotional and behavioral problems? School Psychology
International, 30(2), 115–136.
Wilkinson, L. A. (2006). Monitoring treatment integrity: An alternative to the ‘consult and
hope’ strategy in school-based behavioral consultation. School Psychology International,
27(4), 426–438.
Yazdkhasti, F., & Harizuka, S. (2006). The effects of temperament and perceived maternal
rejection on childhood anxiety and behavior problems. School Psychology International,
27(1), 105–128.
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO RIO DE JANEIRO on June 19, 2016
34 School Psychology International 32(1)
creative design psychology fields. Address: 500, Lioufeng Road, Wufeng, Taichung
41354, Taiwan. Email: ccd@asia.edu.tw
Appendix
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO RIO DE JANEIRO on June 19, 2016