DYNAMICS OF MANAGING LEARNERS’ CLASSROOM DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR: EXPERIENCES OF SECONDARY SCHOOL STAFF, SOUTH AFRICA By MOTSEKISO CALVIN LETUMA 2010072862 Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Education in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PHD) in Education Management and Leadership University of the free state Faculty of Education 2023 Promoter: Dr L Mdodana-Zide Co-promoter: Dr BS Nhlumayo ii Declaration I declare that the thesis titled “Dynamics of Managing Learners’ Classroom Disruptive Behaviour: Experiences of Secondary Staff, South Africa” is my authentic and independent piece of research that has not been previously submitted to any academic institution. I hereby affirm that all sources utilised or cited in my work have been appropriately acknowledged and referenced. Motsekiso Calvin Letuma Signature Date: November 2023 iii Acknowledgements I sincerely appreciate the Almighty for bestowing constant guidance and consistently reinforcing my determination, thereby cultivating the strength to surmount instances of doubt and unease. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to my supervisors, Dr. Mdodana-Zide and Dr. Nhlumayo, for their extensive expertise, constant support, and consistent demonstration of patience in guiding me throughout my academic journey. I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation for the generous way they readily shared their expertise and experiences, which significantly influenced the progress of this project. I want to extend my heartfelt gratitude and deep appreciation to my family, especially my wife, Mamorena. Your courageous words and the prayers you extended served as a source of nourishment for me in my scholarly investigation. To all my family at large, I am grateful. I am privileged to have a highly supportive and wonderful familial unit that has consistently offered me unwavering encouragement throughout this study. Your words continually fostered a dynamic ambience and provided moral support. I thank my friends for their steadfast support and consistent presence throughout this scholarly pursuit. Your support, insightful perspectives, and stimulating remarks have significantly influenced the advancement of this project. I want to extend my sincere appreciation to the participants who participated in this research, generously sharing their personal experiences. The significant involvement of your participation has substantially enhanced the effective completion of this study attempt. The successful completion of this project would not have been possible without your invaluable support. As a collective, we embarked on this intellectual endeavour. iv Abstract The efficacy of the classroom environment in facilitating learning is contingent upon the teacher’s successful management of Classroom Disruptive Behaviour (CDB) and the degree to which learners adhere to the strategies the teachers use. The function of schools in influencing learners’ good behaviour is paramount due to the intricate nature of the behavioural challenges learners encounter, which stem from the different factors. The study explored secondary school staff’s experiences in the dynamics of managing learners’ disruptive behaviour in the classroom. The following subsidiary questions guided the study: What are the views of secondary school staff on the factors that cause learners’ CDB in school? How do secondary school staff manage the dynamics of learners’ disruptive behaviour in the classroom? What challenges do secondary school staff experience when managing learners’ disruptive behaviour in the classroom? What strategies can be used to address the challenges and strengthen the management of learners’ disruptive behaviour in the classroom? The study adopted a qualitative approach and employed interpretive paradigm as the lens and descriptive phenomenology as the design to explore staff’s lived experiences of CDB management. The study was grounded in Assertive Discipline Theory. Seven teachers and six School Management Team members were selected purposively from four quintile three secondary schools. Seven teachers formed a focus group discussion, while semi-structured interviews were conducted with six School Management Team (SMT) members. Three data-collecting instruments, namely focus group discussion, semi-structured interviews and document analysis, were used during data collection. To extract significant concepts pertinent to the generated data accurately, inductive content analysis was used to analyse data. This study found that a mix of external, school and learner factors contribute to CDB. This research offered evidence that the schools are likely to endure academic underperformance since CDB significantly affects teaching and learning.The research threw light on how schools were making concerted efforts to address CDB through various initiatives related to policy. The study also revealed that the staff members v adopted non-policy-related approaches when managing CDB and that when the staff members confronted CDB, they experienced both internal and external difficulties. To address the schools’ contextual factors contributing to CDB, the study recommends that staff, especially the School Management Team (SMT), be capacitated with skills in areas like monitoring, setting up functional school committees (Disciplinary and School-Based Support Team), putting in place effective textbook retrieval systems, starting functional induction programmes for new teachers and outsourcing professional development. The study further recommends that the district set up a District Support Team to show the staff how to create effective classroom rules, implement policies related to the suspension of learners, understand the difference between discipline and punishment, and put the National School Safety Framework into place. The study also suggests that the district monitors the admission of learners in schools. The research provided evidence that there was overcrowding in schools and that such a situation propelled CDB. In addition, the study recommends that the district assist the school in establishing various athletics opportunities for learners to showcase their talents. Implementing the Screening, Identification, Assessment and Support policy should be mandatory across every school. Presently, schools are just being encouraged to screen learners. The research found that secondary schools admit learners without Screening Assessment Needs forms. Thus, such practice makes it tough to establish proactive measures to manage disruptive behaviour among learners efficiently, particularly those with severe learning impairments. The study further recommends that the admissions policy should outline the age limits for learners to be enrolled in each grade level. The policy should also expressly state that parents should enrol their children in Adult Basic Education and Training if they surpass the stipulated age restriction. The study offers evidence that older learners cause behavioural problems for teachers and their peers in the same classroom. In the context of secondary schools, the policy should specifically restrict the admission of learners who exceed the designated age limit. Presently schools can only go as far as encouraging parents to enrol their older children in Adult Basic Education and vi Training. There is a loophole in that parents may refuse to follow the schools’ suggestions. To add to existing strategies and strengthen the management of CDB, the study proposed the Alternatives to the Establishment of the Conducive Learning Environment model. Keywords: Behaviour, Disruptive, Classroom, Learner, Teacher, School, Staff vii Table of Contents Declaration ................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. iii Abstract .................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ....................................................................................................... xvi List of Tables ........................................................................................................ xvii List of Acronyms/Abbreviations ........................................................................ xviii Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Rationale for the Study .............................................................................. 5 1.3 Problem Statement ........................................................................................... 6 1.4 Main Research Question................................................................................... 7 1.5 Subsidiary Questions ........................................................................................ 7 1.6 Research Aim ................................................................................................... 7 1.7 Research Objectives ......................................................................................... 7 1.8 Potential Value of the Study .............................................................................. 8 1.9 Delimitation of the Study ................................................................................... 8 1.10 Definition of Operational Concepts ................................................................. 9 1.10.1 Dynamics .................................................................................................. 9 1.10.2 Staff .......................................................................................................... 9 1.10.3 Teacher .................................................................................................. 10 1.10.4 School Management Team ..................................................................... 10 1.10.5 Classroom............................................................................................... 10 1.10.6 Meaning of disruptive .............................................................................. 10 viii 1.10.7 School ..................................................................................................... 11 1.10.8 Learner ................................................................................................... 11 1.11 Chapter Layout ............................................................................................. 11 1.12 Chapter Summary ......................................................................................... 12 Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework .................................................................. 14 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................... 14 2.3 The Origin of Assertive Discipline Theory ....................................................... 15 2.4 Understanding the Assertive Discipline Theory ............................................... 15 2.5 Philosophical Approaches to the Management of Learners’ Behaviour .......... 16 2.6 Global Application of Assertive Discipline Theory ........................................... 18 2.7 Discipline in the Context of Assertive Discipline .............................................. 20 2.8 Situating Assertive Discipline in the South African School Legal Context ....... 21 2.9 The Classroom Situation in the Context of Assertive Discipline ...................... 22 2.9.1 Non-assertive teacher ............................................................................... 23 2.9.2 Hostile teacher .......................................................................................... 23 2.9.3 Assertive teacher ...................................................................................... 23 2.10 Assertive Teachers’ Perception of Learners’ Behaviour and Approaches..... 24 2.11 Difficult Learners ........................................................................................... 26 2.11.1 Reaching out to difficult learners ............................................................. 26 2.11.2 Building trust with difficult learners .......................................................... 27 2.11.3 Meeting the needs of difficult learners .................................................... 29 2.12 Assertive Teachers’ Behaviour Management Plan ....................................... 29 2.12.1 Identifying and expressing expectations ................................................. 29 2.12.2 Creating classroom rules ........................................................................ 30 2.12.3 Actively teaching expectations and rules ................................................ 31 ix 2.12.4 Paste rules publicly ................................................................................. 32 2.12.5 Consequences ........................................................................................ 32 2.13 Influence of Assertive Discipline Theory on the Study .................................. 34 2.14 Criticism of Assertive Discipline .................................................................... 35 2.15 Benefits of Assertive Discipline ..................................................................... 36 2.16 Summary ....................................................................................................... 37 Chapter Three: Literature Review ......................................................................... 38 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 38 3.2 Literature Review ............................................................................................ 38 3.3 Reasons Behind Disruptive Behaviour in the Classroom ................................ 38 3.4 Categories of Classroom Disruptive Behaviour ............................................... 40 3.4.1 Mild disruptive behaviour .......................................................................... 40 3.4.2 Deep disreuptive behaviour ...................................................................... 40 3.4.3 Extreme disruptive behaviour ................................................................... 41 3.5 Impact of Learners’ Classroom Disruptive Behaviour ..................................... 42 3.6 Learners’ Legal Behaviour Management System in South Africa ................... 44 3.7 Causes of Learners’ Classroom Disruptive Behaviour .................................... 45 3.7.1 Causes related to learners’ characteristics and unique traits .................... 45 3.7.1.1 Learning disorder ................................................................................ 46 3.7.1.2 Adolescent stage ................................................................................ 48 3.7.1.3 Peer pressure ..................................................................................... 48 3.7.2 Causes related to external factors ............................................................ 50 3.7.2.1 Socioeconomic status ......................................................................... 51 3.7.2.2 Environment ....................................................................................... 52 3.7.2.3 Substance abuse ................................................................................ 53 3.7.2.4 Parenting styles .................................................................................. 54 x 3.7.2.5 Lack of parental Involvement .............................................................. 55 3.7.2.6 Dysfunctional homes .......................................................................... 57 3.7.2.7 Social media ....................................................................................... 57 3.7.3 School-contextual factors ......................................................................... 58 3.7.3.1 Teachers as the cause of classroom disruptive behaviour.................. 58 3.7.3.2 Teachers’ attitudes .............................................................................. 59 3.7.3.3 Teachers’ beliefs ................................................................................. 60 3.7.3.4 Novice teachers .................................................................................. 61 3.7.3.5 School leadership ............................................................................... 62 3.7.3.6 Discipline system ................................................................................ 64 3.7.3.7 Lack of extracurricular activities .......................................................... 67 3.7.3.8 Overcrowded classrooms ................................................................... 68 3.7.3.9 Racial bias and stereotype ................................................................. 70 3.8 Managing Learners’ Disruptive Behaviour ...................................................... 71 3.8.1 Effective leadership .................................................................................. 72 3.8.2 Establish social cohesion in schools ......................................................... 73 3.8.3 Stakeholder collaboration ......................................................................... 74 3.8.3.1 Teachers’ and learners’ collaboration ................................................. 74 3.8.3.2 School and parent collaboration ......................................................... 75 3.8.4 Culturally relevant teaching ...................................................................... 76 3.8.5 Teachers’ emotional intelligence ............................................................... 77 3.8.6 Changing mindsets ................................................................................... 79 3.8.7 Positive discipline ..................................................................................... 80 3.8.8 Praise-to-reprimand ratio feedback ........................................................... 81 3.8.9 Professional development ........................................................................ 84 3.9 Summary ......................................................................................................... 85 xi Chapter Four: Research Design and Methodology ............................................. 87 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 87 4.2 Research Paradigm ........................................................................................ 87 4.2.1 Ontology ................................................................................................... 88 4.2.2 Epistemology ............................................................................................ 88 4.2.3 Methodology ............................................................................................. 89 4.2.4 Interpretive paradigm ................................................................................ 89 4.3 Research Approach ........................................................................................ 90 4.3.1 Qualitative research approach .................................................................. 91 4.3.1.1 Advantages of the qualitative approach .............................................. 92 4.3.1.2 Disadvantages of the qualitative approach ......................................... 93 4.4 Research Design ............................................................................................ 94 4.4.1 Phenomenology research design ............................................................. 94 4.5 Data Generation Process ................................................................................ 95 4.5.1 Sampling ................................................................................................... 95 4.5.1.1 Purposive sampling ............................................................................ 97 4.5.1.2 Data collection strategies ................................................................... 98 4.5.1.3 Interview ............................................................................................. 98 4.5.1.4 Semi-structured interview ................................................................... 99 4.5.1.5 Focus group discussion .................................................................... 100 4.5.1.6 Document analysis ........................................................................... 101 4.5.1.7 Data collection steps ........................................................................ 102 4.6 Data Analysis ................................................................................................ 104 4.6.1 Qualitative content analysis .................................................................... 105 4.6.1.1 Deductive content analysis ............................................................... 105 4.6.1.2 Inductive content analysis................................................................. 106 xii 4.6.1.3 Inductive content analysis steps ....................................................... 106 4.7 Issues of Trustworthiness ............................................................................. 108 4.7.1 Credibility ................................................................................................ 108 4.7.1.1 Triangulation ..................................................................................... 108 4.7.2 Dependability .......................................................................................... 109 4.7.2.1 Audit trail ........................................................................................... 109 4.7.3 Conformability ......................................................................................... 109 4.7.3.1 Member checking ............................................................................. 110 4.7.4 Transferability ......................................................................................... 110 4.8 Ethical Considerations .................................................................................. 111 4.8.1 Permission to conduct the study ............................................................. 111 4.8.2 Informed consent .................................................................................... 112 4.8.3 Confidentiality and anonymity ................................................................. 112 4.9 Limitations of the Study ................................................................................. 113 4.10 Summary of the Chapter ............................................................................. 113 Chapter Five: Data Presentation, Interpretation and Analysis ......................... 115 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 115 5.2 Profile of Research Sites and Participants .................................................... 115 5.2.1 Profile of research sites .......................................................................... 115 5.2.2 Profile of the participants ........................................................................ 116 5.3 Data Analysis ................................................................................................ 117 5.3.1 Conceptualisation of classroom disruptive behaviour ............................. 118 5.3.2 Factors that contribute to classroom disruptive behaviour ...................... 118 5.3.2.1 Out-of-school factors ........................................................................ 119 5.3.2.2 School-contextual factors ................................................................. 120 5.3.2.3 Learner factor ................................................................................... 124 xiii 5.3.3 Strategies that the staff use to address classroom disruptive behaviour 124 5.3.3.1 Policy-related strategies ................................................................... 125 5.3.3.2 Non-policy-related strategies ............................................................ 127 5.3.4 Challenges experienced by the staff when addressing classroom disruptive behaviour ......................................................................................................... 128 5.3.4.1 Internal challenges ........................................................................... 128 5.3.4.2 External challenges .......................................................................... 132 5.3.5 Mitigation strategies for classroom disruptive behaviour ........................ 133 5.3.5.1 Refine school practices .................................................................... 133 5.3.5.2 Team building ................................................................................... 136 5.3.5.3 Professional development ................................................................ 137 5.3.5.4 Accessibility of additional social workers .......................................... 137 5.3.6 Document analysis ................................................................................. 138 5.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 146 Chapter Six: Findings, Discussions and Conclusions ..................................... 147 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 147 6.1.1 Aim of the study ...................................................................................... 147 6.1.2 Research objectives ............................................................................... 147 6.2 Major Findings .............................................................................................. 147 6.2.1 Conceptualisation of classroom disruptive behaviour ............................. 148 6.2.2 Factors that contribute to classroom disruptive behaviour ...................... 148 6.2.2.1 Out-of-school factors ........................................................................ 148 6.2.2.2 School-contextual factors ................................................................. 152 6.2.2.3 Learner factors ................................................................................. 160 6.2.3 Strategies that the staff use to address classroom disruptive behaviour 162 6.2.3.1 Policy-related strategies ................................................................... 162 xiv 6.2.3.2 Non-policy-related strategies ............................................................ 167 6.2.4 The challenges experienced by the staff when managing classroom disruptive behaviour ......................................................................................... 171 6.2.4.1 Internal challenges ........................................................................... 171 6.2.4.2 External challenges .......................................................................... 176 6.2.5 Mitigation strategies for classroom disruptive behaviour ........................ 177 6.2.5.1 Refine school practices .................................................................... 177 6.2.5.2 Team building through sports and camps ......................................... 181 6.2.5.3 Professional development ................................................................ 182 6.2.5.4 Provision of more social workers ...................................................... 182 6.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 183 6.4 Recommendations ........................................................................................ 184 6.5 Recommendations for Future Research ....................................................... 185 6.6 Summary of the Chapter ............................................................................... 185 Chapter Seven: Research Journey and Contribution to Knowledge ............... 186 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 186 7.2 Introductory Summary of the Research Background .................................... 186 7.3 My Research Journey ................................................................................... 186 7.4 Lessons Learned in the Research Journey ................................................... 189 7.5 Research Contribution .................................................................................. 191 7.6 Study Limitations ........................................................................................... 194 7.7 Final Word ..................................................................................................... 195 References ............................................................................................................ 196 Appendices ........................................................................................................... 236 Appendix A: Ethics clearance ............................................................................. 236 Appendix B: Permission from Department of Education ..................................... 237 xv Appendix C: Permission from the principal ......................................................... 238 Appendix D: Information leaflet and consent form .............................................. 239 Appendix E: Interview guide................................................................................ 244 Appendix F: Turnitin report.................................................................................. 246 Appendix G: Editor’s letter .................................................................................. 247 xvi List of Figures Figure 2.1: Summary of assertive teachers’ classroom behavioural management plan ................................................................................................................................. 34 Figure 3.1: Classroom disruptive behaviour steps ................................................... 42 Figure 3.2: Internal and external system relationships and influence on CDB ......... 71 Figure 5.1: Summary of major themes emerging from data ................................... 117 Figure 5.2: Example of code of conduct ................................................................. 139 Figure 5.3: Example of code of conduct ................................................................. 140 Figure 5.4: School B SBST meeting – 03.02.2023 ................................................. 141 Figure 5.5: School B SBST meeting – 20.03.2023 ................................................. 142 Figure 5.6 School D SBST meeting – 17.04.2023 .................................................. 143 Figure 5.7: School A classroom rules ..................................................................... 144 Figure 5.8: School D classroom rules..................................................................... 145 Figure 7.1: Alternatives to Establishing Conducive Learning Environment (AECLE) Model ..................................................................................................................... 192 xvii List of Tables Table 2.1: Examples of positive, negative, and vague classroom rules ................... 31 Table 4.1: School quintile description ....................................................................... 96 Table 4.2: Sampling procedure ................................................................................ 98 Table 5.1: Details of the schools sampled in this study .......................................... 115 Table 5.2: Participants’ biographic details .............................................................. 116 Table 5.3: Details of documents analysed per school and their availability ............ 138 Table 5.4: Sample of negative classroom rules in Schools A and D ...................... 144 xviii List of Acronyms/Abbreviations ABET Adult Basic Education and Training ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ADT Assertive Discipline Theory AECLE Alternatives to Establishing Conducive Learning Environment ATCP Alternatives To Corporal Punishment CD Conduct Disorder CDB Classroom Disruptive Behaviour CDE Centre for Development and Enterprise CM Circuit Manager CP Corporal Punishment CRT Culturally Relevant Teaching DBE Department of Basic Education DH Departmental Head DST District Support Team EDOREN Education Data Research and Evaluation Nigeria FET Further education and training FGD Focus Group Discussion FSDoE Free State Department of Education FTE Fixed Term Period GET General Education and Training xix HOD Head of Department HR Human Resource ICA Inductive Content Analysis LRA Labour Relations Act NASW National Association of Social Workers NNSSF National Norms and Standards for School Funding NSSF National School Safety Framework OAGWA Office of the Auditor General, Western Australia ODD Oppositional Defiant Disorder OED Oxford English Dictionary PAM Personal Administrative Measures PD Professional Development PE Permanent Exclusion PRR Praise-to-Reprimand Ratio PTR Pupil-Teacher Ratio RSA Republic of South Africa SACE South African Council for Educators SADAG South African Depression and Anxiety Group SADTU South African Democratic Teachers Union SAHRC South African Human Rights Commission SANCA South African National Council of Alcoholism SAPS South African Police Service xx SASA South African Schools Act SBST School-Based Support Team SES Socioeconomic Status SGB School governing body SIAS Screening, Identification, Assessment and Support SMT School Management Team SNA Support Needs Assessment SSI Semi-Structured Interview UK United Kingdom UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USA United States of America VBSP Verbal and Behaviour Specific Praise WM Working Memory 1 Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1.1 Introduction Classroom order is essential for effective teaching and learning because it enables teachers and learners to devote the required time to learning activities (Thiel, Böhnke, Barth & Ophardt, 2023). Order in the classroom is, however, frequently jeopardised by learners’ classroom disruptive behaviour (CDB) (Lunga, Koen & Mthiyane, 2021) in the sense that some learners could be abrasive, uninterested, or bored, while others exhibit behaviours that put the safety of teachers and learners in danger. As a result, one of the primary responsibilities of teachers is to prevent and manage CDB in schools (McLean, Sparapani, Connor & Day, 2020; Sibiya, Gamede & Uleanya, 2019). Therefore, it is imperative that teachers receive training in behaviour management strategies that comply with school legal frameworks, such as those that uphold human rights and are responsive to the new global societal context (Wolhuter & van der Walt, 2019). Wangdi and Namgyel (2022) define CDB as classroom behaviour that interferes with both learning and teachers’ instructional directions in the classroom. Alibec and Sirbu (2020) and Lunga, (2020) add that the interruptions caused by the behaviour trigger a pause in instructional activities and, therefore, lessens the time spent on teaching and learning. Granero-Gallegos, Gómez-López, Baena-Extremera and Martínez-Molina (2020) further add that CDB threatens effective teaching and learning. Classroom disruptive behaviour (CDB) refers to a learner’s behaviour that necessitates a teacher’s intervention and that, if ignored, prevents teachers and other learners from engaging in appropriate classroom activities. The CDB includes but is not limited to aggression, name-calling, mocking, teasing, physical violence, intimidation, and humiliating others (Majani, 2020; Patnaik, Sharma & Subban, 2022). CDB continues to be a challenge worldwide. For instance, studies in Australia highlight that teachers frequently deal with disruptive behaviour like chatting and inattention and struggle to get learners interested in studying (Crawshaw, 2015; Sullivan Johnson, Owens & Conway, 2014). Similarly, the Office of the Auditor General, Western Australia, (OAGWA) released its analysis of the behaviour control strategies used in 2 the state’s public schools. Among other findings, it was discovered that 39% of principals and teachers spent 20% of their time, which is equivalent to one day per week, on learners’ behaviour-related issues (OAGWA, 2014). Again, the findings reveal that CDB undermines the quality of teaching and learning. After surveying teachers and parents in more than 3000 schools, the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED) in the United Kingdom (UK), concluded that disruptive behaviour in schools was a significant problem (OFSTED, 2014). It further highlighted that one in 12 secondary teachers reported that more than ten minutes of instruction per hour were lost because of behavioural issues. That has also been found to be the key cause of teachers quitting the profession (Morgan, 2015). Stanforth and Rose (2020) assert that schools in the UK have implemented measures to address CDB, which frequently results in exclusions where learners are either permanently barred from attending school (permanent exclusion) or excluded from school for a Fixed Term Period (FTE). Persistent CDB was the most often cited cause for FTEs in 2015–16 years, accounting for 34.6% of the 339 360 learners excluded in primary, secondary, and special schools. According to Stanforth and Rose (2020), 6685 learners in those schools also received PE from the classroom. The United State of America (USA) Department of Education and Civil Rights (2016) affirms that in USA, millions of teenagers engage in behaviour that forces the establishment of disciplinary measures in schools. For the 2011–2012 academic year for grades K–12, the most recent statistics on a constrained range of disciplinary actions in the USA are as follows: 49 million children and adolescents were enrolled in public schools in the USA; 3 385 868 learners were suspended in school at least once; 3 172 403 learners were suspended out-of-school at least once; 1 419 690 learners were suspended more than once; approximately 19 000 learners were suspended (out-of-school) each school day; 130,000 learners were expelled; 249 752 referrals were made to law enforcement and 64 218 school-related arrests were made; and 166 607 learners were corporally punished (Cameron & Voonasis, 2018). 3 In Croatia, Vidić, Đuranović and Klasnić (2021) sought to determine the degree to which primary and secondary school teachers face learners’ CDB, their level of self- efficiency, their satisfaction with the environment’s support and the job itself, as well as the degree to which they experience burnout. The findings confirm that the mildest forms of learners’ disruptive behaviour are the most prevalent, and the severest forms of misbehaviour have the lowest values. Classroom disruptive behaviour (CDB) was shown to have a strong positive correlation with teacher burnout. In Africa, CDB is a concern in countries such as Tanzania, Mauritius, Cameroon, Nigeria and South Africa, among others. For instance, in Tanzania (Majani, 2020) posits that seven out of 10 teachers encounter CDB in their classrooms. According to (Madakara, 2020) the Tanzanian government introduced numerous initiatives to address learners’ behaviour in schools by strengthening guidance and counselling and hiring experts to handle school disciplinary issues. Despite these efforts, learners’ disruptive behaviour instances remain a challenge. In addition, Belle (2018) shares that the lack of collaboration between stakeholders in education exacerbates CDB in Mauritius. Ngwokabuenui (2015) asserts that in Cameroon, learners at secondary schools are extremely disrespectful of everyone, including their parents, teachers, school administration, and even themselves. According to Odebode (2020), it has become the norm for learners in Nigeria to indulge in every kind of disruptive behaviour, including stealing, fighting, and disrupting the peace at school and in the community. Similarly, extant data from Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria (EDOREN) posit that teachers reported a sharp increase in learners’ disruptive behaviour in Nigeria and that schools were becoming hard to manage (South African Council for Educators (SACE), 2021). In the context of South Africa, CDB is recognised as a multifaceted and intricate problem, hypothesised to be influenced by a range of interconnected factors including the school, the teachers, and broader societal variables (Wolhuter & van der Walt, 2020). Despite the implementation of several measures following the prohibition of corporal punishment in 1997, including the adoption of Alternative to Corporal Punishment (ATCP) strategies (Marumo & Zulu, 2019; Moyo, Khewu & Bayaga, 2014), the prevalence CDB remains widespread in schools. Instances of disruptions (Govender, 2021) and altercations (Ngqakamba, 2021) persistently circulate on 4 diverse media platforms, corroborating the research conclusions that CDB is prevalent within schools nationwide (Kitching, Rooyen & McDonald, 2019: van der Walt & Wolhuter, 2019). It has been argued by scholars that teachers continue to resort to the use of corporal punishment as a means of addressing challenging disciplinary behaviour (Motseke, 2020; Nunan & Ntombela, 2019). According to the South African Council for Educators (SACE, 2020), the figures for the year 2019/2020 indicate a prevalence of 38% in reported occurrences of assault and physical punishment in schools. Learners’ classroom disruptive behaviour can have a variety of negative effects on the teaching and learning environment. Dealing with CDB is considered a complicated task because it is influenced by different variables (Belle, 2018; Juta & Van Wyk, 2020; Wolhuter & van der Walt, 2020; Wangdi & Namgyel, 2022). According to empirical studies, CDB poses severe challenges for teachers, learners, and the teaching and learning process (Khan et al., 2019; Kanmani & Sujathamalini, 2022; Majani, 2020). According to Kanmani and Sujathamalini (2022) and Vidić, Đuranović and Klasnić (2021), teachers who teach learners who display disruptive behaviours face greater pressure, annoyance, weariness, emotional difficulties, and burnout. Additionally, the behaviour has a negative effect on teachers’ attitudes towards teaching. It causes them to gradually lose interest in their jobs (Cameron & Lovett, 2015; Khan et al., 2019; Majani, 2020) also claim that some aspiring teachers are hesitant to enter the teaching profession because they are worried about dealing with CDB, while some who are recently in the field quit owing to the behaviour (Moore et al., 2019; Stanforth & Rose, 2020). School environments significantly impact how children behave (Belle, 2018). Therefore, to ensure that a school is a safe place for learning, the teachers have to instil in learners the values of respect and discipline and oversee a disciplinary procedure that upholds these principles. According to Mulaudzi (2016), effective CDB management ensures order throughout the teaching and learning process and contributes significantly to upholding a favourable teaching and learning environment ensuring the seamless operation of schools (Segalo & Rambuda, 2018). The proposition posits that schools are unable to provide an environment that facilitates 5 appropriate instruction and acquisition of knowledge without the use of efficient strategies for managing CDB. 1.2 The Rationale for the Study The inspiration for this study came from my interests, upbringing, and observation of the location where I was teaching. When I grew up, corporal punishment was used extensively in schools, homes and communities. If a community member deemed one’s behaviour out of order, such a person was free to administer CP on the spot without the consent of one’s parents, who would not complain. Instead, should they find out about the incident, there was a likelihood of the same punishment from them for making it look like they did not teach their children how to conduct themselves in the community. For these reasons, I value respect and programmes geared towards teaching young people how to conduct themselves. In my experience, owing to the complexity of modern life, the adage that education is a three-legged process requiring the effective participation of teachers, parents, and learners is losing popularity. For instance, currently, only 34% of South African children live with both parents, 23% do not, and about 148 000 households are headed by a child who is 17 years old or younger (de Wet et al., 2019). Other than that, the invasion of teen pregnancy adds more. Statistics South Africa (2021) reports that 33 899 births in 2020 were to women 17 years old or younger. Of these, mothers aged 10 to 13 gave birth to over 600 children. In her written response to Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Basic Education, the minister of Basic Education, Angie Motshekga, confirmed that 90 037 schoolgirls aged 10–19 gave birth between March 2021 and April 2022 in South Africa (Mkize, 2022). This suggests that the primary teachers who should instil values and skills in children right from birth are limited in society. As a result, children grow with limited skills in how to conduct themselves. The concurrence of these factors has resulted in blame games between parents and teachers. Teachers criticise parents for not disciplining their children correctly at home, while parents blame teachers for not carrying out their duties effectively (Kitching, van Rooyen & McDonald, 2019). 6 I was teaching in a township secondary school. Schools in this kind of location are characterised by poor learner discipline (Motseke, 2020; Naidoo, 2021). Owing to several factors, including a lack of resources and infrastructure as well as their poor location, township schools are particularly vulnerable to unsafe situations and violent threats (Ngqela & Lewis, 2012 cited in Naidoo, 2021). Violence and blatant contempt for the law are two forms of learner discipline issues that are becoming increasingly common in schools in township schools (Arends, 2017). Unruly learners and disciplinary problems are day-to-day aspects of teaching; however, it seems that even though most schools have adopted a code of conduct to regulate learners’ behaviour, it is not always effective (Naidoo, 2021). As a result, schools in townships are a place where teachers’ and learners’ safety and happiness are not guaranteed due to the pervasiveness of disruptive behaviour such as violence (Lekalakala, 2019; Sipho & Percival, 2021) and bullying (Kitching, Van Rooyen & McDonald, 2019). According to Meyer (2005 cited in Nadoo, 2021), unemployment and poverty, frequently associated with townships and informal settlements, are the main drivers of crime. The author contends that many learners in township schools resort to unlawful ways of living including selling drugs, participating in illicit gambling, or robbing their fellow learners because of unemployment and poverty. The problem of crime is aggravated by drug and alcohol addiction, two social ills associated with unemployment and poverty. These issues typically result from antisocial or other general delinquent behaviour in the township (Naidoo, 2021). Therefore, the argument is made that teachers in township schools deal with these sorts of problematic behaviours regularly since schools are extensions of homes and bigger societies. 1.3 Problem Statement Literature provides substantial evidence that CDB is prevalent in many countries worldwide (Obadire & Sinthumule, 2021; Smith, 2021; Stremel et al., 2021) and that it disrupts and diverts teachers’ focus from teaching (Muna, 2020). The problem is not exclusive to South Africa. Previously, in South Africa, corporal punishment was used as a strategy to address CDB in schools (Naong, 2007). In 1997, corporal punishment was abolished because it was alleged that it violated human rights (Republic of South Africa (RSA), 1997). The Department of Education had to find different ways to replace corporal punishment. Hence, the ATCP measures were introduced in 2000 (Moyo, 7 Khewu & Bayaga, 2014). However, it has been observed that teachers continue to use corporal punishment, swearing and expelling learners from the classrooms (Motseke, 2020; Mahlangu et al., 2021) These measures are illegal (RSA, 1996). For instance, the SACE comparison analysis of cases from the 2018/2019, 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 years demonstrates that assault and corporal punishment cases in schools have consistently been at the top of all kinds of cases (SACE, 2022). Therefore, this study aimed to investigate, from secondary school staff, their points of view regarding experiences of managing CDB in the Free State, Motheo District. 1.4 Main Research Question What are the experiences of secondary school staff in managing learners’ disruptive behaviour in the classroom in South Africa? 1.5 Subsidiary Questions 1. What are the views of secondary school staff on the factors that cause learners’ classroom disruptive behaviour in school? 2. How do secondary school staff manage the dynamics of learners’ disruptive behaviour in classrooms? 3. What challenges do secondary school staff experience in the dynamics of managing learners’ disruptive behaviour in classrooms? 4. Which strategies can be used to alleviate the challenges and strengthen the management of disruptive behaviour in classrooms? 1.6 Research Aim To explore secondary school staff’s experiences of the dynamics of managing learners’ disruptive behaviour in classrooms in South Africa. 1.7 Research Objectives 1. To gain perspective on the views of secondary school staff on the factors that cause learners’ disruptive behaviour in classrooms. 2. To establish how secondary school staff manage the dynamics of learners’ disruptive behaviour in classrooms. 8 3. To gain perspective on the challenges that secondary school staff experience in the dynamics of managing learners’ disruptive behaviour in classrooms. 4. To identify strategies that can be used to alleviate the challenges and strengthen the management of disruptive behaviour in the classroom. 1.8 Potential Value of the Study The study is of value to the Department of Education, school management, teachers, and policymakers. Comprehending the underlying reasons for disruptions like admission policy and progression policy helps policymakers amend policies to tackle issues in schools. The Department of Education can create interventions specifically designed to tackle challenges including overcrowding, textbooks issue, and inadequate sports facilities by allocating more resources. The study findings are valuable as they guide the development of professional programmes for teachers and administrators, which might be a focus for the education department at the national and provincial levels. The study also provides teachers with the knowledge on efficient methods for handling disruptive behaviour, cultivating positive relationships with learners, and establishing a supportive school environment. The study further proposed an additional model, the Alternative to Establishing a Conducive Learning Environment (AECLE) that can be used to enhance the management of CDB. 1.9 Delimitation of the Study Delimitations are characteristics that restrict a study’s latitude and define the parameters which the researcher chooses (Leedy & Ormrod, 2020). Delimitations in this study were the boundaries I set to limit the study’s scope. The study’s target group, secondary school staff in public schools, was one of the delimiting variables. Delimitations, according to Leedy and Ormrod (2020) also encompass the theoretical stances one takes when conducting research. The study was grounded on a single theory, assertive discipline, which helped to explain how secondary school staff could be empowered to express themselves and create a supportive learning environment by developing a discipline plan that allows them to communicate their needs openly without violating learners’ rights. Furthermore, this study was limited to 13 participants, including six SMT and seven teachers in township secondary schools. These 9 participants helped to create distinctive and sufficient data to accomplish the study’s goals and provide answers to the research questions. 1.10 Definition of Operational Concepts This part provides the definitions of the following terms: dynamics, staff, learner, disruptive, teacher, classroom, school, staff, and SMT and also provides the author’s position on the usage of these terms. 1.10.1 Dynamics The Oxford English Dictionary defines dynamics in terms of behaviour, social interaction, group and subject discipline in the following ways: (a) the way different parts of a person’s personality interact with each other; (b) how they actively change, whether they are aware of it or not; (c) the forces that cause social change; (d) how people from different groups or, more often, in the same group interact with each other; and e) the part of physics that studies how forces work; in the past, it only meant how forces generate or change motion. In this study, the concept of “dynamics” refers to the condition of various forces that have an impact on certain behaviours. This refers to the variables motivating staff to use diverse strategies to address disruptive conduct inside the classroom. A variety of factors, including policy, personal views, attitudes, training, and the overall work environment may influence staff members’ adoption of different strategies for managing disruptive conduct. 1.10.2 Staff Staff is defined under the South African Schools Act (SASA) as anyone employed at the school (Republic of South Africa, 1996). The Oxford English Dictionary defines staff as a group of people recruited to perform the duties of a specific organisation or institution. In the context of South Africa, the school is staffed by a diverse range of individuals who are responsible for executing specific duties and responsibilities. Considering this rationale, I used the term ‘staff’ in this study to refer only to those who are engaged in teaching responsibilities, namely teachers and the SMT members. 10 1.10.3 Teacher According to Rajagopalan (2019), a teacher is a person who shares their experiences, information and skills with others. Under laws such as the Employment of Educator Act 76 of 1998, which regulates schools’ affairs in South Africa, a teacher is defined as anybody who instructs and educates others. The National Policy Act 27 of 1996 stipulates that instructing others should take place at the educational institution for this individual to be regarded as a teacher (RSA, 1996). Thus, the people who have the authority to teach learners at school are called teachers. 1.10.4 School Management Team The School Management Team (SMT) is described by Etonge (2014) as a group established in the school to address its growing concern for excellent management practices. The SMT is a formal team whose members are chosen to supervise policy and its execution. The team comprises the principal, deputy principal and department heads (DHs). According to the Personal Administration Measures (PAM), one of the SMT’s responsibilities is teaching learners like regular teachers (RSA, 1999). 1.10.5 Classroom According to Van der Walt and Wolhuter (2019), a classroom is a structured and planned space for the formal instruction of learners, typically under 18 years old. The authors further highlight that the determining factor between the structured space at school and higher learning institutions is age, as those in school are still young and governed by classroom rules for discipline. 1.10.6 Meaning of disruptive Disruptive is an adjective derived from the verb ‘disrupt’, which means disturbing, upsetting, disorderly, unsettling, unpleasant, rowdy, obstreperous, or troublemaking (Etonge, 2014). According to Mafa et al. (2013 cited in Lunga, 2020), disruptive behaviour is any act or series of acts a person engages in that irrationally affects, impedes, blocks, or prevents another person from engaging in a particular activity, programme, or service. Wangdi and Namgyel (2022) assert that disruptive behaviour includes behaviour that may hinder an educational institution and its workers in their 11 performance of their core duties properly. Thus, disruptive behaviour in a classroom refers to any learner or teacher’s behaviours that interfere with teaching and learning. 1.10.7 School Habibi (2017) refers to the school as a place of study. The National Education Policy Act 27 of 1996 (RSA, 1996) defines a school as an educational setting that offers instruction to students in pre-primary, primary, or secondary school. The Oxford English Dictionary adds that a school is an institution that provides formal education to children. It is implied that a school is a venue in which planned and organised spaces are available to assist teachers in providing learners with formal instruction. 1.10.8 Learner A learner is defined under the SASA as a person receiving or required to pursue education (RSA, 1996). The National Policy Act 27 of 1996 defines a learner as a person who is enrolled in an educational institution (RSA, 1996) to learn the way of receiving instructions (Oxford English Dictionary). The Britannica Dictionary defines a learner as a person who is attempting to acquire information or skills in anything through study, practice, or getting instruction. 1.11 Chapter Layout Chapter One: This chapter serves as an introduction, offering a comprehensive overview of the study’s history, problem statement, key research questions, justification, and the importance of the study. In this chapter, I also defined key concepts that underpin the study. Towards the end of the chapter, I provided an outline delineating the structure and arrangement of the study. Chapter Two: This chapter provides an overview of the Assertive Discipline Theory (ADT) theoretical framework, which serves as the foundation for this research. The chapter discusses the theory’s inception, its underlying assumptions, and its significance to the legal system of South African schools. I discussed the theory’s assumptions about the classroom environment, teachers, and learners. As per the model, strategies for managing learners, especially those who pose significant challenges, were extensively presented. In this chapter’s concluding section, I critique 12 the theory and discuss how it contributes to the study’s ability to formulate conclusions and suggestions and provide an alternative model. Chapter Three: This chapter provides a comprehensive literature review of disruptive behaviour in the classroom, including research conducted at the local, continental, and international levels. The review explores several relevant issues, including factors that cause disruptive behaviour, its effects on the classroom environment, and strategies for managing and addressing it effectively. Chapter Four: This chapter provides a discussion of research design and methodology. It sheds light on the interpretive paradigm employed in this study. The study employs a qualitative approach, specifically using a phenomenology design. The chapter thoroughly discusses several aspects of research, including the process of data generation, the methods of data analysis, the importance of trustworthiness, and the ethical concerns involved. Chapter Five: Findings and analysis of data are presented in this chapter. The analysis is grounded on the four subsidiary questions that served as guiding principles for the research, which have been organised into major subthemes. Chapter Six: In this chapter, I discuss the results, draw conclusions, and provide recommendations. This chapter presents a synthesis of the results in relation to the existing literature, as well as the suggested model that aims to address the identified gaps regarding management of disruptive behaviour in classrooms. Chapter Seven: This chapter describes the research journey and the contributions made. The chapter commences with elucidating the insights derived from the investigation, culminating in the contribution to the existing body of knowledge in the realm of my research area. 1.12 Chapter Summary Chapter One introduced this study on secondary staff’s experiences of the dynamics of managing learners’ disruptive behaviour in the classroom. The study’s context, central questions, rationale, problem statement, goals, and essential research questions were all presented. The delimits and implications of the study were 13 examined. The chapter ended with a summary of the study and elucidated the key concepts used throughout. The theoretical and conceptual framework that underpinned this study is discussed in detail in Chapter Two. 14 Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework 2.1 Introduction The previous chapter provided the introduction and background information to this study. This chapter focuses on the ADT which underpinned this study. The following topics and their subtopics are covered in this chapter: theoretical framework; the origin of the assertive discipline model; philosophical approaches to learners’ behaviour management; understanding assertive discipline; situating assertive discipline in South African schools’ legal context; global application of the assertive discipline model; assertive discipline and the teacher; assertive teachers’ perception of learners; difficult learners; a behaviour management plan; criticism of assertive discipline and the benefits of the assertive discipline model. 2.2 Theoretical Framework A theoretical framework represents the perspective that the researcher uses to examine, interpret, or explain the occurrence of the behaviour of the subjects or events under investigation (Hughes, Davis & Imenda, 2019). It serves as the cornerstone for determining the study’s credibility and applicability (Vithal, 2019) by helping the researcher to organise procedures to follow in carrying out the research and assess how closely it relates to the body of knowledge already in existence (Adom et al., 2018). It further assists the researcher to identify and outline the concepts that will be used, thereby facilitating the structure of the study by minimising the use of irrelevant data (Chukwuere, 2021) and makes the research problem, the terms used, and their definitions more explicit (Vithal, 2019). Thus, the theoretical framework generally establishes links between the research problem, specific research questions, data collecting, analytic procedures, and how the findings would be interpreted (du Plessis & van der Westhuizen, 2018; Kyngäs, Mikkonen & Kääriäinen, 2020). In this study Assertive Discipline Theory (ADT) has been adopted. ADT is used as a parameter guiding the study to its unique conclusions. 15 2.3 The Origin of Assertive Discipline Theory The ADT was developed to address significant classroom management issues that impede learners learning and success (Onyango, Aloka & Raburu, 2018). It was designed to equip teachers with the knowledge and confidence to exercise authority and address school discipline issues effectively. Lee and Marlene Canter developed the theory in the 1970s after observing teachers’ struggles to address learners’ disruptive behaviour in school (Veronica, 2021). Canter’s involvement in the theoretical and practical components of assertiveness training for numerous categories of human conflict led to the development of this method. The training was aimed at helping individuals develop more effective ways of communicating their needs and aspirations (Eichmann, 1994). Based on this idea, teachers who use the ADT express their need and desires to learners in the classroom. 2.4 Understanding the Assertive Discipline Theory Assertive discipline is a classroom behaviour management strategy that emphasises clear guidelines for learners’ conduct, positive reinforcement for compliance, and penalties for non-compliance (Feldman, 1994). Munawar and Nisfah (2020) add that assertive discipline is a non-coercive method of classroom management in which the teacher develops a set of fair, strict, and consistent classroom rules relevant to the setting and age of learners. They also contend that in addition to classroom rules, teachers who use ADT set predetermined motivations for learners who abide by the rules, a list of unfavourable consequences for those who break the rules, and a method for carrying out the plan with the learners, such as how to educate them about what is anticipated (Malmgren, Krezek & Paul, 2005). That is, the theory stresses that it is critical for teachers to teach learners how to behave. ADT is founded on the principle that teachers have the right to teach without disturbance. Likewise, the learners have the right to learn in an environment without disturbance (Charles & Senter, 2005). This suggests that if a learner’s behaviour does not follow the guidelines, the teacher must assume responsibility for that learner’s behaviour (Praveen & Alex, 2017). The key to ADT is recognising and rewarding learners when they behave well and letting them know daily that the teachers appreciate them (Charles & Senter, 2005). 16 Assertive discipline approach suggests that teachers are the external locus of control and need to ensure that learners act in their best interests (Lewis, 1991 cited in Eichmann, 1994). It is a teacher-oriented approach since its premise is that teachers are the ideal people to deal with learners’ disruptive behaviour because they have more life experience than learners. The theory stresses that teachers have seen and experienced the effects of particular behaviours and are ideal people to guide learners in school (Eichmann, 1994). Thus, the assumption is that learners are naturally cooperative and capable of changing their behaviour depending on the situation. For this reason, Canter (1989) argues that, in school, one learner who is disruptive in a certain classroom might not necessarily be in another. According to Canter (2010) if learners have substantial knowledge on what is expected of them by the teacher, what will happen if they choose to meet those expectations, and what will happen if they choose to break the established classroom norms, they will make an informed decision regarding the choice of their behaviour. Thus, the primary target of the assertive discipline approach is to prevent disruptive behaviour from happening rather than punish it (Malmgren et al., 2005). The theory, therefore, advocates for teachers’ proactive rather than reactive measures when managing learners’ disruptive classroom behaviour. The ADT asserts that learners’ disruptive behaviour should not be tolerated in a classroom since it interferes with a conducive learning climate. Canter (1989) contends that when a conducive environment is established, learners spend more time concentrating on their tasks, and teachers spend most of the lesson teaching rather than dealing with disruptive behaviour. 2.5 Philosophical Approaches to the Management of Learners’ Behaviour Several significant philosophical and educational approaches exist to learners’ behaviour management practices. I find it important to discuss their underlying presuppositions, objectives and approaches to classroom management to highlight how ADT relates to or does not relate to them. 17 Lewis (1991 cited in Eichmann, 1994) proposed three major categories for conceptualising the different educational theories regarding classroom management practices: the non-interventionist, interactionist, and interventionist theoretical stances. The three categories differ in this way: • The non-interventionist teachers prioritise a learner-focused approach to learners’ behaviour management. • Interactionist teachers use a group-oriented strategy for learners’ behaviour management. • The interventionist teacher uses a teacher-focused approach to learners’ behaviour management. According to Wolfgang and Glickman (1986 cited in Soheili et al., 2015) non- interventionist teachers think that learners have intrinsic motivation to achieve and express themselves and as a result they allow learners to be self-directive. Interventionists, on the other hand, believe that the environment, which includes people and objects, impacts learners’ behaviour and as a result, teachers should take control of learning environment proceedings (Yaşar, 2008). An interactionist method, which falls between non-interventionist and interventionist techniques, emphasises the teachers’ and learners’ mutual influence; teachers and learners share responsibility for classroom activities (Djigic & Stojiljkovic, 2011). Canter’s theory of assertive discipline posits that the actions implemented in response to behaviour have the potential to either reinforce or diminish that pattern of behaviour. The theory draws on the work of interventionalists such as of Thorndike and Skinner. The law of effect, proposed by Thorndike in 1905, pertains to animal behaviour and conditioning. It posits that the likelihood of a specific learned response being consistently elicited by a particular stimulus is contingent upon the perceived consequences of the response (Rafferty, 2023). This means that individuals are inclined to exhibit similar behaviours when confronted with conditions that resemble a prior favourable experience (Eichmann, 1994). Conversely, if they have an uncomfortable experience, they will do their best to avoid an unpleasant situation. Skinner’s operant conditioning also emphasises that all behaviour is learned and that the outside environment influences people’s behaviour (Iversen, 1992). Consequently, 18 a stimulus that comes before the behaviour (antecedents) or that comes after it (consequences) can impact it (Harlacher, 2015). Similarly, ADT advocates that teachers should reinforce learners’ behaviour by using positive praise and negative consequences (Canter, 2010). This implies that positive reinforcement, derived from these philosophical principles, incentivises learners to sustain the behaviour that elicits praise. 2.6 Global Application of Assertive Discipline Theory Since its establishment, ADT has gained popularity and has been used in numerous countries worldwide at different levels of schools. For instance, Swinson and Cording’s (2002) findings revealed a positive impact in a school in the UK on children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. The teachers received training on how to apply the model and the results show that after the training, learners’ behaviour improved. They saw three beneficial results from using assertive discipline strategies in their schools. The first benefit was that the number of learners with good behaviour increased. Thus, a larger percentage of learners followed instructions and participated fully in the session. This improvement was shown in all classrooms regardless of the learners’ ages. The second is that disruptive incidents decreased. This drop was seen across all classrooms, which might be explained by the fact that more learners were putting more time into their work. Lastly, the teachers used positive comments far more frequently than before. Teachers of younger and older learners were far more positive than they had previously been. Şahin-Sak, Sak and Tezel-Şahin (2018) sought preschool instructors’ opinions on the efficacy of various classroom management strategies in Turkey. According to the study, teachers found elements of assertive discipline models like rules, consequences, rewards, and punishment helpful in combating disruptive behaviour. In the USA, Etheridge (2010) examined the impact of an assertive discipline strategy on disruptive behaviour in schools. Data analysis showed a decrease in the number of discipline referrals received by administrators, resulting in a decline in school suspensions compared to the pre-intervention period. The findings showed fewer referrals from Fall 2008 to Fall 2009 between October 2008 and October 2009. The findings demonstrated a virtually 50% drop in the number of referrals. The inference 19 that may be made from the data is that the assertive discipline model is a successful strategy for disruptive classroom behaviour. In Malaysia, Thilagaratnam and Yamat (2021) conducted a study to examine teachers’ perceptions regarding learners’ misbehaviour and the implementation of an assertive discipline approach in English classrooms in private independent schools. The researchers discovered that teachers perceived the model as a valuable tool for addressing disruptions in the English classroom. The theory has also found success in Africa. One such research project was performed by Lambert (2017) in Rwanda. The study aimed to examine the impact of an assertive discipline strategy in the management on learners’ achievement in secondary schools offering the Nine-Year Basic Education curriculum in the Nyanza District from 2012 to 2016. There were three main goals of the research. The primary aim of this study was to examine the correlation between implementing classroom rules and learners’ academic performance using the assertive discipline approach. The study also sought to evaluate the impact of teachers administering punishments and rewards on students’ academic performance using the assertive discipline approach. Lastly, the study aimed to investigate the influence of communication between school staff and parents on learners’ academic performance following the assertive discipline approach. The findings indicated a significant correlation between the implementation of classroom rules and the academic achievement of students. Similarly, a correlation was observed between teachers’ use of penalties and incentives and learners’ academic achievement. Ultimately, a correlation was established between the level of communication maintained between school staff and parents and its impact on students’ academic performance. This implies that the implementation of the assertive discipline model, which includes the establishment of classroom rules and the use of positive and negative behaviour reinforcements, contributes to the fulfilment of schools’ intended objectives. In South Africa, existing literature similarly indicates the efficacy of the assertive discipline approach in schools. For example, Gcelu, Padayachee and Onyemaechi Ede (2021) conducted a study to explore the collaborative strategies stakeholders employ in secondary schools to manage discipline in the iLembe district, KwaZulu- Natal. Three of the four case studies examined demonstrated the efficacy of the 20 assertive discipline strategy when implemented in secondary schools. According to the study, learners refrained from engaging in disruptive behaviour when teachers assertively guided their classes because they were able to identify assertive teachers and maintain discipline in their classrooms as they were aware of the consequences of misbehaviour. 2.7 Discipline in the Context of Assertive Discipline According to Brendtro, Brokenleg and Van Bockern (1990 cited in Grobbelaar & Jones, 2020), discipline is a process of instruction rather than compulsion. In their view, the goal of discipline is to teach societal responsibility and self-control to young people. To dispel the misconception that discipline and punishment are interchangeable, Grobbelaar and Jones (2020) argue that discipline is education through which knowledge and skills are taught, and children are assisted in acquiring self-control and self-discipline. In contrast, punishment creates an adult’s control and authority over a child. Reyneke (2012) further clarifies the distinction between discipline and punishment by arguing that discipline is intrinsic, and educative, focusing on exercising self-control for self-actualisation, whereas punishment is external and punitive focusing on exerting control over others to compel compliance. Arnall (2001) holds a similar perspective and emphasises that discipline is proactive and preserves mutual respect and dignity because children are taught self-control mechanisms and given explanations, in contrast to punishment, which is reactive, disregards a child’s feelings and dignity and teaches outside control without providing any justification. Nieman and Shea (2004 cited in Omoyemiju, Ojo & Olatomide, 2015) contend that discipline serves as the framework for a child’s successful and happy integration into the outside world and the groundwork for the growth of the child’s self-discipline. Even though some parents and teachers use the terms interchangeably, discipline and punishment are not conceptually the same (Omoyemiju et al., 2015). Drawing on the various definitions that have been discussed and the theoretical point of view, discipline in the context of a school is the process whereby teachers advise learners on the proper manner of conduct, lovingly and caringly reprimand improper behaviour, and provide them with necessary warnings and assistance. Therefore, discipline is not a remedial action, but rather a proactive method teachers adopt to 21 develop learners’ abilities to govern their conduct. Thus, the responsibility of teachers in the context of school discipline is to develop constructive relationships with each learner, teach learners appropriate behaviour, observe and reflect on the teaching they receive, and reteach in order to cultivate an environment that will improve teaching and learning conditions so that learners can realise their fullest possible potential. 2.8 Situating Assertive Discipline in the South African School Legal Context South African schools are governed by legislation and regulations. Therefore, any behaviour management strategy should adhere to such regulations. Adopting the principles of assertive discipline should, then, be in line with the South African legal system for schools, which is based on the constitution of the country. This discussion will show the significance and relationship of the theory to the legislations such as the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 (RSA), 2006), the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 (RSA, 1996), the SACE (Act 31 of 2000) Code of Professional Ethics, the ATCP Strategies (Department of Basic Education (DBE), 2010) and the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC, 2015). Both section 7(1)(h) of the Children’s Act of 2005 and section 10 of the South African Schools Act (SASA) prohibit the use of corporal punishment and advocate the elimination of any form of behaviour that may cause physical or emotional harm to a child. Similarly, The SACE governs the South African teachers’ profession. The council was established in accordance with Act No. 27 of the National Education Policy (RSA, 1996). The SACE Code of Professional Ethics (2000) provides standards for teachers’ conduct and duties in the school. The code mandates teachers to guide and encourage each learner to realise their potential; strive to enable learners to develop a set of values consistent with fundamental rights contained in the Constitution of South Africa; exercise authority with compassion; avoid any form of humiliation and refrain from any form psychological or physical abuse; protect gender equality; and take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of learners (SACE, 2000). 22 In 2000 the ATCP measures were implemented in schools as a result of the prohibition of corporal punishment through legislation, specifically, the SASA 84 of 1996 (RSA, 1996b) and the Abolition of Corporal Punishment Act 33 of 1997. Disciplinary measures that serve as alternatives to corporal punishment are available to uphold discipline in schools without causing physical harm to learners. These alternatives encompass various approaches, including verbal warnings, demerits, written warnings, disciplinary discussions, and temporary suspension from school (DBE, 2010). The Constitution of the RSA (1996a) (Act 108 of 1996) explicitly recognises and upholds the entitlement of everyone to be treated with respect and dignity. This is articulated in sections 10 and 12 1(e). The SAHRC endorses the constitutional right mentioned, as it refers to Clause 139 (2) of the Children’s Act Amendment Bill, which states that no child should be subjected to corporal punishment or any form of punishment that is deemed cruel, inhuman, or degrading (SAHRC, 2015). Under section 28 1(d) of the Bill of Rights, children are safeguarded through legal measures against violence and exploitation. The provision, as stated in the RSA (1996a), affirms the entitlement of every child to protection from maltreatment, neglect, abuse, or degradation. The significance of the ADT and its relevance to the legislation lies in its disapproval of methods involving humiliation and physical punishment to manage behaviour among learners. The theory stresses the importance of creating a favourable environment in which the rights of all individuals involved in learning are respected and safeguarded (Praveen & Alex, 2017). Therefore, adopting methods in line with the ADT would encourage teachers to instil in their learners a set of values that align with the rights recognised by the South African Constitution by gently discouraging learners from disrupting their peers’ learning process. 2.9 The Classroom Situation in the Context of Assertive Discipline The classroom serves as an educational environment where teachers and students convene to learn. The motivation for developing this theory stemmed from Canter’s observation of three distinct teacher responses to disruptive behaviour in the classroom: non-assertive, hostile, and assertive. The discussion centres on the 23 distinctions in tactics employed by each of these types of teachers concerning classroom management. Next, the focus shifts towards a discussion of the reasons for Canter’s endorsement of the adoption of the ADT. 2.9.1 Non-assertive teacher A non-assertive teacher tends to respond to disruptive behaviour from learners in an excessively passive manner. Praveen and Alex (2017) argue that there is a demonstration of inconsistency in their behaviour as they allow certain actions on one day and disapprove of them on the following day. According to Canter, the presence of such unpredictability causes uncertainty among learners about the expectations set out by their teacher, thereby inducing feelings of insecurity and frustration. Given that behaviour can be considered a mode of communication, it can be contended that learners who experience frustration may express their frustrations through disruptive behaviour in the classroom when confronted with a non-assertive teacher. 2.9.2 Hostile teacher A hostile teacher can be characterised as a teacher who employs stringent strategies to address disruptive behaviour, thereby impeding the development of solid rapport between learners and teachers (Charles & Senter, 2005). These teachers perceive their students as rivals and hold the belief that they should exert authority by applying strict rules, giving commands, and displaying stern facial expressions in the classroom. According to Charles and Senter (2005), learners exhibit a negative disposition towards this approach due to the emotions of fear and perceived unfairness that it elicits. Drawing upon an understanding of the distinction between punishment and discipline, it can be argued that teachers exhibiting hostile characteristics are more inclined to address disruptive behaviour in students by implementing punitive measures. 2.9.3 Assertive teacher According to Huda (2020) assertive teachers possess a set of competencies that allow them to effectively communicate their genuine emotions to learners and exert influence over their actions in alignment with the teachers’ objectives and desires. This implies effectively expressing one’s thoughts, emotions, convictions, attitudes, 24 stances, and similar aspects in a lucid, self-assured, sincere, and straightforward fashion. In essence, an assertive teacher is characterised by the ability to stand up for oneself while simultaneously considering the needs and rights of learners in the classroom (Praveen & Alex, 2017). According to Mandlebaum et al. (1983) teachers are assertive if they exhibit the following skills: • Knowledge of the behaviour they expect from learners. • Ability to communicate the behaviour they expect verbally and in writing. • Ability to respond consistently to appropriate behaviour to reinforce it and apply consequences to inappropriate behaviour to discourage it. • Ability to ask for help from others to systematise discipline. The prevailing notion is that a teacher who adopts an assertive approach effectively conveys their expectations and desires by teaching learners appropriate behaviour and informing them of the potential repercussions for deviating from such behaviour. Once more, it can be inferred that an assertive teacher has a behaviour plan that clearly defines expected behaviour and consequences that may follow. The plan is effectively communicated to both learners and other individuals with a vested interest, such as parents. As a result of the plan, teachers can maintain consistency, transparency, and fairness when addressing learners’ behaviour (Praveen & Alex, 2017). Therefore, teachers demonstrate assertiveness in their interactions with learners by establishing and maintaining standards that enable them to carry out their instructional plans without disruption. 2.10 Assertive Teachers’ Perception of Learners’ Behaviour and Approaches Bashant (2020) posits that individuals’ reactions to circumstances depend on their cognitive processes. Hence teachers’ viewpoints regarding disruptive behaviour in the classroom significantly impact their approaches to managing and mitigating such behaviour. As previously discussed, there exists a distinct difference in the perspectives of assertive teachers towards learners compared to non-assertive and hostile teachers. This perception significantly impacts their learning approach and 25 disruptive behaviour in the classroom. Thus, assertive teachers believe that learners’ behaviour manifests from various interactions with the environment and that they can be taught how to behave acceptably despite such interaction. However, such teaching is coupled with the perception that the classroom also consists of difficult learners who may need extraordinary support (Charles & Senter, 2005). Assertive teachers believe learners’ behaviour results from their environment (Felver, 2020). This means that where learners live significantly impacts their personality, habits, knowledge and behaviour. This suggests that such teachers believe that courteous, tolerant, and diligent learners learn these behavioural tendencies from their parents, past educational environments, relatives, friends, and immediate cultures. In the same way, the same environment cultivated the traits of being impatient, demanding, argumentative, prone to laziness and disruptive of other learners (Bennett, 2021). Based on the preceding discussion about the differentiation among theories regarding classroom management practices, namely non-interventionist, interactionist, and interventionist, it can be posited that ADT falls in the interventionist category. This theory advocates a teacher-centred approach to managing learner behaviour. Hence, one can contend that this approach towards behaviour suggests that assertive teachers believe that behaviour is learned and can be taught and modified. Thus, to support learners’ growth, teachers should teach them the behaviours they lack (Canter, 2010). In this way, assertive teachers believe behaviour is comparable to a curriculum. And like any curriculum, they cannot just instruct learners to behave and then reward or penalise them based on their performance (Bennett, 2021). But like any practical skill in a curriculum, they first patiently teach the learners acceptable behaviour in the classroom, then check for misunderstandings and continue reteaching. This means assertive teachers are patient because they know learners do not understand all at once. They acknowledge there might be some difficult learners in schools, and that they should exercise patience because it is their responsibility to teach those learners how to conduct themselves. Assertive teachers also assume they should set behaviour expectations, routines and structure for learners so that they do not fend for themselves and end up making decisions that do not promote a secure and an orderly atmosphere (Charles & Senter, 26 2005). They believe that a teacher should run the classroom with the attitude that learners do well and that something is getting in the way if they cannot. As a result, it is their responsibility to determine the problem so that they can assist (Bashant, 2020). When they assist learners in terms of proper conduct, assertive teachers understand that the classroom is made of different learners, some of which are very difficult hence the need for preplanned strategies on classroom management (Charles & Senter, 2005). 2.11 Difficult Learners According to Canter (2010), the assertive discipline method is beneficial for nearly all learners, except for difficult learners who may need additional attention. Canters asserts that difficult learners present challenges in the school because they exhibit persistent disruptive behaviours, defiance, a lack of motivation or demand constant attention, leading to heightened levels of stress, irritation, and anger from teachers (Charles & Senter, 2005). The implication is that difficult learners exhibit consistent and intense disruptive behaviour, resulting in teachers experiencing a loss of calmness. Canter asserts that many difficult learners suffer from behavioural or emotional disorders. Just as individuals who experience psychological abuse or are born predisposed to alcoholism and those addicted to substances such as cocaine or other drugs may face significant difficulties. According to the theory, teachers should acknowledge that many difficult learners come from households with limited parental authority and influence over their behaviour (Canter, 2010). Thus, they are learners teachers may not desire to have in their classrooms, but who nevertheless require adult guidance and care. According to Charles and Senter (2005), Canter proposes three key processes of assertive discipline that teachers should employ to engage difficult learners effectively. These processes include reaching out to these learners, establishing effective communication to foster trust, and addressing their unique needs. 2.11.1 Reaching out to difficult learners Canter (1993 cited in Charles & Santer, 2005) suggests that teachers should try to put themselves in the shoes of difficult learners to comprehend the world from their viewpoint. In this way, teachers may be able to adapt their teaching approaches 27 in response to the conditions at hand. Canter proposes a second approach for schools which involves teachers strategically devising their responses to hostile or rebellious learners. Thus, teachers should become proactive rather than reactive towards them. Being proactive may help teachers reply to such learners politely without becoming frustrated or sending them to the principal’s office. According to Canter, sending difficult learners to the principal’s office is ineffective in managing learners because it gives teachers negative stress and persistent feelings of failure. In the end, difficult learners become less trustworthy and less ready to comply with the teacher’s request, which causes anxiety across the entire classroom. It is inferred that assertive discipline advocates that teachers build trust with difficult learners by planning proactive responses (Canter, 1989). The following are the suggested guidelines that teachers may adopt to respond proactively to difficult learners: • Anticipate what the difficult learners will do and say. • Consider their options for responding. • Keep in mind that they have a choice regarding how they will react, thus, they can choose not to let their feelings get hurt. Canter (1989) argues that establishing a connection with difficult learners is crucial to gaining their trust as opposed to simply reacting to their behaviour. Teachers who develop positive relationships with their learners via open dialogue, trust, and responsiveness allow learners to thrive academically and socially while giving them a sense of community in the classroom (Bosman et al., 2018; Hughes & Cao, 2018). Since difficult learners do not view their teachers as role models, distrust them, hate school, and do not see the value in acting responsibly, teachers working with difficult learners should prioritise building trust with such learners (Watson Daly, Smith & Rabin, 2019). 2.11.2 Building trust with difficult learners Numerous studies have provided evidence of a substantial correlation between aggressive and disruptive behaviours in children who display conduct issues and externalising problems, and their diminished trust and detrimental relationships with their teachers (McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015; Mejia & Hoglund, 2016; Nurmi, 2012; Watson, Daly, Smith & Rabin, 2019). While it is often observed that a significant 28 number of learners enter school with a predisposition to trust teachers, research has indicated that around 60% of students hailing from poor communities exhibit a lack of trust towards their teachers. Hence, it is crucial to create trust between students and teachers to facilitate successful learning (Watson et al., 2019). The social-emotional and academic outcomes of children are greatly influenced by the quality of their interpersonal interactions with teachers (Ettekal & Shi, 2020; Hughes & Cao, 2018). Furthermore, prior studies have suggested that learners who are at risk of facing academic challenges because of behavioural concerns may experience substantial benefits from fostering strong teacher-student connections (Bosman et al., 2018; Ettekal & Shi, 2020). According to Ettekal and Shi (2020), the establishment of a good and supportive connection plays a critical role in treating and perhaps overcoming academic obstacles and behavioural issues experienced by teenagers in schools. Canter argues that teachers have a crucial responsibility to view each learner as a distinct individual and offer them equivalent care and attention as they would seek for their children. To accomplish this objective, Canter suggests that teachers should consider employing these techniques towards difficult learners: • Compile an inventory encompassing a learner’s interests, including inquiries related to the learner’s families, social connections, recreational pursuits, favourite books, television shows, future ambitions, and what the learner may want the teacher to do. • Initiate individualised greetings and deliver personalised messages to difficult learners. • Allocate dedicated time to engage in one-on-one interactions with individuals, if feasible, while actively focusing on their needs and interests. • Contact individuals privately to demonstrate empathy or express remorse, if deemed necessary. • Express concern for their health by sending a get-well card or making a phone call to offer well wishes during their illness. 29 2.11.3 Meeting the needs of difficult learners According to Canter (1983 cited in Charlese & Santer, 2005) learners who are hard to teach feel like their needs are not met at school. Teachers need to be aware of these needs and try to meet them. The author further postulates that these learners have three main needs: more attention, tighter rules and encouragement. Teachers must pay attention to these needs to help students who are hard to teach. Canter says that teachers should look at the learners’ behaviour, how they react to it, and how the learner reacts to how teachers react to the learners’ behaviour (Charlese & Santer, 2005). This will help them to see which need is most importan