Teachers Disciplinary Styles and Pupils Adherence to Instructions in Public Primary School in Rivers East Senatorial District of Rivers State
CHAPTER ONE
Objectives of Study
The general purpose of this study is to ascertain the influence which the disciplinary style in a primary school has on pupils adherence to instructions and their motivation to learn. Specifically, the researcher is interested in:
- To find out the disciplining styles used by teachers in primary schools
- Ascertaining the influence which the styles discipline have on pupils adherence to instructions.
- Ascertaining the influence which the styles of discipline have on students’ motivation to learn.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Conceptual framework.
Concept of Motivation
Anything which moves an individual to action may be described as a motive. Motives are the needs, wants, interests, and desires that propel people in certain directions. Wayne (2007), noted that motivation involves goal- directed behaviour. According to Harackiewicz (1997), motivation is the driving force behind all the actions of an individual. Wayne pointed out the drive and incentive models of motivation. He indicated that drive theories emphasize how internal states of tension push people in certain directions while incentive theories emphasize how external stimuli push people in certain directions. For the drive theories, the source of motivation lies within the organism, while for the incentive theories, the source of motivation lies outside the organism in the environment. Motivation is seen here to be a function of both drive theories and incentive theories. This is because factors in the environment such as the approach to discipline can make or mar the motivation generated by the internal states of tension. A student who is intrinsically motivated undertakes an activity “for its own sake, for the enjoyment it provides, the learning it permits, or the feelings of accomplishment it evokes” (Lepper, 1988). He equally made it clear that an extrinsically motivated student performs “in order to obtain some rewards or avoid some punishment external to the activity itself”.
Concept of motivation to learn
Motivation to learn is an important factor in any students’ success. Hermine in Brophy (1986) defined the term motivation to learn as “the meaningfulness, value, and benefits of academic tasks to the learner – regardless of whether or not they are intrinsically interesting”, Mehta (2006) saw motivation in education as inculcating and stimulating interest in studies and other such activities in students’. It involves the understanding and use of natural urges of the student and also assisting him in acquiring new desirable motives. According to Brophy (1987) motivation to learn is a competence acquired through general experience but stimulated most directly through modeling, communication of expectations, and direct instruction or socialization by significant others (especially parents and teachers). The organization of the school can have a direct influence on students’ motivation to learn. Such organization includes amongst other things the style of discipline in the school. Downey and Kelly (1984) noted that the organization of the school can have a further though indirect effect on students’ motivation.
Teachers can reinforce the poor opinion a student has of himself, but fortunately they can also help to reverse this opinion and to create in the student a more positive view of himself and his capacities (Downey in Downey and Kelly, 1984). Mehta (2006) made it clear that the interaction of an individual with his environment provides a constant source of modification of his old motives and acquisition of new ones. He went further to explain that by providing suitable and adequate environmental conditions at home and school (for example a proper style of discipline), the student can be motivated to do his best. It here implies that a good approach to discipline could create a favourable atmosphere that would enhance students’ motivation to learn.
Concept of disruptive Behaviour
The behaviour of students in the school especially in the classroom is one of the determinants of success in the school. Inappropriate behaviours can mar the purpose of education especially when such behaviours become sustained. According to Montgomery (1989) disruptive behaviours are those misbehavior which prevent the teacher from teaching and the learner from learning. He went further to indicate that teachers tend to centre on those problems which interrupt them and their teaching, but it is worthy also to include those which prevent the students from learning because, in the end, they will hamper the teaching process. He indicated that included are those behaviours which hamper the teaching process and prevent the students from learning. It is important to note here that disruptive behaviours affect not only the teacher’s effectiveness but also the students’ learning. Des in Montgomery (1989) defined disruptive behaviour as that which interferes with the learning and opportunities of other students’ and imposes undue stress upon the teacher. Disruptive behaviours are counter productive in nature and they impede the instructional process in the classroom.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHOD AND PROCEDURE
The design of the study
The design adopted for this study is causal-comparative or ex-post-facto research design. The design sought to determine the influence of Teachers disciplinary styles and pupils adherence to instructions in public primary school in Rivers East senatorial district of Rivers State.
The desirability or suitability of this design is anchored on the fact that the styles of discipline are already in place in schools. The researcher did not intend to manipulate the style of discipline. The study is to ascertain the influence of the style of discipline in place on students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours and motivation to learn. Nworgu (2006) made it clear that such design seeks to establish cause-effect relationship though the researcher does not have control over the variables of interest.
Area of study
The Area of study for this study is Rivers East senatorial district of Rivers State. It consist of 3 senatorial district and 8 LGA out of the 23 LGA of Rivers State. This local government under the 8 LGA are Etche, Emohua ,Ikwerre , Obia/Akpor ,Ogu-Bolo ,Okrika, Omuma, and Portharcourt City LGA. This Areas have a projected population of 2,670,903 and covers 4,890 square kilometers (FGN, 2010, National Population Commission)..
The choice of the area is based on the fact that the rate of indiscipline, drop out from schools, and examination malpractices are high. Most parents in the area appear not to exercise enough disciplinary control on their wards. This is anchored on the nature of their occupation. Such incomes normally sway students and make them have a feeling of independence and also to exhibit all sorts of undesirable behaviours in schools. Similarly, the little incomes such students generate for themselves make them to resent academic pursuit, especially when exposed to improper disciplinary approaches.
CHAPTER FOUR.
RESULTS
Overview of the chapters
The data generated in course of the study are presented and analyzed in this chapter.
Answer to research.
Research Question I: Influence of school disciplinary styles on pupils adherence to instructions.
Table 1: Mean scores and standard deviations of school disciplinary styles and pupils adherence to instructions.
Data presented in table I indicate the differences in the mean pupils adherence to instructions scores of students based on their teachers disciplinary styles namely autocratic, democratic, and laissez faire styles. The data revealed that students whose schools adopt the autocratic disciplinary style had a mean disruptive behaviour of 2.7 and a standard deviation of 0.56. Those whose schools adopt the democratic style had a mean disruptive behaviour score of 1.91 and standard deviation of .33; whereas, those whose schools adopt the laissez faire style had a mean disruptive behaviour of 2.6 with standard deviation of .67. These imply that schools whose schools adopt autocratic style scored highest in pupils adherence to instructions followed by those that adopt laissez faire styles. Also those whose schools adopt democratic style scored low in pupils adherence to instructions.
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Overview of chapter
In this chapter, the summary of findings are presented, discussed on, and conclusions drawn. and recommendations made based on the findings of the study. Also limitation of the study were highlighted and finally the summary of the work made.
Discussion of finding.
Influence of teachers disciplinary styles on pupils adherence to instructions
The findings of this study show that the styles of discipline have significant influence on pupils adherence to instructions. This is in line with the finding of Nzulumike, (2000) that the ready resort to unconvincing punishments by teachers is one of the major causes of undisciplined behaviour among students.
The study equally revealed that democratic and laissez faire styles of discipline differed significantly in influencing pupils adherence to instructions. The democratic style of discipline with the associated freedoms and rights given to students probably make students to misconstrue the disciplinary styles as weakness on the part of school authorities. Being mainly adolescents, they readily abuse such democracy by behaving unruly. This does not fall in line with the view of (Shankar, 2006) that the democratic treatment of students makes them responsible persons with self confidence, emotional stability and sense of security. Similarly, where there is a laissez faire style of discipline, pupils adherence to instructions will increase tremendously. Shankar (2006) has similar view in indicating that such a practice of complete freedom to the youngsters led to chaotic conditions, juvenile lawlessness and increase in crime.
The findings further revealed that autocratic style of discipline does not increase or reduce pupils adherence to instructions. This does not fall in line with the view of (Pringle, 1973) that a heavy and inflexible use of Hargreaves in Montgomery (1982), in his note that pupils adherence to instructions seem to be associated with the imposition of a heavy and inflexible code of teachers rules.
Influence of teachers disciplinary styles on students’ motivation to learn
The study also revealed that the styles of discipline have significant influence on students’ motivation to learn. In line with this Chiejina (1991), in his findings indicated that when teachers authorities are not strict over the behaviour of their students, some students stay away from classes without permission. Also his finding indicated that when teachers are too strict on late comers, those who happen to be late for classes often prefer to stay back to escape punishment or embarrassment. The two findings above highlighted what happen on desire to learn under a lax and very rigid disciplinary styles respectively. The finding is also in line with the view of Lumsden (1994), that if students experience the classroom as a caring, supportive place where there is a sense of belonging and everyone is valued, they will tend to participate more fully in the process of learning.
Summary of the study
The study was carried out to investigate the influence of Teachers disciplinary styles and pupils adherence to instructions in public primary school in Rivers East senatorial district of Rivers State. Two research questions and two null hypothesis were formulated to guide the study. The null hypothesis were tested at 0.05 level of significance.
The autocratic, democratic and laissez faire styles of discipline and their influence on the pupils adherence to instructions and their motivation to learn came within the content scope of this study. Literature related to the study was reviewed under the following headings: Conceptual Framework Theoretical Framework Empirical Studies Summary of Reviewed Literature.
Causal-comparative or ex-post-facto research design was adopted in the study. A well structured questionnaire was developed and administered on 400 primary six drawn randomly from 10 schools in the educational zone which were selected through purposive sampling technique. The data gathered were analyzed using mean, standard deviation and step-wise multiple regression analysis. The major findings of the study include:
Influence of teachers disciplinary styles on pupils adherence to instructions is significant.
The influence of democratic and laissez faire styles of discipline on pupils adherence to instructions differed significantly from that of the autocratic style.
Teachers disciplinary styles have significant influence on students’ motivation to learn.
The influence of autocratic style of discipline on pupils motivation to learn differed significantly from that of democratic and laissez faire styles.
Recommendation.
Based on the findings, discussions and conclusions of the study, the following recommendations are made.
- Students should be educated on the meaning of discipline and also the essence. This would enable them to know and appreciate that discipline is not just put in place to subdue them. When they become fully aware of the meaning and purpose of discipline and the inherent benefits of being disciplined students, they will submit themselves to disciplinary measures.
- Considering the nature of the students (mainly adolescents) the democratic, autocratic, or laissez faire styles of discipline will not be useful in eliminating students’ exhibition of disruptive behaviours.
- Teachers should adopt the authoritative disciplinary style in order to give the students (who are mainly adolescents) the desired good direction.
- Teachers and other school authorities should be given workshops on school discipline to help inculcate in them the knowledge of imparting good discipline on students.
- School administrators should from time to time monitor disciplinary cases in schools with the view of ascertaining the state of discipline in various schools.
- The communication patterns which teachers use on students should be characterized by love, care, and genuine concern for the progress of students. Teachers should avoid communication patterns which portray disdain and indifference in students’ affairs.
- School guidance counsellors should try to live up to the demands of their profession so as to reduce students’ vulnerability to indiscipline, and also increase the desire to learn in them.
Suggestions for further studies.
The following areas for research by future researchers are suggested.
- The influence of teachers’ classroom communication patterns on students’ disruptive behaviours and motivation to learn.
- A replication of this study in junior classes and also other educational zones.
- The influence of teachers’ personality on students’ disruptive behaviours and motivation to learn.
- The influence of an authoritative disciplinary style on students’ disruptive behaviours and their motivation to learn.
Limitations of the study
The generalizability of the findings of this study and conclusion drawn may have been influenced by a number of limitations.
The use of a sample of 400 schools for the study constituted a limiting factor as the use of all the primary six pupils in the zone would probably have produced different results.
The topic is a limiting factor in itself. There could have been other factors either operating solely or jointly with the influential variables that also influence the dependent variable. The extent to which those other factors influenced the dependent variable may have constituted limitation to the findings.
The issue of faking in students’ response to the questionnaire cannot be ruled out. The extent this faking occurred may have also influenced the findings of this study.
REFERENCES
- Akinboye, J.O. (1992). Behaviour therapy and other treatment strategies. Ibadan: Paperback Publishers ltd.
- Amajrionwu, S.A. (1980). Psychological approaches to controlling behaviour in primary schools. Alvan Ikoku College of Education Journal 1(2). 47.
- Ames, C. A. (1990). Motivation: what teachers need to know. Teachers’ College Record. 91,3,409-421.
- Arubayi, E.A. (1984). Classroom control and discipline. A guideline for Nigerian teachers. Sokoto Journal of Education, Vol. I No. 2.
- Arum, R. (2003). Judging school discipline: The crisis of moral authority. Harvard University press ISBN 978-0674011893.
- Carnot, J. (1973) Dynamic and Effective school discipline. New York: Clearing house.
- Chiejina, C.C. (1991). Students’ perception of the factors contributing to truancy among secondary school students. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis. University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
- Children Aids society (CAS) (2006). Child discipline. http:”psychfullerton.edu/clindquist/aliscipl.html. retrieved 10th November, 2010.
- Clark, M. A. & Mckenzie, I.C. (1970). Punishment and its behavioural outcomes: application of research evidence to the modification of behaviour. Australian Journal of education.
- Coloroso, B. (2001). Kids are worth It. www.hc.sc.ac.cal/hppt/familyviolence/ index/html. retrieved 02/12/2010.
- Cunningham, W.C. & Cordiro, P.A. (2000). Educational administration; A problem based approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
- Denga, D.I. (1982). Student counseling: A major solution to campus unrest. Lagos: ogwa orit ltd.
- Downey, M. & Kelly, A. V. (1984). Theory and practices of education: an introduction (2nd ed). London: Harper and Row Publishers.
- Eke, C.C. (1997). Causes of students deviant behaviours in secondary schools in Ngor-Okpala L.G.A. of Imo State: Implications for counseling. Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis. University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
