Conference Agenda

Deviant behavior, defined as behavior that is perceived as deviant from certain perceptions of how individual should behave in certain contexts, is among the greatest stressors for teachers in all countries (OECD 2020) and, if it occurs frequently, can lead to the development of a deviant career in students, eventually resulting in drop out and/or school expulsion (Caprara et al. 2006; Skiba et al. 2014).The symposium employs a comparative perspective on deviant behavior by bringing together work from Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Germany.

Despite the importance of the topic, there are some limitations and research priorities regarding its coverage in research: a) A large part of the research takes place on the conditions of deviant behavior on the student or teacher (classroom management) side, whereby the interactive and thus also interpretative part in the emergence and development of disruptive behavior has received little attention so far (Schuchart/Bühler-Niederberger 2022; Dodge/Pettit 2003). b) Structural and contextual characteristics such as sociocultural origin and school characteristics are rarely included. There is fairly limited research on reciprocal relationships of structural factors as well as mediating mechanisms between individual and structural levels (Hascher/Hadjar 2018; Payne/Welch 2010). c) Methodologically, it can be noted that cross-sectional studies have dominated the quantitative field so far, providing only limited insights when deviant behavior is understood as a dynamic process.

Presentations at the symposium will consider various forms of perceived deviant behavior, such as verbal or motor agitation/hyperactivity, aggression, passivity, or cheating, among others. The research gaps described will be addressed in which the presentations understand deviant behavior as behavior whose quality changes over time through interaction and interpretation of the indirectly and directly involved actors and is structured by characteristics of sociocultural background, school, and school system. The following main questions will therefore be addressed: How does deviant behavior develop among students in relation to interacting structural and contextual factors? What is the role of interpretation and interaction at the micro level in this process?

The three studies to be presented shed light on different aspects of these questions. Paper 1 investigates the development of deviant behavior in terms of an interactive interpretive process between teachers and students in several consecutive school lessons at the beginning of the first school year. Quantified observations of deviant behavior and teacher reactions are linked to qualitative teacher interviews on perceptions of their own and students’ behavior. The focus is on how teachers interpret comparable student behavior. Paper 2 examines students' subjective perspectives by focusing on school alienation as an interpretive framework that mirrors conditions and experiences within the school environment. In this argument, disruptive behavior in school is an expression of school alienation, a kind of functional action alternative being selected by alienated students. Structural equation modeling is used to examine how this relationship develops over several years in secondary school, and to what extent this process is structured by sociocultural background and school type. Paper 3 also focuses on the development of deviant behavior over a period of several years, here among 5-to 9-year-old students. The focus here is a comprehensive look at the ways in which different factors- child, family, school characteristics- interact to shape young people's behavior over time in the school and classroom context.

The symposium offers unique insights into the complex development of deviant behavior. With the individual and structural level as well as with the different methodological approaches, it addresses aspects that have so far received less attention in research. Thus, it opens up possibilities to better understand deviant behavior- and the contribution of students, teachers, and context- and to address it in an adequate way.

We are interested in the development of deviant student careers. We refer to an interactionist approach of social reaction to rule‐transgression by students which assumes that being labelled for prior rule-transgressing behaviour may turn into a “master status” of the student overshadowing other characteristics of the person in the perception of the teacher (Cicourel 2020/1968; Caprara/Zimbado 1996; Lehman/David/Gruber 2017). We examine the beginning of this process among first-year pupils in the first months of the school year. Research questions: Which kind of rule transgressing behaviour can be observed among pupils and which behaviour is perceived and sanctioned as rule breaking by teachers? (1) To what extent do teachers differentiate in their reactions and interpretations between individual pupils? Method: We combine quantitative and qualitative methods. We observed the rule-transgressing behaviour of pupils (Volpe/Hintze 2005) and the reactions of teachers in 10 first classrooms during four consecutive lessons. 1999 observations from 199 children were recorded, analysed by using bivariate statistics. Short interviews were then conducted with 10 teachers, referring to the interpretation of the behaviour of 14 pupils with less than six and 21 pupils with more than ten observations. The interviews were analysed in an inductive-deductive procedure (Strauss/Corbin 1990) in which we elaborate theoretical concepts that can more precisely capture the interactions towards a deviant career. Results: Most of students’ rule-transgressing is not severe (45% “verbal” (e.g. chattering), 35% “motor” (e.g. walking around), 15% “passive” (e.g. staring out of the window)). Controlling for type of behaviour, teachers do not react to about half of the incidents, and if they react, they mostly mildly admonish. Children with many and children with few incidents are treated equally. Hence, these results suggest that the interpretation of rule-breaking by teachers is rather arbitrary, and not yet ascribed as an individual characteristic to pupils. However, the analysis of the teacher interviews indicates that they see the behaviour of pupils with few incidents mostly as "normal" and "childlike", while they interpret the behaviour of children with many incidents in a "long story", as contextualized in a family situation and as intentional. Conclusion: Although teachers might not yet treat pupils differently, they make clear differences between children at the level of interpretations. This could lead to increasing differences in the type of sanctions applied by teachers (Yeager/Lee 2021; Okonofua/Eberhardt 2015). Future research will show the extent to which this may induce a deviant career for some children.

Cicourel, A. V. (1968/2020). Die soziale Organisation der Schule. In U. Bauer et al. (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Bildungs- und Erziehungssoziologie. Wiesbaden: Springer (Original in: E. Rubington & M. S. Weinberg (Eds.), Deviance. The interactionist Perspective (pp. 124-135). New York: MacMillan. Dodge, K. A. & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39 (2), 349. Lehmann, B.J., David, D. M. & Gruber, J. A. (2017). Rethinking the biopsychosocial model of health: Understanding health as a dynamic system. Soc Personal Psychol Compass, 11. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12328. Okonofua, J. A. & Eberhardt, J. L. (2015). Two Strikes: Race and the Disciplining of Young Students. Psychological Science, 26 (5), 617–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615570365 Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage. Volpe, R. J., & Hintze, J. (2005). Observing students in classroom settings: A review of seven coding schemes. School Psychology Review, 34 (4), 454‐474. Yeager, D. S. & Lee, H. Y. (2021). The Incremental Theory of Personality Intervention. In G. M. Walton & A. J. Crum (Eds.), Handbook of wise interventions: How social psychology can help people change (pp. 305–323). The Guilford Press.

This longitudinal study analyses the prevalence of disruptive behaviour in Luxembourgish and Swiss secondary schools and how this is affected by the attitudinal factor of school alienation towards three distinct domains of schooling: learning, teachers and classmates (see concept of Hascher & Hadjar 2018). Disruptive behaviour in school diverges from social norms in school and leads to conflicts between students, with teachers and impairs classroom and school climate. Schools are powerful learning environments that can foster students’ socio-emotional skills and prosocial behaviour (e.g., Spinrad & Eisenberg, 2009). However, schools can also foster the development of student disruptive behaviour that might be triggered by negative student experiences such as competition, stress, or social exclusion. A general conceptual approach to theorise the role of school alienation in the prevalence of student disruptive behaviour is provided by the Situational Action Theory (SAT; Wikström & Sampson, 2014): School alienation is a negative attitude that functions as frame for the selection of school behaviour. Behavioural alternatives are reduced to typical behavioural patterns that express a distance and dislike of school. Thus, alienated students may show disruptive behavioural patterns to express their resistance to school, to compensate for academic failure, or even in trying to meet the school’s expectations (e.g., cheating to pass a test) rather than considering behaviours that resemble the image of a ‘good pupil’. The sample is based on a non-random selection of secondary schools in Luxembourg and the Swiss Canton of Bern that participated in a three-year panel study from Grade 7 to 9 (LU: 370 students in 35 classrooms; CH: 373 students in 27 classrooms). Measuring school alienation, we employ the School Alienation Scale (SALS; Morinaj et al. 2017) comprising of three dimensions: alienation from learning, teachers, and classmates. Disruptive behaviour in school was measured on the basis of a 19-item self-report instrument introduced by Melzer and Schubarth (2006). Students had to indicate how often they practice behaviours such as cheating, afflicting other students, disturbing lessons or destroying things. Results of structural equation models indicate gender effects on both school alienation and deviance – with male students being more prone to alienation and disruptive behaviour. Immigrant background and social origin as well as the secondary school track only show isolated effects. Summarising the findings, alienation from learning, teachers and classmates shows rather cross-sectional effects on disruptive behaviour: Higher alienation goes along with stronger disruptive behaviour. Longitudinal effects of alienation are rare.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Hascher, T., & Hadjar, A. (2018). School alienation – Theoretical approaches and educational research. Educational Research, 60(2), 171–188. Melzer, W., & Schubarth, W. (2006). Gewalt als soziales Problem an Schulen. Untersuchungsergebnisse und Präventionsstrategien. Opladen: Barbara Budrich. Morinaj, J., Scharf, J., Grecu, A., Hadjar, A., Hascher, T. & Marcin, K. (2017). School Alienation. A Construct Validation Study. Frontline Learning Research, 5(2), 36–59. Spinrad, T. L., & Eisenberg, N. (2009). Empathy, prosocial behavior, and positive development in schools. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 119–129). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Wikström, P.‑O. H. (2014). Why Crime Happens. A situational action theory. In G. Manzo (Ed.), Analytical Sociology: actions and networks (pp. 74–94). West Sussex: Wiley.

Much of the research on the role of school factors in student behaviour has focused on secondary level, with disengagement seen as playing an important role in students acting out within class. In contrast, research on younger children has tended to emphasise the role of individual and family factors in shaping their socioemotional difficulties, with less attention to the way in which behaviour is constructed within the school and classroom. This paper attempts to contribute to this field by using longitudinal data from the Growing Up in Ireland (GUI, Smith/Darmody 2021) study to examine changes in student behaviour between five and nine years of age. The outcome is teacher-assessed externalising behaviour, measured using the conduct and hyperactivity subscales of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). At the individual level, externalising behaviour among nine-year-olds is more prevalent among children whose families report financial strain, who live in urban areas and who have a chronic illness or disability. Levels are also higher for children from lone-parent and migrant-origin families. Externalising behaviour is much lower among girls and among those whose parents have higher levels of education. Behaviour is also responsive to the overall school context, being more prevalent in schools with a higher concentration of socio-economic disadvantage. Externalising behaviour is also shaped by the interaction between the child and the context, being higher where the teacher views the relationship as conflictual and where the child has more negative attitudes to school and school subjects. Further multilevel analyses will explore whether patterns of externalising behaviour vary across individual schools and between teachers. The second part of the paper examines whether externalising behaviour at age nine is influenced by experiences around the transition to primary school. Behaviour at age five is strongly predictive of behaviour four years later but experience of the transition to school also has a longer-term impact, with higher levels of externalising behaviour among children who regularly complained about school. Both teacher-child conflict and closeness at age five are associated with higher levels of externalising behaviour at age nine, suggesting that there may be an optimal balance in the quality of this early relationship. In sum, the paper points to a complex dynamic between school and class context and externalising behaviour from early on in primary school, suggesting the need to examine and address behaviour difficulties within context.

Smyth, E. & Darmody, M. (2021): Risk and protective factors in adolescent brhaviour. The role of family, school and neihborhood characteristces in (mis)behaviour among young people. The Economic and Social Research Institute: ESRI Research Series No. 119.