IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Teachers’ Misbehaviours in Class and Students’ Reactions: A Case Study
Reem Alkurdi
University of Jordan
JordanSharif Alghazo
University of Jordan
Jordan97

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Abstract
This study aims to investigate English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ misbehaviours
in class and their students’ reactions to these misbehaviours. Towards this end, 60 classroom
observations of six English language teachers (N=10 each) were conducted at a public schoolin Jordan. Moreover, a survey was used to elicit 201 students’ reactions to their teachers’
misbehaviours by gauging their satisfaction with the teachers’ communication styles. Finally,
the teacher participants were interviewed in order to more deeply understand why suchmisbehaviours occurred. Analysis of the data is grounded in the Expectancy Violation Theory.
The results revealed that when the mean value of teachers’ communication style was more than
3 on a 5-point Likert Scale, the students often perceived their teachers as being positive, andthe students compensated most of their teachers’ misbehaviours. However, when the meanvalue was below 3, the teachers were perceived as being negative, and the students reciprocatedfor most of the misbehaviours. The results also showed that the students are more tolerant
towards their teachers’ misbehaviours as long as the teacher is perceived to be positive. The
study provides insights into understanding the student-teacher relationship in EFL classes.
Keywords: compensate misbehaviours, reactions, reciprocate

98

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Educationists in Jordan face many challenges that negatively affect the quality of education.
For example, there is the challenge of over-crowded classes where teachers must spend muchof class time to maintain discipline. This implies that teachers have to double their efforts so
as to both manage classes and provide good teaching. Moreover, there is the problem of poor
facilities and infrastructure which makes the task of teaching more demanding. Educators in
Jordan also complain about parents’ coordination with school personnel despite calls tostrengthen connections between schools and homes. The source of this problem is like theclassic chicken-or-egg question. These challenges are attributed to both the limited resourcesthat schools have and to social and cultural beliefs of the Jordanian people (Alhabahba et al.,2016).
Professional educators also confess that teachers themselves – though valued as they play a
key role in the educational process – may represent a challenge (Asassfeh, 2015). In addition
to having the responsibility of delivering classes, teachers take on other roles in society:parents, supervisors, and social workers, among other things. Teachers are usually criticisedfor their students’ achievement both academically and socially. Thus, teachers are expected tohave pedagogical skills as well as management and communication skills so that they can deal
with students and their parents. Teachers are also required to examine their students’ needs andstyles and work towards matching their own styles to those of their students. Furthermore,teachers are expected to come to class prepared to deliver knowledge and to manage large
classes in the limited time available in each lesson. They have also to respond to parents’
expectations of teaching students both content and imparting morality. These and other
responsibilities have made the teaching profession unfavourable sometimes by those who lackthe skill and ability to work under pressure. The many responsibilities have also led to creatinga dysfunctional atmosphere that is unpleasant for both teacher and students. This situation has
attracted the attention of researchers who try to understand the causes of these objectionableencounters and to provide solutions to remedy the flawed environment for a better quality of
instruction (Alhabahba et al., 2016).
As for the status and teaching of English, it is unquestionable that English has become aninternational language that is necessary for almost all professionals in the world (Jenkins,2017). Jordanian professionals are no exception. English is taught as a foreign language tostudents in Jordan and learning it has become a major concern of most Jordanians. Its spreadover the world has expanded the need to learn it, particularly because it is the language oftechnology and innovation in today’s globe. However in Jordan, learning English represents achallenge to many students who find it a difficult subject. This is the perception of teachers
who also find it a challenge to teach, especially as most of them usually lack a high level ofproficiency to deliver classes in English.
Teaching English demands a considerable amount of effort on the part of teachers who – inaddition to lacking high levels of competency in English – usually lack training in teaching
methodology. This is demanding because teachers must find a teaching method that meets theirstudents’ needs and their own teaching styles. Most English language teachers in Jordan holda degree in English language and literature, rather than in teaching methodology (Al-Hazmi,
2003). However, effective teachers are expected to have – in addition to adequate knowledgeof the subject matter – knowledge of pedagogy and psychology to teach effectively and deal
with students and manage classes (Baderaddin, 2015). Borich (2015) argues that teachers
should have expertise in their subject matter and an ability to manage classes and maintaindiscipline. Moreover, the teacher-student relationship should be based on productive99

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

interactions which, as Abrantes et al., (2007) argue, make the learning of the second languageeasier.
This research concerns the study of the teacher-student relationship and explores the negativeside of teachers’ communication styles. The study explores – through observations of theperformance of EFL teachers in class – misbehaviours of teachers and their students’
perception of and response to these misbehaviours. In response to their teachers’ misbehaviours,
students may compensate or reciprocate. When a student compensates for a teacher’s
misbehaviour, the student is not responding in kind with a misbehaviour. Rather, the student
may be nicer or kinder and overlook the bad treatment. However, when a student reciprocates,
the student responds in kind with another misbehaviour. Employing Goodboy’s and Myers’(2015) scale of teachers’ misbehaviours, this investigation seeks answers to the following
research questions:
1. What are the types of misbehaviours that English language teachers commit in theirclassrooms?
2. How do students react to such misbehaviours? Do they compensate and/or reciprocatewith teachers’ misbehaviours?
This study is expected to contribute to mainstream literature on teacher-student relationships,class management, and student achievement in EFL classes. It is hoped that the study gives a
glimpse of how EFL teachers behave or misbehave in class and raise awareness among
educationalists of how students respond to their teachers’ actions and behaviours. Of
significance to this study is the reporting of students’ voices in relation to EFL teachers’
misbehaviours, particularly, from those students whose voices have often remained unheard in
the past. By doing so, the study implements the maxims of student-centred methodologies
which see the student as the centre of the learning process (Nunan, 2013).
Literature Review
The literature on language pedagogy abounds with studies on students’ misbehaviours andsolutions to manage these misbehaviours by teachers. However, little is known about teachers’
misbehaviours in language classes and how students perceive and respond to these actions. As
a result of the little research on teachers’ misbehaviours, three main typologies emerged. The
first was put forward by Kearney, Plax, Hays and Ivey (1991) who examined whether or notteachers represent a cause of instructional and motivational problems in college classes. The
results revealed many misbehaviours ranging from misspelling of words to verbal abuse andthat most students reported that their teachers carried out more than one misbehaviour in alesson. The findings also showed that teachers’ misbehaviours are of three types:
incompetence, offensiveness, and indolence.
In a study to identify other misbehaviours that were not found in Kearney, et al. (1991), Toal
(2001) asked students to evaluate their classroom experiences and their teachers’
misbehaviours. The results indicated that there are three types of misbehaviours:
irresponsibility, derisiveness, and apathy which are similar to those found in Kearney, et al.
(1991). In a third study that aimed at investigating misbehaviours that could result fromteachers’ use of technology, Goodboy and Myers (2015) developed Kearney, et al.’s work andresented new categories to judge teachers’ misbehaviours. In their study, in which an openended survey was used, the researchers found 16 misbehaviours which were categorised under
three labels: antagonism (i.e., lacking interpersonal communication skills), lectures (i.e.,

100

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

lacking both procedural and teaching skills), and articulation (i.e., lacking pronunciation skills).
The researchers concluded that teachers should be aware of what they do appropriately andwhat they do wrongly in class.
Research has also examined effects of teachers’ misbehaviours on students’ achievement andperception of their teachers. Kearney, et al. (1991) showed that teachers’ misbehaviours canhave a detrimental effect on students and their achievement and motivation. Also, Zhang (2007)
conducted a study on college students from different cultural backgrounds studying at an
American university. The researcher hypothesised that culture may have an impact on students’
perception of teachers’ misbehaviours. The findings indicated that students’ motivation
towards learning decreases when they take classes with misbehaving teachers and that –regardless of the cultural background – students perceived their teachers’ misbehaviours as
demotivating. The study also found that incompetence was found to be the most prominent
type of misbehaviour and that offensiveness was the least. In a similar study, Goodboy and
Bolkan (2009) studied the correlation between teachers’ misbehaviours and students’motivation and found that instructors’ misbehaviours resulted in demotivation, dissatisfaction,and ineffectiveness on the part of students.
Kelsey et al., (2004) distributed a questionnaire to gauge students’ perceptions of their teachers’
misbehaviours including immediacy, consistency, and causality. The results revealed thatstudents are aware of teachers’ misbehaviours, are able to identify what counts as
misbehaviour, and can evaluate the source of misbehaviours. They view the teacher as the maincause of these misbehaviours. The findings also indicated that students attributed teachers’
misbehaviours to the personality of the teacher. In a similar exploration, Banfield et al., (2006)
studied the effects of teachers’ misbehaviours on students’ perceptions of their teachers byasking students to complete an Affect Toward Teacher Scale and a Source Credibility Scale.
The results showed that teachers’ misbehaviours significantly influence their students’
perception of teachers and this impact varies in degree. That is, offensiveness had the greatest
impact on students, followed by incompetence and indolence, respectively. The researchersconcluded that teachers’ misbehaviours should be rethought by educationalists because they
have a serious detrimental effect on students. This conclusion was based on the finding thatstudents were unwilling to take classes with misbehaving teachers, particularly offensive
teachers because the offensiveness of teachers was found to greatly affect students’ trust of theteachers.
Upon reviewing existing studies on teachers’ misbehaviours and students’ reactions, it isobvious that most studies were conducted on college students and most often in Western
institutions. Additionally, studies explored the effect of teachers’ misbehaviours on, forexample, students’ perceptions, effective learning, and the credibility of teachers. Moreover, alarge number of studies used questionnaires and surveys to collect their data. As a result, someperspectives remain unexplored. This study fills this gap by examining – through observations,interviews and surveys – teachers’ misbehaviours at the school level, and it identifies students’reactions to such misbehaviours.
Methodology
This section describes the sample and setting of the study. It also shows the data collection
tools and data analysis procedures. The study adopts a mixed-method approach to analyse thedata which are collected by means of three different methods: non-participant classroom
observation, a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. This triangulation allowed the101

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

researchers to provide an in-depth description of what exactly happens in Jordanian EFL schoolclassrooms. The following sub-sections provide details of the methodology adopted in thisstudy.
Participants
The participants were six EFL teachers and 201 students from a public school in Jordan. They
were all females because the school is a girl-only school. Of the 201 students, 66 were in Grade10, and 135 in Grade 9. Ninth and tenth grade classrooms were chosen for observations becauseof the students’ ability to express thoughts and opinions without any interference from teachersor the researcher. Table 1 below shows the distribution of the sample to level and number.
Table 1
Distribution of the Sample to Level and Number
Class
Teacher CodeNinth (h*)
Teacher hNinth (b)Teacher b
Ninth (g)Teacher g
Ninth (d)Teacher dTenth (a)Teacher aTenth (k)Teacher k*The letters represent the sections’ names.

Number of Students
33
34
34
34
33
33

Data Collection
Three methods were used to collect data to provide a detailed glimpse into what exactly
happened in class. The first was non-participant classroom observation. The first researcher
attended 12 classes with each teacher; however, only 10 classes per teacher were used in the
study. The other two classes were observed at the beginning of the study to allow both teachersand students to become accustomed to the presence of the researcher in order to minimise theobserver paradox. The researcher adopted Goodboy’ and Myers’ (2015) Scale of Instructors
Misbehaviours (IMS). The scale contains 15 items that are in three categories: “antagonism”,
which refers to how teachers behave in class (e.g., yell, speak politely, or listen to different
ideas); “lecture”, which refers to the way teachers manage class; and “articulation”, whichpertains to how the teachers articulate lessons (the observed classes are English classes). The
researcher used the model as a checklist to assist in identifying the following: teachers’
misbehaviours, the frequency of the misbehaviours, and students’ reactions to their teachers’
misbehaviours. After completing the observations, each teacher had 10 checklists of each classthe researcher had observed. The researcher then summarised the observation checklists of all
the teachers, collected the most frequent misbehaviours, and put them in one checklist. From
this process, six checklists emerged. During the observation process, the researcher spotted
students’ reactions, both verbal and nonverbal. Verbal notes of teachers and students weretranscribed and translated into English for analysis.
The second method was a questionnaire which was distributed to students. The questionnaire
was also adopted from Goodboy’ and Myers’ (2015) Students’ Communication Satisfaction
Scale. The scale was in the form of a Likert scale, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly
disagree”. The scale contained eight items, each of which asked about students’ perception of
their teachers’ communication style. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) wasused to analyse the collected data (Huizingh, 2007). If the mean value was more than 3.00, that102

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

meant that the teacher had a positive attitude. On the other hand, a mean value less than 3.00
indicated that the teacher had a negative attitude.
The third method was semi-structured interviews which were conducted to give the teachers achance to explain the most common misbehaviour(s). The interview questions were in Arabic
but were later translated into English for the purpose of this research. These interviews
provided a chance for the researcher to explore whether teachers were aware of theirmisbehaviour, and whether teachers had a valid explanation as to why they committed themisbehaviour. Each teacher was asked three or four questions about the most common
misbehaviour. Two themes emerged from the interviews which are analysed below.
Data Analysis
A mixed-method approach was followed to analyse the data. In the quantitative analysis, theresearcher used SPSS to analyse students’ answers after completing the questionnaire about
their teachers’ communication style in order to determine how students perceived theirteachers, either positively or negatively. In the qualitative analysis, the researchers – based onclass observations and fieldnotes – focused on discerning teachers’ misbehaviours andstudents’ reactions toward the misbehaviours. The analysis of students’ reactions focused on
how students perceived their teachers’ misbehaviours and how they reacted, either byreciprocating the misbehaviour or compensating for the misbehaviour. All examples were
written in Arabic, but for the purpose of this research they were translated into English; thetranslation is included between brackets in the analysis below. This was applied to bothcategories, antagonism and lecture, as both included reactions of students. As for thearticulation category (items 14-15), the researchers used “yes/no” to confirm the use of themisbehaviour by the teacher. The researchers noticed that the students’ low proficiency level
led all students not to reply to their teachers’ misbehaviours; thus, articulation was excluded
from the analysis of the results. As for the interviews, they were thematically analysed
according to the most and least frequently committed misbehaviours in the two investigatedcategories: antagonism and lecture. Three or four questions were asked to each teacher
individually, and the first researcher wrote down the answers when teachers were not
comfortable with an audio-recording. After conducting the interviews, the researchers analysedeach one and grouped the answers into thematic categories.
Results
This section presents the findings obtained from the analysis of each of the three methods ofdata collection. As shall be shown below, the use of three methods of data collection allowed
the researchers to draw a more detailed picture of the Jordanian EFL classroom in terms of therelationship between teacher and students. Indeed, the findings provide a glimpse of bothteachers’ and students’ misbehaviours in class, a situation that is rarely explored in educational
research.
Classroom Observations
It should be noted that the classroom observations resulted in a list of committed misbehaviours
and a list of students’ reactions. The analysis of observations was based on the researcher’s
field notes and checklists as consent to video-record classes was not possible. Table 2 below
shows the number of occurrences of the teachers’ committed misbehaviours and students’reactions to their teachers’ misbehaviours. Table 3 shows some authentic examples from theresearcher’s notes on teachers’ misbehaviours and students’ reactions.

103

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Table 2
Types and Number of Occurrences of Teachers’ Misbehaviours and Students’ Reactions
Misbehaviour
criteria

Item ofmisbehaviour

Reciprocation

Compensation

Occurrences ofthe misbehaviour

Noreaction

Antagonism

Discriminates
againstcertainstudents
Yells atstudents when
they ask for
help
Screams oryells atstudents
Belittle
students
Criticizes
students’
responses to
instructor
comments orquestions
Goes over thematerial soquickly so it
is difficult totake notes
Lectures in a
dry manner
Argues withstudents
during class
Gives boring
lectures
Teaches in a
confusingmannerLectures in amonotonevoice
Tells students
their opinions
are wrong
because his/her opinion is
right
Tells students
their opinions
are wrong

28

26

54

in one
class

47

5

52

44

4

48

31

15

46

28

16

44

31

4

35

16

15

31

28

1

29

16

11

27

16

9

25

12

7

19

16

___

16

___

15

15

Lecture104

Repeated
misbehaviour
withreciprocatedreactionin twoclassesin threeclassesin one classin oneclass
in one classin one classIAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Table 3Authentic Examples of Teachers’ Misbehaviours and Students’ Reactions
Students’ Reactions
Teachers’
misbehaviours

1

Students’
Reactions
Belittle students:
Is not it enoughthat your answers
are wrong. Mushbekafi e’no
Ajabatkom ghalat:
you are the onlyclass that I do not
like to come inE’nto el shoubeh elwahedeh e’llebahebeha’dkhulha.
A teacher toastudent:” you aregoing to stay theway you are; youwill never step
forward: Hadalek
zai ma Enti “Class G
Reciprocated all
misbehaviours

Class H
Compensated all
misbehaviours

Class A
Varied in theirreactionsVerbal: A- student to ateacher: “do not talk tome like that: Thikeesh
Maiee Zay Haiek
B- you are the stupid
one (in a hush, but thesurroundings of thestudent’s mates usually
hear the student.
Nonverbal:
A- students deviatesfrom the class bymoving their head awayfrom the teacher in amanner of not accepting
what happened nor
wanting to hear theteacher anymore.

Nonverbal:
A- looking out of thewindow
B- drawing andflipping the bookpages.

Compensated
Verbal:Bahsha majnoneh:
mrat mneha o mrat
belmarasometimes, I feel that
she is mad,sometimes a good
person, but othertimes very bad.
Nonverbal:
Leaving the class105

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

2

Yells at students
when they ask forhelp:
1-Ma baaraf
A’sa’li elli konti
thkei maaha
Ask the one youwere talking to
A teacher tostudents: I havealready explainedit!! Ana sharahto
A’bl shoui

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Verbal reactions:A- students threatening
the teacher saying they
will tell their parents tocome to the principal.
B- A student to theteacher: “I already can’t
understand what you
are saying.” Ana Aslanbafhamsh alieke
C- A student to theteacher: “do not yell atme”. Tsarkhesh 3lie
Nonverbal:
A- Gazing, playing withpersonal things

Verbal: Students inthe two times
apologized for not
paying attention

Compensated
Verbal:Miss, Wllaha kont
bsa’lha la’nee masmetek
I swear to God, I was
asking because I
could not hear you.
Nonverbal:
The same student,
who was asking,dropped the pen.

Verbal:we do not understand:mesh fahmeen
slow down: shwai
shwaii!
I can’t follow up, where
are you? Mush am
Balahe’aNonverbal: pretend towrite, stop writing,play, draw, chat

The Teacher usually
gave students time to
discuss the answersof the question
together and thenthey go back to do it.

reciprocated
Verbal:I am not following(while laughing)
Nonverbal:
Sleeping

Aren’t you
listening!!? E’nto
btesmaoush
A’na A’bel shoui
haketo, ma rah
A’rjaa Aeedou
I have just finishedsaying it, I will not
repeat it.

10 Goes over thematerial so quickly
so it is difficult totake notes

Table 2 shows the types of misbehaviours the teachers committed in the two categories ofantagonism and lecture. Antagonism was the highest committed misbehaviour category andfigured in practices such as screaming or yelling at students which was committed 48 times.
To this misbehaviour, students reacted by verbally matching what the teacher did by means ofasking unrelated questions, making noise, and talking to disturb the teacher. For example, whena teacher yelled at one of the students who was asking for help, the student answered her bysaying “ana aslan bafhamish 3alayki (I do not even understand you)”. At another time, astudent said to the teacher “la ts?arkhi 3alay (do not shout out at me)”. Some students
nonverbally responded to this misbehaviour by gazing at the teacher or by closing the book.
The least often committed misbehaviour was arguing with students during class. The reactions
to this misbehaviour were both verbal and non-verbal.

106

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

As for the other misbehaviour category, Lecture, the most frequently noted negative practice
was giving boring lectures which was checked 27 times. Boredom and monotony characterized
the overall atmosphere of classes: The teacher was observed sitting on the chair most of classtime. To this misbehaviour, the students reacted by matching it. For example, some students
flipped the pages while others slept in the class. The least regularly observed misbehaviour wasgoing over the material so quickly that it was difficult to take notes. Students responded bysaying “mis, shwai shwai, mo mla7geen (slow down, we cannot follow)”. One student
intentionally made disruptive during the class. In this category, students mostly non-verballymatched the misbehaviours because when they told the teacher, for instance, to slow down, she
did not listen to them. Therefore, it was easier to react non-verbally.
Face-to-face interviews
After coding and analysing the teachers’ face-to-face interviews, two major themes emerged.
The themes of classroom management and teacher preparedness surfaced repeatedly.
Classroom management. Analysis of the teachers’ answers to the interviewer’s questions
about classroom management revealed that there are two types of management styles: strict
and lenient. Strict teachers showed preference for applying rules and restrictions only whilelenient or soft teachers favoured both strictness and openness. For example, three of theteachers (G, D, A) said that they favour teaching in classes where rules have been previously
set so that – in their opinions – students do not misbehave. Teacher G said that “if you go easy
on students, you will lose them, and then you won’t be able to re-impose order on students.”
The interviewer asked the teacher what behaving properly meant to her, and she replied that “itmeans that students should not argue with teachers and should pay attention during the wholeclass.” Teacher A said, “if you spoil students then you cannot control their behaviour.” Thisshows that some teachers considered strictness much more important than building
relationships with students.
The other three teachers (K, B, H) said that they favour a soft style of classroom management,strongly believing that students need to be heard, respected, and valued. They were of the viewthat students in the teenage years are difficult to manage by means of rules, and that they may
face many problems outside of school. Therefore, they believed that too much dissonance willcertainly backfire in their way of dealing with students at this age. These teachers also believedthat establishing relationships with students is important in causing students to comply withwhat the teachers expect. Teacher B, for example, said “I make them do what I want, but in theend, they made the choice.” Teachers in this category believed in de-centralizing classes;
Teacher H said, “I am no longer the centre of the class, and I let them have a role in preparing
the lessons and explaining lessons to the class.” Teacher K said, “I give them the freedom todo everything as long as it helps me achieve the end goal of the lesson; that can be by changing
seats or playing a little game before starting the class.”
There emerged aspects on which all teachers shared similar views. These aspects related to
struggles the teachers face in classroom management. They were all of the view that the large
responsibilities they have in terms of teaching loads and syllabus design decreases the chanceof being close to their students and establishing good relationships with them. Some of the
responsibilities the teachers shared included preparing, designing syllabi, teaching, conducting
activities, assessing, marking, and providing feedback to students, in addition to their own
personal and familial responsibilities. Moreover, the teachers said that these struggles areintensified by a lack of tools – including technology – that would ease their task of conductingclasses while maintaining the quality of teaching. For these reasons, the interviewer asked the107

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

teachers if they believe they have the capacity to be a role model. The teachers replied that theydid, but that capacity is inhibited by the above-mentioned circumstances, which are out of theircontrol.
Teachers’ preparedness. The interviewer asked the teachers whether they feel prepared togive a class or even to enter the classroom. Most teachers agreed that when they started
teaching, they felt lost because there were no training programs to train them on how to managea class. For example, Teacher K said “I remember the first class I gave. I entered the classhesitantly, and I could tell that students sensed that I was hesitant. I was not ready so I asked
for help, but the common cliché is you will get used to them.” Teacher D said it is not only that
there was no training on class management, but there was also no program for how to teach:“Most of us graduated from universities without any training or a course to prepare us to teach,”
Teacher H said, “we might have problems with teaching, but the main problem is that none of
us was trained to be a teacher.”
The interviewer asked the teachers whether there is any way for them to access new literature,research, and scholarly articles on managing classes and teaching methods that would keepthem updated with the best techniques and strategies to employ in making their classes better.
The teachers responded that they do not have access to such resources, and even if they did,such new methodologies would not suit their classes and their students. For example, Teacher
G said, “I do not care about the new research; this research is not for our classes where 50
students are in one class.” Teacher K said, “I would like to try new things in my class, but I do
not have time as I have to finish the book within the allotted time.” The interviewer then asked
the teachers whether or not training about class management and new teaching methodologies
would help them run classes more positively. In general, the teachers agreed, but noted that
there were other factors that also cause difficulty in the classroom. For example, when students
behave badly in class, and teachers call their parents to come to school to discuss theirchildren’s situation, the teachers find that the parents are often indifferent, and usually do notshow up for such meetings. Fathers usually go to work, and mothers have to stay at home totake care of the house and the younger children.
Discussion
This study focused on teachers’ misbehaviours in EFL classes and how students reacted tothem. It should be recollected that the main purpose of the present investigation is to examine
the relationship between teachers’ communication styles and students’ reactions towards theirteachers’ misbehaviours. The interpretation of the results draws on the Expectancy Violation
Theory (EVT) (Burgoon & Jones, 1976) which provides an insight into understanding why
students matched some of their teachers’ misbehaviours in some classes and mismatched othermisbehaviours in other classes. The EVT stipulates that when people misbehave, theirmisbehaviour is either compensated for or reciprocated depending on how positive or negative
the communication style of the person is. The EVT assumes that when the communication styleis positive, the reaction is most likely a compensation, and when the communication style isnegative, the reaction is most likely a reciprocation.
Drawing upon the EVT premises, the researchers interpreted the reasons behind students’matching of some misbehaviours and mismatching of others. One thing that should be noted
here is that the researchers used matching and mismatching (in place of the EVT’s terms ofcompensating and reciprocating) because both imply the meaning of acting towards themisbehaviour in the same sense of the misbehaviour. For example, shouting out could be108

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

matched by slamming the door. Both display negative attitudes and one of them was a reaction
to the other. Hence, it was best proposed to use these two words to describe students’ reactions
towards their teachers’ misbehaviours. The results presented in the previous section show thatthe students of Teachers D and G were seen to reciprocate all teachers’ misbehaviours; somemisbehaviours were reciprocated more than 10 times. According to the EVT, Teachers D and
G’s communication styles were perceived as negative. The results also show that the studentsof Teachers H and B were seen to compensate all teachers’ misbehaviours and at other times
students did not react. Teachers H and B communication styles were both perceived as positive.
The results have also demonstrated that the students of Teachers K and A varied in theirreactions toward their teachers’ misbehaviours. Teachers K and A’s communication styles
were perceived as positive, but low positive, hence the students’ variance in their reactions
towards the teachers.
This interpretation clarifies why students reciprocate some misbehaviours and compensate forothers, and why they sometimes compensate for and reciprocate the same misbehaviours. Thiscan be attributed to more than one reason. For instance, the teachers with positive
communication styles were seen to imply a good classroom management strategy (Lane et al.,2012). They raised discussions and respected their students’ views and counterviews. They
rarely yelled at students and only used rules of management if discussions failed and they felt
the need to control the students’ actions (Varga et al., 2011). For example, Teacher K yelled at
one of the students when she asked for help saying that “lama t7’als?i 7aki, ra7 ajawbik (whenyou stop talking, I will answer you).” Here, although it was a misbehaviour, the students
compensated for the misbehaviour explaining why she was talking to her friend. Moreover,positive teachers treat students equally; teachers have the authority to decide on who should
participate and when and where they could do so (Briscoe et al., 2009). One teacher was
accused by students to favour one student over others. Teacher H’s students compensated forthat by admitting that the favoured student is one of the best among all other students.
For students, when teachers misbehaved by being biased or not listening to their complaints,
they felt undermined and disappointed which may have led them to cause problems in class(Boynton & Boynton, 2005). On the other hand, when the teacher was perceived to be positive,
students compensated for the act of discrimination by giving the teacher the benefit of the doubt
as occurred in Teacher H’s class. It should be noted that teachers who were perceived as
positive were teachers who may have still committed misbehaviours. However, the manner inwhich the teachers conducted their classes on a regular basis and the good relationships thatthey maintained with their students lead the students to compensate for their teachers’
misbehaviours (Varga, 2017). Negative teachers, on the other hand, may have used strict
strategies inside the class and might have been biased. When teachers called on the same
students repetitively to participate, they did not pay attention to other students (Boynton &Boynton, 2005). As a consequence of teachers’ lacking a positive communication style,students’ behaviours were affected negatively.
From the analysis above, it is obvious that when teachers who were perceived to be positivecommitted a misbehaviour related to how the lecture was progressing, the students were usuallymore forgiving. For negative teachers, it was found that classes were dull and direct; it wasalso found that they taught in a dry manner and covered the material too quickly. Students
reciprocated these misbehaviours as some began not to bring their books to the class. They
stated that they did not understand or follow what the teacher was doing, so why should theybother with the book (Rimm-Kaufman & Sandilos, 2011). It is important for teachers tounderstand that students come to learn, and that if teachers do not do their job properly, the109

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

students would not be interested in studying. It is easy to spot the reactions of teachers whom
students have reciprocated all misbehaviours or compensated for them. However, it wasdifficult to analyse those whose reactions varied in the class between reciprocating andcompensating, as was the situation with Teachers K and A. For Teacher K, the students havereciprocated two items of the scale in the lecturing category and compensated for the rest. For
Teacher A, the students have reciprocated two items and compensated for the rest. From
students’ reactions, it was concluded that teachers should have both language competency anda positive attitude toward students (Varga, 2017).
The students’ reactions toward their teachers’ misbehaviours show that having both a positive
communication style and competency in the subject matter has a great impact on the students
regarding their attitudes towards learning in general. The students get motivated when theirteachers create a safe and non-threatening environment (Luz, 2015). The methods andstrategies that teachers use make students feel engaged and stimulated to participate in thelearning process. Research on good language teachers reveals that effective teachers areattentive, open to change, and have the potential to face the challenging circumstances ofteaching (Gibbs, 2002). They should be models for their students, providing them with quality
teaching while at the same time maintaining good behaviours and practices.
Conclusion
This study has focused on EFL teachers’ misbehaviours in class and students’ reactions to thesemisbehaviours. In so doing, the study contributes to the field of English language and teachingby giving insights into the enhancement of teachers’ styles and roles in EFL classes. It has
shown that successful teaching is a joint task where teachers and students are affected by eachother’s actions and misbehaviours. The study provides teachers with ideas for providing thekind of quality teaching that every professional would want to implement. Two questions wereraised in this study: What are the types of misbehaviours that English language teachers commit
in their classes and how do students react to such misbehaviours? Do they compensate for
and/or reciprocate teachers’ misbehaviours? The results have revealed that teachers who wereperceived to be positive were considered to be the best while teachers who were thought to be
negative were disliked and even dishonoured by some students. The findings have also shownthat the majority of students value a positive communication style on the part of their teachers.
This communication style motivates students to become more interested in studying thelanguage. As Collier (2005) argued “caring facilitates a sense of connection from which spring
countless opportunities for learning” (p. 353). Students feel active and motivated in classes run
by positive teachers who allow them to express their opinions.
Limitations and Recommendations
This study is limited in the number of observations conducted. With more observations, theresearchers could have found more misbehaviours that would give a more nuanced picture of
EFL teachers’ (mis)behaviours and consequently their students’ reactions. As the time ofobservations was only a month, the researchers did not manage to attend all classes the teachers
gave. Moreover, if a second-hand observer were possible where both could combine the datacollected and compare their findings, the study would have been more reliable. Also, theresistance for video-recording classes is also a limitation. Videoed instances of how teacherscommitted misbehaviours and how students reacted to them would have given a more authentic
view of the matter under investigation. The other limitation is related to the interviews. This
study requires an investigation into why teachers act or speak inappropriately in the EFL
classroom. It would have been better if the students’ points of view were taken into account.

110

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

However, that was restricted as the teachers and the school principal did not allow the
researcher to interview students alone without the presence of the teachers. Importantly, future
research may examine how unacceptable teacher practices affect second language learning. As
Brown (2014) argues, individual learners possess a fragile language ego that, if faced withteachers’ misbehaviours, will become a detriment to successful learning. Krashen (1982)
argues that many factors, including teachers’ misbehaviours, cause the affective filter to raise
which ultimately affects success of the learning process. This is reminiscent of Schumann’s(1986) Acculturation Model which shows how social distance negatively influences theoutcomes of the learning process.

111

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

References
Abrantes, J., Seabra, C., & Lages, L. (2007). Pedagogical affect, student interest, and learning
performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 960–964.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.026
Alhabahba, M., Pandian, A. & Mahfoodh, O. (2016). English language education in Jordan:
Some recent trends and challenges. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1156809
Al-Hazmi, S. (2003). EFL teacher preparation programs in Saudi Arabia: Trends andchallenges. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 341–344. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588509
Asassfeh, S. M. (2015). Prospective EFL teachers: What language learning beliefs do they
hold? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24, 13–26.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0154-1
Banfield, S., Richmond, V. & McCroskey, J. (2006). The effect of teacher misbehaviours onteacher credibility and affect for the teacher. Communication Education, 55(1), 63–
72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520500343400
Borich, G. (2015). Observation skills for effective learning: Research-based practice, (7thed.). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315633206
Boynton, M. & Boynton, C. (2005). The educator’s guide to preventing and solving
discipline problems. Alexandria: ASCD.
Briscoe, F., Arriaza, G. & Henze, R. (2009). The power of talk: How words change our lives.
California: Corwin Press.
Brophy, J. (2011). History of research on classroom management. In C. Evertson & C.
Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, andcontemporary issues (pp. 17–43). New York: Routledge.
Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching (6th ed.). New York:
Longman.
Burgoon, J. K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations andtheir violations. Human Communication Research, 2, 131–146.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00706.x
Collier, M. (2005). An ethic of caring: The fuel for high teacher efficacy. The Urban Review,
37(4), 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-005-0012-4
Creswell, J. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (5th ed.). California: Sage Publications.
Evertson, C. & Weinstein, C. (2011) (Eds.). Handbook of classroom management: Research,
practice, and contemporary issues. New York: Routledge.
Gibbs, C. (2002). Effective teaching exercising self-efficacy and thought control of action.
Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research
Association. New Zealand: Auckland University of Technology.
Goodboy, A. & Bolkan, S. (2009). College teacher misbehaviors: Direct and indirect effects
on student communication behaviour and traditional learning outcomes. Western
Journal of Communication, 73(2), 204–219.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310902856089

112

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Goodboy, A. & Myers, S. (2015). Revisiting instructor misbehaviors: A revised typology anddevelopment of a measure. Communication Education, 64(2), 133–153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.978798
Huizingh, E. (2007). Applied statistics with SPSS. London: Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249390
Jenkins, J. (2017). An ELF perspective on English in the post-Brexit EU. World
Englishes, 36(3), 343–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12269
Kearney, P., Plax, T., Hays, E. & Ivey, M. (1991). College teacher misbehaviors: What
students don’t like about what teachers say and do. Communication Quarterly, 39(4),309–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379109369808
Kelsey, D., Kearney, P., Plax, T., Allen, T. & Ritter, K. (2004). College students’ attributionsof teacher misbehaviors. Communication Education, 53(1), 40–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452032000135760
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Lane, K., Lynne, H., Menzies, H., Oakes, W., & Kalberg, J. (2012). Systematic screenings ofbehaviour to support instruction: From preschool to high school. New York: Guilford
Press.
Luz, R. (2015). The relationship between teachers and students in the classroom:
Communicative language teaching approach and cooperative learning strategy to
improve learning. Unpublished masters’ thesis, Bridgewater State University,
Massachusetts, USA.
Nunan, D. (2013). Learner-Centered English language education: The selected works ofDavid Nunan. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203096888
Pressley, M., Almasi, J., Schuder, T., Bergman, J., Hite, S., El‐Dinary, P. & Brown, R.
(1994). Transactional instruction of comprehension strategies: The Montgomery
County, Maryland, SAIL program. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming
Learning Difficulties, 10(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356940100102
Rimm-Kaufman, S. & Sandilos, L. (2011). Improving students’ relationships with teachers toprovide essential supports for learning. American Psychological Association,
Accessed August 24, 2020 at https://www.apa.org/education/k12/relationships
Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language
acquisition. Journal of multilingual & multicultural development, 7(5), 379–392.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1986.9994254
Toale, M. C. (2001). Teacher clarity and teacher misbehaviors: Relationships with students’affective learning and teacher credibility. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Morgantown: West Virginia University.
Varga, M. (2017). The effect of teacher-student relationships on the academic engagement ofstudents. Unpublished master’s thesis, Goucher College.
Yassin, B. (2015). Challenges of teaching English language to English language learners at
private universities in Jordan. Arab World English Journal, 6(2), 265–274.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2834395

113

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Zhang, Q. (2007). Teacher misbehaviors as learning demotivators in college classrooms: A
cross-cultural investigation in China, Germany, Japan, and the United States.
Communication Education, 56(2), 209–227.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520601110104
Corresponding Author: Sharif Alghazo
Email: s.alghazo@gmail.com

114