Atmojo, A. E. P. (2020). Junior high school students’ disruptive behaviour and their expectations on EFL class. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 7(2), 509-521 http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/809 Received: 07.01.2020 Received in revised form: 20.03.2020 Accepted: 28.03.2020 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR AND THEIR EXPECTATIONS ON EFL CLASS Research Article Arief Eko Priyo Atmojo IAIN Surakarta arief.atmojo93@gmail.com Arief Eko Priyo Atmojo is a lecturer at IAIN Surakarta. His research interests are Technology Enhanced Language Learning, Teacher’s Professional Development, ELT Evaluation, and TEFL Methodology. Copyright by Informascope. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of IOJET. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/809 mailto:arief.atmojo93@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5136-6887 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(2), 509-521 509 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR AND THEIR EXPECTATIONS ON EFL CLASS Arief Eko Priyo Atmojo arief.atmojo93@gmail.com Abstract Students are at the heart of teaching and learning. Students will learn effectively if they are willing to learn. However, students may conduct disruptive behaviour in the classroom. This study addresses these following objectives: (1) to describe the forms of students’ disruptive behaviour; (2) to describe the sources of students’ disruptive behaviour; and (3) to describe students’ expectations to cope with that behaviour in EFL class. This study employed descriptive study design. The sampling was purposive sampling. To collect the data, open- ended and closed-ended questionnaire using 4-likert scale, focus group structured-interview, and complete participant observation were employed. To validate the data, methodological triangulation was used. The data were analyzed using qualitative data analysis developed by Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014). The results of this study have revealed the forms of students’ disruptive behaviour, the sources of students’ disruptive behaviour, and students’ expectations to cope with that behaviour in EFL class. The results are discussed and further studies are encouraged. Keywords: EFL class, students’ disruptive behaviour, students’ expectation 1. Introduction Students become more diverse nowadays. This phenomenon becomes an educational challenge over the world about how to provide the students’ diversity. It gives impact on the existence of students who show disruptive behaviour (Wearmouth, Glynn, & Berryman, 2005). Whereas, students are at the heart of teaching and learning. Students will learn effectively if they are willing to learn. Otherwise, they will not learn when they are not willing to learn. Disruptive behaviour is considered as one of the most crucial problems in education (Farrell, 2011). Moreover, students’ disruptive behaviour is a nowadays’ interest to persons within the fields of psychology and education (Arbuckle & Little, 2004). Students’ disruptive behaviour has become a familiar topic in teachers’ talk. Both new teachers and experienced teachers perceive students’ disruptive behaviour as a subject of concern (Silva & Neves, 2007). Teachers often find students’ disruptive behaviour in their classroom. Most disruptive behaviours to deal with are trivial enough (Leflot, van Lier, Onghena, & Colpin, 2010). Consequently, teachers are in fear if they are unable to manage students’ disruptive behaviour which may occur suddenly in the classroom (Silva & Neves, 2007). It is truly a difficult work to educate and facilitate students with disruptive behaviour. For teachers and others involved in this work, they may at times feel de-skilling, stressful, and unrewarding. It is necessary to support teachers and others involved in educating students with disruptive behaviour (Farrell, 2011). Ideally, the teacher controls the class. However, disruptive behaviour such as refusing to work, insults, backchat, and other attention-seeking tactics are attempted by students to take control the class. Thus, teachers who cope with students’ disruptive behaviour spend large amounts of time and energy to think about it (Chaplain, 2003). mailto:arief.atmojo93@gmail.com Atmojo 510 Several studies related to students’ disruptive behaviour have been undertaken by researchers. However, particular studies on the forms and sources of students’ disruptive behaviour and students’ expectations to cope with that behaviour in certain subject matter should be encouraged. To provoke this, Rahimi and Karkami (2015) encourage extensive research on finding the sources of students’ disruptive behaviour and developing principles to educate teachers in managing their classes effectively. In fact, there are still few EFL researchers who give attention to the issue concerning on students’ disruptive behaviour in language classes and how language teachers should manage students’ disruptive behaviour. To fill this gap, this present study addresses the forms and sources of students’ disruptive behaviour and students’ expectations to cope with that behaviour in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom. This present study has similar limitation with the study conducted by Silva and Neves (2007) in which disruptive behaviour is limited into a manifestation of illegitimate students’ acts or conducts which disrupt the normal teaching-learning process. Therefore, this study addresses these following objectives: (1) to describe the forms of students’ disruptive behaviour; (2) to describe the sources of students’ disruptive behaviour; and (3) to describe students’ expectations to cope with that behaviour in EFL class. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Concept of Students’ Disruptive Behaviour Porter (2000) defines students’ disruptive behaviour as students’ behaviour which interrupts or disrupts the class during the lesson. It is also labelled as ‘problem behaviour’. Moreover, Silva and Neves (2007) define disruptive behaviour as a manifestation of acts or conducts undertaken by students encouraged by attitudes not legitimized by the teacher in the regulative context of pedagogic practice, consequently disrupting the normal teaching-learning process. Dobmeier and Moran (2008) also state that students’ disruptive behaviour means behaviour conducted by students which obstruct learning in an education setting. According to Fauziati (2015), students’ disruptive behaviour interrupts the teacher when managing teaching-learning process and disturbs other students who are willing to learn. 2.2. Forms of Students’ Disruptive Behaviour Dixon (2010) gives examples that students might show their disruptive behaviour in classroom by shouting out and behaving as if they were in their own world. According to Lambert, Cartledge, Heward, and Lo (2006), students’ disruptive behaviour includes these following behaviour: having conversation with others during teacher-directed instruction, provoking others (e.g., making faces at others, laughing at or touching others, making noises or sounds with voice, tapping objects, pounding on desk, voicing disapproval with instruction, throwing or twirling objects), attending to other stimuli (e.g., looking at or playing with other objects in desk or misusing instructional tools), writing notes to friends or drawing pictures, spitting, sucking on fingers, or leaving assigned seat without permission (including tipping back in chair on two legs). 2.3. Sources of Students’ Disruptive Behaviour Teachers are often unable to determine what the sources of students’ disruptive behaviour are. Teachers usually guess that the factors causing students’ disruptive behaviour are poor attitude, poor home environment, low IQ or limited learning ability, low socio-economic status, lack of parental support for school, health problem, and emotional problem. These assumptions indicate that teachers have very limited or no control over their students’ behaviour. However, it is very essential for the teachers to know the sources before taking the necessary steps to cope with the students’ disruptive behaviour (Fauziati, 2015). International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(2), 509-521 511 There are many sources which make students behave disruptively. According to Porter (2000), students’ disruptive behaviour might be because faulty external controls and students’ emotional or relationship needs which are unmet. Esturgó-Deu and Sala-Roca (2010) state that the lack of emotional abilities also becomes the source of students’ disruptive behaviour, particularly the capacity for emotional self-regulation and self-control. Meanwhile, Silva and Neves (2007) argue that students’ disruptive behaviour is complex relational and interactive phenomenon caused by several factors coming from social, family, personal, and schooling. Porter (2000) also points out that disruptive behaviour represents a faulty decision. It means that disruptive students have chosen an inappropriate way to reach their goal of seeking to be a part of the group. 2.4. Impact of Students’ Disruptive Behaviour The impact of students’ disruptive behaviour is very dangerous. Perle (2016) states that a single student’s disruptive behaviour can influence his own and other students’ learning. Similarly, Fauziati (2015) argues that a student who is disruptive can cause other students to become anxious and insecure in the classroom. Students’ disruptive behaviour can spread throughout the learning environment and influence other students. However, teachers get difficult to cope with students’ disruptive behaviour because they may not be sure how to manage the situation. Karaj and Rapti (2013) highlight that researchers are in consensus that students’ disruptive behaviour is one of the most important sources of teachers’ stress. According to Parsonson (2012), students’ disruptive behaviour can increase the stress levels of teachers and students, disrupt the flow of lesson, and give bad impact on learning objectives and processes. It also changes the focus of attention which shifts from the academic tasks to the distractions resulted by disruptive behaviours. 3. Research Methodology This study employed qualitative approach. Sukmadinata (2012) defines qualitative approach as the approach of study aiming at describing and analyzing phenomena, events, social activities, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and thoughts of person or group. Moreover, the design used in this study was descriptive study. According to Kothari (2004), descriptive study is a research design describing the characteristics of a specific individual or group. It aims at portraying the characteristics of a specific individual, situation, or group accurately. Its main purpose is accurate description of the state of affairs as it exists at present. 3.1. Population and Sample This study took place in a private junior high school located in Sukoharjo, Central Java, Indonesia. The target population of this study was students of the 8th grade. There were twelve classes at the 8th grade. The sampling used in this study was purposive sampling because the sample was selected for a particular purpose (Alston & Bowles, 2003). There were two students from each class who responded to the questionnaire. There were thirty-six students from six classes who were interviewed; six students came from each class. Meanwhile, the observation was done in all classes. 3.2. Instruments To collect the data, questionnaire, interview, and observation were employed. The questionnaire was open-ended and closed-ended using 4-likert scale. The interview was focus group structured-interview. Structured interview is often used in descriptive studies because it is more economical, provides a safe basis for generalization, and requires the interviewer’s lesser skill (Kothari, 2004). Meanwhile, complete participant observation was employed Atmojo 512 because the researcher took part as an insider in the group being studied and he did not state that he was a researcher (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). The observation was done in 9 months. To validate the data, triangulation was used. According to Cohen et al. (2007), triangulation is the use of two or more data collection methods in the study of some aspects of human behaviour. This study employed methodological triangulation since different methods were used on the same object of study. Those three methodologies in collecting the data were questionnaire, interview, and observation. 3.3. Data Analysis The data were analyzed using qualitative data analysis developed by Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014). They perceive data analysis as three concurrent flows of activity: (1) data condensation, (2) data display, and (3) conclusion drawing/verification. 4. Findings and Discussion 4.1. The Forms of Students’ Disruptive Behaviour Students’ willingness and unwillingness affect much on their behaviour in classroom affecting their performance and achievement. Students will show positive behaviour when they are willing to learn. On the other hand, they will show disruptive behaviour when they are not willing to learn. Students’ disruptive behaviour may also happen because their basic needs are not met. It can also be caused by their unmet or unsatisfied expectations toward the lesson. Murphy (2007) states that students’ disruptive behaviour must be addressed to achieve effective learning environment and to help teachers to be effective. Murphy (2010) also points out that teachers should develop strategies to cope with students’ disruptive behaviour. It can be done by understanding the characteristics of each group of students and preparing strategies to cope with students’ disruptive behaviour which will enable novice and expert teachers to be more effective. There are numerous disruptive behaviours done by students in EFL class. They might conduct the disruptive behaviour intentionally or unintentionally. The forms of students’ disruptive behaviour found in EFL class are as follows: sleeping, reading other books/novels/magazines/comics, doing homework of other subjects, studying other subjects, eating foods, talking/chatting with friends, walking/moving around, shouting, not paying attention to the teacher, running away/leaving the classroom, singing songs, not doing homework and exercise given by the teacher, and ignoring the teacher. In their study, Dobmeier and Moran (2008) divide disruptive behaviour of students into three different types of behaviour comprising a continuum. The first type is “inattention”. Inattention refers to behaviours which disrupt learning process because of lack of focus on the learning activities. Students do not intend to disrupt learning or to offend others. It results in learning which is obstructed for disruptive students and often for other students. The second type is called as “acting-out”. Acting-out means breaking rules and offending others. In this type of disruptive behaviour, students express their negative feelings, like frustration or anger by acting overtly. The examples are arriving late, taking cell phone calls, refusing to participate, and stating that the learning activities are ineffective to express anger because of being forced to attend training. Acting out behaviour is intended to disrupt the teaching-learning process for the teacher, the disruptive students, and other students. The third one is “threatening/harmful/violent” behaviour. Threatening/harmful/violent behaviour is intended to give or to inflict physical and/or psychological harm to other students, the teacher, or International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(2), 509-521 513 properties. The examples are swearing, fighting with other students, pushing the teacher, or threatening to do the same. According to Dobmeier and Moran (2008), the forms of students’ disruptive behaviour found in this study can be categorized as follows: 1) Inattention: sleeping, reading other books/novels/magazines/comics, doing homework of other subjects, studying other subjects, not paying attention to the teacher; 2) Acting-out: shouting, talking/chatting with friends, walking/moving around, running away/leaving the classroom, singing songs, eating foods, not doing homework and exercise given by the teacher, ignoring the teacher; 3) Threatening/harmful/violent: nothing. It is found that “inattention” and “acting-out” behaviour mostly occur in EFL class. These disruptive behaviours indicate that there are many students who lack of focus on the lesson, break the rules, and often offend others to express negative feelings such as frustration and anger. These behaviours interrupt teaching-learning process in EFL class. These behaviours happen in EFL class every week. As the students reflect, they state that their disruptive behaviours occur because they have these following attitudes in EFL class: lazy, bored, selfish, emotional, hyperactive, and tired. Hoffman and Lee (2014) conducted a study to develop a typology of students’ disruptive behaviour. The typology comprises six types of students’ disruptive behaviours. These are mentioned as follows: 1) side discussion issues including students’ conversation on class or unrelated class material; 2) technology issues including using phones, laptops, or music players in the classroom; 3) over-the-top participation issues including students’ domination in discussion, students’ irrelevant question, or discussion which is off-topic; 4) commitment issues including sleeping, coming late, leaving early, or not preparing for class; 5) proximity issues including having meal, unhealthy students, territorial issues (body odor, invasion of space), etc.; and 6) miscellaneous issues including various disruptive behaviours like bullying, bringing a child or pet to class, and public show of affection. According to the typology of students’ disruptive behaviour developed by Hoffman and Lee (2014), students’ disruptive behaviour found in this study can be categorized as follows: 1) Side discussion issues: talking/chatting with friends; 2) Technology issues: nothing; 3) Over-the-top participation issues: nothing; 4) Commitment issues: not paying attention to the teacher, ignoring the teacher, sleeping, walking/moving around, running away/leaving the classroom, reading other books/novels/magazines/comics, not doing homework and exercise given by the teacher, doing homework of other subjects, studying other subjects; 5) Proximity issues: eating foods; 6) Miscellaneous issues: singing songs, shouting. It is clear that commitment issues are the most dominant among others. At the same time, miscellaneous issues become the second serious problem. Meanwhile, there is no technology issue. It is because the students are not allowed to bring any electronic stuff or gadget. It has become the rule of an Islamic boarding school to prohibit the students from bringing electronic stuffs or gadgets such as laptops, mobile phones, music players, etc. to school environment. There is also no over-the-top participation issue. It is because the students seem to not actively Atmojo 514 participate in the lesson. They lack focus on the lesson. They tend to do activities which are not related with the lesson. In contrast, Hoffman and Lee (2014) found that side discussion issues and technology issues become the most frequently listed disruptive behaviours in the students’ classroom experience. 4.2. The Sources of Students’ Disruptive Behaviour The sources of students’ disruptive behaviour must be identified to help the teacher copes with students’ disruptive behaviour. Several studies have revealed the sources of students’ disruptive behaviour. The sources of students’ disruptive behaviour may be the teacher’s disengagement and students’ history of academic and social failure (Scott, Hirn, & Alter, 2014). Students’ disruptive behaviours are caused by the interaction between students’ socio- affective dispositions to teachers’ pedagogic practices and their specific coding orientation to control relations (Silva & Neves, 2007). There is no relation between disruptive behaviour and age. However, disruptive behaviours have relation with sex and emotional abilities. Boys behave more disruptively than girls. In addition, there is a significant relation between disruptive behaviours and the general index of emotional intelligence, especially stress management and interpersonal relations (Esturgó-Deu & Sala-Roca, 2010). In this study, the sources of students’ disruptive behaviour are described as follows: 1) Sleeping: The students sleep in EFL class because they feel bored with the teacher and the lesson. They say that the teaching-learning process is not enjoyable. If they are too full, they become sleepy. It is also because they are sleepy. They are tired because there are lots of activities to do; so that, they do not have enough time to sleep. If they are sick or lazy, they also sleep during the EFL class. They also sleep if the lesson is difficult for them; 2) Reading other books/novels/magazines/comics: The students read other readings because the teacher is not friendly. They say that the teacher is ignorant. They also say that they get bored with the teacher and the lesson. It is because the readings are very interesting too. It often happens when the students must return the readings soon. If they are lazy to do the exercise given by the teacher, they read other readings. They also read other readings if the lesson is not easy for them; 3) Doing homework of other subjects: The students do homework of other subjects because they forget to do it. Sometimes, homework of certain subjects is difficult for the students; so, they work cooperatively with their classmates in the classroom. It also happens when the homework must be submitted soon. If the students are lazy, they do their homework in the classroom; 4) Studying other subjects: The students study other subject because they will have an examination on the subject. They also do it when they complete the notebook of other subject; 5) Eating foods: The students eat foods in EFL class because they are hungry. They say that they do not have enough break time. The problem is that they have to queue in a long time to pay the foods in the canteen. So, they do not have enough time to eat their foods in the break time. When they are sleepy, they eat foods to stay awake. They also eat foods because they have stock of foods in the classroom; 6) Talking/chatting with friends: The students talk or chat with friends because they want to tell something. It is also because they are bored with the teacher and the lesson. Moreover, they talk with friends when they feel bad mood or have problems. They also talk with friends when they need to refresh their mind and when they are sleepy. It happens too International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(2), 509-521 515 when they have an idea spontaneously. They say that talking with friends is more interesting than the lesson. If the task or exercise given is difficult, they also talk with friends; 7) Walking/moving around: If the students are not comfortable to remain sitting down, they walk around. When they are sleepy, they walk around to stay awake. They also walk around if they are bored with the teacher and the lesson. If they want to talk with friends, borrow something, request foods or drinks from their friends, look for something, and ask the answers of exercise or task, they walk around too; 8) Shouting: The students shout in the classroom because their friends cannot listen well. They also shout when they are disturbed by their friends. Moreover, it happens when they are bad mood, resentful, or angry. They also shout when they have quarrel; 9) Not paying attention to the teacher: The students do not pay attention to the teacher because they are bored with the teacher and the lesson. It is also because the teacher is not friendly; 10) Running away/leaving the classroom: The students leave the class because they have not finished the task or homework given by the teacher. It is also because they lack of holiday and need to refresh their mind. If there is an interesting spot outside, they leave the classroom too. They also leave the classroom if they need to clean or change their dirty uniform. If the teacher is killer and ignorant, they leave the classroom too. They also leave the classroom if they are bored. Moreover, uncomfortable classroom condition (bad smell, hot air, etc.) can make them leave the classroom. If they want to see outside condition, they leave the classroom too; 11) Singing songs: The students sing songs because they are bored, have problems, remember the past, or fail to move on. When they know a hit-song, they often sing it in the classroom. They also sing songs because there is no music in the classroom; 12) Not doing homework and exercise given by the teacher: The students do not do homework and exercise given by the teacher because they think that the punishment does not give deterrent effect. It also happens because they disrespect the teacher. If they have many activities till night in the previous day, they do not do their homework too. They also do not do homework and exercise because they are lazy and think that the homework and the exercise are difficult. Sometimes, they cannot do homework and exercise because their book is lost; 13) Ignoring the teacher: The students ignore the teacher because the teacher is also ignorant. They also ignore the teacher because the teacher’s answers are not satisfying. Moreover, they become ignorant if they need to refresh their mind by watching movie, sharing, telling story, going to library, or having outing class. They also say that they become ignorant because the teacher is not friendly. To gain more insights, twenty-four students’ responses toward positive and negative statements about EFL class were collected. These responses are used to identify and give deeper understanding on the sources of students’ disruptive behaviour. Students’ responses are presented on table 1. Atmojo 516 Table 1. Students’ responses Statement Percentage 1. I love English subject. 71.88 2. I always talk with my friends during the teaching-learning of English. 53.13 3. I never sleep during the teaching-learning of English. 57.29 4. My English teacher is not interesting and makes me bored. 51.04 5. I have never been sleepy during the teaching-learning of English. 54.17 6. I like to walk around in the classroom during the teaching-learning of English. 63.54 7. English is an enjoyable subject. 66.67 8. I am not enthusiastic in joining the teaching-learning of English. 58.33 9. I respect my English teacher. 75.00 10. I often do not finish my homework on English subject. 67.71 11. English subject is very easy. 70.83 12. I like a noisy classroom during the teaching-learning of English. 72.92 13. I never make the class noisy during the teaching-learning of English. 59.38 14. I am lazy to learn English subject. 73.96 15. I always pay attention thoroughly when the teacher is explaining a topic of English subject. 64.58 16. I am easy to be bored during the teaching-learning of English. 53.13 17. I never forget to bring the textbook of English subject during the teaching- learning of English. 68.75 18. I often think about other things during the teaching-learning of English. 42.71 19. My English teacher uses understandable, interesting, and enjoyable teaching methods/techniques/strategies. 55.21 20. I never write down the teacher’s explanation during the teaching-learning of English. 68.75 21. I always actively question, answer, discuss, and give opinion during the teaching-learning of English. 57.29 22. I often do not get excited during the teaching-learning of English. 62.50 From table 1, some insights can be drawn. There are 71.88% students who love English subject. However, 53.13% students always have conversation with their friends during the teaching-learning of English. 57.29% students say that they never sleep during the teaching- learning of English. According to the students’ opinion, their English teacher is not interesting and makes them bored because 51.04% students say so. Moreover, there are 54.17% students who have never been sleepy during the teaching-learning of English; so, the rests have ever been sleepy in EFL class. Meanwhile, 63.54% students like to walk around in the classroom during the teaching-learning process. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(2), 509-521 517 Although 66.67% students say that English is an enjoyable subject, 58.33% students are not enthusiastic in joining the teaching-learning of English. Even lots of students are not enthusiastic, 75.00% students still respect their English teacher. Moreover, 67.71% students often do not finish their homework on English subject but 70.83% students claim that English subject is very easy. Unfortunately, 72.92% students like a noisy classroom during the teaching-learning of English but 59.38% students say that they never make the class noisy. In addition, 73.96% students admit that they are lazy to learn English subject and 53.13% students get bored easily during the teaching-learning of English. However, 64.58% students still pay attention thoroughly when the teacher is explaining a topic of English subject. 68.75% students say that they never forget to bring the textbook of English subject. However, 42.71% students often think about other things during the teaching-learning of English. 55.21% students also argue that their English teacher uses understandable, interesting, and enjoyable teaching methods/techniques/strategies; the rests do not. On the other hand, 68.75% students admit that they never write down the teacher’s explanation during the teaching-learning of English. Meanwhile, only 57.29% students actively question, answer, discuss, and give opinion in EFL class because 62.50% students do not get excited during the teaching-learning of English. According to the students’ responses, they admit that they conduct these disruptive behaviours: 1) talking or chatting with friends (53.13%), 2) sleeping (42.71%), 3) walking or moving around in the classroom (63.54%), 4) not finishing the homework (67.71%), 5) making the class noisy (40.62%), and 6) not paying attention thoroughly to the teacher (35.42%). These disruptive behaviours happen because: 1) the teacher is not interesting and makes the students bored (51.04%); 2) the students are sleepy (45.83%); 3) the students are not enthusiastic during the lesson (58.33%); 4) the students like a noisy classroom (72.92%); 5) the students are lazy to learn (73.96%); 6) the students get bored easily during the lesson (53.13%); 7) the students think about other things or do not focus on the lesson (42.71%); 8) the teacher does not use understandable, interesting, and enjoyable teaching methods/techniques/strategies (44.79%); and 9) the students do not get excited during the lesson (62.50%). Supporting these evidences, Dobmeier and Moran (2008) argue that students become disruptive because of several variables in the learning environment like mandatory participation, unclear learning objectives, disconnection from others, or poor quality of teaching. Students’ disruptive behaviour also increases if the teacher or institution has not sufficiently planned and structured the learning activity and environment. 4.3. Students’ Expectations to Cope with Disruptive Behaviour There are numerous intervention studies done to cope with students’ disruptive behaviour (Kehle, Bray, Theodore, Jenson, & Clark, 2000; Martini-Scully, Bray, & Kehle, 2000; Meany- Walen, Bratton, & Kottman, 2014; Bilias-Lolis, Chafouleas, Kehle, & Bray, 2012; McDaniel & Flower, 2015; Hulac & Benson, 2010; Lambert, et al., 2006; Cihak, Kirk, & Boon, 2009). The use of response card in answering the teacher’s questions can reduce students’ disruptive behaviour and increase students’ academic responding. The students become less disruptive, participate more in instruction, and answer more questions correctly (Lambert et al., 2006). Moreover, the use of the “tootling” intervention in combination with a group contingency procedure can decrease students’ disruptive behaviours, establishing a functional relation (Cihak, et al., 2009). Parsonson (2012) also conducted a study aiming at reviewing a range of evidence-based strategies to be applied by teachers in decreasing disruptive and challenging behaviours in their classrooms. Atmojo 518 To deal with students’ disruptive behaviour, teachers usually persuade students to behave appropriately during the lesson and punish them if they misbehave (Fauziati, 2015). The teacher tries to cope with students’ disruptive behaviour by advising and warning the students to be silent, calm, and cooperative. Sometimes, the teacher seems to be punitive when the students conduct severe disruptive behaviour. However, Rahimi and Karkami (2015) reveal that the use of punitive strategies in managing students’ disruptive behaviour decreases students’ motivation resulting in students’ problems in learning. The punitive strategies used include threatening the students using words, giving them questions, asking them to re-explain the lesson, reinforcing them to be silent, calm, and cooperative by hitting the table, forcing them to sit down on their own seats, enforcing them to not moving or walking around in the classroom, awakening them by touching their body or speaking louder to them, asking them to wash their faces if they are sleepy, and giving them punishment such as push-up as well as standing up in front of the classroom. Although they have been given those treatments, they always do the same things in other occasions. They repeatedly conduct disruptive behaviour. It makes the teacher suffered, stressed, and confused about how to cope with students’ disruptive behaviour effectively. Teachers may think that it is difficult to handle highly disruptive students when they are continually seeking attention from the teacher and other students. What the teacher must do is to remain professional and reinforce any effort to make the disruptive students behave appropriately (Nordlund, 2003). It is because students’ disruptive behaviour will become more serious if the teacher lets it unchecked and/or if the teacher gives responses which may endanger the students’ self-esteem (Dobmeier & Moran, 2008). It is why this study addresses students’ expectations in EFL class so that they can cope with their disruptive behaviour when their expectations are considered and accommodated through some considerations. Students’ expectations to cope with disruptive behaviour in EFL class can be described as follows: 1) The teacher provides activities to refresh the students’ mind such as watching movie, listening to music, playing game, having quiz, sharing, and telling story or news/information; 2) The teacher should sometimes conduct outdoor class or library visit; 3) The teacher should care the students more; 4) The teacher should be closer to and friendlier with the students; 5) The students must learn and improve their attitude and politeness; 6) The teacher and students should create comfortable classroom atmosphere (free from stress and pressure, clean, and tidy); 7) The teacher should use ICT (information and communication technology) and multimedia (PowerPoint, music, video, picture); 8) The students should motivate themselves by setting target or goal to achieve; 9) The teacher should be able to manage the class well; 10) The teacher should be able to joke and have sense of humor; 11) The teacher gives reward to the students by giving bonus score, prize, or something useful for them; 12) The teacher should be interesting (both manner and appearance); International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(2), 509-521 519 13) The teacher should satisfy the students when answering their questions; 14) The teacher should tell motivating or valuable stories; 15) The teacher should be able to motivate the students using wise words or stories; 16) The teacher should check the students’ attendance regularly on every meeting. Besides decreasing the existence of students’ disruptive behaviour, it is also essential to make sure that this decrease is followed up by increasing task engagement to encourage students’ learning (McKissick, Hawkins, Lentz, Hailley, & McGuire, 2010). 5. Conclusion If students’ disruptive behaviour is not successfully coped, students will not learn effectively in EFL class. It makes the teaching-learning process meaningless and less powerful. As results, students’ knowledge, attitude, and skill in EFL will not be effectively developed. To respond this issue, EFL teachers must facilitate students to cope with their disruptive behaviour. Both teacher and students must have intention, commitment, and effort to deal with disruptive behaviour. Once the forms and sources of students’ disruptive behaviour have been identified, the teacher can take it as an insight to make strategies to deal with that behaviour. Moreover, students’ expectations in EFL class must be taken into consideration by the teacher to decrease students’ disruptive behaviour. Of course, it will improve the teacher’s professionalism. Having succeeded to deal with students’ disruptive behaviour, the teaching-learning process of EFL will be more effective and efficient since the teacher can conduct the teaching-learning process smoothly, without severe problems coming from students’ disruptive behaviour. Furthermore, the results of this study can be used by other EFL teachers to deal with similar students’ disruptive behaviour in different place and time. It is encouraged to clarify whether the sources of similar students’ disruptive behaviour in other contexts are quite the same with the results of this study or not. Teachers may also examine whether the strategies proposed by themselves or students’ expectations which are more effective to be implemented in dealing with students’ disruptive behaviour. All in all, students’ disruptive behaviour must be confronted until it decreases and goes away from EFL class. Atmojo 520 References Alston, M., & Bowles, W. (2003). Research for social workers: An introduction to methods (2nd edition). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Arbuckle, C., & Little, E. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions and management of disruptive classroom behaviour during the middle years (years five to nine). Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 4, 59-70. Bilias-Lolis, E., Chafouleas, S. M., Kehle, T. J., & Bray, M. A. (2012). Exploring the utility of self-modelling in decreasing disruptive behaviour in students with intellectual disability. Psychology in the Schools, 49(1), 82-92. Chaplain, R. (2003). Teaching without disruption: A multilevel model for managing student behaviour in secondary schools. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Cihak, D. F., Kirk, E. R., & Boon, R. T. (2009). Effects of classwide positive peer “tootling” to reduce the disruptive classroom behaviours of elementary students with and without disabilities. J Behav Educ, 18, 267-278. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th edition). New York: Routledge. Dixon, G. (2010). Working with diversity in a primary school: Experiences of a special needs co-ordinator. In R. Sage, Meeting the needs of students with diverse backgrounds (pp. 67-78). London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Dobmeier, R., & Moran, J. (2008). Dealing with disruptive behaviour of adult learners. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 22(2), 29-54. Esturgó-Deu, M. E., & Sala-Roca, J. (2010). Disruptive behaviour of students in primary education and emotional intelligence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 830-837. Farrell, M. (2011). The effective teacher’s guide to behavioural and emotional disorders: Disruptive behaviour disorders, anxiety disorders, depressive disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (2nd edition). Oxon: Routledge. Fauziati, E. (2015). Teaching English as a foreign language: Principle and practice. Surakarta: Era Pustaka Utama. Hoffman, K. D., & Lee, S. H. (2014). A CIT investigation of disruptive student behaviours: The students' perspective. Marketing Education Review, 24(2), 115-126. Hulac, D. M., & Benson, N. (2010). The use of group contingencies for preventing and managing disruptive behaviours. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(4), 257-262. Karaj, S., & Rapti, E. (2013). Teacher job stress in Albania: Examining the role of students’ classroom disruptive behaviour and other factors in the school context. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 54, 14-21. Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., Theodore, L. A., Jenson, W. R., & Clark, E. (2000). A multi- component intervention designed to reduce disruptive classroom behaviour. Psychology in the Schools, 37(5), 475-481. Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers. Lambert, M. C., Cartledge, G., Heward, W. L., & Lo, Y.-y. (2006). Effects of response cards on disruptive behaviour and academic responding during Math lessons by fourth-grade urban students. Journal of Positive Behaviour Interventions, 8(2), 88-99. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(2), 509-521 521 Leflot, G., Lier, P. A., Onghena, P., & Colpin, H. (2010). The role of teacher behaviour management in the development of disruptive behaviours: An intervention study with the good behaviour game. J Abnorm Child Psychol, 38, 869-882. Martini–Scully, D. d., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2000). A packaged intervention to reduce disruptive behaviours in general education students. Psychology in the Schools, 37(2), 149-156. McDaniel, S. C., & Flower, A. (2015). Use of a behavioural graphic organizer to reduce disruptive behaviour. Education and Treatment of Children, 38(4), 505-522. McKissick, C., Hawkins, R. O., Lentz, F. E., Hailley, J., & McGuire, S. (2010). Randomizing multiple contingency components to decrease disruptive behaviours and increase student engagement in an urban second-grade classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 47(9), 944- 959. Meany-Walen, K. K., Bratton, S. C., & Kottman, T. (2014). Effects of adlerian play therapy on reducing students’ disruptive behaviours. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 47-56. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd edition). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc. Murphy, K. L. (2010). Is my teaching disturbing you? Strategies for addressing disruptive behaviours in the college classroom. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 81(6), 33-44. Murphy, K. L. (2007). A professional code of ethics and progress report: One university’s approach to addressing disruptive behaviours in the classroom. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 78(2), 49-55. Nordlund, M. (2003). Differentiated instruction: Meeting the educational needs of all students in your classroom. Maryland: Scarecrow Press, Inc. Parsonson, B. S. (2012). Evidence-based classroom behaviour management strategies. KAIRARANGA, 13(1), 16-23. Perle, J. G. (2016). Teacher-provided positive attending to improve student behaviour. Teaching Exceptional Children, 48(5), 250-257. Porter, L. (2000). Student behaviour: Theory and practice for teachers (2nd edition). St Leonards: Allen & Unwin. Rahimi, M., & Karkami, F. H. (2015). The role of teachers’ classroom discipline in their teaching effectiveness and students’ language learning motivation and achievement: A path method. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 3(1), 57-82. Scott, T. M., Hirn, R. G., & Alter, P. J. (2014). Teacher instruction as a predictor for student engagement and disruptive behaviours. Preventing School Failure, 58(4), 193-200. Silva, P., & Neves, I. P. (2007). Power and control in the classroom: Understanding students’ disruptive behaviours. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 2(4), 205-231. Sukmadinata, N. S. (2012). Metode penelitian pendidikan. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya. Wearmouth, J., Glynn, T., & Berryman, M. (2005). Perspectives on student behaviour in schools: Exploring theory and developing practice. Oxon: Routledge.