School and the community: Managing disruptive learner behaviour in rural learning ecologies

Abstract

Managing disruptive learner behaviour has for many years been a matter of concern to school administrators, teachers and parents. In Zimbabwe, teaching and learning processes have been affected by serious interference that has adversely affected the learners and the teachers. The research question addressed in this study relates to the strategies that can be utilised by communities and schools with a view of managing disruptive learner behaviour in rural learning ecologies. To answer the research question, we used a participatory action research design. This community-based qualitative study was underpinned by the critical consciousness concept that can be described as central to the application of critical thinking. Data were generated utilising focus-group discussions and reflective narratives with teachers and parents and analysed following Fairclough's ( 1992) critical discourse analysis. The findings suggest that disruptive learner behaviour in rural schools could potentially be managed through parental involvement, the use of problem-solving approaches, learner participation in all school programmes and the antecedent-behaviour-consequence approach. The study concluded that disruptive learner behaviour should be properly managed within and out of school to achieve meaningful teaching and learning.

Drug abuse: A Hindrance to Optimal Functioning of the Rural Learner’s Cognitive Capabilities

“…A realistic assessment and a speculative investigation were conducted after the information was cooperatively divided into two steps. This kind of research is consistent with that of Lunga et al (2021) that in real research, all participants should participate in jointly disassembling information before an academic scientist examines it by hypothetical standards in anticipation of dissemination. Participants and the researchers discussed the research's findings while analysing them on three different levels, including textual analysis, discursive practise, and social practise (Fairclough, 2012).…”

“…Based on the research paradigm of critical emancipatory research (CER), we proposed reducing substance and drug abuse. Crossman (2017), Chidakwa (2020), and Lunga et al (2021) state that CER researchers are aware that participatory data-gathering techniques foster the dialectical and consensual development of knowledge. As a result, CER promotes transparency, participation, accountability, autonomy, and equality.…”

“…We used participatory action research (PAR) as our research design to ensure that every participant could participate fully and freely in the study. Lunga et al (2021) emphasise that action research should be participatory and transformational to include citizens in the process of knowledge creation. As a result, the goal of this study was to engage participants throughout every step of the research process to identify issues that vulnerable learners experience and come up with solutions (Lunga & Chidakwa, 2023;Lunga et al, 2021).…”

“…Lunga et al (2021) emphasise that action research should be participatory and transformational to include citizens in the process of knowledge creation. As a result, the goal of this study was to engage participants throughout every step of the research process to identify issues that vulnerable learners experience and come up with solutions (Lunga & Chidakwa, 2023;Lunga et al, 2021). Because PAR is participatory, emancipatory, transformative, adaptable, and iterative, as well as being defined by the need for action, its application in this study was pertinent.…”

“…All participants provided written agreements that led to permission being granted for ethical clearance. Participants were guaranteed secrecy, anonymity, and respect for non-maleficence norms, and participation was completely voluntary (Lunga et al, 2021). There was also a discussion of dependability, confirmability, and transferability issues.…”