Emotion regulation refers “to shaping which emotion one has when one has them, and how one experiences and expresses these emotions” (Gross, 1998, p. 224). Owing to the importance of understanding how people shape their emotions, Gross (1998) proposed a theoretical framework: the process model of emotion regulation. This theory suggests that individuals actively monitor and modify their emotions in response to situational demands. Gross (1998) outlined two primary forms of ERSs: antecedent-focused (e.g., reappraisal) and response-focused (e.g., suppression). Antecedent-focused ERSs involve actions taken prior to an emotional response occurring. This includes situation selection, situation modification, attention deployment, and cognitive change (Gross, 1998, 2002). According to Gross (2008, 2014), situation selection means choosing whether to address or avoid situations that trigger emotions, while situation modification entails altering the environment to change its emotional effect. Attention deployment refers to directing one’s focus towards or away from stimuli of emotions, while cognitive change involves reassessing the situation or one’s ability to manage it to alter emotions. Response-focused strategies encompass techniques that influence ongoing emotional experiences, expressions, or physiological responses, such as intensifying, diminishing, prolonging, or curtailing emotions (Gross, 1998, 2014).

According to Yan et al. (2022), response-focused strategies include expressive suppression (inhibiting the outward expression of emotions) and acceptance (acknowledging and allowing emotions to be experienced without trying to change or suppress them). Expressive suppression refers to altering one’s response to prevent expressive behaviour from emotion (Gross, 1998, 2014). Teachers use expressive suppression by ignoring their feelings of anger in the classroom, treating the emotion as if it is not affecting them. Gross (2002) noted that expressive suppression takes place later in the emotional response process, primarily reducing observable behaviours without significantly mitigating negative emotions. Teachers employ this strategy because they believe it is inappropriate to express such emotions towards students (Sutton, 2004). Other response-focused strategies may include distraction techniques, relaxation exercises, and seeking social support.

In the context of the current study, teachers may employ different ERSs to regulate emotions in response to SDB. It is a well-established fact that teachers experience an array of emotions, including frustration, anger, and stress, when their students misbehave in the classrooms (Chang, 2013; de Ruiter et al., 2020; Xu & Klassen, 2023). By understanding teachers’ ERSs prompted by SDB, educators and researchers can develop interventions and support systems to help teachers effectively manage their emotions and promote a positive learning environment for all students.

Disruptive behaviour refers to a range of behaviours exhibited by students in the classroom (Wangdi & Namgyel, 2022), such as problems regulating emotions, non-compliance, aggression, and not obeying societal and classroom norms (Mahvar et al., 2018). Disruptive behaviours interfere with learning activities, can be psychologically and physically unsafe, and can cause property damage (Mahvar et al., 2018). Previous studies have documented SDB commonly observed in classrooms, which include talking without permission, disturbing other students, sleeping in class, coming late to class, shifting from one chair to another, drawing in the class, making inappropriate comments, engaging in arguments with peers or teachers (Kessels & Heyder, 2020; Smith et al., 2022; Wangdi & Namgyel, 2022), noncompliance with classroom rules and instructions (Smith et al., 2022), attention-seeking behaviours (Cicekci & Sadik, 2019), and aggressive behaviours such as bullying, intimidation, or physical altercations. These behaviours negatively impact the classroom environment, learning process, student achievement, teacher instruction, and students’ and teachers’ well-being (Smith et al., 2022; Wangdi & Namgyel, 2022). More specifically, SDB is believed to trigger emotions in teachers (Chang & Taxer, 2021; de Ruiter et al., 2020), which is intricately linked to their occupational and psychological well-being (Li et al., 2023). When faced with SDB, teachers often feel emotions such as frustration, stress, anger, disappointment, and annoyance, amongst others (Wang et al., 2023; Xu & Klassen, 2023). One might say that SBD plays the most important role in teachers’ emotional experiences because it is ubiquitous and occurs daily.

Prior research has documented that the roots of teachers’ emotions are multifaceted and involve various factors (Frenzel et al., 2021). On the one hand, teachers’ emotions are believed to be triggered by past experiences and well-being (Wang et al., 2023). On the other hand, teachers’ emotions are often found to be elicited by situational factors such as classroom dynamics, administrative support, and workload demands (Buckman & Pittman, 2021; de Morais et al., 2023; de Ruiter et al., 2020). Teachers’ prior experience and well-being as triggers of their emotions are well elucidated in research conducted by de Ruiter et al. (2020) in the Netherlands with elementary school teachers. The study discovered that teachers react more negatively to classroom events involving students perceived to have a history of disruptive behaviour, with anger being especially pronounced. Additionally, their research found that teachers’ emotional responses—particularly feelings of anger—were related to their occupational well-being. Moreover, SDB, lack of student engagement, and poor teacher-student relationships also trigger emotions in teachers, particularly negative ones such as frustration, anger, stress, and anxiety (de Ruiter et al., 2019; de Ruiter et al., 2020). Recently, Xu and Klassen (2023) investigated the emotions experienced by Chinese and British teachers in response to SDB and found that both groups showed a variety of negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, hopelessness, shame, sadness, and annoyance. Among these emotions, annoyance and anger were reported as the most intense across the groups, with Chinese teachers reporting suggestively higher levels of apprehension than British.

Therefore, teachers often find ways to regulate their emotions to maintain their well-being (Gross, 1998; Shaifuddin & Wahid, 2022). In this context, Shaifuddin and Wahid (2022) conducted a literature review on ERSs used by science teachers to improve their individual and social well-being, and they discovered that intrinsic, antecedent-focused, cognitive change, acceptance, and appraisal were the teachers’ most commonly used ERSs. Recently, Derakhshan et al. (2023) investigated Iranian EFL teachers’ emotional experiences and regulation strategies during assessment practices and found that they experience an array of both positive (e.g., love, confidence, hope) and negative emotions (guilt, doubt, shame, etc.) during assessment and then use various preventive and responsive strategies to regulate these emotions. The researchers found that teachers use antecedent-focused strategies like optimism, self-talk, and reflection, as well as response-focused strategies like deep breathing and emotion projection. Other techniques used by the teachers included walking, drinking, and changing their body language when confronted with emotional triggers. In another study, Phan and Pham (2023) investigated the ERS used by Vietnamese language teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic while teaching online. The study concluded that teachers frequently used in-the-moment and out-of-class ERSs. In-the-moment regulation strategies included techniques like deep breathing and mindfulness, whereas out-of-class included engaging in reflection, seeking support, and self-care. Overall, it can be concluded that teachers use many antecedent-focused and response-focused ERSs, both inside and outside classrooms (Li et al., 2023; Shaifuddin & Wahid, 2022).

Due to the importance of teachers’ emotions and their regulatory responses to those emotions, several studies have investigated both the triggers and ERSs used by teachers in various contexts. However, the literature survey revealed that only a limited number of studies (Chang & Taxer, 2021; de Ruiter et al., 2019; de Ruiter et al., 2020; Xu & Klassen, 2023) have attempted to explore these phenomena. For example, de Ruiter et al. (2019), de Ruiter et al. (2020), and Xu and Klassen (2023) explored teachers’ emotional journey regarding SDB, and Chang and Taxer (2021) examined how teachers regulate their emotions in response to SDB (i.e., non-cooperative, defiant, immature, physical or verbal aggression, loud, clowning around, being distracted), identifying that teachers in the USA use various ERSs such as response modulation strategies (suppression/masking), attention deployment, cognitive change, and situation modification.

Moreover, there appears to be a knowledge gap regarding the phenomenon discussed in this study in the Bhutanese context. There is no evidence in the literature that delves into the emotions of Bhutanese teachers triggered by SDB and regulation strategies. Thus, to fill this literature gap, this study was conducted to explore the emotions experienced by Bhutanese English teachers due to SDB and their regulation strategies. Furthermore, Frenzel (2014) noted that emotions are situational and subjective (depending on the individual), and Frenzel et al. (2021) found that teachers’ emotions are context-specific and difficult to capture. These two arguments, concerning potential variation in teachers’ emotions across the contexts, suggest that the emotions highlighted thus far among teachers worldwide, including their regulatory strategies, may differ from those of Bhutanese teachers. This was an added reason for conducting this study. This study’s findings are hoped to help teachers in Bhutan and beyond in dealing with their emotional crises and, as a result, improve their well-being, which is inextricably linked to their teaching and, most importantly, to learners’ learning and life. One should keep in mind that SDB is regarded as a threat in the field of teaching and learning. We must also remember that teachers face SDB daily and that daily emotional experiences, particularly negative ones, can be detrimental to teachers’ job satisfaction and well-being (Buckman & Pittman, 2021; Gross, 1998; Shaifuddin & Wahid, 2022). Hence, educators must understand both emotions and ERSs to effectively deal with emotions in their classroom and the profession at large.

We employed a qualitative research approach to answer the research questions. Twenty-five (men = 13, women = 12) Bhutanese in-service English language teachers from 14 public schools, with teaching experience ranging from 3 to 20 years, voluntarily participated in this study. Their ages ranged from 23 to 48. Three participants held a bachelor’s degree in language and education, four had a postgraduate degree in language and education, and the remaining 18 had master’s degrees in English. They were all Bhutanese teaching in different districts of the country. When this study was conducted, five participants taught in rural areas, 14 in semi-urban areas, and six in urban areas. Codes (e.g., P1, P2) were used to protect participants’ identity.

Data were gathered using a survey (Appendix A) and semi-structured interviews (Appendix B). The survey had seven questions on participants’ demographic information, and the semi-structured interview had six questions. We followed Adams’s (2015) suggestion to use semi-structured interviews “to ask questions on topics that . . . respondents might not be candid about if sitting with peers in a focus group” (p. 494). Given that this study explored individuals’ emotional experiences and regulation strategies, we assumed that some emotions (e.g., insecurity, depression, fear) experienced by teachers would be sensitive about and would not be willing to share in front of their peers if data were collected, for example, through focus groups. The semi-structured interview questions focused mainly on exploring teachers’ emotional experiences regarding SDB and their ERSs. To improve the credibility of the instrument, we referred to Adams’s (2015) recommendations on how to draft semi-structured interview questions. Moreover, a qualitative research expert validated the drafted questions, and pilot interviews with two randomly selected English teachers in Bhutan were conducted to improve their accuracy before being used in this study.

Using a selective convenience sampling method, the second author sent a letter of invitation to English teachers across the country via email and other online platforms such as Facebook, WeChat, and Telegram, primarily to those who were acquainted with the researcher. The invitation letter contained a brief description of the research and its objectives, a Google Form that requested demographic information, and a consent form that informed teachers about their voluntary participation. Teachers who signed the consent form were contacted, and an online meeting was scheduled for interviews at their convenience. After receiving the date and time from teachers, we conducted a series of online interviews (through Zoom). The individual in-depth semi-structured interview, which used bilingual options to respond, lasted an average of 30 minutes for each participating teacher. We recorded the interviews with permission from the participants. We then conducted verbatim transcriptions of each interview for thematic analysis. To guarantee that the extracted data were accurate, we repeatedly listened to and watched the recorded interview videos while transcribing.

Prior to data analysis, we created the coding scheme using an inductive and deductive approach (Burla et al., 2008). The inductive approach used data from pilot interviews, and the codes generated were validated by the same two pilot participants. Next, we added some codes from the literature reviewed for this study to supplement the potential missing codes (emotions) that previous studies have highlighted as teachers’ emotions about different aspects, including SDB. The final coding scheme consisted of code name (e.g., angry, happy, sad) for both positive and negative emotions, code definition (e.g., anger = participants getting angry because of SDB), text examples (e.g., I get angry when my students’ exhibit disruptive behaviour), and coding rules (0 = disagree and 1 = agree to the generated codes). We sent the final coding scheme to an expert to improve its validity, and a few modifications were made based on the suggestions. The final revised coding scheme served as a reference throughout the coding process of this study.

Following, we thematically analysed the participants’ responses, employing Braun and Clarke’s (2006) guidelines to answer the research questions. During the initial phase of gaining familiarity with the data, we read and re-read the participants’ responses and removed irrelevant data. In the second phase, data coding, each of us independently coded the data using a coding scheme to compare it later and thus improve the credibility and reliability of the generated codes. The inter-coder agreement between the two coders was measured using Krippendorff’s alpha (α), and it yielded a value of 0.88, which is satisfactory (Krippendorff, 2019). In the third phase, we searched for relevant themes by revisiting the codes. Then, in the fourth and fifth phases, we reviewed and named the generated themes. Nine sub-themes emerged under one predetermined main theme: student disruptive behaviours for Research Question 1, 10 sub-themes for Research Question 2 under the main theme “emotions,” and 13 sub-themes under the main theme “emotion regulation strategies.” The generated themes, sub-themes, and codes were then emailed to participants for member checking and to a scholar friend for audit trial (Creswell & Miller, 2000). While participants did not provide feedback or suggestions indicating agreement, a scholar friend did, which we included in the final report. The final phase was producing the report. By adopting an insider researcher position (Holmes, 2020) and being reflexive throughout this study, we provided detailed descriptions of the study’s findings and the process involved (see Holmes, 2020, for the advantages of an insider position). The findings of the current study were considered credible, trustworthy, and authentic because they were confirmed through inter-coder agreement, member checking, auditing, and providing information about the researchers’ positionality.

Although the primary objectives of this study were to explore English teachers’ emotions in response to SDB and the ERS they used, it was felt necessary to first understand the different types of SDB that English teachers in Bhutan have encountered or are experiencing. For this reason, the first research question explored the types of disruptive behaviour that Bhutanese students exhibit in the English classroom. In doing so, the findings reveal nine common SDBs. To quantify the findings, the frequency of reported disruptive behaviours was counted and given in parentheses. Among nine disruptive behaviours extracted in this study, untimely talking (13) emerged as the most prevalent, followed by lack of attention (10), sleeping in class (7), inappropriate gestures (6), moving in the class (5), shouting (4), and laughing (4). Other disruptive behaviours, such as coming late to class, frequent washroom visits, looking out of the window, and unyielding arguments among students, occur with varying frequencies.

The second finding of the study revealed that the participating teachers had experienced both negative and positive emotions in response to SDB in the classroom. The participants reported having experienced negative emotions such as frustration, sadness, guilt, disappointment, insult, irritation, anger, and anxiety (see Figure 1). Among these, frustration (13), irritation (10), anger (6), anxiety (5), and disappointment (4) were the most frequently mentioned emotions. The following excerpts further support these findings:

Surprisingly, in addition to these negative emotions, a few participants commented on unexpected positive emotions. These participants see SDB as an opportunity to practice compassion (1) and a source of pride (1). This finding suggested that, despite the challenges, teachers find moments of pride and see SDB as a platform to practice compassion. For instance, P24 opined,

Figure 1

The third finding revealed that participants use various ERSs in response to SDB. Participants reported using both antecedent- and response-focused ERSs (see Figure 2). Antecedent-focused ERSs included assessing the situation (5), fostering optimism (4), practising mindfulness meditation (4), reframing the situation (4), engaging in reflection (4), self-talk (3), and maintaining focus on the topic of discussion (1). Some relevant interview excerpts are included below to supplement these findings.

Participants also used response-focused ERSs such as deep breathing (6), emotion suppression (5), journaling (3), sharing with colleagues (3), listening to music (2), watching movies (1), and talking with students (1) to manage the emotions experienced due to SDB. To support these findings, some interview excerpts are provided below.

Figure 2