La presente investigación busca comprender lo que piensan y hacen los docentes en torno a la conducta disruptiva de los estudiantes de secundaria. Es un estudio cualitativo, de tipo fenomenológico y responde a un diseño de análisis temático. Para su desarrollo se ha entrevistado a docentes y a estudiantes, se han realizado observaciones en diferentes momentos de la jornada escolar y se han revisado documentos como, por ejemplo, el Reglamento Interno de la escuela, entre otros. En cuanto a los resultados, se encontró que, para los docentes entrevistados, la conducta disruptiva es aquella que incumple las normas, ignorando su dimensión instruccional y social; no obstante, a partir de su discurso, se identifican tres tipos de conductas disruptivas: Instruccionales, que atentan contra el aprendizaje; Sociales, que afecta el clima del aula; e Institucionales, que dañan la imagen de la escuela. Sobre los factores asociados, tienden a responsabilizar a los demás de la aparición de esta conducta, es decir, a los estudiantes, a las familias, al entorno e, incluso, a otros docentes. Respecto a las acciones para hacerle frente, tienden a mostrarse autoritarios al emplear mecanismos como sancionar la mala conducta con bajar puntos, amenazar con sacar del salón o dar sermones, etc.; o, permisivos al permitir las bromas, las ofensas y el juego brusco entre estudiantes al considerarlo propio de la edad. Finalmente, los docentes reconocen haber aprendido a regular la conducta a partir de la influencia familiar o en las aulas, mas no a causa de una formación específica sobre el tema. Se concluye que la práctica docente está determinada por la manera cómo conciben la conducta disruptiva, por lo que, mientras sigan creyendo que se trata de una conducta que va en contra de la norma únicamente, seguirán reproduciendo prácticas controladoras, punitivas o indiferentes.This research seeks to understand what teachers think and do about the disruptive behavior of high school students. It is a qualitative study, phenomenological in nature, and responds to a thematic analysis design. For its development, teachers and students have been interviewed, observations have been made at different times of the school day and documents have been reviewed such as, for example, the school's Internal Regulations, among others. Regarding the results, it was found that, for the teachers interviewed, disruptive behavior is that which fails to comply with the rules, ignoring its instructional and social dimension; However, based on his speech, three types of disruptive behaviors are identified: Instructional, which threatens learning; Social, which affects the classroom climate; and Institutional, which damage the image of the school. Regarding the associated factors, they tend to hold others responsible for the appearance of this behavior, that is, students, families, the environment and even other teachers. Regarding actions to deal with it, they tend to be authoritarian by using mechanisms such as sanctioning bad behavior by lowering points, threatening to be kicked out of the classroom or giving lectures, etc.; or, permissive by allowing jokes, insults and rough play between students considering it appropriate for their age. Finally, teachers acknowledge having learned to regulate behavior from family influence or in the classroom, but not because of specific training on the subject. It is concluded that teaching practice is determined by the way they conceive disruptive behavior, so, as long as they continue to believe that it is a behavior that only goes against the norm, they will continue to reproduce controlling, punitive or indifferent practices.