EDUC5182: Managing Learning Environments M

Assessment #3

Planning for Intervention

Karly Neoh
110234311
Introduction
Managing unproductive and difficult student behaviour is a common obstacle for many
teachers in Australia (Sullivan et al., 2014). The Australian Professional Standards for
Teachers requires teachers to have knowledge of practical strategies to manage challenging
behaviour and create a supportive and safe learning environment for students (AITSL, 2011).
When a classroom is effectively managed students are more likely to engage in meaningful
learning, develop pro-social behaviours and become self-regulated learners (Sullivan et al.,
2014).

In contrast, when classes are poorly managed students who misbehave or disengage from
class often learn less than their peers. Students who constantly disturb lessons tend to receive
less support and praise from their teacher, and instead experience greater criticism and
punishment (Sullivan et al., 2014). Therefore, it is crucial for teachers to be able to create a
positive environment to promote learning and growth for all students.

Preventing unproductive behaviours before they occur is essential for effective classroom
management (Good & Brophy, 2008), however there will always be times when disruptive
behaviour occurs, and you will have to intervene. I believe that intervention strategies should
uphold student dignity, maintain positive teacher-student relationships, and administer fair
treatment based on individual student needs, not equal treatment.

Traditional methods of behaviour management focused on controlling students and using

punishment as a way of responding to inappropriate behaviour (Sullivan et al., 2014).
However, these strategies fail to address the root of the problem, often disrupt the rest of the
class and the unproductive student misses out on learning and continues to disengage from
school (Sullivan et al., 2014). Management of unproductive student behaviours should not
simply address student behaviour in isolation, instead strategies should consider all
interactions within the classroom; this includes considering students’ background, the
physical classroom environment, the curriculum, resources and teaching methods (Williams,
2012).
Low-Level Disruptive Behaviour
The most common disruptions found in Australian schools are disengaged and low-level
disruptive behaviours (Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Sullivan et al., 2012). This includes
behaviours such as distracting other students, calling out and unnecessary out of seat
behaviour. Off-task behaviour is defined as not attending to or participating in activities
instructed by the teacher and includes behaviours such as avoiding work (Shumate & Wills,
2010).

Overcoming challenging student behaviour can be difficult and poor teacher interventions
can disrupt lessons further and increase unproductive behaviour (Jones & Jones, 2011). I
believe intervention strategies can be effectively administered whilst simultaneously
maintaining student dignity (Woolfolk Hoy & Weinstein, 2006). This involves taking into
account student privacy, feelings and growth as an individual. For example, some students
may not feel comfortable being called out in front of the whole class, even for positive
attention (Stonehouse, 2010). According to McDonald (2013), if teachers respond to students
with respect and dignity, then students are more likely to respond responsibly and
appropriately.

An effective strategy that considers upholding student dignity is the intervention hierarchy,
which outlines an escalation system of strategies to use when intervening with unproductive
behaviour (University of South Australia, 2018). Strategies take into account the setting of
the classroom, systems in place, students, and your own teaching methods (Williams, 2012).

The intervention hierarchy ranges from low disruptive strategies to specific focus
interventions (University of South Australia, 2018). When disruptive behaviours first arise, it
is important for teachers to remain calm, respond thoughtfully and with the intention of
deescalating the situation (Jones & Jones, 2010). If behaviours are only low-level, such as
chatting to other students or drawing in their book, it is best to use non-verbal approaches.
This may include making eye-contact, facial gestures and proximity to show students that
you are aware of their behaviour and are giving them the choice to correct it themselves
without interrupting the flow of the lesson.
If the low-level unproductive behaviours continue, I would then continue to escalate
strategies. These still aim not to disrupt teaching and student learning but include verbal
communication (Jones & Jones, 2010). Low-level behaviours which may require this
intervention include chatting to other students during instruction, calling out and
inattentiveness during lessons. Techniques to intervene with this behaviour may include
changing volume, tone or speed of communication, pausing during instructions, offering
students assistance and providing them with options (Jones & Jones, 2010). These
interventions assist students to refocus on tasks and remind them of the teacher’s
expectations. However, they still uphold student dignity as they do not call attention to their
mistakes in front of the class.

If the unproductive behaviours still persist, strategies on the intervention hierarchy then move
to specific student focus. This involves techniques such as calling out the student’s name,
asking them to repeat instructions, having a quiet word with the student, and using ‘what’
questions such as ‘what are you supposed to be doing?” (University of South Australia,
2018). Teachers may also set up the physical classroom environment to help provide
students with choices to allow them to correct their behaviour (Jones & Jones, 2010). This
might include arranging a ‘chill out zone’ or flexible seating options. This setting assists
students to self-regulate their own behaviour and emotions, as they are able to take
themselves away from the group to have quiet time in a designated space or move to their
own space.

Once a response has been carried out it is important to reinforce the student with a positive
comment or with an appropriate consequence (Jones & Jones, 2010). Consequences might
involve a variety of responses such as sitting the student out of activities to reflect on their
behaviour and contacting parents, depending on the student’s level of behaviour and wider
school policies. Any consequences should consider the four R’s of consequences (McDonald,
2013). This model suggests that consequences should be 1) reasonable and appropriate; 2)
respectful and not blaming; 3) related and specific to the student’s behaviour; and 4)
consistently applied and followed through. In addition, consequences must be logical,
emotionally neutral and promote self-regulation in students (Larrivee, 2008). This ensures
that interventions are not emotionally reactive and instead look beyond behaviour towards
external factors like student motivation.
Strategies from the intervention hierarchy allow teachers to manage unproductive behaviour
in a positive, discreet and efficient manner. Throughout this process, it is important to
maintain student’s dignity and involve them in decision making, as students are more likely
to work productively when power is shared with students instead of used to control them
(Sullivan et al., 2014).

Group Conflict
There are many different forms of unproductive student behaviour; some situations may
involve a single student, others conflict between multiple students or student and teacher
(Larrivee, 2008). In cases where unproductive behaviour has resulted in harm to another the
use of conflict resolution may be needed to intervene. Situations that may require this method
range from ruining another student’s work and not sharing toys to physical and emotional
bullying. Traditional methods of conflict management emphasise the individual rather than
the relationship between those involved in the conflict (Jones, 2004), therefore issues may
only be resolved temporarily.

Many schools in Australia are now implementing restorative justice practices to help students
respond to conflicts as it attempts to overcome this limitation (Vandeering, 2014). This
method shifts the focus away from behaviour towards building and maintaining positive
relationships (Vaandering, 2014). It also promotes respectful communication and active
listening in students as those involved must discuss their issues and work together to find a
resolution. Students are encouraged to develop pro-social skills such as sharing,
compromising, negotiating, taking turns and actively listening to others in the process.

At my first professional placement school I was introduced to the notion of restorative justice
in a primary school setting. I found the process difficult as I had to sit back and give control
to the students, let them discuss the issue and come to their own resolution. However, it was
interesting to see that even the youngest students could carry out the process and
relationships were often strengthened between those involved in the conflict. Restorative
justice often begins as a specific response to harmful student behaviour but develops into a
school-wide standard of behaviour that encourages respectful and caring relationships
between the students (Vandeering, 2014).
Complex Unproductive Behaviour
While it is important for teachers to be able to respond to unproductive behaviours quickly
and effectively at a low level before they escalate to a major behavioural problem, there will
still be times when more complex issues arise (Jones & Jones, 2010). High-level disruptive
behaviour is excessive and highly inappropriate behaviour that ruins safe and positive
classroom learning environments. It may include behaviour such as verbal or physical abuse
towards other students or the teacher and violence (Groundwater-Smith et al., 2015). This
type of behaviour places the teacher and other students in a stressful, and sometimes
dangerous, situation. Therefore, it is important that teachers are aware of how to deal with
this behaviour.

When responding to complex student behaviours, effective intervention methods often

involve considering all interactions of Williams (2012) 4S framework: student, self, setting
and system. Research shows that teachers are far more likely to see unproductive student
behaviours in individual students as a result of issues at home, rather than in school factors
(Sullivan et al., 2014). Students who are disruptive or disengaged in lessons may be due to
boredom or finding the work too hard (Jones & Jones, 2010). Students who are behind or
ahead of their peers often find it difficult to engage with lessons unless it is adjusted to suit
their individual needs (Sullivan et al., 2014). Therefore, a method for responding to
unproductive behaviours can involve adapting lessons and tasks according to students
individual learning needs and interests. In the future, I hope to check with my students
regularly how they find tasks to help review whether tasks are too easy or difficult for them. I
will use student feedback to reflect on my lessons and adapt tasks based on student needs and
class interest.

Additionally, when low-level intervention strategies do not help decrease unproductive

student behaviour, a strong collaboration with parents or caregivers is often required (Porter,
2007). Families have a significant influence in shaping and regulating children’s behaviour,
therefore evaluating the issue with parents and caregivers is important. Parents are experts on
their child, therefore involving them in the intervention process allows you to gain more
information about the student’s background and examine outside factors behind a student’s
behaviour (Sullivan, 2014). They may also have suggestions on how to improve the
classroom environment and help set goals for the student. However, some parents see
managing behaviour as a teacher’s domain, and may not be willing to collaborate (Porter,
2007). If involving parents is unsuccessful and the unproductive behaviour persists it may be
necessary to bring in additional support (Porter, 2007).

There are many resources available to help teachers respond to complex student behaviours.
In situations such as these, as a beginning teacher I will sometimes need to call on more
experienced teachers, such as a mentor or school leadership (Groundwater-Smith et al.,
2015). Other teachers may have had the same student in the past, experienced the same issues
and have suggestions of how to effectively intervene. More experienced colleagues or
mentors may even observe lessons or assist by team teaching and modelling how to respond
to the student’s behaviour (Johnson, 2014). Collaborating with colleagues allows some of the
responsibility to be shared (Johnson, 2014). School leaders can also support teachers in
responding to difficult student behaviour (Groundwater-Smith et al., 2015). This can
sometimes be problematic as students build a relationship with that student instead of the
teacher. In some cases, additional support from counsellors, psychologists and social workers
may also be necessary to respond to complex student behaviours such as extreme home
issues and learning difficulties (Groundwater-Smith et al., 2015).

Conclusion
Managing a classroom environment is not an easy task. A greater focus and understanding
into factors such as teaching strategies, classroom environment, curriculum influence and
student background is required when intervening. There will never be one single approach
that can be applied across all school and classroom contexts to respond to unproductive
student behaviours. However, I am aware of the need to apply strategies in ways that are
caring, uphold student dignity and promote self-regulated behaviour in students.
References
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) 2011, National
Professional Standards for Teachers, Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood
Development and Youth Affairs.

Arbuckle, C., Little, E 2004, Teachers’ Perception and Management of Disruptive Classroom
Behaviour During the Middle Years (years five to nine), Australian Journal of Educational &
Developmental Psychology, Vol 4, pp. 59 – 70.

Good, T & Brophy, J 2008, Chapter 3 Management 1: Preventing problems. Looking in

classrooms, 10th edition, Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Groundwater-Smith, S., Ewing, R. & Le Cornu, R 2015, Teaching: Challenges & Dilemmas,
5 Edition, Cengage, Victoria.
th

Johnson, B 2014, Provide Support to Create Engaging Learning Environment, from Chapter
3: Teachers’ Work in Early Career Teachers: Stories of Resilience, New Yok.

Jones, T 2004, Conflict Resolution Education: The Field, the Findings, and the Future, Conflict
resolution quarterly.

Jones, V. F., & Jones, L. S. (2010). Chapter 8 Responding to violations of rules and
procedures. Comprehensive classroom management: Creating communities of support and
solving problems (9th ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill.

Larrivee, B 2008, Conflict and Stress Management Strategies, in Chapter 9 of Authentic

Classroom Managament: Creating a Learning Community and Building Reflective Practice, 3 rd

edition, Pearson Education.

McDonald, T 2013, Proactive Teacher Behaviours, in Chapter 4 of Classroom Management:

Engaging Students in Learning, second edition, South Melbourne, Oxford University Press.

Porter, L 2007, Collaborating with Parents and other Experts to Resolve School-Based
Behavioural Difficuluties, in Chapter 13 of Student Behaviour: Theory and Practice for
Teachers, 3 edition, Allen & Unwin, NSW.
rd
Shumate, E & Wills, H 2010, Classroom-based Functional Analysis and Intervention for
Disruptive and Off-Task Behaviours, West Virginia University Press, 23 – 48.

Stonehouse, A. (2010) A matter of respect: Recognising young children’s right to privacy.

Extract from Putting children first, National Childcare Accreditation Council 35(2), (p. 16-
17).

Sullivan, A. M., Johnson, B., Owens, L. D., & Conway, R 2012, Punish Them or Engage
Them? Teachers’ Views of Unproductive Student Behaviours in the Classroom, Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), (p. 43-56).

Sullivan, A, Johnson, B, Conway, R, Owens, L, & Taddeo, C 2014, Punish Them or Engage
Them?: Teachers’ Views of Unproductive Student Behaviours in the Classroom, Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, pp. 43-56.

University of South Australia 2018, EDUC5182: Managing Learning Environments M,

Intervention Hierarchy, University of South Australia, Adelaide.

Williams, D. (2012). Background Basics. Adelaide: University of South Australia.

Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Weinstein, C. 2006, Student and teacher perspectives on classroom
management. In C. M. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management:
Research, practice and contemporary issues (p. 181-219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Vandeering, D 2014, Implementing Restorative Justice Practice in Schools: What Pedagogy

Reveals, Journal of Peace Education.