STUDY PERIOD 5 - 2019

EDUC 3007– MANAGING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

ASSESSMENT 3 – ESSAY- PLANNING FOR INTERVENTION

INTRODUCTION

Classroom management is reported as one of the greatest concerns cited by pre-service, beginning
and experienced teachers as ineffective classroom management can provoke detrimental effects on
students such as disengagement and misbehaviours (Sullivan, Johnson, Owens & Conway 2014).

Three overarching strategies including modification to the physical environment, the importance of
building a classroom community and the value of engaging students in learning will be implemented
to prevent disruptions to classroom learning. However, despite our best efforts to prevent
behaviours, classroom management is always going to present challenges. No matter how well we
plan for prevention, there will always be a need to intervene to address unproductive behaviour. This
essay addresses intervention strategies that could be applied if the above preventative strategies
were not successful.

Williams (2013) presents guidelines for managing inappropriate behaviour which includes being as
positive and efficient as possible by acting in a non-disruptive order to avoid escalation and further
distractions. However sometimes teachers need to act more intermediately or in a higher order to
successfully address and resolve the issue. This essay will address different levels of intervention,
such as low (involving the whole class), intermediate (small groups) and high (individual students).

CONTEXT

These classroom management strategies have been created for a junior primary classroom in a
mainstream public school. The classroom includes 12 reception and 13 year 1 students. Within the
classroom, there is a wide diversity of students, including a student diagnosed with ASD and an EALD
student.

INTERVENTIONS

When intervening, it is important to take into consideration the context and factors that may be
causing the behaviour, rather than jumping to conclusions and blaming the student (Sullivan et al
2014; Leach and Helf 2016). Williams (2013) presents an ‘ICDAR’ sequence to implement when
planning for intervention. This involves identifying the problem and being aware of the context,
considering the magnitude, frequency and significance, deciding on an appropriate action to take and
whether it is worth addressing, acting by implementing applicable strategies and then reinforcing
Kobi Keeley
110198338
 STUDY PERIOD 5 - 2019
EDUC 3007– MANAGING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
ASSESSMENT 3 – ESSAY- PLANNING FOR INTERVENTION

with positive direction (Williams 2013). The MLE principles indicates that practices should respect all
student’s dignities and that children are best supported when teachers use approaches that involve
care and guidance (Underwood & Harvey 2019).

Most of the unproductive behaviours that teachers find difficult are reasonably minor but high in
frequency, it is these annoying repetitive behaviours that can lead to stress and burnout (Sullivan et
al 2014). Some of these behaviours include students talking out of turn, work avoidance and
distracting other students. A teacher reported, “I really hate yelling at students for these behaviours,
but I don’t know what else to do” (Jones and Jones 2011, p.287).

THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Adapting the arrangement of the classroom can have a significant influence on student behaviour
and seating arrangements are seen as an important aspect to regulate student performance (Jones
2015; Harvey and Kenyon 2013). In correlation to the MLE principle established by Underwood and
Harvey (2019), learning environments should provide scaffolding that best supports pro social
behaviours. If disruptive behaviours were to arise, a low-level intervention strategy that involves the
whole class would include assigning students’ seats within the classroom. Houston (1986), Simmons
et al (2015) and Jones (2015) asserts that strategically seating students reduces behaviour in the
classroom and a study by Bicard, Ervin, Bicard and Baylot-Casey (2012) proved that disruptive
behaviour reduces when students are assigned seats. Designating seats to students could be
achieved by placing them randomly, or through a more intermediate process of strategically grouping
students and placing students in particular locations. Fernandes, Huang and Rinaldo (2011) highlights
the impact that sitting at the front of the class compared to sitting at the back has on student
participation and achievement, confirming that students sitting near the front receive better learning
experiences in contrast to those at the back. Placing disengaged or easily distracted students at the
front of the class may decrease the off-task behaviours within the classroom and increase student
engagement.

A higher levelled intervention strategy would be the use of proximity control, by moving a
misbehaving student, usually closer to the front of the room (Jones and Jones 2011). In this context,
it may be beneficial to place the student with ASD in a set location where they feel comfortable and
the EALD student close to the teacher for communication needs. Gremmen et al (2016) suggests that

Kobi Keeley
110198338
 STUDY PERIOD 5 - 2019
EDUC 3007– MANAGING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
ASSESSMENT 3 – ESSAY- PLANNING FOR INTERVENTION

placing students with externalizing behaviour next to an appropriate ‘buddy’ will increase prosocial
behaviours and reduce behaviour problems.

CLASSROOM COMMUNITY

Once rules and expectations are set through preventative strategies, to maintain a classroom
community, it is vital to implement consistent consequences that hold students accountable for
meeting the expectations (Leach and Helf 2016). Though a step system, different levels of
interventions can be applied if students are not following classroom expectations. A step system
involves an escalation of actions if behaviour does not improve, which should be logical and fair with
the aim to support students to make better choices (Sullivan et al 2014). Underwood and Harvey
(2019) highlight through a MLE principle that fair treatment of students is based on their individual
needs, rather than equal treatment.

Actions within the step system should be delivered immediately after the unproductive behaviour
occurs to promptly redirect the student to learning and to reduce distractions (Leach and Helf 2016).
Teachers should begin with low level intervention strategies when disruptive behaviour is first
occurring and then move onto the next strategy if the student is not effectively redirected to
desirable behaviour (Leach and Helf 2016). Undeniably there will be students who will require
additional interventions or altered consequences based on their behaviour and attributes, however
using a step system for all students creates a fair environment (Leach and Helf 2016). Unproductive
behaviours that may require the need to implement the step system include but are not restricted
to unnecessary disruptions, lack of motivation, being unresponsive, inattentiveness, non-compliance,
erratic behaviour or showing aggression (Sullivan et al 2014).

Step 1
A low levelled intervention strategy teachers could use is a simple non-verbal reminder through a
physical, gestural or visual prompt to redirect students to a more positive behaviour (Leach and Helf
2016; Sullivan et al 2014). Some examples of non-verbal reminders may be nodding or shaking your
head to signify yes or no, pointing to your ear to communicate the need to listen, pointing one finger
up in front of your mouth to stop the talking or placing your hand up indicating that you want the
behaviour to stop. This method will be particularly important and beneficial to use with the EALD
student as they will most likely rely on visuals to support their understanding. Deliberately ignoring

Kobi Keeley
110198338
 STUDY PERIOD 5 - 2019
EDUC 3007– MANAGING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
ASSESSMENT 3 – ESSAY- PLANNING FOR INTERVENTION

minor disruptions is another tactic to use when students may be behaving for attention or when you
do not want to further distract the class by stopping the learning (Sullivan et al 2014). Acknowledging
positive behaviours is another simple step to take, as this may encourage students to repeat or copy
these expectations (Leach and Helf 2016).

Step 2
Step 2 of the system could involve a verbal reprimand which states the behavioural, academic or
social expectation to allow the student to understand and respond appropriately (Leach and Helf
2016; Sullivan 2013). Verbal reminders or warnings can be altered by the tone of your voice and body
movements, for example smaller behaviour issues may have a softer encouraging tone whereas
repeated more serious issues will have a stronger or louder tone. Reasoning with the student is
crucial to improve behaviours, or if it is behaviour involving the whole class, discussing issues as a
group may be required (Sullivan 2013; Sullivan et al 2014).

Step 3
If the behaviour is still occurring, a modification to the task or extra assistance should be offered as
they may not understand the expectation, or the behaviour requirement may be too hard for them
to regulate (Leach and Helf 2016). This may involve modelling the required task, re-wording the
expectation, providing one-on-one support, providing personalised feedback or negotiating a fair
modification. This intervention strategy should be frequently used to support the ASD and EALD
students as they may require physical prompts such as hand-over-hand assistance and individual
amendments to expected tasks and behaviours.

Step 4

As much as this step should be avoided, the intermediate to high levelled intervention strategy to
implement when disruptive behaviour is still not improving, is withdrawing a student from the
classroom (Sullivan et al 2014). Providing a safe space for the student to de-escalate until they are
committed to participating and engaging appropriately may be necessary (Leach and Helf 2016). Safe
spaces may be a buddy class, somewhere else in the school or simply just outside the classroom. This
step must be taken with careful consideration with the aim to support students to calm down from
being overstimulated, frustrated, silly or stressed. When the student is recovered back in the

Kobi Keeley
110198338
 STUDY PERIOD 5 - 2019
EDUC 3007– MANAGING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
ASSESSMENT 3 – ESSAY- PLANNING FOR INTERVENTION

classroom, they are still expected to complete the task or demonstrate appropriate behaviours
(Leach and Helf 2016). ‘Time out’ or removal from the classroom will not be an effective intervention
strategy if the student receives the wanted attention from their peers, is relieved to not complete
the work or if they see it as a privilege (Leach and Helf 2016). Another possible method to implement
during this step involves removing privileges from the student such as free time or special activities
or keeping students in at play times (Sullivan et al 2014). Students should be given the applicable
work to complete during this time to exaggerate the importance of completing tasks appropriately
in class.

Step 5

A high levelled intervention strategy to use for an extremely serious or dangerous behaviour can
include sending the student to the principal, deputy or counsellor to further deal with the behaviour
(Sullivan et al 2014). This procedure will also seek parental or caregiver involvement with a hope to
solve reoccurring behaviour issues. However, Yang (2009) found that the more times students are
sent to the office, the more likely they will lose interest in learning or following instructions.

FOSTER STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION

One MLE principle is based on engaging students in pro social behaviours through attendance of a
quality curricula that links with student interests (Underwood & Harvey 2019). Sullivan et al (2014)
stated that students who are displaying disruptive behaviours are often attention seeking and trying
to provoke others because they are disengaged in the content being taught. The most common
unproductive behaviours caused by this is talking out of turn and avoiding or refusing to do the work
(Jones and Jones 2011). Low and intermediate strategies to deal with these disruptions could include
making eye contact with certain students, using a signal to indicate that you would like that behaviour
to stop or strategically ignoring minor behaviours (Jones and Jones 2011). The higher levelled
approaches include calling on individual students by using their name in a story or question or
providing them with a choice, for example, ‘you either try this task now, or I can help you complete
it at lunch’ (Jones and Jones 2011). Conflict management strategies to implement may be the use of
negotiating with the student, ‘you have a go at this activity and then I will help you with the next
one’, it is also important to use I-messages when intervening with student behaviour, as this refrains
from blaming the student and instead states feelings about how others are impacted (Larrivee 2009).

Kobi Keeley
110198338
 STUDY PERIOD 5 - 2019
EDUC 3007– MANAGING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
ASSESSMENT 3 – ESSAY- PLANNING FOR INTERVENTION

The student with ASD may need a personalised plan that includes applicable brain breaks and
achievable goals, this may include a strategy such as ‘first this, then this, then a break’. The EALD
student may require a communication support to increase their engagement and participation and
regular monitoring to clarify tasks.

CONCLUSION
Classroom management can be a difficult aspect to conquer, after implementing appropriate
preventative strategies it is highly likely that there will be a need to intervene disruptive behaviour.
Possible intervention strategies to use within a junior primary classroom have been addressed. When
intervening, it is clear that teachers must take into consideration the context and factors that may
be causing the behaviour. Low, intermediate and high intervention strategies have been considered
throughout the three different subheadings of; the physical environment, the classroom community
and fostering student engagement and participation. Some possible intervention strategies
addressed include assigning seats or moving students within the classroom, applying a step system
to monitor consequences and approaches such as negotiating and modifying.

Kobi Keeley
110198338
 STUDY PERIOD 5 - 2019
EDUC 3007– MANAGING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
ASSESSMENT 3 – ESSAY- PLANNING FOR INTERVENTION

REFERENCES

Bicard, D, Ervin, A, Bicard, S & Baylot-Casey, L 2012, ‘Differential Effects Of Seating Arrangements On
Disruptive Behavior Of Fifth Grade Students During Independent Seatwork’, Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 407–411.

Fernandes, A, Huang, J & Rinaldo, V 2011, ‘Does Where A Student Sits Really Matter? - The Impact of
Seating Locations on Student Classroom Learning’, International Journal of Applied Educational
Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 66–77.

Gremmen, M, Berg, C, Segers, Y & Cillessen, H 2016, ‘Considerations for classroom seating
arrangements and the role of teacher characteristics and beliefs’, Social Psychology of Education, vol.
19, no. 4, pp. 749–774.

Harvey, E & Kenyon, M 2013, ‘Classroom Seating Considerations for 21st Century Students and
Faculty’, Journal of Learning Spaces, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–13.

Houston, J 1986, ‘Classroom Answer Copying: Roles of Acquaintanceship and Free Versus Assigned
Seating’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 230–232.

Jones, V & Jones, L 2011, ‘Responding to violations of rules and procedures’, Practical classroom
management. Pearson, Boston, pp.171-207.

Larrivee, B, 2009, ‘Conflict and stress management strategies’ Authentic classroom management:
Creating a learning community and building reflective practice, Upper Saddle River, Pearson.

Leach, D & Helf, S 2016, ‘Using a Hierarchy of Supportive Consequences to Address Problem
Behaviors in the Classroom’, Behaviour Management, Intervention in School and Clinic, SAGE
publications.

Sullivan, A 2013, ‘Engagement and Behaviour: What is important?’, EDUC 3007, Week 1 Lecture,
School of Education, University of South Australia, Adelaide, viewed 31st July 2019.

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

Thompson, R & Carpenter, L 2014, ‘Chapter 8 Supporting classroom management for challenging
behaviour’, Diversity, inclusion and engagement, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, VIC,
2nd ed, pp 147-172.

Underwood, B & Harvey H 2019, ‘Course Outline’, EDUC 3007 Managing Learning Environments,
University of South Australia, Adelaide.

Williams, D 2013, Background Basics, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA.

Kobi Keeley
110198338
 STUDY PERIOD 5 - 2019
EDUC 3007– MANAGING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
ASSESSMENT 3 – ESSAY- PLANNING FOR INTERVENTION

Yang, W 2009, ‘Discipline or Punish? Some Suggestions for School Policy and Teacher Practice’,
Focus on Policy, National Council of Teachers of English, Vol. 87, No. 1, pp. 49-61

Kobi Keeley
110198338