Assignment 3: Planning for Intervention

Managing Learning Environments

Introduction
Ideally preventative practices would be in place as a framework for managing the learning
environment in a primary classroom, however teachers would be naive to believe that
creating foundations upon domains of setting, self, systems and student that the need for
intervention will be inevitable (Williams 2013; Sullivan, Johnson, Owens & Conway 2014).
Intervention occurs when the teacher is required to respond to different levels of behaviour,
despite prevention being unsuccessful (Jones & Jones 2010). These behaviours are shaped
into three categories; mild, moderate and severe (Williams 2013). This plan, will explore a
hierarchy of effective interventions including low-level, moderate, complex, conflict and
parent communication that enables the teacher to professionally respond to all three
categories of behaviour.

Low-Level Intervention
Mild behaviours are reported to be the most prevalent behaviours occurring in contemporary
classrooms (Williams 2013). While mild behaviours are labelled as low-level, teachers found
that these behaviours were more frequent, repetitive and difficult to manage (Williams 2013;
Sullivan, Johnson, Owens & Conway 2014). Low-level behaviours include, disrupting the
flow of a lesson, talking out of turn, making distracting noises, defacing or damaging
property and being out of seat without reason (Williams 2013; Sullivan, Johnson, Owens &
Conway 2014). Sullivan, Johnson, Owens & Conway (2014), claim several teachers hold a
deficit mindset where the blame is directed solely on the student for the behaviour, rather
than identifying contributing factors that may probe the behaviour and applying effective
strategies that suit the specific behaviour. Implementing a behaviourist approach does little to
tackle low-level behaviours from occurring (Sullivan, Johnson, Owens & Conway 2014).
This means the teacher should re-think their own ideologies (Williams 2006) and select
interventions that are effective, least disruptive and maintain students’ dignity (Sullivan,
Johnson, Owens & Conway 2014; University of South Australia (UniSA) 2019, Managing
Learning Environments 3007).

The teacher should reassure their students they are not threatening their self-worth when
intervening upon low-level behaviours (McDonald 2013). Non-verbal cues are powerful
conveyers of meaning and if executed when applicable, it will have a profound affect in
response to low-level behaviours (Bambaeeroo & Shokrpour 2017). Proximity control uses
the teacher’s presence as a cue for the students to stop the behaviour (Scherer, Weaver &
Nordness 2018). Scanning the room, being alert, maintaining withitness, then moving closely
to the students in near proximity will adjust their behaviour without the teacher needing
verbally communicate (Scherer, Weaver & Nordness 2018). With proximity control, using
direct eye contact and facial gestures including, eyebrow movements, glancing, narrowing
and widening eyes, heightens the proximity control (Williams 2013). Body gestures, can be
used as signal to gain students attention that the teacher would like the behaviour to stop,
such as nodding your head, placing your index finger over your mouth, motioning your hand
and using wait time can serve as an indication for the behaviour to cease (McDonald 2013).
These low-level interventions should be used as they can be done as you teach, avoid calling
out on students verbally, preserves human dignity, is the least disruptive intervention and
provides limited interference whilst learning (UniSA 2019). It is critical the teacher is aware
of the cultural implications of making direct eye contact, enhanced facial gestures and
exaggerated body gestures as this may be perceived as intimidating towards students and lead
to retaliation due to feeling threatened (McDonald 2013).

Moderate Intervention

Spilios, Alexandra 110199688 1

 Assignment 3: Planning for Intervention
Managing Learning Environments

If students do not respond to these indirect interventions, the teacher will be required to make
direct intervention approaches (Williams 2013). Moderate and unproductive behaviours are
claimed by teachers to the most frequent behaviours to be addressed multiple times a day
(Sullivan, Johnson, Owens & Conway 2014). They increase when students are unresponsive
to prior interventions and include persistent, defiant and stubbornness behaviours, explicit
language, provocation of other peers and the incompetence to comply with classroom
expectations and teacher instructions (Williams 2013; Sullivan, Johnson, Owens & Conway
2014).

Repeatedly students use their behaviour to provoke a reaction and gain the desired attention
from the teacher, by the teacher saying, “Stop doing that!”, feeds the reactive approach that
may reinforce the behaviour (Jones & Jones 2010). Directly ignoring the behaviour is an
effective intervention to discourage behaviours from continuing and avoids power struggles
with the students (Sullivan 2018). Ignoring the behaviours accompanied with acknowledging
and reinforcing the desired behaviour demonstrated by other students supports Skinner’s
(1957) positive reinforcement theory. The teacher reinforcing positive behaviour by saying;
‘These group of students are working really well and demonstrating our class expectations’,
‘I like the way this student is sitting quietly’, can assist with reminding the student of the
expected behaviours which can redirect their thinking to make positive choices (Jones &
Jones 2010; Williams 2013). This could be an ineffective strategy when intervening as if the
student believes the teacher is not aware of their behaviour and providing students with
alternative attention, the student may continue. The ideal preventative approach existing in
the classroom, agreed upon rules and expectations supports the intervention approach (Harper
& O’Brien 2015). Rule reminding by gaining the students attention and redirecting them to
the expectations not being followed or addressing the entire class and pointing out a rule that
is being be broken reinforces the established expectations (Harper & O’Brien 2015;
Thompson & Carpenter 2013). If the student is approached upon the rule reminding method
the teacher check in with the student and see if they need assistance and check their progress
by saying; “I see how far you’ve got with this,”, “Can I help you?”, and “I have noticed you
have...” (Jones & Jones 2010). These moderate interventions are important to use as the
teacher uses an authoritative approach that involves care and guidance and avoids threatening
the student, supports the development of pro-social behaviour, builds on students’ self-
regulation and ultimately respects students human dignity (UniSA 2019).

Complex Intervention
Research led by Sullivan, Johnson, Owens & Conway (2014) found that complex behaviours
were less common than mild and moderate behaviours. Data indicated that teachers claimed
complex behaviours occurred less frequently, however they were more confronting and
challenging (Sullivan, Johnson, Owens & Conway 2014). Furthermore, teachers argued if
low-level and moderate behaviours were reoccurring, they evolved into complex behaviours
(Williams 2013; Sullivan, Johnson, Owens & Conway 2014). These severe behaviours
include, erratic behaviours, aggressive towards teachers and peers, exclusion and spreading
rumours (Williams 2013; Sullivan, Johnson, Owens & Conway 2014). Immediately, teachers
would use strategies that involve controlling students to ensure their compliance or an
escalation of punitive responses, instead of attending to the behaviour and unpacking it
deeper (UniSA 2019).

Despite creating ideal preventative practices, severe behaviours will occur and the teacher
will need strategies to effectively manage these behaviours through complex interventions
(EDUC 3007). I-messages can be used to assert the teachers position by identifying what you

Spilios, Alexandra 110199688 2

 Assignment 3: Planning for Intervention
Managing Learning Environments

observed, how it makes you feel and why (Lyons & Slee 2014). I-messages are constructed
by a description of the students’ behaviour, statement of the teachers’ feelings and an
indication of the reason the behaviour impacts the teacher or other classmates (Lyons & Slee
2014). For example; “When I hear aggressive remarks being said to other students I feel
disappointed because I know others don’t like being spoken to that way” (Lyons & Slee
2014; Garrett 2014). I-messages should be used when intervening upon complex behaviours
as it highlights the emotional response and gives clear reason why the teachers desires are
important, avoids the accusatory use of ‘you’ statements and places the student responsible
for changing their behaviours, which supports the development of pro-social behaviours
(EDUC 3007; Garrett 2014). Responding to complex behaviours in a submissive and
aggressive matter intensifies the behaviour, although the teacher should have high
expectations and be assertive by directly shutting down the behaviour (Thompson & Carter
2014).The teacher should then unpack the behaviour deeper by expanding on active listening,
providing the opportunity for the student to explain their behaviour then validating and
paraphrasing the students feelings by saying “I can see you are frustrated, you said you are
feeling upset because of another classmate, but how else could you have dealt with that
situation?” (Williams 2013; Jones & Jones 2010). Following on from this approach,
providing the student with choices and options by saying; “What would be the better choice
now?” and “Would you like to take a few minutes in the quiet area or would you rather work
in another area?” invites students to have a say by making direct choices upon their
behaviour and allows them to feel the teacher offering choices that are fairly treated and
respond to their needs (Jones & Jones 2010; Lyons & Slee 2014; Larrivee 2009). When
intervening, these strategies highlight the teachers’ authoritative approach and high
expectation that all students follow the agreed upon rules, acknowledges the behaviour
deeply rather than inflicting an immediate punitive approach and the power is shared with the
student no over (UniSA 2019).

Conflict Resolution
When previous interventions have not been effective and the student is not taking
responsibility for their reoccurring behaviour as well as forms of bullying and harassment, the
teacher will need to employ conflict resolution strategies when this is encountered (Larrivee
2009). Conflict resolution seeks to resolve issues between the teacher and the student, as
well as student and student (Larrivee 2009). Without scaffolding, in conflict situations
students often resort to verbal or physical abuse, retreat from situations and enlist others to
solve the problem for them (Larrivee 2009). This indicates students will need the teacher to
model and build a repertoire of effective strategies for resolving conflicts (Larrivee 2009).

Teachers spend a copious amount of time handling conflict situations between students, due
to the escalation of the situation and lack of effective strategies to independently resolve
conflicts (Larrivee 2009). Typically, the teacher will act as the arbitrator where all parties’
positions and needs are considered, although the teacher decides upon how the conflict will
be resolved (Larrivee 2009). This intervention would not be effective as the teacher has
immediate power over the students by managing the situation and essentially does not engage
in self-regulatory behaviours (UniSA 2019). Conflict between the teacher, student and
student, student often go ignored which does little to alleviate the conflict and builds
resentment and hostility (Larrivee 2009). The RRRR process, is conflict intervention strategy
where the open communication offers all parties to express their thoughts, feelings and
provides a pathway for negotiation and compromise (Larrivee 2009). The four R process,
allows the teacher to take an authoritative approach involving care and guidance, support pro-

Spilios, Alexandra 110199688 3

 Assignment 3: Planning for Intervention
Managing Learning Environments

social and self-regulatory behaviours where the power is share legitimately with students
(UniSA 2019).
This intervention would not be effective if the teacher was responding to bullying,
harassment and violent behaviours as steps aligned with school policy and procedures would
need to be appropriately actioned (Larrivee 2009).
The four R’s embody;
Relate: Relate what the concern is, by stating the behaviour, situation and reason for concern.
Restate: Restate the concern to the satisfaction of the other person to assure understanding.
Request: One person suggests a request and the other person responds with their request.
Resolve: Request are clearly re-stated and clear to all parties involved. Parties will negotiate
and compromise until both have decided on an agreed upon solution that will addresses the
concern.

Parent and Caregiver Communication

When intervening upon all three categories of behaviour has been unsuccessful,
communication and collaboration with parents is critical (Porter 2009). Teachers and parents
have a common goal that they both want what is best for that child (Porter 2009). Parents are
their child’s biggest advocate, that is why it is important to involve them when it comes to
collaborating over their child’s behavioural difficulties, as mutually all parties want the
problem to be resolved (Porter 2009). It is the teachers’ responsibility to be informed on how
to effectively engage with parents to resolve behavioural difficulties, a pathway for
collaborating with parents is engaging their expertise following by the 6-phases;
Phase 1: Define the problem or concern
Phase 2: Map the problems influential factors
Phase 3: Collaboratively set goals
Phase 4: Explore expectations
Phase 5: Plan and implement solutions
Phase 6: Notice and highlight change

It is imperative the teacher recognises that when the behaviour is occurring in the school
context, it is therefore the teachers’ responsibility to resolve the problems at school and not
have parents punish their child for incidents that arise at school, as there may be strict
disciplinary measures at home (Porter 2009). Resorting parents pride in their child, preserves
the hope and expectancy parents have within their child and minimises the students fear,
resentment and relationships towards all parties (Porter 2009; EDUC 3007). Essentially, the
teacher must not generalise and argue the underlying cause of the behaviour is from the
student or the family (Porter 2009).

Conclusion
Despite the teachers’ best efforts to employ preventative practices, there will times the
teacher will need to be equipped with effective strategies to respond and intervene at different
levels including, low-level, moderate, complex and conflict. Although these mild, moderate
and severe behaviours are scaled according to frequency and difficulty, teachers find them
most challenging to face (Sullivan, Johnson, Owens & Conway 2014). Therefore, to avoid
punitive approaches, the teacher needs to have a repertoire of interventions to select that align
with the behaviour that involves least disruption, authentically takes on an authoritative
approach where the power is shared legitimately with students whilst their human dignity is
preserved to successfully respond to challenging behaviours in the primary classroom.

Spilios, Alexandra 110199688 4

 Assignment 3: Planning for Intervention
Managing Learning Environments

WC: 2,042 excluding headings and referencing

Reference
Bambaeeroo, F & Shokrpour, N 2017, ‘The impact of the teachers' non-verbal
communication on success in teaching’, Journal of Advances in Medical Education &
Professionalism, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 51–59.

Garrett, T 2014, Effective Classroom Management-- the Essentials, Teachers College Press,

New York.

Harper, J & O’Brien, K 2015, Classroom Routines for Real Learning: Daily Management
Exercises that Empower and Engage Students, pp-1-128, Pembroke Publishers Limited.

Jones, V & Jones, L 2010, ‘Chapter 8 Responding to Violations of Rules and Procedures’,
Comprehensive classroom management: Creating Communities of support and solving
problems’, Merrill, Upper Saddle, NJ, pp. 297 – 328.

Larrivee, B 2009, ‘Conflict and stress management strategies’, Authentic Classroom

Management, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 320-371.

Lyons, G, Ford, M & Slee, J 2014, Relationships and Communication, Classroom

management: creating positive learning environments, Cengage Learning Australia, South
Melbourne, Victoria.

Spilios, Alexandra 110199688 5

 Assignment 3: Planning for Intervention
Managing Learning Environments

McDonald, T 2013, ’Proactive Teacher Behaviours’, Classroom Management: Engaging

Students in Learning, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria.

Scherer, P, Weaver, A, Nordness, P & Shriver, M 2018, Using Proximity Control in

Unstructured Settings, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Sullivan, A 2018, Managing Learning Environments EDUC 3007, lecture recording 30

August 2018, University of South Australia, viewed 22 October 2019,
<https://lo.unisa.edu.au/pluginfile.php/2307590/mod_resource/content/1/Engagement%20and
%20Behaviour%20MLE%20Lecture%202017.pdf>

Sullivan, A, 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, vol. 39, no.6, pp. 43-56

Thompson, R & Carpenter, L 2013, ‘Supporting classroom management for challenging

behaviour’, in Diversity Inclusion and Engagement, Oxford University Press, Sydney.

University of South Australia 2019, Managing Learning Environments (EDUC 3007),

UniSA, viewed 22 October 2019,
<https://lo.unisa.edu.au/course/view.php?id=17721>

Williams, D 2013, ‘Background basics’, constructing a theoretical practical and philosophic

approach to managing the learning environment (EDUC 3007), French Forest NSW, Pearson
Australia.

Spilios, Alexandra 110199688 6