Managing the Class – teacher intervention strategies critically reviewed
James Travers-Murison,
UOCA encourages a progressive attitude to student management in the classroom where students develop their own set of rules and enforce them themselves with the teacher acting as a guide. However teacher's are not infallible creatures and UOCA supports a classical intervention strategy for students that has long been tried and tested. However UOCA is always open to advancing and improving these strategies and would do so through parent and student co-operation as a vital part to democratic education. Self discipline through the incorporation of yoga and meditation into the daily routine will assist these strategies. Such that meditation practice or asana postures will be incorporated into directions that a teacher may give a student to manage them better - for task concentration, disruptive behaviour, etc. Specific explanations will be given in further articles.
A teacher intervention strategy cannot be successful unless the teacher and student know what rules apply. Rogers stresses the need for rules protecting teacher and students rights. Charles (1996, ch.5) goes further referring to Dreikur’s model where rules are established by democratic processes in the class as equals, invoking responsibility and self control on the student. Langford (1989, p.260) and Cole (1994, p. 301) however focus more on rules having a legitimate educational purpose showing in clear language the rights being protected setting reasonable limits of expected behaviour in advance. Rules should be discussed and sometimes negotiated to give a sense of ownership. Logical and fair consequences for rule breaking need to be stated to the class, so that the students realise they are being treated fairly. Charles (pp.31-39) states that rules should be used according to Skinner’s system of behaviour modification as reinforcers. Rules are necessary so that they can be quickly and frequently referred to and thus avoid argument either where there is loss of task involvement or disruption. Rogers (1991) in his later book looks at how rules can apply to the class, individuals or between students.
Rogers’ says teachers need a ‘stepwise’ mentality so that they know where they are going. The teacher should have a rehearsed set of basic intervention tools appropriate to each basic behaviour disruption, preferably discussed with his or her colleagues. Thomas Good (2003, pp.112-113) differs slightly from Rogers by his focus on Kounin’s study and says that monitoring the class with “withitness” such that the teacher is always aware of what is going on even if doing many overlapping tasks is the best way to control a class. In particular he points out that there must be momentum in the curriculum such that the students are interested and there is a continuous signal to attend to work that is challenging but within their ability. This is very similar to Cole’s (p.309) Type M strategies which prepare interesting tasks for learners and a stimulating environment to keep the students work orientated.
Teacher intervention strategies for -
A. Individual loss of student task involvement
Relationship building is critical particularly to bring students back on task:
1. Going back to the student when he or she is on task and giving encouragement related to work.
2. Giving assistance
3. Giving opportunity for student to have successes
The following steps are suggested by Rogers to correct student behaviour, obviously if it is clearly appropriate to move to a latter step due to the severity of the situation this should be done. Both Rogers and Charles (1996, p.18) suggests first using non-verbal messages which are simple eye messages that when combined with expressions on the face and body language communicate intent. They can be positively used or reinforced with short verbal messages to bring individuals back to task. Secondly a casual statement or question can be used for loss of task involvement. A short face saving reminder of the task is sufficient or an offer of help without sarcasm and non-hostile (Cole p.327), combined with moving near a student and examining their work, which should be done respectfully, asking their permission. Charles ( p.73) according to Ginott’s model, (which has a central focus of ‘congruent communication’ that address the present situation rather than personalities and guide the student away from self defeating behaviour by inviting cooperation using the socio-emotional atmosphere), emphasises more than Rogers the method of frequently intervening with short directions to correct student errors immediately.
Simple directions should be given clearly expressing intent of required student behaviour and repeated if necessary, expecting compliance. Question and feedback, and deflection explained below in C. can also be used to quickly assess situation and if necessary talking to the student giving further explanation of task or correcting misunderstandings. Blocking statements are used where a student argues or procrastinates to avoid tasks. Simple directions or rules are repeated up to three times, then a simple choice (explained in C.) is given. This choice may be to see the student after class to determine the problem.
B. Class loss of task involvement
Initially non-verbal messages can be used, then casual statement or question to see if the class is understanding the lesson or reminding them to get on with the task. Simple directions should be given to the group or class, using sweeping eye contact and speaking to two or three (Rogers, p.16). Question and feedback can be used to redirect the class’s attention and quickly find out the reason for loss of attention. Deflection, blocking statements can be used and to a lesser extent the class may be given a simple choice offering a reward or punishment.
C. Student to teacher disruptive behaviour
Starting with the least intrusive step, ‘tactical ignoring of behaviour’ requires determining what behaviour a teacher can ignore, for what length of time and what the next step will be. Ignoring calling out is an example. Dynamic reinforcing on-task behaviour by rewarding it with positive comments is a necessary counterbalance. This is called differential reinforcement, because it combines positive and negative reinforcers (Rogers, p.14). It is generally used for minor disruptive behaviour directed at the teacher or between students. The next step is a non-verbal message to stop a minor disruption, then a simple direction as outlined in A.
Rule reminders are generally more necessary for disruptions whether individual or class. The teacher should briefly refer to the key discriptor (summary of the rule) and repeat if necessary rather than argue. I have discussed rules at the beginning of this essay in greater detail. Question and feedback are used to break disruption cycles especially where a number of students are disruptive, with short questions to the point and asking ‘what’ not ‘why’ in order to correct behaviour with minimum feedback and interference to class. Teacher may either redirect student to task or inform the student of what he or she was doing and ask a second question about what he or she should be doing. This can be followed by a simple direction.
Distractions and diversions can be used in anticipation of a problem with a student or the class, giving them a task, inviting another student to work with the problem student, a question, offering assistance or simply moving close. Defusion is used to take ‘heat out of a disruption’ or loss of task involvement. Rogers and Charles (p.18) referring to Redl’s model (in which group dynamics combined with diagnostic thinking are used to form low key influence techniques to support student self control), concur that humorous interjection can end the disruption and build relationships both with individuals and the class. Deflection is where the teacher acknowledges the student’s problem and feelings causing the disruption and refers the student back to the appropriate behaviour, taking the child aside and talking quietly to them if the disruption is significant or persistent. ‘Why’ questions then can be asked, but discussion should be brief without hostility and reinforced with what they should be doing. Commands to desist in significantly dangerous situations should be positive with clear instructions immediately to be followed. Physical intervention is only used in extreme cases of disruption, and school policy must immediately be followed.
Assertive messages stating the teacher’s rights or other rights disrupted (ie. the fair rule), as it affects the class or teacher is a stronger intervention tool than rule reminder. This may apply to the class or individuals causing a disruption, and should be used infrequently according to Rogers. Giving simple choices should always be preceded by appropriate warnings, it is for significant disruptions. The choice is for the student to take responsibility for their actions by self control or face a consequence. It should be made firmly and respectfully (Rogers, p.20). Isolation within the room applies to individual students persistently disrupting by moving them to another part of the room. Time out in the room is for a significant individual student disruption and should be prefaced with a choice. The student is given no activity for 5 to 15 minutes and is moved.
‘Can I see you?’ after the lesson to explain their behaviour is used in more extreme disruptions after a choice. It can be used if long term strategies are necessary for persistent trouble makers, then counsellors and contracts for agreed plans, maybe including parents, might be used. Basic contracting or counselling are long term or Type E strategies (Cole, p.316) which depends on executive control. Teacher and other staff will be used to formulate a mutually agreed plan with the student to rectify his or her behaviour. Rogers does not deal adequately with long term strategies compared to Good (2003, p.158) who considers in detail Glasser’s ten step approach – this model deals with students who persistently violate rules that are reasonable and are administered fairly by the teacher, each new step escalates a reaction to the problem emphasising that the student will be held responsible for their behaviour. Good suggests the student describe their disruptive behaviour and agree to a number of positive actions to regulate him or herself. This may be in writing with parent conferencing. Beyond this suspension, part time attendance, psychiatrists or specialist teachers or an inquiry may be necessary. Good (pp.164-173) and McSherry (2001, Ch.4) both look at forming special groups of students or peers with similar extreme disruptive behaviour, external to the class, thus allowing constructive and supportive relationships to develop and giving protection and confidentiality to go deeper into resolving a student’s problem. Rogers fails to consider this.
Exit procedures are used where extreme disruption by individuals to student’s or teacher’s rights and steps have already been taken to manage the student(s). Fighting, dangerous actions, tantrums, or any behaviour that continues overtly to disrupt the group are justifications but it is a last resort. The teacher must be calm and clear in instructing the exiting student. The school’s policy of where the student goes, who supervises him or her and how the student can re-enter using contracts or whatever must be followed. Re-entering is an important step and the student must have clear understanding and agreement as to their rights and responsibilities with a choice to obey.
D. Student to student disruptive behaviour
Tactical ignoring of behaviour is possible, but if this does not work, the next step is a non-verbal message followed by a simple direction. Rule reminders, question and feedback, distractions and diversions, defusion, and deflection are all early techniques in a disruption cycle, which Cole (p.315) refers to as Type C strategies, (crisis control techniques where prompt intervention to diffuse a disruption is necessary). Taking the child aside for persistent disruption may be necessary. Commands to desist or physical intervention may be used in dangerous situations. Assertive messages stating student-teacher rights clearly is a next step down followed by a simple choice. The choices can be ‘Can I see you?’, isolation particularly to break up two students, time out, or to exit them. If one student is obviously more the culprit then the choice should be directed at them. Basic contracting or counselling is a long term solution to persistent student disrupters.
Conclusion
.
Rogers (p.23) and Marsh (2000) emphasise creating a human relationship with the students which will motivate, lead and correct them. He says give positive reinforcement on obedience or use humour so as to avoid powerplay or threat, thus treating the student ‘as if he will comply’. This should be combined with re-establishing working relations with the student after the disruption. He says assertion is thinking first rather than emotionally reacting, planning a response and in a conflict not provoking or shouting at the student and always giving a face-saving exit. Good (p.176) goes further by saying a teacher should avoid isolating or labelling a student as a unique case because the label can be hard to eliminate.
According to Rogers (1989, p.3) disruption is a normal feature of classroom experience because there are “many more socio-emotionally disturbed children in our classes”. Disruption in his view is often caused by the desire to ‘belong’ to their class. Teacher intervention strategies depend on managing such behaviour. Charles (1996) and Marsh (2000) agree with many of the short term strategies of Rogers, but have a more democratic view of use of rules and developing human relationships. Good & Brophy (2003) focus on what they call ‘withitness’ where the class is controlled by the teacher’s momentum. They and McSherry (2001) then go in more detail than Rogers into long term strategies including group work, contracts and counselling to solve students’ behaviour. Rogers’ main point is having a plan for teacher behaviour, which leads to teacher decisiveness in the least intrusive manner.
References
Charles, C.M. (1996) Building Classroom Discipline: From models to practice. (5th ed) New York: Longman
Cole, P.G and Chan, L (1994) Teaching Principles and Practice. Melbourne: Prentice Hall
Good, T. and Brophy, J (2003) Looking in Classrooms. Pearson Education
Langford, P (1989) Educational Psychology: An Australian Perspective. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire
McSherry, J. (2001) Challenging behaviours in mainstream schools. London: Fishbooks Ch.4
Marsh, C (2000) Handbook for beginning teachers. Longman Ch. 12
Rogers, W. (1991) You know the Fair Rule. Melbourne: ACER Ch.4
Rogers, W.A. (1989) Making a Discipline Plan. Melbourne: Thomas Nelson
| Teacher Behaviour | Reason | Example |
| Tactical Ignoring of Behaviour, Rogers 1989 Charles 1996 | Minimise disturbance to class by not responding to mild disruptions. | John calls out without putting his hand up. Teacher ignores him and rewards students that follow the rule by asking them and thanking them. |
| Non-verbal messages Rogers 1989 Charles 1996 | Minimal assertion by teacher using eye contact or gestures to stop mild disruptions. | John farts loudly, teacher holds fingers to nose so letting John know that his attention seeking has not embarrassed him and diffusing class laughter with humour. |
| Casual Statement Rogers 1989 Charles 1996 | Minimal verbal assertion to prevent unnecessary conflict by redirection to task work. | John talks loudly to friend while teacher is talking. Teacher asks John a question on the topic. |
| Simple direction Rogers 1989 Charles 1996 | Minimal verbal assertion clearly stating an action to end the disruption. | John talks loudly to himself. “John be quiet.” Teacher says. John stops talking. |
| Rule reminders Rogers 1989 Langford 1989 | Quiet reminder of a relevant rule agreed upon by the class that fairly applies to the disruption. A key descriptor can be used to trigger their memories. | Loud level of irrelevant off topic conversations going on during reading time. “Class the talking rule” says teacher. Class quietens down. |
| Question and feedback Rogers 1989 | Short ‘what’ questions followed by feedback as to what the teacher saw, then asking what the student should be doing and a direction as to the task to be continued. This avoids argument as to why the student is causing a disruption and redirects the student to task work. | John is staring out window. “What are you doing John?” “Nothing, sir.” “Exactly, what should you be doing?” “Nothing, sir.” “Read and answer the questions on page seven.” |
| Distractions and diversions Rogers 1989 Cole 1994 | To end a disruption with minimal conflict a re-acknowledgement of task involvement to the student can prevent time being wasted. | John is pushing the student next to him, Steve, with his book. “Charlie come over and work with John. Steve you can sit in Charlie’s seat and work for the moment.” |
| Defusion Rogers 1989 Charles 1996 | Judicious use of humour taking the conflict out of the disruption can quickly restore order. | John shouts loudly at Charlie that he is an idiot when Charlie tries too enthusiastically to help him on the task. “Charlie, don’t hog all the answers, explain and let Steve find the answer.” |
| Deflection Rogers 1989 | An acknowledgement of the disrupting student’s feelings while referring the student back to the task can quickly sort a matter out. | John shouts out, “I can’t understand this!” and ignores Charlie who is helping him. “John I know this is difficult for you, but if you listen to Charlie he will help explain it to you.” |
| Taking student aside Rogers 1989 Cole 1994 | For persistent disruptions by an individual a quick quiet chat away from the class finding out the problem and resolving it can end the disruption. | John throws Charlie’s book on the ground. The teacher calls John to one side. “Why did you do that?” “It’s stupid.” “Why is it stupid?” “I can’t work it.” “Would you like me to explain it?” “Yes.” Teacher finds out problem and resolves it. |
| Clear Desist Command Rogers 1989 Cole 1994 | Significantly dangerous behaviour and quick immediate actions are required to restore safety. | Steve is back next to John and pushes him smiling. John hits him hard on the back. “Stop that!! John move over there!” |
| Physical Intervention Rogers 1989 Charles 1996 | Extreme or dangerous disruptions may require physical prevention of behaviour. | John hits him hard again. Teacher moves quickly over to John and grabs his hand and walks him over to the other side of the room. |
| Isolation within the room Rogers 1989 Charles 1996 | Persistent disruption may require the student to be moved away from the source of disruption. | As for physical intervention above. |
| Blocking statements Rogers 1989 Cole 1994 | Reasserting repetitively a fair direction can be necessary where a student procrastinates or tries to argue. | John sits down at the back and shouts out at Steve. “I am going to get you.” Teacher says, “apologise to Steve.” John refuses “why should I?”. Teacher repeats three times. After this if John does not apologise a choice is given. |
| Giving simple choices Rogers 1989 Marsh 2000 | Choices are given to encourage a student to desist from his disruption or suffer a consequence, usually agreed upon through the class rules. This empowers the child to make a decision by themselves for good or bad behaviour. | John refuses to apologise. “John either you apologise to Steve, or you will have to see me afterwards.” |
| Time out in the room Rogers 1989 | Maybe more appropriate for primary school. This option is exercised when a student has caused serious disruption and/or is not co-operating with other stimuli. The student is moved to a desk by himself and allowed to ‘cool down’ and reconsider his behaviour. | John still declines to apologise. “John, you can remain in the corner there and think about whether you want to make that apology.” |
| Can I see you? Rogers 1989 Charles 1996 | Following up and through with persistent or excessive disruptions may require an explanation by the student out of class time. This can be so that the teacher can better understand why the student is being disruptive, if there is a good reason for it, and also to enforce consequences, such as rectifying any disturbance or damage caused by the disruption. Charles considers Redl’s model where punishment without anger should be used to correct, amend or deny other activities. | The teacher reminds John that he is to see him afterwards as John is about to leave the class when it has finished. “John, why did you hit Steve?” “He hit me.” “You should not hit someone just because they hit you. You speak to me first. What is our rule about violence in the class?” “Not allowed.” “That’s right John. We all agreed with that rule. I want you to follow it. If it happens again then you may have to see a counsellor about your anger.” |
| Basic Contracting Rogers 1989 Good 2003 | In extreme and persistent cases of individual student disruption a long term approach should be adopted. The student might need to negotiate a written contract as to rectifying his or her behaviour in clear rule based language, that may formulate goals to be reached by the student and time limits to comply with stated consequences. | John hits another student again. He is asked to come to a meeting with the teacher and a counsellor. “John, we are going to put some of those rules that you agreed to in class down in writing. Speaking out of turn, swearing and threatening other students is going to be included. If you break the rules then you will have to leave the room and see the Principal. I want you to sign it.” |
| Basic Counselling Rogers 1989 | In extreme or persistent cases of disruptive behaviour a student may need to be directed to professional support. The school should have a procedure for directing students to pastoral care, or external psychologists or specialist teachers if relating to a learning difficulty. | John is still having problems controlling himself even after making a contract. He is sent to pastoral care who recommend that psychoanalysis is necessary as they feel there could be mental illness. Regular appointments with a psychologist are made, to report back as to whether he should remain in the school as he appears to have bipolar disorder.. |
| Exit procedures Rogers 1989 Cole 1994 | Significant and persistent disruptive behaviour can be resolved as a last resort by removing the student from the classroom. The student should know when and under what terms they can re-enter based on obeying the rules. | John leans over and shouts at Steve who has been baiting him. The teacher reminds John of his contract and warns Steve of breaking the rule against teasing. John then hits Steve. According to the contract, the teacher says, “John you have had your last warning yesterday. You know the consequences. Leave the room and see the Principal. If you think you can obey the contract you may come back.” |
References
Charles, C.M. (1996) Building Classroom Discipline, Longman p.18
Good, T. and Brophy, J (2003) Looking in Classrooms,. Pearson Education p.112-113
Langford, P (1989) Educational Psychology: An Australian Perspective, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire
Marsh, C (2000) Handbook for beginning teachers, Longman Ch. 12
Rogers, W. (1991) You know the Fair Rule, ACER Ch.4
Rogers, W.A. (1989) Making a Discipline Plan Nelson p.3
Sherry, J. (2001) Challenging behaviours in mainstream schools. Fishbooks Ch.4 and Good p.164-173
