MLE

Luke Trenorden 110118507

ASSESSMENT 3: PLANNING FOR INTERVENTION

Introduction

‘No matter how well teachers plan for prevention there will be times when they need to
intervene to address unproductive behaviours’ (UniSA 2018a). The bulk of this essay will focus
on the intersection between the Self and Students domains in Williams’ 4S Conceptual
Framework (Williams 2012). This is because the interpersonal, teacher-student dimension is
fundamental for effective classroom management strategies to intervene unproductive student
behaviour. This essay will use Williams’ (2012) term, inappropriate behaviour, to describe
unproductive behaviour, as ‘it captures behaviour which is not suitable to the learning
intentions and processes (academic, social and emotional) of the classroom’ (Williams 2012, p.
14). Unproductive behaviour is superior to the other commonly used term, misbehavior, as the
phrase ‘unproductive’ reflects behaviour that affects other students from learning and also the
inhibition of self-development (Williams 2012).

As characteristics of unproductive behaviour increase in complexity, challenge and seriousness,

the frequency in occurrence dramatically reduces (Williams 2012). Teachers must be aware of
the various types of student inappropriate behaviours, and need to respond accordingly to
intervene and effectively manage to promote individual/group development. To assist in this
process a hierarchy of teaching interventions has been created, identifying different
intervention strategies across three different categories of student unproductive behaviour:
Low-Level interventions, Complex resolution, Conflict Resolution (UniSA 2018b). Using the
hierarchy of teacher interventions (UniSA 2018b), different types of student unproductive
behaviours and approaches for teacher interventions will be explored, substantiating the
benefits of each approach for effective classroom management.
MLE
Luke Trenorden 110118507

LOW-LEVEL INTERVENTIONS

Low-Level interventions for classroom management are the most common as mild student
misbehaviours occur most frequently in the classroom (Williams 2012). Low-Level interventions
can be further categorised into three sections: Least Disruptive, Low Disruption and Specific
Focus (UniSA 2018c). Least disruptive teacher interventions feature non-verbal teacher gestures
such as eye contact, head movement, facial gestures, body gestures and proximity (UniSA
2018c). According to Lyons, Ford and Arthur-Kelly (2011), facial gestures are the most easily
recognised non-verbal behaviours because they transmit what the teacher is feeling. Mild
misbehaving students can stop behaving inappropriately through attaining teacher eye contact,
as they understand the implications of the teacher. As well as eye contact, teachers can use
non-verbal gestures to assert authority and stop mild disruptive behaviour (Lyons, Ford and
Arthur-Kelly 2011). Another intervention of minor disruptive behaviour, proximity, involves the
movement of the teacher around the classroom. Simply moving closer to a student or group of
students who are misbehaving, can intervene unproductive behaviour (Jones & Jones 2010).

If the ‘least disruptive’ (UniSA 2018c) teacher interventions are unsuccessful and the student
continues to disturb the classroom, the teacher can move into the next category of low-level
interventions, ‘low disruption’ (UniSA2018c). This category of low-level interventions also
focuses on non-verbal management such as proximity control, but additionally involves verbal
teacher strategies (UniSA 2018c). Teachers’ can pause mid sentence to gain the disruptive
student’s attention or use a signal to indicate that the behaviour needs to stop. For example,
the teacher may gain the student attention and point to the classroom expectations (Jones &
Jones 2010). Allowing the student to observe the classroom expectations puts the responsibility
back on them, which results in the student putting an end to their inappropriate behaviour
(Jones & Jones 2010). Another intervention the teacher can use to manage low disruption is to
see if the student needs some assistance (Jones & Jones 2010). Sometimes, the reason for
disruption is because the student does not understand the task and instead of asking for help,
they feel obliged to behave inappropriately. By asking them if they require some support,
encourages the student to continue on with the task and reduce the chance for behaviour to
increase in complexity (Jones & Jones 2010).
MLE
Luke Trenorden 110118507

However, if the student continues to behave inappropriately, the ‘specific focus’ (UniSA 2018c)
interventions are required to make the student aware that they are disrupting the classroom.
Calling on the student or involving them in classroom discussion by using their name in an
example or question will gain their attention and engage them in the activity (Jones & Jones
2010). Having a private conversation with the student or subtly leaving a small note on their
desk is another intervention that the teacher can use specific to the student unproductive
student (Jones & Jones 2010).

Since the level of unproductive behaviour is mild, disruption to classroom learning is also mild
and therefore the teacher intervention strategy should maintain respect of the student’s
dignity. The aim of the intervention should not be to single the student out in the classroom as
this could escalate the problem further into complex behaviour or create conflict. The teacher
intervention should be used to manage the inappropriate behaviour without creating additional
disruption to the rest of the class. In fact, ‘the disruptive influence of the teacher’s intervention
should not be greater than the disruption it is intended to reduce’ (Jones & Jones 2010, p. 305).
For low-level interventions, the less disruption the teacher uses to intervene and address the
unproductive behaviour, the better the outcome for effective behaviour management (Jones &
Jones 2010).

COMPLEX RESOLUTION

If the unproductive behaviour does escalate from mild into complex, then the teacher needs to
intervene using complex resolution strategies. Resolution of complex behaviour directly relates
to the Systems domain of the 4S model (Williams 2012) introduced in the early preventative
classroom management strategies (Jones & Jones 2010). If the teacher creates reasonable and
agreeable classroom expectations in the first few days of schooling, the teacher can refer the
student back to the classroom expectation that the student is incorrectly behaving in a positive
manner (Jones & Jones 2010). If the student observes the expectation that they are violating,
using self-regulation the student can stop behaving unproductively. The interpersonal
dimension between the Self and Students domains (Williams 2012) are also a focus in complex
MLE
Luke Trenorden 110118507

resolution because if the teacher has made the effort to build relationships, students are far
less likely to respond violently as they respect and believe that they care about them (Jones &
Jones 2010).

Sometimes, the best teacher intervention to resolve complex behaviour is to just walk away
from the situation and give a student space (Jones & Jones 2010). Although this is not desirable
in a situation of confrontation, if the student seems agitated and aggressive, allowing adequate
space and time for the student to calm down and self-regulate their own behaviour can be the
best method (Jones & Jones 2010). However, if the student further responds inappropriately
and becomes violent, it is important that the teacher does not respond violently. Teachers who
‘fight fire with fire’, or respond to a violent student in an aggressive manner can escalate the
situation further, thus increasing the risk of danger to either the teacher or other students in
the classroom (Jones & Jones 2010). Johns and Carr (1995; cited in Jones & Jones 2010) state
that if a student does become violent or highly aggressive, the teacher should always remain
calm, lower their voice and slow down the rate of speech to provide clear instruction to the
complex student. The Setting domain (William’s 2012) features in the management of violent
behaviour, as the environment should be rearranged to minimise risk of harm and adequate
space should be provided to the student in an attempt to to calm them down. After providing
the student with an option of choices to reduce aggression, if all else fails the teacher may have
to use physical restraint intervention as a last resort (Jones & Jones 2010).

According to Jones and Jones (2010), the response of the teacher to intervene complex
behavior must aim to maintain the student’s dignity, while still providing the opportunity for
the student to meet teacher expectations and follow the agreed on classroom expectations
(Jones & Jones 2010). Essentially, the teacher provides the student with options to promote
student to self-regulate their issues and as a result, the complex behaviour is resolved.
MLE
Luke Trenorden 110118507

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

According to Larrivee (2009), due to the complex nature of the classroom, there are many
sources of conflict. Two major features of the classroom that endorse conflict are the structure
of power differences between teacher and students and the emphasis on evaluation and
grading (Larrivee 2009). Other sources of conflict originate from student competition, inequality
of attention to individual student demand, student or teacher perception differences, and
inappropriate teacher behaviour (Larrivee 2009). In reference to the Systems domain of
William’s 4S model (Williams 2012), if the teacher sets unreasonable classroom expectations, or
employs unfair testing or assessment procedures that may show favoritism to individual
students, conflict may be invoked (Larrivee 2009). Conflict and stress management strategies all
place an emphasis on teacher communication (Larrivee 2009). Whether the teacher tries to
negotiate a solution to rectify or compromise the situation, or the teacher uses humour to
defuse the feelings of an angry student, communication and listening is vital (Larrivee 2009).
Active listening is another fundamental strategy to intervene conflict as it allows the student to
discuss their feelings and provide reasoning for their emotions. Additionally, active listening
encourages the teacher to truly listen and understand how the student is feeling and therefore
negotiations to resolve the conflict can occur (Larrivee 2009).

Questioning, when implemented correctly, is another efficient strategy to resolve conflict in the
classroom (Larrivee 2009). Questioning should be used to invite student communication and
probe student thinking to facilitate discussion to help resolve the issue (Larrivee 2009).
Appropriate questioning assumes that all participants are involved in the conflict and the
notation of power is non-existent, providing the opportunity for all students to actively partake
in discussion (Larrivee 2009). Offering fair treatment towards students, meaning that the
teacher can listen and respond to individual needs, will promote equal share of power and
facilitate pro-social behaviour to help resolve the conflict.

Teachers need to be assertive during conflict resolution intervention, where they control the
situation but implement care and guidance for all students involved (Larrivee 2009). To resolve
the conflict the teacher needs to work collaboratively with the students involved, in a respectful
MLE
Luke Trenorden 110118507

manner, and structure a successful process to find a solution (Larrivee 2009). The teacher
should be assertive to control the discussion and make sure that power in the conversation is
equally distributed to all involved. The teacher does not want to take all the power, as student
dignity can be disrespected and conflict can increase in complexity (Larrivee 2009). Likewise,
individual students must have equal share of power during conflict resolution in order for no
favoritism to be perceived and therefore students not feeling as though they are being treated
unfairly (Larrivee 2009).

Conclusion

Due to the complex nature of classrooms, it is essential for teachers to have a repertoire of
skills to spontaneously respond to student behaviour that disrupts the learning environment
(Lyons, Ford & Arthur-Kelly 2011, p. 309). Ideally, in terms of reactive classroom management,
low-level interventions are the most important as mild unproductive behaviours cause the least
amount of disruption to student learning in the classroom and if they can be resolved in the
early stages, complexity and challenging behaviour is avoided (Williams 2012). If complex and
conflict resolution strategies are required, the teacher needs to remain calm but firm with their
intention and direction towards resolving the unproductive behaviour. The relationship
between the teacher and the student and the preventative strategies involving the setting and
systems of the classrooms are highly important for reactive intervention strategies for
classroom management. If classroom expectations are efficiently introduced into the classroom
during the early period of schooling, the teacher can easily refer to specific rules and
regulations that the student may be behaving incorrectly, allowing students to use self-
regulation to resolve the solution. Additionally, if the teacher-student relationships are strong
early on, students will be more likely to respond to a teacher and change their behaviour as
they respect and believe that the teacher genuinely cares about them (Jones & Jones 2010).

WORDS: 1980
MLE
Luke Trenorden 110118507

REFERENCES

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

Larrivee, B 2009, Conflict and stress management strategies, Authentic classroom management,
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, pp. 320-371.

Lyons, G Ford, M & Arthur-Kelly, M 2011, Chapter 3 Relationships and Communication,

Classroom Management: creating positive learning environments, 3rd edn, South Melbourne,
Vic: Cengage Learning.

University of South Australia (UniSA) 2018a, Managing Learning Environments M EDUC5182,

University of South Australia, viewed 7 March 2018,
<https://my.unisa.edu.au/public/CourseOutline/ViewOutline.aspx?id=22439>.

University of South Australia (UniSA) 2018b, Managing Learning Environments M EDUC5182,

University of South Australia, viewed 7 March 2018,
<https://lo.unisa.edu.au/course/view.php?id=13111>.

University of South Australia (UniSA) 2018c, Managing Learning Environments M EDUC5182,

University of South Australia, viewed 7 March 2018,
<https://lo.unisa.edu.au/pluginfile.php/1701103/mod_resource/content/1/Intervention%20Hi
erarchy.pdf>.

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