Managing Learning Environments Colin Campbell

Intervention Planning and

Behaviour Management

EDU 5182
Managing Learning Environments M

Colin Ross Morgan Campbell

1
Managing Learning Environments Colin Campbell

It is said that nothing is constant but change and this applies to teaching as much as any
other profession. One ongoing change in particular is the gradual shift away from what
many consider ‘traditional’ or direct instruction teaching methods towards a more
constructivist approach. On the surface this change may appear to initially only pertain to
teaching or pedagogical methods, however, it has also influencing other aspects of teaching,
especially behaviour management. It is a harsh reality that classrooms are complex
environments, and while teachers should know the curriculum and how to teach it, there is
also need for competent understanding of human behaviour and strategies on how it can be
managed. As highlighted throughout behaviour management literature, disruptive
behaviour cannot be avoided and despite a teacher’s best efforts, most classrooms will have
some degree of disruptive behaviour either in the form of low-level disruptions or
disengaged behaviour. To address this behaviour there are multiple approaches –
preventative planning, intervention planning or a combination of both. As this is a
considerable topic, this paper will focus on intervention planning and associated strategies
that can be utilised in the classroom. It is important to note, however, that many concepts
associated with intervention planning strongly relate to preventative planning. These
include establishing classroom guidelines, building a positive learning environment and
developing positive student-teacher relationships all aiding the effectiveness of
intervention. Therefore, to avoid repeating ideas explored in preventative planning this
paper approaches intervention assuming teachers have applied effective preventative
measures, and despite their best intentions, still must address disruptive behaviour.

2
Managing Learning Environments Colin Campbell

Williams 4s Framework and Course Principles

Figure 1: The 4S Conceptual Framework of Classroom Management (Williams, 2012)

Intervention planning is not a novel concept and therefore many frameworks and
theories already exist that teachers can draw upon in creating strategies for the classroom.
An example of such theory is Williams’ 4S conceptual framework of classroom management
(Figure 1), which identifies four elements present in a classroom environment that can be
utilised in intervention planning; the students, self (teacher), setting and systems. However,
rather than explore these elements and their role in intervention planning this paper will
explore specific intervention strategies broadly linking them to Williams’ (2012) framework.
In conjunction, this paper will be grounded by principles prescribed by Managing Learning
Environments EDU 5182 (MLE), applicable to both prevention and intervention, which
reinforce that when managing behaviour, a teacher should always aim to model pro-social
behaviour and treat students with human dignity and respect.

Before exploring these specific strategies, it should be noted that the term ‘inappropriate’
behaviour is going to used loosely. What is deemed as ‘inappropriate’ arguably varies due to
factors like the teacher (and their respective teaching style) or the subject being taught. For
example, a class which is exploring a topic through groupwork and discussion is going to

3
Managing Learning Environments Colin Campbell

have different behavioural expectations than a class under test conditions or silent reading.
Furthermore, there are varying levels of inappropriate behaviour present in the classroom
which can be equated to the level of disruption or seriousness of the behaviour, and as such
it would be unreasonable to equate minor whispering to that of violent or aggressive
behaviour. Similarly, intervention strategies also exist on different levels where the required
strategy will vary depending on the behaviour being addressed. To compartmentalise these,
we will use the categories identified by Sullivan et al (2014); disengaged behaviour, low-
level disruptive behaviour and aggressive or anti-social behaviour, also referred to by
Williams (2012) as mild, moderate or severe levels of misbehaviour.

Disengaged behaviour and low-level intervention strategies

Literature shows that student behaviour is a growing concern and presents a significant
challenge for existing and aspiring teachers (Sullivan et al 2014). Widespread reporting of
this behaviour by the media and the increased political focus paint a dire image, however,
the problem is being considerably overplayed (Sullivan et al 2014; Sullivan & Johnson 2016).
In a study by Sullivan et al (2014) it is shown that although teachers report a high level of
misbehaviour, the majority are considered low-level or disengaged behaviour, consisting of
disengagement from classroom activities, talking out of turn, moving around the room, or
avoiding schoolwork. As such, the strategies required in addressing such behaviour are
considerably less demanding and arguably even extensions of our roles as parents or simply
members of society. These strategies can be broken into the following categories; non-
verbal cues and verbal cues.

Like other processes classroom intervention also has a hierarchy through which it can
progress. The first stage of this hierarchy often involves methods identified as least
disruptive, meaning that the use of these will have a little effect on the learning
environment or overall flow of the lesson (Williams 2012). Non-verbal cues are often one of
the easiest and lowest forms of intervention that teachers will have at their disposal. As
highlighted by Lyons et al (2011) what is conveyed by words is often less meaningful then
what is conveyed non-verbally. In fact, Lyons et al (2012) claim that as much as 55%-70% of
communication is non-verbal. Some of the ways by which we communicate non-verbally is

4
Managing Learning Environments Colin Campbell

through eye contact or facial and body gestures. Eye contact may not seem like an effective
intervention strategy, however, at an early age most people become adept at reading non-
verbal messages, especially ones that relay or convey an emotional state (Lyons et al 2012;
Jones & Jones 2010). In the classroom, eye contact not only informs the student that
teachers are aware of their behaviour, but when combined with facial and body gestures
can also relay the teacher’s emotional state. For example, this may be a look of disapproval
or a gesture indicating to a student to focus on the task at hand. Similarly, this can also be
achieved through proximity, also recognised as another effective form of non-verbal
intervention (Jones & Jones 2010; Williams 2012). The strengths of these strategies lay in
their non-verbal nature, meaning that they can all be implemented while continuing to
teach and consequently result in minimal disruption (Jones & Jones 2010). It is important to
note; however, that this can also be harmful as the same non-verbal cues can also convey
negative emotional states, such as confrontation or aggressive, which are not conducive to
creating a positive learning environment (Jones & Jones 2010). Although these methods
may be effective for low-level disruptive behaviour, sometimes stronger forms of
intervention are required meaning moving onto the next stage in the intervention hierarchy.

Low-Disruption and Specific focus strategies

In situations where inappropriate behaviour escalates, so must intervention. In this

instance we are referring to behaviour which potentially interrupts the lesson flow or
contributes to a negative learning environment. This may involve students talking out of
turn, actively disrupting the lesson or just being overly rowdy (Sullivan et al 2014). Whilst
the prior stage focused on minimal disruption of the classroom, this stage involves potential
minor disruptions, often in the form of verbal cues and what can be called ‘specific focus’
(Williams 2012). As with non-verbal cues, verbal cues greatly vary, however they are often
more disruptive and require the teacher to interrupt the lesson to address the behaviour.
Some examples of verbal cues are revisiting/discussing the class guidelines, offering
assistance to the student, or providing options (as opposed to consequences) (Jones & Jones
2010). The effectiveness of these cues is in their ability to promote self-regulation and
reflection, which is core to the principles outlines by MLE (2018). The other stage in this
hierarchy is called ‘specific focus’, which refers to the situation where teachers may be
5
Managing Learning Environments Colin Campbell

forced to specifically address the behaviour or the student. This may involve identifying or
naming the student, naming the undesired behaviour or simply asking students to repeat
instructions. Where verbal cues greatly differ from non-verbal cues is that they are difficult
to enact while continuing to teach effectively. However, the assumption, in this case is that
the behaviour is already disrupting the teaching process more than the intervention possibly
could.

Conflict Resolution and Restorative Justice

Though most situations can be addressed using these strategies, there are unfortunately
circumstances where student behaviour becomes more malicious and potentially aggressive
and subsequently must be addressed outside the classroom. Behaviour including bullying,
verbal harassment and physical harassment is still present in our schools and classrooms
(Sullivan et al 2014; Jones & Jones 2010), and thus teachers are often required to be adept
in conflict resolution or problem resolution. Although the term ‘conflict resolution’ may
initially appear negative the process itself is about productive conflict, or alternatively,
exploring conflict in a positive light with the aim to enhance the learning environment
(Jones & Jones 2010). Conflict resolution also involves what is called ‘restorative justice’,
which instead of focusing on the rules or ‘bad behaviour’, places focus on building and
repairing relationships between both students and the entire school/class community
(Cameron & Thorsborne 1999). The goal of conflict resolution is therefore twofold; firstly,
solve the problem and secondly, enhance the relationship between the parties involved. To
achieve this, teachers have multiple approaches available - arbitration, mediation and
negotiation. In situations where students are unable to resolve conflict themselves,
arbitration is performed whereby the decisive power is relinquished to a neutral third party
who not only reviews the situation, but all provides binding decisions on how the conflict
will be resolved (Larrivee 2009). Mediation differs slightly and whilst it still involves a neutral
third party, this party rather acts as a facilitator moderating the discussion and ensuring
both sides are acting civil and using effective communication. As noted by Larrivee (2009)
this can be through either peer mediation, which is managed by students trained in
mediation, or teacher mediation, which includes the teacher in the mediation process.
Negotiation is the other form of conflict resolution, which unlike the other processes does
6
Managing Learning Environments Colin Campbell

not involve a third party, but rather is a process involving on the two parties who work
through the conflict towards a mutual resolution, ideally being ‘win-win’ or benefiting all
involved (Larrivee 2009). Although these methods sound ideal, they are better used in
complex situation as unlike the other methods discussed, conflict resolution is disruptive, in
that it unable to take place in the classroom during a lesson.

These strategies, however, only represent a small handful of intervention planning

techniques. There is an abundance of literature on the topic which goes further exploring
some of the traditional methods such as time-out, suspension, expulsion or even parental
involvement. However, these methods are also the topic of much debate and potentially
their own research paper and as such have been avoided (Jones & Jones 2010).

A focus on ‘self’ and ‘student’

If we now relate these strategies back to the framework established by Williams, it

becomes quite clear that intervention planning places much of the focus on ‘self’ (the
teacher) and ‘students’. There is a necessity that for these strategies to be effective teachers
need to be proficient in communication, both verbally and non-verbally. Furthermore, the
effectiveness of these strategies depends greatly on the ability of the student to both
comprehend non-verbal messages and respond to conflict resolution or restorative justice
processes. Although these arguably are part of the ‘systems’ domain, to be effective there is
a reliance on the individual abilities of both teacher and students throughout the process.

Although it is said that prevention is better than a cure, in practice teachers can not
completely prevent all forms of disruptive behaviour. Although most disruptive behaviour
may be classified as low-level, it is still vital that they are addressed. Therefore, teachers
should have strategies and skills available that can achieve this whilst maintaining both
lesson flow and a positive learning environment. This may involve non-verbal cues,
proximity, pausing mid-sentence or verbal cues that address the behaviour directly.
However, if the disruptive behaviour escalates, so must the strategies to intervene and

7
Managing Learning Environments Colin Campbell

therefore it is important that existing and aspiring teachers are familiar with more advanced
methods such as conflict resolution, arbitration, mediation, negotiation and restorative
justice. This paper has only touched on some of the strategies involved in intervention
planning, however, there are some overarching principles universal throughout all stages of
intervention. Remain calm and always treat students with dignity and respect, if a teacher
can do these then they are on the road to effective intervention.

Word Count: 2040

8
Managing Learning Environments Colin Campbell

References

Cameron, L., & Thorsborne, M. (1999). Restorative Justice and School Discipline: Mutually
Exclusive? A Practitioner’s view of the impact of Community Conferencing in Queensland
schools. Presented to the Reshaping Australian Institutions Conference “Restorative Justice
and Civil Society’, Australian National University, Canberra.

Johnson, B., & Sullivan, A. M. (2016). Understanding and challenging dominant discourses
about student behaviour at school. In A. M. Sullivan, B. Johnson, & B. Lucas (Eds.),
Challenging dominant views on student behaviour at school: Answering back (pp. 27-44).
Singapore: Springer.

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. (2009). Conflict and stress management strategies. Authentic classroom

management (pp. 320-371). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Lyons, G., Ford, M., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2011). Chapter 3 Relationships and
communication. Classroom management: creating positive learning environments (3rd ed.).
South Melbourne, Vic: Cengage Learning.

Sullivan, A. M., Johnson, B., Owens, L. D., & Conway, R. N. F. (2014). Punish Them or Engage
Them? Teachers’ Views of Unproductive Student Behaviours in the Classroom. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 43-56. http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol39/iss6/4/

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

Williams, D (2012), The 4S Conceptual Framework of Classroom Management, digital image,

University of South Australia, viewed 15 February 2018

9
Managing Learning Environments Colin Campbell

<https://search.library.unisa.edu.au/media/readings/9915894911701831/53105449770001
831>

10