EDUC 5182: Managing Learning Environments Assignment 3

Managing Learning Environments M EDUC 5182

Assignment 3
Planning for Intervention
Title:

Plan to Intervene When Responding to Low-Level Disruptive Behaviours in

the Classroom

Jonathan Fritsch 100082230

1
EDUC 5182: Managing Learning Environments Assignment 3

Introduction
The central theoretical premises that guided my preventive approach, was engagement in teaching and
learning to influence student behaviour. I discovered that effective teachers who develop engaging learning
environments encountered lower levels of student disengagement and thus far less unproductive student
behaviours. ‘None the less, no matter how well teachers plan for prevention there will be times when they
need to intervene to address unproductive student behaviours (Managing Learning Environments M, 2018).’
Intervention is the act of a deliberate entry into a situation or conflict to influence the behaviour. In Suvillan et
al. (2014), the most difficult behaviours to intervene are low-level disruptive behaviours, which include
situations where students are avoiding doing their school work, disrupting the flow of the lesson and talking
out of turn. According to McDonald (2013), how a teacher responds to low-level disruptive behaviours reflects
the teacher’s personal principles. Principles guide teachers when devising an intervention plan that is
appropriate, to managing the classrooms learning environment. The principles guiding this intervention plan
are proactive rather than reactive, with a large emphasis on being developmentally responsive and pro-active
towards students, which reflects appropriate power and control, effective from positive teacher-student
communication, to strengthen relationships in the classroom, so students can make effective choices and
become responsible for their own behaviour. According to McDonald (2013), a guidance view, is a paradigm
shift and goes against traditional and broader goals of education to managing learning environments through
behaviourist methods of consequences. The principles are informed by the MLEM course principles
(University of South Australia 2018, p. 2) (appendix 2):

･ Principle 1: Effective teaching practice should respect children's human dignity.

･ Principle 2: Self-regulation is preferable to external control as it builds learner capacity.
･ Principle 3: Children's learning is best supported when their teachers use authoritative
approaches involving care and guidance.
･ Principle 4: An educational approach supports the development of pro-social behaviour.

The principles lay the foundation for the short and long-term goals of the intervention plan, which are to:

1. Re-focus and re-engage students’ in their learning.

2. Defuse and avoid any power struggles.
3. Teach the desirable behaviour (teach problem solving to find a solution) to develop responsible
and autonomous students to self-regulate behaviour.
4. Restore relationships between teacher and student.

This paper aims to provide an intervention plan that underpins my overarching principles for how students
should be treated in the classroom to support and “sustain an orderly environment so students can engage in
meaningful academic learning…[and] to enhance students’ social and moral growth” (Evertson & Weinstein
2006, p.4, citied in UniSA 2017, p. 2). The intervention plan focuses on a range of interventions, from low-level

2
EDUC 5182: Managing Learning Environments Assignment 3

techniques to more complex educative approaches, to intervene when responding to low-level disruptive
behaviours in the classroom. The plan will follow a hypothetical journey of a student in a classroom and
demonstrate the steps to work through when responding to their low-level disruptive behaviour in the
classroom.

Plan to Intervene When Responding to Low-Level Disruptive Behaviours in the

Classroom
Low Level Intervention
The intervention plan is derived predominately from Williams (2013), ICDAR Behavioural Transaction
Hierarchy, a tiered model which is applicable to responding to low-level disruptive behaviours in the
classroom. The basis of the model is presented as five practical sequences in the process of identify, consider,
decide, act and reinforce (Williams 2013, p. 16).

The identifying step, advocates that the teacher needs to be aware of everything that is happening in the
classroom. Kounin (1970) defines this as ‘withitness’ which refers to the teacher’s active awareness to
monitor multiple relationships within the classroom. According Woolfolk & Margetts (2013) this includes
scanning the room and making eye contact with individual students. Kounin (1970) highlights the importance
‘withitiness’ has on not waiting too long before intervening (timing errors) or blaming the wrong student
(target errors) when a disruption arises (Principle 3).

In a likely disruptive situation, the teacher will consider the frequency, significance and disruptiveness of the
behaviour to other students and decide if it necessary to tactically ignore the behaviour or intervene (Williams
2012). Woolfolk and Margetts (2013, p. 412) stresses that an effective teacher manager does not publicly
consider and decide on every minor infraction of the rules, as this kind of public attention may reinforce the
disruptive behaviour. Kounin (1970) reveal the importance of ‘withitiness’ in this situation, as it helps decide
what is important (Principle 3).

The action steps are the most critical of Williams (2012) ICDAR Behavioural Transaction Hierarchy and lie at
the heart of intervening. MLE (2018) hierarchy model (see appendix 3), is visually accurate to the ICDAR
Behavioural Transaction Hierarchy, and includes an action sequence, that describes how a teacher may need
to be more specific with their low-level intervention techniques if the least and low disruption techniques are
not working. This notion reiterates that it is not a locked sequence, and thus the entry points to using either
least, low and specific techniques may vary according to the frequency, significance and disruptiveness of the
behaviour in the classroom

The first grade of intervention contains non-interference techniques and causes least disruption to the
classroom teaching and learning. These techniques are desirable when the teacher thinks that the level of
student disruption can be tolerated, if it is short lived and it is does not cause trouble to the class and can be
3
EDUC 5182: Managing Learning Environments Assignment 3

resolved by some non-verbal interventions. McDonald (2013), recommends using non-verbal interventions in
clusters, making eye contact with, or move closer to the targeted student as this offers the student space and
time to make behavioural choices (Principle 2).

The second grade of intervention contains general and task verbals and causes low disruption to the
classroom teaching and learning. General verbals address timely reminders and proximity praise (McDonald
2013). Dweck (1999), suggests proximity praise to another student usually brings immediate improvement as
it Then, include providing positive feedback to the student following the improved behaviour (Principle 4).
According to Duncan, this allows the student to become responsible for their own behaviour (Principle 2). In
(Hulac et al. 2017) study, there was a clear relationship between task difficulty and low-level disruptive
behaviours. Task verbals, that include modifying the instruction and or adapting the task, to prompt and or
decrease the difficulty of the task, may increase correct responding and ensure the student re-focuses and re-
engages in their learning (Principle 4).

The third grade of intervention contains transaction verbals and focuses one-on-one with the individual
targeted student. The varying techniques, centre on verbal hints such as ‘name dropping’, asking the student
a question about the task at hand, or asking the student to state the correct procedure and then to follow it
(Williams 2013). Williams (2012) suggests at this step the communication should remain private. Mendler
(1999) developed PEP, which stands for privacy, eye contact and proximity. PEP allows the teacher to
preserve the dignity of the student and keep the class on track with the set work (citied in Charles et al. 2008)
(Principle 1). When considering communication that occurs between teacher and student within the
interpersonal dimension, is an essential domain when the teacher sends messages to the student, as the type
of language can affect student behaviour. According to Williams (2012), the language that includes assertive I
message, clearly and firmly state what the teacher expects of the student. Jones and Jones (2010), state that
assertive I message is a straight forward assertive, and non-judgmental way to telling the student how you
feel about what they are doing, as it affects you as a teacher and focus on teaching the student how to
behave responsibly and to take ownership of their unproductive behaviour (Principle 3). McDonald (2013)
further emphasises that assertive I message shows the student that you care and that you are not taking their
behaviour personally (Principle 3 & 4).

It is critical that the teacher recognises and reinforces the desired behaviour, with positive direction and re-
enforcing comments, to re-establish a positive relationship (Principle 4) (Williams 2013). According to
McDonald (2013), giving the student feedback on their decision to re-focus and re-engage in their learning,
helps the student and others in the class learn and display pro-social behaviours (Principle 4). However, if the
student does not respond to one of these low-level interventions techniques, and the student persists in their
disruptive behaviour, ‘teacher and student are in conflict (Woolfolk & Margetts 2013, p. 420)’. Williams (2012,
p. 19), suggests when low-level interventions are not successful the teacher should move to reinforcing
through invoking consequences that align with the schools and classroom systems (i.e. classroom removal).
4
EDUC 5182: Managing Learning Environments Assignment 3

McDonald (2013) affirms when this happens, it is important to avoid entering into a power struggle with the
student. Research shows that the angrier you become, it becomes too difficult to come to a co-operative
solution to the problem and thus decreasing that behaviour in the future. The complex intervention will
address an educative approach to resolving a conflict between a teacher and student.

Complex Intervention

The intervention plan moves beyond the notion of a consequence. From personal experience a student’s
point of view, the outcomes of a consequence are no more than the outcomes of punishment. The
intervention plan rather recommends restorative practices (restore relationships) and negotiation (problem
solving) to resolve the conflict (Principle 1, 2, 3, & 4). Each of these approaches share a common theme
towards enhancing and restoring a sense of connection and wellbeing through respectful and authoritative
dialogue (Principle 3). In this conflict situation the teacher will need to arrange an informal classroom
conversation/meeting following the conflict, in which the teacher and student share their feelings and
concerns and problem-solve together.

The primary focus of restorative practice involves an approach towards ‘relationship management’. This
approach is seen to be highly effective to resolving the aftermath of a conflict, so the student can re-join the
classroom with a fresh starts. The focus of which involves affective questions (see appendix 4), to support the
student to explore feelings and the impact of behaviour, to take responsibility for their actions. On the other
hand, quite similar in context, Gordon (1981) recommends the win-win negotiation approach of problem
solving. This approach takes into account the needs of both the teacher and the student in the solution. The
process is presented as a six step approach (see appendix 5) (citied in (Woolfolk & Margetts 2013, p. 421).

Although in this situation, the student owns the problem, in order to negotiation a resolution, the co-
operation of both individuals is required (Larrivee 2009, p. 327). Johnson and Sullivan (2016), recognise that a
student is more likely to behave within desired standards when the power is shared with the student instead
of utilised as a tool of manipulation. Woolfolk and Margetts (2013), agree that in a restorative approach and
in the negation process it is more than teacher talks-student listens. It relies on empathetic listening by the
teacher, to allow the student to find a solution that satisfies both needs (Gordon 1989).

5
EDUC 5182: Managing Learning Environments Assignment 3

Conclusion

The intervention plan focuses on a range of interventions, from low-level techniques, that include Williams
(2013), ICDAR Behavioural Transaction Hierarchy and to more complex educative approaches, to resolving
conflict, like negotiation and restorative practice. These have been found to effectively manage low-level
disruptive behaviours in the classroom, through:

1. Re-focusing and re-engaging students’ in their learning;

2. Defusing and avoiding any power struggles;
3. Teaching the desirable behaviour to develop responsible and autonomous students to self-
regulate behaviour; and
4. Restoring relationships between teacher and student.

The intervention plan has described a range of communication styles that teachers employ when responding
to student low-level disruptive behaviour, these include being discrete, withitness, and assertive, caring,
responsive, empathetic and respectful. These behaviours constructively see students as reasonable and
rationale beings that will respond appropriately when given support and guidance, and are important when
considering an intervention plan that is student-centred in nature.

I would like to reflect that the process of intervening just one student, let alone a whole class by nature seems
quite complex. These techniques and approaches, underpinned by the MLEM course principles, to classroom
management have helped unease and shape my own personal philosophy. It is in my belief that effective
classroom management is pinnacle to an intervention plan that is autocratic in style in which encourages and
fosters co-operation and responsibility, in which supports the student’s academic and social development.

Word Count: 1,970

6
EDUC 5182: Managing Learning Environments Assignment 3

References

･ Charles, CM & Senter, GW 2008, Building classroom discipline, 9th edn, Pearson / Allyn & Bacon,
Boston, Mass.
･ Clunies‐Ross, P, Little, E & Kienhuis, M 2008, Self‐reported and actual use of proactive and reactive
classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and student
behaviour, Educational Psychology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 693-710.
･ Conway, R. N. F. 2009, Behaviour support and management. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Education
for inclusion and diversity. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
･ Dweck, C. S. 1999, Caution- Praise can be dangerous. American Educator, Spring, 1-5.
･ Hulac, AM. 2017, Evidence-Based Strategies for Effective Classroom Management, Guilford Press,
New York.
･ Kounin, J. S. 1970, Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
･ 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.
･ Kwek, S.H. 2011, Innovation in the Classroom: Design Thinking for 21st Century Learning. (Master’s
thesis) <http://www.stanford.edu/group/redlab/cgibin/publications_resources.php>.
･ Larrivee, B. 2009, Conflict and stress management strategies. Authentic classroom management (pp.
320-371). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
･ MacAulay, D. J. 1990, Classroom environment: A literature review. Educational Psychology, 10(3),
239-253.
･ McDonald, T. 2013, Proactive Teacher Behaviours. Classroom management: Engaging students in
learning, pp. 106-154. South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press.
･ Mcdonald, T, Byrne, M & Gower, G 2013, Classroom management: engaging students in learning, 2nd
edn, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Vic.
･ Myers, S. A., & Claus, C. J. 2012, The Relationship Between Students’ Motives to Communicate With
Their Instructors and Classroom Environment. Communication Quarterly, vol 60, no. 33, pp. 386-402.
･ Savage, T. V. 1999, Teaching self-control through management and discipline. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
･ Sullivan, A, Johnson, B & Lucas, B 2016, Challenging dominant views on student behaviour at school :
answering back, Springer, Singapore.
･ 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. 2013, Background Basics. Adelaide: University of South Australia.
･ Woolfolk A, & Margetts K, 2016, ‘Educational psychology’, 4th Ed Australasian edition, Pearson
Education, Frenchs Forest, NSW.
･ University of South Australia, 2018, Managing Learning Environments M, Course Outline, p. 2.

7
EDUC 5182: Managing Learning Environments Assignment 3

Appendix 1
4S Framework

(Managing Learning Environments M, 2018)

8
EDUC 5182: Managing Learning Environments Assignment 3

Appendix 2
Managing Learning Environments M Principles
1. Effective teaching practice should respect children's human dignity.
2. Self-regulation is preferable to external control as it builds learner capacity.
3. Children's learning is best supported when their teachers use authoritative approaches involving care and
guidance.
4. An educational approach supports the development of pro-social behaviour.
5. Human relationships and the effects of those relationships are the building blocks of early development.
6. Learning environments that are predictable, in which expectations are clear and scaffolding is employed
best support students' pro social behaviour.
7. Learning environments that have high expectations are those most likely to support students to realise
their potential.
8. Learning environments in which power is shared legitimately are those most supportive of student
learning of pro-social behaviour.
9. Students are most likely to behave pro-socially in learning environments that involve and engage them
through quality curricula.
10. Fair treatment of students results from responding to their individual needs, not equal treatment.

(Managing Learning Environments M, 2018)

9
EDUC 5182: Managing Learning Environments Assignment 3

Appendix 3
MLE (2018) Hierarchy Model to Low Level Intervention

(Managing Learning Environments M, 2018)

10
EDUC 5182: Managing Learning Environments Assignment 3

Appendix 4
Affective Questions – Restorative Justice
･ Affective Questions
･ What happened?
･ Who has been affected?
･ What were you thinking?
･ What do we need to do now?
･ How can we do things differently in the future?

(McDonald, 2013, p. 130)

11
EDUC 5182: Managing Learning Environments Assignment 3

Appendix 5
Thomas Gordon (1981), Win-Win Approach (Six Steps to Negotiation)

1. Defining the problem in terms of needs

2. Generating possible solutions
3. Evaluating the solutions
4. Deciding on a mutually acceptable solution
5. Implementing the solution
6. Evaluating the solution at a later date
(Davidson & Wood 2004, p. 11)

12
 EDUC 5182: Managing Learning Environments Assignment 3

EDUC 5182 Managing Learning Environments M

Essay #3 – Preventative Planning - Feedback Form

High
Distinction Credit P1 P2 F1 F2
Distinction

Presents and Presents and Presents and Presents and Presents and Presents an Presents an
substantiates a very substantiates a substantiates an substantiates an substantiates an approach, with unsubstantiated
well informed well-informed informed approach approach to approach to limited approach to
approach to to managing managing managing learning substantiation, to managing
approach to
managing learning learning environments. managing learning
managing learning learning environments. environments. learning environments.
environments. environments. environments.
Demonstrates an Demonstrates a Demonstrates a Demonstrates an Demonstrates an Demonstrates a Does not
excellent very good good understanding & understanding of limited demonstrate an
understanding of understanding of understanding of reflection of core core readings & understanding of understanding of
course readings & core readings& readings & reflection of core core readings & core readings &
course readings &
reflection of core reflection of core MLEM readings & MLEM reflection of core reflection of core
reflection of core readings & MLEM readings & MLEM principles. principles. readings & MLEM readings & MLEM
readings & MLEM principles and principles. principles principles
principles and reading that
evidence of reading reaches beyond
well beyond the set the set readings.
readings.

Shows an excellent Shows a solid Shows some Shows a Shows some Shows little Shows no
justification of an justification of an justification of an justification of an justification of an justification of an justification of an
intervention intervention intervention intervention intervention intervention intervention
approach. approach. approach. approach. approach. approach.
approach.

Demonstrates a Demonstrates a Demonstrates a Demonstrates a Demonstrates a Demonstrates a Demonstrates an

sophisticated very good good clear basic limited unacceptable
understanding of understanding of understanding of understanding of understanding of understanding of understanding of
low-level, complex low-level, complex low-level, complex low-level, low-level, complex low-level, complex low-level, complex
& conflict & conflict & conflict complex & & conflict & conflict & conflict
resolution resolution resolution conflict resolution resolution resolution
strategies strategies strategies resolution strategies strategies strategies.
strategies
Extremely well Very well Well constructed Adequately Adequately Generally Disorganised and
constructed and constructed and and arguments are constructed and constructed and disorganised and arguments are not
conceptually conceptually clear. arguments are arguments are arguments are presented.
strong. presented. presented. weak.
strong.

Use of academic English Satisfactory Needs attention Unsatisfactory Comment

Spelling

Grammar

Punctuation

Sentence construction

Paragraph construction

Referencing

Summary Comment and Grade:

Name of Student:

Name of tutor:

The Graduate qualities being assessed by this assignment are indicated by an X:

13
EDUC 5182: Managing Learning Environments Assignment 3
GQ1: operate effectively with and upon a body of
x GQ5: are committed to ethical action and social responsibility
knowledge

X GQ2: are prepared for lifelong learning GQ6: communicate effectively

GQ3: are effective problem solvers GQ7: demonstrate an international perspective

X GQ4:can work both autonomously and

collaboratively

14