Assignment 3 – Planning for Intervention

Managing Learning Environments

Managing classroom environments by using preventative approaches such as establishing expectations, building
strong, positive, healthy relationships, using effective communication and building a cohesive learning community,
help to prevent unproductive behaviours and enhance student development (Williams 2013). This classroom
management helps students to ‘gain capacity for self-regulation’ (Good & Brophy 2008, p.72). However, despite
putting these preventative strategies in place, there will always be situations where behaviours need to be managed
using intervention approaches. Intervention involves someone intentionally taking action in a situation to solve or
further prevent it from escalating (Cambridge Dictionary 2019). Preventative practices will still be beneficial when
intervening. Many of these problems include students talking out of turn, interfering with property or using
technology inappropriately which can be resolved through the use of low-level interventions. This level of
intervention can be further broken up into least disruptive, low disruption and specific focus with strategies such as
proximity, offering assistance and having a quiet word with students being used. Complex intervention strategies
such as keeping own emotions in check, respecting personal space, non-verbal cues (positive, non-threatening, non-
confrontational body language) are used for dealing with more challenging behaviours. Compromising, postponing,
apologising and active listening are some effective strategies used for conflict resolution. To assist teachers with this
process of intervention, they take into consideration the Managing Learning Environments course principles and
David Williams’ 4S conceptual framework which will be discussed in this paper in relation to using intervention
strategies for challenging behaviour. This will be discussed in each of the three main paragraphs; low-level
interventions, complex interventions and conflict resolution.

Low-level interventions

Low-level intervention is an alternative approach to rewards and punishments where strategies used by educators
assist with dealing with possible minor classroom disruptions and conflicts that may arise (Jones & Jones 2010).
Students continuing to talk when they should be listening is an example where a low-level intervention strategy
would be put into action. When teachers deal with student misbehaviour they need to use their knowledge and skills
to analyse environments and be able to help students come up with alternative strategies (Jones & Jones 2010). This
links in with the Managing Learning Environments Course Principle, ‘learning environments in which power is shared
legitimately are those most supportive of student learning of pro-social behaviour’ (University of South Australia
2019). Students and teachers should work together and come to an agreement on what is acceptable in the class,
allowing students to take more responsibility for their actions. When doing this, teachers need to ensure they don’t
come across as being in charge and using ‘prescribed, escalating methods of discipline’ (Jones & Jones 2010, p.300).
When using low-level interventions, it is important to respond in a way that least disrupts learning. (Jones & Jones
2010). Low-level interventions can be further categorised into least disruptive, low disruption and specific focus
strategies.
Least Disruptive

Least disruptive intervention strategies can include using non-verbal cues such as use of eye contact (glance, stare),
facial gestures (serious, frowning) head movement (slow/fast shaking/nodding), body gestures and proximity. These
strategies are best used together and can be effectively used in situations when students are talking out of turn
(Williams 2013 + Jones & Jones 2010). An advantage of using the strategy of proximity is that this action can be
completed while the teacher continues to talk and explain a set of instructions for an activity. Proximity control
involves the teacher moving closer to the student who may be misbehaving (continuing to talk) (Jones & Jones
2010). This action allows the teacher to multitask, therefore, aiming to cause the least amount of disruption to the
entire class and ‘targeting’ the individual student with non-verbal actions (Jones & Jones 2010). A possible
disadvantage of this strategy is if the talking student doesn’t respond to this movement and continues to speak.
Proximity connects with the Self section of the 4S model (Williams 2013).

Low Disruption

Low disruption intervention strategies are usually used as a general form of announcement or reminder to the whole
class (Williams 2013). These strategies can include changes in volume, tone or speed of voice, pausing mid-sentence
(gaining attention by pausing in an un-natural place in the sentence), task progress and behaviour reminders (with or
without proximity praise), progress indicators (“By now you should have…….”), proximity praise (“I’ve noticed
that………”), time remaining indicators and checking if help is needed (“How can I help you?”) (Williams 2013, p.18).
This offering assistance strategy can be beneficial if a student is off task as it is ‘targeting’ the individual in need to
see if they require anything clarified so they can get on with the task instead of distracting others (Jones & Jones
2010). Possible sentences the teacher could say include; “It looks like I didn’t explain the task so you could
understand, would it be helpful for me to go over it again?” When responding it is important to be thoughtful and
have a purpose to de-escalate the behaviour (Jones & Jones 2010).

Specific Focus

Specific focus intervention strategies usually involve the teacher focussing on an individual student rather than the
whole class (Williams 2013). Some of these strategies include using the students name in a question, asking students
to repeat the set of instructions, commenting on inappropriate behaviour and question, having a quiet word with
the student, focusing questions on student ‘ownership’ of behaviour (asking what questions rather than why
questions), using assertive language (assertive I-messages) and avoiding rhetorical questions (Williams 2013). In
particular, using I-messages can be useful as it involves teachers communicating what they need and expect of
students in a clear, simple, non-negotiable way e.g. “I want you to stop disturbing other people” (Williams 2013, p.19
+ Jones & Jones, p.312). This strategy can work as an advantage for the teacher if they have built positive
relationships with their students (Jones & Jones 2010).
Complex interventions

Challenging behaviour can be a type of behaviour that has been identified as being unacceptable when creating
classroom rules (Thompson & Carpenter 2013, p.150). This connects with the Systems section of the 4S model as
rules are developed (Williams 2013). These actions can potentially endanger or harm students, teachers and others
in the environment, they interfere with student’s development, learning goals and success (Thompson & Carpenter
2013). There is a high importance to recognise the possible influence of mental health (student anxiety), relationship
problems (bullying) and other social concerns (anger management) that can contribute and affect school
performance (Thompson & Carpenter 2013, p.148). When identifying a challenging behaviour, teachers need to
think about what the cause could be and to ‘define the situation, rather than the student as challenging’ (Thompson
& Carpenter 2013, p.151). Disruptive, aggressive, challenging behaviours can include sexualised behaviour, self-
harm, physical and verbal behaviour (hitting and threatening), being extremely violent and aggressive towards
students and teachers and being physically destructive (Thompson & Carpenter 2013). Students might blame others
for their behaviour, have a poor understanding of their behaviour and have poor social skills (Thompson & Carpenter
2013). Therefore, when using complex intervention strategies, it is important to focus solely on the student
displaying the challenging behaviour, not the whole class (Thompson & Carpenter 2013). For students with
challenging behaviour, it is extremely important to teach them pro social skills and develop positive characteristics to
create a happier class environment (Thompson & Carpenter 2013). This connects with the idea that ‘an educational
approach supports the development of pro-social behaviour’ and to the Self section of Williams (2013) 4S framework
(University of South Australia 2019).

AITSL Standard 4.3 ‘Manage challenging behaviour’ states that at a graduate level a ‘knowledge of practical
approaches to manage challenging behaviour needs to be demonstrated’ (Australian Institute for Teaching and
School Leadership 2017). As an alternative to punitive, confrontational and deprecatory methods, complex
intervention strategies need to involve the teacher keeping their own emotions and behaviour in check, being alert
and taking notice, respecting personal space, body language to reduce the possibility of violent reactions from
students (Jones & Jones 2010, p.313).

For example, if a student is being physically destructive the teacher needs to remain calm when responding to the
behaviour the student is displaying (Jones & Jones 2010). Keeping their emotions and behaviour in check and not
being drawn into poor behaviour themselves is important so the child doesn’t get caught up in being angry and
having all their attention focused on the emotion rather than calming down (Jones & Jones 2010). This is where it is
very beneficial for the teacher to have built strong relationships with students to assist with understanding why the
student may be behaving like this (Jones & Jones 2010). The teacher may need to send for assistance in order to help
protect other students / staff from this destructive behaviour.

Additionally, the teacher needs to be conscious of non-verbal cues they use as body language can convey a message.
Non-verbal cues need to be non-threatening and non-confrontational which can be communicated through body
language (supportive body positioning, body posture, movement), standing in an open position with hands by their
side so students can see (Jones & Jones 2010). Respecting student’s personal space is also important in this situation
as it is important that they don’t feel like the teacher is invading their space or forcing a confrontation as this could
further impact on how they react and behave (Jones & Jones 2010).

If the student being physically destructive poses a danger to the safety of other class members and does not
respond in a calm manner to the teachers attempts to calm them down, it is a good idea for the rest of the class to
leave the area (Jones & Jones 2010). This ‘takes away the audience effect and allows the student to respond to the
teacher in a more reasonable manner’ (Jones & Jones 2010, p.314).

Conflict resolution

There are a whole range of strategies that can be used for conflict resolution. Teachers and students need to be
aware of these strategies to be able to choose which one will be most effective for different scenarios (Larrivee
2009). These strategies give students more effective ways for resolving conflicts using positive approaches and can
also be used together (Larrivee 2009). There are many sources of conflict as classrooms can be very complex places
(Larrivee 2009). Conflicts may arise if rules are not set, are not clear, appear to be unfair or give power to teachers
(Larrivee 2009). This connects with MLE principle ‘learning environments that are predictable, in which expectations
are clear and scaffolding is employed best support students’ pro social behaviour’ and ‘learning environments in
which power is shared legitimately are those most supportive of student learning of pro-social behaviour’ (University
of South Australia 2019). Some conflict resolution strategies include; compromising, postponing, humour,
abandoning, apologising, sending an I-Message, active listening, making a request and seeking assistance when
required (Larrivee 2009, p.320 – 322). This connects with the Systems section of the 4S Conceptual framework as
students communicate with each other (Williams 2013). Each of these strategies have advantages and disadvantages
depending on how the situation is handled and how the people involved respond. For example, if two students
working together for a task both want to use their own ideas and doesn’t agree with the others’, the compromising
strategy would be beneficial. The advantage of this is that it allows both students to get to do some of what they
want e.g. everyone agrees to give up a little, allowing both students to use some of their ideas (Larrivee 2009). The
disadvantage of compromising is that it requires mutual cooperation, therefore, if one or both students disagree and
won’t compromise, then the problem will not be resolved (Larrivee 2009).

The postponing strategy can be used in situations where students need some time before handling the conflict
(Larrivee 2009). This allows choosing to meet and discuss at a more suitable time, with a greater chance of the
conflict being handled more successfully (Larrivee 2009). The disadvantage of this is if the teacher postpones the
meeting for too long, therefore, loses all meaning.

Apologising can only be beneficial when the student/s truly mean it as it means that they are admitting responsibility
for realising that their behaviour was wrong and / or they are sorry for hurting the other person’s feelings. The
disadvantage of apologising is if a student simply says that they are sorry but do not mean it as this is not solving
anything if the student does not recognise what they have done is wrong (Larrivee 2009).

Furthermore, students can use the processes of arbitration, mediation and negotiation for resolving conflicts. The
process of arbitration involves ‘a third party’ to consider all the positions, needs and wants of the students involved
to decide how the conflict will be resolve. Mediation involves where a ‘third party’ assists the people involved to
devise a resolution that everyone can agree on. Negotiation involves the people directly involved to work through
their problem to mutually agree upon a solution (Larrivee 2009).

Dealing with challenging behaviours as soon as possible, will limit opportunities for distraction to the entire class by
having set plans for intervention. For example, being able to identify a behaviour and deciding how to best respond
and to see if it requires a low-level intervention (least, low, specific), complex intervention or a conflict resolution
strategy. These can include using proximity, checking for understanding, using positive non-verbal communication /
body language, postponing or apologising. These strategies as well as the Managing learning environments course
principles and David Williams’ 4S conceptual framework (Setting, Systems, Self, Students) can assist teachers when
planning for intervention.

References

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership 2017, Australian Professional Standards for Teachers,
Australian Government, viewed 8 November 2019, < https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards>.

Cambridge Dictionary 2019, Intervention, Cambridge University Press, viewed 8 November 2019,
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/intervention>.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. 2008, ‘Management I : preventing problems’, in Looking in classrooms, Pearson/Allyn and
Bacon Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, 10 th ed., pp.71-97.

Jones, V. F., & Jones, L. S. 2010, ‘Responding to violations of rules and procedures’, in Comprehensive classroom
management: creating communities of support and solving problems, Pearson / Merrill Publishers, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey, 9th ed., pp.297 – 328.

Larrivee, B 2009, ‘Conflict and stress management strategies’, in Authentic classroom management: creating a
learning community and building reflective practice, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 3 rd ed.,
pp.320 – 371.

Thompson, R., & Carpenter, L. 2013, ‘Supporting classroom management for challenging behaviour’, in Diversity,
inclusion and engagement, Oxford University, Sydney, 2nd ed., pp.147-172.

University of South Australia 2019, Managing Learning Environments, ‘Course Principles’, viewed 8 November 2019.

Williams, D 2013, ‘Background basics’, in Constructing a theoretical practical and philosophic approach to managing
learning environments, Frenchs Forest, N.S.W., Pearson Australia, pp.1-24.