EDUC 3007 Managing Learning Environments

ASSESSMENT 2: Planning for Intervention

Introduction

Every day in Australia, teachers implement preventative strategies to manage unproductive student
behaviours within their classrooms. Unfortunately, there are times when prevention does not work,
and intervention strategies must be implemented instead to ensure safe and productive learning
environments are achieved (Williams 2013, p. 4 & p. 11). Notably, the type of intervention required
may differ depending on the level of behaviour; low-level, mid-range or complex (Williams 2013, p.
15). Hence, the purpose of this essay is to propose an intervention plan for managing unproductive
student behaviours in a primary school classroom. Productive behaviours support students to
succeed, while unproductive behaviours interrupt learning and reduce students’ productivity (Sullivan
2018; Williams 2013, p. 14). This essay will first discuss the importance of effective interventions. Each
level of behaviour will then be explored through critical consideration of the behaviours the students
may present, and identification of intervention strategies educators may utilise to manage these.
During this discussion, links will be made to the Managing Learning Environments (MLE) principles, in
addition to considering the four domains proposed by Williams (2013, p. 11) for effective classroom
management: setting, self, systems, and student.

Importance of Intervention

Significant research indicates that the maintenance of productive learning environments is associated
with higher student engagement, achievement and a positive wellbeing (Sullivan et al. 2014, p. 43;
Williams 2013, p. 3). Consequently, it is important that educators intervene in a timely and appropriate
manner because unproductive behaviours can be detrimental to students’ safety and learning
(Thompson & Carpenter 2014, p. 171). Specifically, unproductive behaviours place stress on the
teacher and disrupt the learning of both the individual performing the behaviour and other students
within the class (Cothran, Kulinna & Garrahy 2003, p. 435; Larrivee 2009, p. 362). Accordingly,
educators must consider that the intervention strategies they employ should not create greater
disruption than the unproductive behaviour they intend to reduce (Jones & Jones 2011, p. 305).

Low-level Behaviour Interventions

While they are the least serious, low-level behaviours are the most frequent unproductive behaviours
in the classroom (Williams 2013, p. 15). Specifically, low-level behaviours are low in seriousness, but
high in frequency; attention seeking and disruptive behaviours including calling out, answering back,

EDUC 3007 Managing Learning Environments Page 1 of 7

Lewanna Hampel, Student ID: 110232121, Tutor: Peter Arnold
tardiness and fooling around to disrupt others (Arnold 2019a; Williams 2013, p. 15). Because of the
constant disruption low-level behaviours cause, they contribute the most to teacher stress and
consequently must be addressed (Parsonson 2012, p. 17).

Jones and Jones (2011, p. 304) propose the strategy of managing unproductive behaviours by ignoring
low-level behaviours. For example, ignoring two whispering students during an explicit group teaching
session would allow the teacher to continue educating the class without disrupting their learning. A
crucial part of this strategy is that, at the end of the lesson, the behaviour must be addressed to
eliminate the understanding that it is acceptable and the likelihood of it recurring (Amaro 2019; Jones
& Jones 2011, p. 304). This behaviour should be addressed with students privately to respect their
dignity, supporting the MLE principle that effective teaching practice respects children’s human
dignity (Jones & Jones 2011, p. 308). Moreover, educators should clearly state the behaviour that is
an issue, rather than asking incriminating questions (Larrivee 2009, p. 340). This helps to ensure that
positive teacher-student relationships are maintained, aligning with the MLE principle that human
relationships are vital building blocks for students’ life-long development (Arnold 2019b). Moreover,
this strategy fits within the self and student domain of Williams (2013, p. 11) framework as the
teacher’s ability to carry out the strategy and the student’s receptiveness will contribute to the
strategy’s success. Notably, a fault in the intervention strategy is that other students may become
distracted or replicate the unproductive behaviour as they believe the teacher does not care (Jones &
Jones 2011, p. 304). In this circumstance, educators may use the intervention strategy of social
reinforcement.

Social reinforcement involves educators drawing attention to productive student behaviours and
using these as models for others to replicate (Bohn, Roehrig & Pressley 2004, p. 282; Jones & Jones
2011, p. 325; Woolfolk & Margetts 2016, p. 319). For example, when two students are talking out of
turn, the teacher may state ‘I love the way Jack is sitting quietly and ready to learn’. This would bring
attention to Jack as a model of appropriate behaviour for other students to replicate (Amaro 2019;
Jones & Jones 2011, p. 308). Notably, educators must consider the student domain of Williams (2013,
p. 11) framework and recognise that some students may be uncomfortable with the attention. Thus,
educators may make broader statements such as ‘I love how some students are ready to learn’ or
refer to pre-established class expectations; ‘some students are showing our class value of respect
really well’ (Jones & Jones 2011, p. 306). Through social reinforcement, students may learn to self-
regulate their own actions by understanding what is and is not socially accepted, supporting the MLE
principle that self-regulation is preferable to external control.

EDUC 3007 Managing Learning Environments Page 2 of 7

Lewanna Hampel, Student ID: 110232121, Tutor: Peter Arnold
Mid-range Behaviour Interventions

In comparison to low-level behaviours, mid-range behaviours are more serious but less frequent
(Williams 2013, p. 15). These behaviours include offensive language or gestures, defying teachers’
instructions, abusing peers, minor physical altercations and acts of dishonesty (Williams 2013, p. 15).

One effective strategy educators should use in mid-range unproductive behavioural interventions is
to remain calm (Jones & Jones 2011, p. 305). While obvious, this may be difficult as it is natural to feel
frustrated when students engage in unproductive behaviours (Jones & Jones 2011, p. 305).
Accordingly, because this strategy is heavily dependent on educators’ abilities to manage their
emotions, it strongly fits within Williams (2013, p. 11) self domain. By remaining calm, educators
reduce the chances of fuelling students’ emotional distress and having students project the blame
onto them (Amaro 2019; Jones & Jones 2011, p. 305 & p. 311). For example, when addressing a
student who copied a peer during a spelling test, it is important to be calm because the student is
likely already on edge because they know the behaviour was wrong. Accordingly, reducing blame is
important in helping students take responsibility for their behaviour (Jones & Jones 2011, p. 305). This
aligns with the strategy of addressing the behaviour, rather than the student, as the issue or challenge
so the student does not feel attacked (Jones & Jones 2011, p. 310; Larrivee 2009, p. 340; Thompson &
Carpenter 2014, p. 151). Notably, remaining calm and addressing the behaviour, not the student, are
strategies that should also be applied during low-level and complex behaviour interventions.

A second mid-range intervention strategy proposed by Jones & Jones (2011, p. 308) is to provide
students with choice. For example, if a child refuses to participate in a peer group they have been
assigned, the teacher may pose two options: to work in their original group, or to work in a different
teacher selected group. By providing students with choice, teachers reduce students’ perceptions that
they have no power, and respectfully responds to their needs for control (Baak 2018; Jones & jones
2011, p. 308). This strategy is supported by a study that found effective teachers provide students
with choices, helping them develop ownership of their actions (Bohn, Roehrig & Pressley 2004, p. 281).
Accordingly, it embraces the MLE principle that learning environments that share power are most
supportive of students learning pro-social behaviour. Additionally, providing choices for the students
may increase productive behaviours as they are more motivated to learn (McDonald 2013, p. 138).
Notably, the complexity of students’ backgrounds, as indicated by Williams (2013, p. 11) in the student
domain, highlights that educators who use this strategy must consider what choices are contextually
appropriate depending on the student.

EDUC 3007 Managing Learning Environments Page 3 of 7

Lewanna Hampel, Student ID: 110232121, Tutor: Peter Arnold
Complex Behaviour Interventions

Complex behaviours are the least frequent yet most serious type of behaviour, including extreme
violence such as assault, causing damage to property, and criminal activities such as theft (Thompson
& Carpenter 2014, p. 148; Williams 2013, p. 15). It is vital that educators can effectively intervene in
complex behaviours as they threaten students’ success; leading to academic difficulties, socialisation
issues and adult mental health problems (Thompson & Carpenter 2014, p. 155).

Complex behaviours are often elicited by taxing situations (Thompson & Carpenter 2014, p. 151).
Consequently, an effective intervention is for educators to help students abandon a situation and
relocate somewhere less taxing (Larrivee 2009, p. 321). This may include a classroom ‘chill out’ zone,
or a supervised location in the school for students with complex behaviours (Thompson & Carpenter
2014, p. 160). Notably, this strategy reflects consideration of William’s (2013, p. 11) setting domain as
educators must consider the most appropriate setting for the child. For example, an agitated student
is yelling at a peer using profanity. To relocate the student, the teacher may use an assertive yet polite
statement; ‘Lucy, I understand that you are angry, but we do not use anger to solve problems at
school. I need you to go to the chill out zone to cool down.’ (Jones & Jones 2011, p. 313; Larrivee 2009,
p. 332). Through this strategy, students are provided a safe space to regain self-control and collect
their thoughts (Larrivee 2009, p. 321; Thompson & Carpenter 2014, p. 160 & p. 166). Additionally, by
postponing a discussion of the behaviour until Lucy has calmed down, a more successful outcome may
be achieved, such as Lucy accepting responsibility for her behaviour (Larrivee 2009, p. 321; Thompson
& Carpenter 2014, p. 160).

A second complex intervention strategy teachers may use is to evacuate the classroom when student
safety is compromised (Government of South Australia, Department of Education 2017, p. 17; Jones
& Jones 2011, p. 315). For example, a child is dangerously throwing classroom equipment. Here, the
teacher must calmly direct students to a safe space, such as the classroom next door (Government of
South Australia, Department of Education 2017, p. 17). They must also seek assistance to ensure the
safety of other students, and to provide a witness to support their actions if misreported by the
student (Government of South Australia, Department of Education 2017, p. 17; Jones & Jones 2011,
p. 314). This may be sought by telephone or sending a student for help. The teacher must then try to
de-escalate the situation by communicating with the student (Government of South Australia,
Department of Education 2017, p. 17). During communication, they must be calm, yet firm, to ensure
the student understands they are serious (Jones & Jones 2011, p. 314). Throughout a complex
situation such as this, educators must consider the protective practices for staff in their interactions
with children and young people to protect themselves and maintain the wellbeing of the student

EDUC 3007 Managing Learning Environments Page 4 of 7

Lewanna Hampel, Student ID: 110232121, Tutor: Peter Arnold
(Government of South Australia, Department of Education 2017, p. 3). Most significantly, they must
remember that physical intervention must only be used if all non-physical interventions have been
exhausted and the child poses immediate danger to themselves or others (Government of South
Australia, Department of Education 2017, p. 17). Here, consideration of relevant policies highlights
that there are many systems educators must consider when managing unproductive behaviours
(Williams 2013, p. 11).

As student behaviours become more complex, interventions become more specialised to suit
individual needs (Thompson & Carpenter 2014, p. 158). Thus, in addition to intervention strategies,
educators may use specialised strategies developed in consultation with school leadership, the child’s
parents, specialists and the child themselves (Government of South Australia, Department of
Education 2017, p. 17). For example, one child may respond better to being provided options, rather
than directives. Notably, caregiver involvement is important as they have intimate knowledge of their
child and may suggest more effective strategies (Porter 2007, p. 296). This approach to intervention
highlights the importance of considering the student and embraces the MLE principle that fair
treatment of students results from responding to their individual needs (Williams 2013, p. 11).

Conflict Resolution

Given the impact positive relationships have on individuals’ wellbeing, educators must help students
resolve conflicts to maintain relationships. Three strategies educators may use are: arbitration, where
an impartial third party decides how to resolve the conflict; mediation, where an impartial third party
assists involved parties to achieve a resolution; and negotiation, where involved parties achieve a
mutual resolution (Larrivee 2009, pp. 323-324). In the classroom, mediation is preferable as it enables
students to take responsibility for solving their own problems (Larrivee 2009, p. 325). For example, a
conflict has developed between two students as one copied the other’s spelling test. Using mediation,
the teacher will help the students discuss the issue with each other, rather than through the teacher
(Larrivee 2009, p. 325). This will include the teacher remaining nonjudgmental, helping the students
listen actively, and clarifying what they each say (Larrivee 2009, p. 325). Through this problem solving
process, the students will establish a solution, such as separating the student who copied from the
other student to work independently in the next test. Notably, the success of conflict resolution
strategies is heavily dependent on Williams (2013, p. 11) self and student domain; the strategies’
success depends on the teacher’s skills and the student’s openness to resolving the issue. Additionally,
through mediation, teachers help students to develop negotiation skills that enable them to resolve
future conflicts without a third party. Thus, mediation embraces the MLE principle that self-regulation
is preferable to external control as it builds learner capacity.

EDUC 3007 Managing Learning Environments Page 5 of 7

Lewanna Hampel, Student ID: 110232121, Tutor: Peter Arnold
Conclusion

Every teacher must be equipped with behavioural intervention strategies as they will need to
intervene in a low-level, mid-level and complex behaviour throughout their career. For low-level
behaviours, this may include ignoring a behaviour when it occurs and addressing it later to cause less
disruption. Likewise, educators may use social reinforcement to highlight productive behaviours in the
class for students who perform unproductive behaviours to replicate. Mid-range behavioural
interventions may include remaining calm to not intensify a student’s emotions and providing
students with choice to fulfil their need for control. Furthermore, complex behavioural interventions
may include removing a student from a taxing situation so that they can regain self-control and collect
their thoughts or using a child’s individualised intervention plan. In extreme cases, educators may
evacuate their classroom to ensure the safety of their students. Importantly, educators must always
consider the policies that guide their practice to ensure their own, and their students’, safety and
wellbeing. Accordingly, they must support students to maintain positive relationships by helping them
resolve conflicts, including using mediation. Notably, educators must always consider Williams (2013,
p. 11) self and student domain because the success of their intervention strategies significantly rely
on their ability to apply the strategies, and their students’ receptiveness to them.

Word Count: 1999 (without references and headings)

EDUC 3007 Managing Learning Environments Page 6 of 7

Lewanna Hampel, Student ID: 110232121, Tutor: Peter Arnold
Reference List
Amaro, M 2019, The secret to keeping low-level behaviours low-level, The highly effective
teacher.com, viewed 31 October, <https://thehighlyeffectiveteacher.com/the-secret-to-keeping-
low-level-behaviours-low-level/>.
Arnold, P 2019a, Workshop 1: Introduction to managing learning environments, EDUC 3007,
University of South Australia, Adelaide, 7 March.
Arnold, P 2019b, Workshop 2: The role of the teacher in managing learning environments, EDUC
3007, University of South Australia, Adelaide, 14 March.
Baak, M 2018, ‘Power, democracy and leadership: A theoretical framework’, EDUC 3007, University
of South Australia, Adelaide, 6 August.
Bohn, CM, Roehrig, AD & Pressley, M 2004, ‘The first days of school in the classrooms of two more
effective and four less effective primary-grades teachers’, The elementary school journal, vol. 104,
no. 4, pp.269-287.
Cothran, DJ, Kulinna, PH & Garrahy, DA 2003, ‘This is kind of giving a secret away… students’
perspectives on effective class management’, Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 19, no. 4,
pp.435-444.
Government of South Australia, Department of Education 2017, Protective practices for staff in their
interactions with children and young people: guidelines for staff working or volunteering in education
and care settings, 2nd edn, Department for Education, South Australia, viewed 3 November,
<https://www.education.sa.gov.au/sites/default/files/protective_practices_for_staff_in_their_inter
actions_with_children_and_young_people.pdf?v=1554684254>.
Jones, V & Jones, L 2011, ‘Responding to violations of rules and procedures’, Practical classroom
management, Pearson, Boston, MA, pp.171-207.
Larrivee, B 2009, ‘Conflict and stress management strategies’, Authentic classroom management:
creating a learning community and building reflective practice, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
McDonald, T 2013, ‘Proactive teacher behaviours’, Classroom management: engaging students in
learning, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria, pp.106-154.
Parsonson, BS 2012, ‘Evidence-based classroom behaviour management strategies’, Kairaranga, vol.
13, no. 1, pp. 16-23.
Porter, L 2007, ‘Collaborating with parents and other experts to resolve school-based behavioural
difficulties’ in Student behaviour: theory and practice for teachers, 3rd edn, Allen & Unwin, Crows
Nest, NSW, pp. 289-308.
Sullivan, A 2018, ‘Engagement and behaviour: What is important?’, EDUC 3007, University of South
Australia, Adelaide, 30 July.
Sullivan, AM, Johnson, B, Owens, L & Conway, R 2014, ‘Punish them or engage them? Teachers’
views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom’, The Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, vol. 39, no. 6, pp.43-56.
Thompson, R & Carpenter, L 2014, ‘Chapter 8: supporting classroom management for challenging
behaviour’ in M, Hyde, L, Carpenter & R, Conway, Diversity, Inclusion & Engagement, 2nd edn,
Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 147-172.
Williams, D 2013, ‘Background basics’, Constructing a theoretical practical and philosophic approach
to managing learning environments, Pearson Australia, Frenchs Forest, NSW, pp.1-24.
Woolfolk, A & Margetts, K 2016, Educational psychology, 4th edn, Pearson Australia, Melbourne,
VIC.

EDUC 3007 Managing Learning Environments Page 7 of 7

Lewanna Hampel, Student ID: 110232121, Tutor: Peter Arnold