Addressing Unacceptable Classroom Behavior, Case Study Example

Introduction

It is likely that teachers have struggled with problems in maintaining discipline in classrooms since the first schools opened their doors. In a sense, this kind of conflict is inevitable; children are easily distracted, and focusing attention for an extended period of time is usually not a natural inclination. Consequently, a wide variety of measures have been, and continue to be, tried, ranging from physical punishment to a complete ignoring of the disruptive student. While no single approach has been proven to be consistently successful, Canter’s Behavioral Management Cycle seems to provide teachers with an effective strategy. It demands from the teacher a commitment to follow through, as each component of the cycle relies on the others. This process undertaken, the probable result is that the student will cease the disruptive behavior. The following case study illustrates exactly how this may occur.

Case Study

Debbie is a twelve year-old girl in Ms Foster’s sixth grade class. She is not in any way impaired by mental or physical handicaps, and is very much like the other boys and girls, in regard to appearance, intelligence levels, and socializing. Nothing sets her apart, in fact, other than a tendency to disrupt the class shortly after it begins. With Debbie, this takes the form of chronic whispering to those seated near to her; inattention to Ms Foster; and a physical restlessness in her seat. She often slumps back dramatically, then shifts into an extreme, upright position, and she drops books in a way clearly not due to clumsiness. Also, when she holds a book open, she will often strike it on the desk top repeatedly. In the past, Ms Foster has firmly told Debbie to stop communicating with the other students and “settle down” in her seat. Debbie typically complies, but only briefly, so it appears that an Assertive Discipline technique, as presented by Canter, may be the best means of solving this ongoing problem.

To begin with, Ms Foster should implement the first step, which is that of creating a positive atmosphere in regard to the discipline (Marzano, Marzano, Pickering, 2003, p. 34). Up to this point, all Debbie has heard from Ms Foster are reprimands clearly indicating displeasure, as well as Ms Foster’s threats of detention and other punitive measures. Debbie, then, is aware that her behavior is disagreeable to her teacher, and this has had no impact in reducing. On the contrary, it is likely that Ms Foster’s negative reactions encourage further disruptions; Debbie is, after all, having an effect, and this seems to energize her more in this regard. What Ms Foster must then do is reverse this climate of expectation and response. Rather than adopt a stern tone, for example, which must convey to Debbie that she is very displeased by the girl’s behavior, Ms Foster should make her statements in a way indicating no anger. This accomplishes two purposes. On one level, if it is true that Debbie’s disruptions are largely inspired by the negativity they generate, this motive is diffused. Then, the more casual, or certainly less severe, attitude of Ms Foster generates a greater figure of authority.

This step strongly relates to the second, which involves Ms Foster understanding the gradations within assertive behavior. As a teacher, she is likely aware of the assertion inherent in her position, which is usually unchallenged by the students. It is when challenges arise, as in Debbie’s case, that the exact form of assertive response of Ms Foster becomes evident, and this is the critical manifestation of it. For example, if Ms Foster’s tone or threats to Debbie betray anger or a hostile quality, she is in effect setting up a conflict beyond that already created by Debbie. She is evincing, moreover, a kind of weakness; if Debbie can elicit an emotional response, whatever Debbie is doing is then highly effective. Once Ms Foster accepts that what is occurring is in no way a personal matter, and that approaching it in an unemotional, calm, and businesslike manner both reflects her own professionalism and weakens Debbie’s antagonistic motives, she is far better equipped to retain control over the situation.

The next step to be followed is that of setting definite limits ((Marzano, Marzano, Pickering, 2003, p. 34). Here, there is a variety of options, but what may not be altered is Ms Foster’s commitment to carrying out her warnings, whatever form they may take. For example, if Debbie persists in distracting other students by whispering, Ms Foster must make it clear that this behavior will not be permitted again, in that a repetition of it will result in Debbie’s remaining after class that day for an additional twenty minutes of silent study. It is important here that the second step be at play, and that all warnings be administered in an even, non-hostile way. A potential problem with the making of even mild threats is that, as research indicates, they very often create an increase in undesirable behavior (Martella, Marchand-Martella, Nelson, & O’Reilly, 2011, p. 10). In these situations, presentation is essential. A disruptive student threatened by a teacher in a clearly emotional way will often “rise to the challenge”, the consequence of the punishment notwithstanding, because children are prone to wanting to impress their peers. When, conversely, the teacher issues the warning in a moderate tone betraying no personal reaction or distress, the student is then denied incentive to exacerbate the situation. Moreover, this step contains many layers, all of which the teacher may use to advantage, in both asserting control and in possibly eliminating the need for a warning or punishment. More exactly, a warning can only be generated by an awareness in the teacher that something is being done wrong, but what matters here is how the teacher conveys this awareness to the student. This is a “step within the step”; for example, before informing Debbie of her likely punishment for bothering other students again, Ms Foster, in the course of her teaching, should casually near Debbie’s desk. This is a tacit and potent way of letting Debbie know that her actions are noted. It evinces responsibility on the part of Ms Foster, as it also gives Debbie an opportunity to end the disruptive behavior without further consequences.

The fourth and fifth steps of the Canter Cycle are, at first sight, virtually rote. They call for the need to follow through completely on warnings given, and they stress that positive reinforcement, throughout all of the process, is essential. In regard to following through, it may be that this is where many teachers fail, ironically because the warning does not appear to be effective. If, for instance, Debbie reacts to the statement that her disruption has brought on the after-class study, she may easily become more disruptive, and this may lead Ms Foster to conclude that the punishment will be equally ineffective. What Ms Foster must do is still carry out the punishment because a failure to do so completely eviscerates her authority as teacher/leader. If she declines to follow through here, Debbie has every reason to believe any further threats will be similarly empty. Moreover, Ms Foster’s credibility as the leader of the class is then also badly eroded in the perceptions of the other students. Provided that punishments are reasonable and fair, it is critical that the teacher ensure their occurrence.

As noted, one component is emphasized in all five steps of the Canter Behavioral Management Cycle, and overtly expressed as the firth step itself: a positive reinforcement is employed whenever possible (Marzano, Marzano, & Pickering, 2003, p. 34). It may seem to a teacher that this is contrary to the concept of Assertive Discipline, but that is not the case. “Assertion” translates to nothing more than emphasis, and a positive emphasis may be far more instrumental in bringing about desired change than a negative one. For example, Debbie may be slamming her book down on her desk in a seemingly absentminded way, when the more obvious reality is that she is seeking to create a disturbance. Ms Foster may, as noted, walk nearer to Debbie’s desk as this occurs and, in the course of speaking to the class as a whole, either gently place a hand on the book or merely remain near to Debbie. Either approach is likely to dissuade Debbie from the activity, if temporarily. It would then be counterproductive for Ms Foster to praise or thank Debbie for this; simply, an end to objectionable behavior should not elicit gratitude from the teacher, for the teacher has been a victim of it. However, Ms Foster can address a question to Debbie that reinforces her presence as a student, and not as a disruptive element, and this must demonstrate a positive view taken of Debbie by Ms Foster. In this way, Debbie’s compliance in ending her poor behavior is acknowledged in a positive way, but not unduly appreciated. Then, this same mode of positive encouragement may be applied at any point in Ms Foster’s approach to Debbie. For example, Debbie, as noted, occasionally slumps dramatically in her seat, then reverts to an extreme, upright position, actions obviously performed to gain attention. When she does sit upright, Ms Foster may then make a remark about how attractive girls are when they observe proper posture while sitting. In this case, no negative attachment is given to the activity of Debbie; rather, she is being gently led to a place where she draws admiration.

Conclusion

Provided Ms Foster carefully observes the steps of the Canter Cycle, the likelihood is that Debbie will no longer be inclined to disrupt the class. There is, again, no precise formula to guarantee an end to disruptions in a classroom, the benefits of the cycle notwithstanding. Then, individual factors must alter each scenario. Certain teachers will inevitably turn more toward assertion as relying ion warnings and punishments, as others will favor more mild, and less directly confrontational, approaches. Similarly, students exhibit unacceptable behaviors for a variety of reasons. In this case, however, as is probably true of many student disruptions, it seems evident that Debbie’s behavior is a classic form of seeking attention. She uses her body and her books to make statements of dissatisfaction, as she attempts to engage other students in abetting the disruptions she desires. By accepting this for what it is and confronting it in a uniformly assertive, non-emotional, and consistent manner, the probability is that Ms Foster can remove the incentives for Debbie’s poor behavior, as she also reinforces through positive response her satisfaction in the absence of it.

References

Martella, R. C., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Nelson, J. R., & O’Reilly, M. (2011). Comprehensive Behavior Management: Individualized, Classroom, and Schoolwide Approaches.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. (2003). Classroom Management That Works: Research-Based Strategies for Every Teacher. Alexandria: ASCD.