Understanding Pupil Behaviour

Classroom Management Techniques for Teachers

Ramon Lewis

• Publisher: David Fulton Publishers
• Year: 2008
• ISBN:
  9781134014668
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Bildung
• Subtopic: Bildung Allgemein

This book describes a system of successful classroom behaviour management techniques developed by the author over more than twenty-five years. It outlines the difficulties confronting teachers trying to manage pupils' misbehaviour in schools and describes four types of pupil who can be helped to behave responsibly.

In Understanding Pupil Behaviour Ramon Lewis explains how pupils' behaviour can be categorised and how techniques can be introduced to deal with each category, however challenging the behaviour might be. The book goes on to provide a framework for long-term commitment by teachers to produce effective interactions with students.

Teachers, PGCE students and educational advisors looking for a handy guide to tried-and-tested behaviour management strategies, as well as those wanting a resource for delivering INSET training on the subject, will find all they need in this accessible book.

1
Introduction

Background

For the last 20 years I have been working in a number of countries with groups of up to 115 teachers at a time, developing programs designed to instruct them in how to help their pupils behave more responsibly in class. I have provided sessions for at least ten such groups a year; consequently, over that period I have interacted with at least 10000 teachers. One of the many issues these teachers discuss is whether pupils are becoming increasingly difficult to manage in schools.

To encourage reflection, I outline an authoritarian society in which one group is elevated and given the right and responsibility to control the behaviour of another. Historically this has meant that men controlled women, whites controlled blacks, employers controlled employees, adults controlled children and finally, teachers controlled pupils. I then ask the extent to which teachers agree or disagree that there has been a collapse of the authoritarian system in classrooms, with a corresponding deterioration in pupil behaviour and diminishing of respect for teachers and their authority.

Recently, more teachers have been saying that increasing numbers of parents and pupils are questioning their management decisions. It is no longer surprising for a Principal to receive a phone call from the parent of a child who has just been sent from the classroom and told to go to the Principal’s office, before said child even arrives at the office. These days, pupils are seen by teachers as more likely to question or demand justification for teachers’ judgments, and to refuse to cooperate with requests they see as ‘unfair’. A recent example concerns ‘Jason’.

Jason was sent to the Deputy Principal (DP) by a classroom teacher for talking repeatedly and arguing with the teacher. On receiving him, the DP said, ‘Jason, sit over there please, as there is something I need to do before we can discuss what happened.’ ‘It’s OK, I’ll stand,’ said Jason. The DP repeated quietly, ‘Jason, I’ll be a minute, so please sit over there. You’re blocking the corridor.’ ‘It’s OK, I’ll stand,’ replied Jason. Approaching Jason, leaning slightly towards him, looking strongly into his eyes and pointing to a seat, the DP said firmly, ‘Jason, sit over there!’ ‘It’s OK, I’ll stand,’ said Jason just as firmly. Moving even closer, the Deputy Principal responded loudly, ‘I said sit over there!’ ‘And I said, I’ll stand,’ Jason countered.

You can guess what happened next. The DP could be heard three streets away as he yelled angrily at Jason, calling him names and demanding that he do what he was told. It’s interesting to analyse this situation. Did the DP set his alarm the night before this incident thinking, ‘I must get a good night’s sleep so tomorrow I have plenty of energy to blast Jason in full view of at least five other school staff’? I don’t think so. When the DP spoke to me regarding the incident, he said how Jason made him angry. He never intended to yell. However, that means that Jason not only controlled an adult, he controlled a DP. Such power can be addictive. He will probably be back.

It is not always something as dramatic as a confrontation of this type that leads to teachers being controlled by pupils. Recently, I was invited to a non-government girls’ secondary college to conduct professional development sessions. I asked some of the teachers why they felt it necessary to invest one day of the staff’s time in professional development in classroom management. They told me that some of the girls were doing things they never used to. On asking what it was that they were doing, a teacher stated that a girl sometimes said, ‘No, I don’t want to!’

At the time I was a little bemused, because the previous day I had given professional development sessions at a school where pupils had smashed the Principal’s plate glass windows and written obscenities on the walls of the office. The pupils there also customarily told staff to go and … have relationships, procreate or whatever. Nevertheless, for the staff at the girls’ school, public resistance was uncommon and therefore not something with which they had had a lot of experience. Consequently, it was seen as challenging, and too often provoked a less than professional response from teachers. Between schools, there is substantial variation in what ‘sets off’ teachers.

This variation has also been noted in cross-national comparisons. In a study of classroom misbehaviour and management in Australia, China and Israel, my colleagues and I found that ‘even though Chinese teachers report as much “misbehaviour” in class as do Australian and Israeli teachers, the nature of the misbehaviour in Chinese classrooms may be less extreme’ (Lewis, Romi, Qui and Katz, 2005, p. 12).

The term ‘misbehaviour’ may be misleading. In truth, there are few types of behaviour that are ‘bad’ in all situations – even killing is not frowned on in times of war. Consequently, although ‘misbehaviour’ will be used at times in this book, ‘inappropriate behaviour’ is probably more accurate. Misbehaviour is not ‘off target’ as far as the pupil exhibiting it is concerned. Although it may be distracting, disruptive or disrespectful, the behaviour is often inappropriate only from the teacher’s perspective. As far as the misbehaving pupil is concerned, the behaviour is very much on target as it serves a purpose and meets a need. In most cases, the need is related strongly to a context. For example, a pupil who acts inappropriately, given that the focus of classrooms is learning, may be feeling bored, uninterested, excited, or even threatened.

The way in which many pupils provoke teachers is not by swearing at them or openly challenging them. Often their inappropriate behaviour takes the form of simply ignoring the teacher or quietly resisting the teacher’s attempts to manage them.

One recent example was typical. I was observing a teacher give an English class. I had done so a number of times and the pupils were already used to my presence. I observed two pupils (Jennifer and Deb) talking when they should have been listening. The teacher also saw it and told Deb, who was in the middle of speaking, to be quiet. Deb pretended not to hear, so the teacher repeated her demand in a louder voice. Deb then turned to the teacher and said that she had almost finished and it would just take a second. The teacher began to explain how Deb’s talking was interfering with the other children’s opportunity to hear. Halfway through her explanation, Jennifer, who had been taking part in the original conversation, said something to Deb, who then totally ignored the teacher, turned to her friend and continued the conversation. Naturally, the teacher was not amused, nor did she remain calm.

Some more experienced teachers find pupils’ provocative behaviour to be more stressful than do younger teachers. The main reason for this is that, historically, they had dealt with such behaviour by assertively demanding compliance – much like the DP’s approach to Jason described above. The trouble is, they never thought of their management techniques as techniques. It was more a case of who they were. When the techniques worked, they ‘worked’. That is, they were competent teachers. They were OK.

Now that the same technique no longer works, it means that they are incompetent. They are no longer OK. It is not just a case of ‘my techniques aren’t working, what else can I try?’ It is more akin to a crisis in psyche. The need for confidence regarding the impact of particular strategies is important to teachers given that the ability to manage pupils effectively is a critical component of their professional identity (McCormick and Shi, 1999). So critical is it that ‘disciplinarian’ ranks third, after ‘leader’ and ‘knowledge dispenser’, among the metaphors teachers give for their work (Goddard, 2000).

Authoritarian, democratic or what?

Teachers are not saying that all pupils reject the idea that teachers have the right and responsibility to manage the classroom behaviour of pupils. It seems, however, that the proportion rejecting this notion is increasing. In the words of a teacher at one of my professional development sessions, ‘many pupils know all about their rights but don’t seem to know much about how to act responsibly’.

It is not surprising that teachers are noticing that pupils seem more aware of their rights than their responsibilities. A study that examined the codes of pupil conduct of approximately 300 schools found that nearly all codes referred to the rights of pupils, and the majority of schools associated rights with responsibilities. However, a substantial minority (40%) made no such connection. There would appear to be an opportunity for a far greater emphasis on the link between rights and responsibilities (Lewis, 1999a).

Teachers, among others, have been instrumental in alerting pupils to their rights. According to theorists such as Maurice Balson, teachers have responded to a shift in community values by becoming more democratic in their outlook. For example, Balson (1992, p. 124) argues that in more authoritarian days:

The roles of both teacher and student were clearly defined as those of superior and inferior respectively and each knew what was expected of the other in each situation. With the weakening of the authoritarian system and the strengthening of democratic processes, the vertical continuum of superiority–inferiority gave way to a system of social equality, a relationship which respected the rights of individuals to decide for themselves rather than being imposed upon.

It looks as if this is the case in Australia, as all states have abolished corporal punishment and generally officially encourage parent and pupil participation in the formulation of school management policies (Slee, 1988). After reviewing the policies of three Australian states, Balson (1992, pp. 2–3) concludes: ‘It is clear that government policy guidelines are advocating, and taking firm steps in implementing, a democratic style of leadership in schools.’

However, while the rhetoric is that teachers have abolished or are changing from authoritarian relationships to democratic ones, and there appears to be a shift from more authoritarian to more democratic practices in classrooms, this observation is not sufficient to justify the conclusion that teachers have replaced their authoritarian beliefs with democratic ones. In my opinion, the reality is very different from the rhetoric, and this difference partly explains my reasons for writing this book.

Less authoritarian practices or more democratic ones?

It seems apparent that there are fewer authoritarian practices in schools today than there were 50 years ago. Why? Two alternative explanations are illustrated by an example from women’s liberation.

Fifty years ago, if a woman had a career it generally ran a poor second to her husband’s. It would be rare for her to spend substantial amounts of time outside the home to advance her career if it meant her husband would have to look after the children. Childcare was viewed as a woman’s job. These days that is far less likely. One could argue that men have reflected on the nature of their relationship with women and the rights of women, and have concluded that women are their equals and should be treated as such.

Alternatively, it is possible to argue that any change in the power distribution between men and women has been brought about by the latter’s unwillingness to be dominated as they once were. Consequently, men may have found that if they wish to be the dominant, or even a functioning, partner in a relationship they have to be more skilled and subtle in the way they go about it, giving a little bit of ground here and there in order to maintain their overall position.

The same arguments can also explain what may be currently happening in our classrooms. Perhaps teachers have been moved to revalue the rights of pupils and as a result are treating them in more democratic ways. Or perhaps it is as Balson (1992, pp. 5–3)6 argues:

Beginning with the Black Power movement, there was a series of similar social revolts including women’s liberation, the student power movement, and the industrial power movement. All had in common a refusal by the traditionally inferior group to accept a position of inferiority. Teachers found that they could no longer dominate students, while parents, males, whites and management found a similar resistance whenever they attempted to impose their values on children, females, coloureds and labour respectively.

My professional contact with teachers and consultants leads me to conclude that in many cases teachers are feeling forced to adopt a less authoritarian and more democratic style. Teachers say things like ‘pupils know their rights, they won’t let you order them, and they question everything’. When they talk about why they negotiate with pupils or allow them to participate in classroom decision-making it is often represented as a case of ‘have to’ rather than ‘want to’. This attitude seems to be more common among secondary teachers than primary (elementary). It is interesting to observe the way that teachers can unintentionally encourage pupils to resist their authority. They provide verbal and nonverbal cues that they don’t expect to be taken seriously as an authority in the classroom.

A common verbal sequence can sound like the following:

T: Excuse me, Ahmud, are you talking again? Didn’t I speak to you about talking a few minutes ago? Are you ever going to listen to me? How many times do I have to tell you?

Obviously these questions were not meant to be answered, although contemplating likely answers can be informative.

T: Excuse me, Ahmud, are you talking again?

A: Of course, you wouldn’t be speaking to me now if I weren’t.

T: Didn’t I speak to you about talking a few minutes ago?

A: Of course. What’s the matter? Got a memory like a goldfish?Going senile, sir?

T: Are you ever going to listen to me?

A: It depends. What are you going to do if I don’t?

T: How many times do I have to tell you?’

A: Hard one, Sir. How about 17? Twenty-three?

For the more challenging pupils such teacher questions reveal an under-assertiveness on the part of the teacher that is quickly recognised. The equivalent non-verbal situation relates to teachers standing side on and leaning away when giving long-winded assertive statements. Challenging pupils often have trouble with more than four words in a row, but, being somewhat visual in their learning style, very quickly size up the teacher who is defensive and who appears almost ‘on the run’.

In summary, many teachers seem to be seeking control techniques that work. They are as interested in assertive techniques such as those of Lee and Marlene Canter (1996), or to a lesser extent Bill Rogers (1992), as they are in the more democratic practices advocated by William Glasser (1969) and Balson (1992). If these teachers have to negotiate with pupils or punish them to stay in control, they will. If they have to allow pupils more say in determining class rules, or bribe them, they will. They appear willing to adopt democratic processes, but largely for authoritarian purposes.

The Post-Guru Syndrome

Many teachers using or supporting democratic techniques do not appear to have reflected on the rights of pupils, or to have concluded that pupils have a right to be treated more like equals. Likewise, teachers opting for a more assertive approach to classroom management do not seem to have reflected at length on the appropriateness of the associated techniques or on the learning theory on which the techniques are based. Teachers appear to be interested only in their efficiency. This is a major problem and helps to explain what I call the Post-Guru Syndrome, or PGS.

PGS strikes school staff somewhere between two weeks and six months after a well-known management guru has visited the school and convincingly demonstrated how children should be managed. He or she is an expert and has a ready answer for all questions. Because of their knowledge, commitment, and charisma, gurus are extremely impressive. In many cases, they can not only say what to do, but can also demonstrate it in classrooms. Their tricks appear to work perfectly. Nevertheless, after teachers implement these new techniques it is often only a short time before they become inconsistent in the implementation of them, and finally falter. At this point, the teachers frequently feel more powerless and despairing than they did before the guru’s visit.

It is interesting to reflect on a report by Lawrence Ingvarson (2005) that identified factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, pupil outcomes, and efficacy. He reported that, in general, one-day teacher professional development interventions have little overall long-term effect. It is my untested assumption that his conclusion is due to the different sorts of impact such days have on more effective and less effective teachers respectively. Teachers who are feeling competent and confident come away from guru-led days with a number of new and useful techniques, which they successfully integrate into their toolbox. On the other hand, if a teacher is struggling, any adoption of new practices is short-lived, leading to the syndrome described above. In summary, while some teachers improve their effectiveness, for others, it is reduced. Therefore, as noted by Ingvarson (2005), on average there is no overall positive impact on pupil behaviour and teachers’ management skills.

The general inability of management interventions to bring about a change in pupil behaviour has also been noted in the research literature. In Australia, Hart, Wearing and Conn (1995) evaluated the impact of a $1.25 million staff development program, called the Whole School Approach to Discipline and Student Welfare Program. Their evaluation involved the collection of data from over 4000 teachers in 86 schools. They reported that over the 12-month period that schools were involved in the intervention, there was significant improvement in management policies. However there was no corresponding change in the mean level of pupil on-task behaviour in classrooms.

On a personal level, I recall working with the staff of a secondary school. After a series of professional development sessions, these staff learnt how to deal with inappropriate behaviour assertively, slowly and steadily meeting any resistance or repeated offence with a more serious sanction. They also learnt how to actively catch children being good and reward such behaviour. Finally, they were shown how to defuse developing power struggles with pupils and to calmly offer them choices of behaving reasonably or accepting the consequences, meeting with them if necessary to explain their actions. After three weeks, the principal of the school rang me excitedly to say how the staff members were commenting on their calmness and control. She also said that some pupils had approached her and said something like, ‘what have you done to the teachers? They’re nicer.’ Nevertheless, less than a month later she rang requesting further professional development as teachers had regressed and were once again yelling at pupils.

The phenomenon of Post-Guru Syndrome can be further understood in the light of research on the role of metacognition in education (McInerney and McInerney, 2002; White and Gunstone, 1992). The area of metacognition, or ‘thinking about one’s thinking’, is being pursued by a group of researchers who are attempting to explain the difficulties inherent in making permanent changes to an individual’s ways of understanding the world. Although their work began in the area of science learning in secondary schools, the theory they propose is appropriate in explaining the effects of PGS. In doing so, it illuminates one of the major reasons for the gap between theory and practice highlighted earlier.

According to proponents of metacognition, learners develop schemata or frameworks for dealing with their knowledge or observations. In many cases these schemata are inconsistent with the state of knowledge in a given discipline and are the...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Teachers’ aggression towards misbehaving pupils
• 3 Developmental management in the classroom
• 4 Responding to pupils manifesting Category A behaviour
• 5 Responding to pupils manifesting Category B behaviour
• 6 Responding to pupils manifesting Category C behaviour
• 7 Responding to pupils manifesting Category D behaviour
• 8 The Developmental Management Approach (DMA)
• 9 Teacher support
• 10 Conclusion
• References