Practical classroom management strategies p. Negative reinforcement requires the child to work for the removal of an in-place, unpleasant consequence. The child's goal is to get rid of something that is unpleasant rather than to earn something that is desirable. In a negative reinforcement model, instead of working to earn a positive consequence, the child works to distance him- or herself from an aversive consequence.
When Students Won't Stop Talking | Cult of Pedagogy
Negative reinforcement is often used in the classroom to manage problem behaviors. Teachers inadvertently pay attention to a child who may not be complying and withdraw their attention contingent on the child's compliance. Surprisingly, this strengthens rather than weakens the noncompliant behavior. The next time a similar situation occurs, the child again will not comply until confronted with the aversive consequence i.
Negative reinforcement is often seductive and coercive for teachers. It works in the short run but in the long run is likely to strengthen rather than weaken the undesirable behavior. Many of the same variables that affect positive reinforcement-immediacy, frequency, consistencyaffect negative reinforcement. Behaviors that in and of themselves may not be negative become negative reinforcers when paired with certain events.
For example, a teacher approaching a child who is not working quickly becomes a negative reinforcer, even though the action itself, the teacher walking up to the child, does not have a negative connotation Favell, Clark and Elliott found that negative reinforcement was rated by teachers as the most frequently used classroom intervention.
Children with ADHD often experience negative reinforcement because of their temperament, which makes it difficult for them to complete tasks; their consequent learning history reinforces them for beginning but rarely for finishing. Toward Positive Classroom Discipline, 3rd ed. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc.
A number of simple, effective ways exist to deal with this problem. If you are using negative reinforcement, pay attention to the student until the assignment is completed. Although this too is negative reinforcement, it teaches the child that the only way to get rid of the aversive consequence i. As an example, you may move the student's desk next to your desk until that particular piece of work is completed. A second alternative involves the use of differential attention or ignoring. The term differential attention applies when ignoring is used as the negative consequence for exhibiting the undesirable behavior, and attention is used as a positive consequence for exhibiting the competing desirable behavior.
This is an active process in which the teacher ignores the child engaged in an off-task activity but pays attention immediately when the child begins working. Many teachers avoid interaction with the child when he or she is on task for fear of interrupting the child's train of thought. It is important, however, to reinforce the child when working so that a pattern of working to earn positive reinforcement rather than working to avoid negative reinforcement is developed. Secondary school teachers at times complain that if they ignore the adolescent with ADHD during an hour-long class, they never have the opportunity to pay positive attention as the student may never exhibit positive behavior.
Waiting, however, even if one has to wait until the next day, is more effective in the long run than paying attention to off-task behavior. You need to make a distinction between off-task behavior that disrupts and off-task behavior that does not disrupt. Differential attention works effectively for the latter. However, when a child is off task and disturbing his or her neighbor, you may find that being a negative reinforcer holds an advantage in stemming the tide of an off-task behavior that involves other students as well.
In part, we suggest that many factors other than teacher attention maintain and influence student behavior. Differential attention is a powerful intervention when used appropriately. Once the strategy of ignoring inappropriate behavior is employed, it must be continued despite escalation. If not, you run the risk of intermittently reinforcing the negative behavior, thereby strengthening its occurrence. For example, if you decide to use differential attention for a child's out-of-seat behavior but become sufficiently frustrated after the child is out of his or her seat for 10 minutes and respond by directing attention to the child, the behavior will be reinforced rather than extinguished.
The 10 minutes of ignoring will quickly be lost in the one incident of negative attention. If the teacher yells, "Sit down," the child has received the desired attention by persisting in a negative behavior. Madsen, Becker, and Thomas evaluated rules, praise, and ignoring for inappropriate behavior in two children in a typical second-grade classroom and in one child in a kindergarten class.
- When Students Won’t Stop Talking.
- Funny Animal..
- Im Bann des Elfenkönigs: Roman (Tairen Soul Saga 1) (German Edition)!
- The Ongoing Action Plan for Fine Parents!
- l’oeillet d’amure (French Edition)?
The results indicated that in the absence of praise, rules and ignoring were ineffective. Inappropriate behavior decreased only after praise was added. Specifically, whenever teacher approval was withdrawn, disruptive behaviors increased.
10 Things to Say Instead of ‘Stop Crying’
Overall, however, the research on differential attention with children with ADHD has been inconsistent. Rosen and colleagues evaluated the results of praise and reprimands in maintaining appropriate social and academic behaviors in second- and third-grade children with ADHD. Children's on-task behavior and academic performance deteriorated when negative feedback was withdrawn but not when positive feedback was omitted. Students' on-task behavior remained high, even after 9 days of no praise from the teacher.
Acker and O'Leary demonstrated that the use of only reprimands for behavior management without positive consequences does not lead to dramatic improvement in on-task performance when praise is added.
- Behavior Modification in the Classroom | LD Topics | LD OnLine?
- 5 Common Teaching Practices I’m Kicking to the Curb!
- Report on Human Rights Practices Country of Jordan.
- United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM): Guidance for Administrative Furloughs!
- My Funny Dad, Harry;
- The 2-Minute Action Plan for Fine Parents.
- Operant Conditioning;
- What NOT to do When Your Child is Crying;
- Coco the Homeless Labradoodle.
- Mountain High Valley Low.
- Positive Discipline 101: How to Discipline a Child in a Way That Actually Works.
Dramatic deterioration in on-task behavior was observed when reprimands were subsequently withdrawn, even though the teacher was still delivering praise for appropriate behavior. Children with ADHD perform as well as typical children with a continuous schedule of reinforcement but perform significantly worse with a partial schedule of reinforcement e. In addition, the opposite is also true: A large amount of punishment can negatively affect emotional development and self-esteem. Through modeling, observation, and then imitation, children develop new behaviors.
Modeling can be as simple as having a child watch another child sharpen a pencil. By watching the model, a child can learn a new behavior, inhibit another behavior, or strengthen previously learned behavior e. To use modeling effectively, you must determine whether a child has the capacity to observe and then imitate the model. In classroom settings, a student's response to modeling is influenced by three factors: Children are more likely to respond to teacher modeling when they view their teachers as competent, nurturing, supportive, fun, and interesting.
Children are also more likely to imitate behavior that results in a positive consequence. Younger children have been reported as more frequently imitating others than older children. Children consistently model someone whom they value or look up to. They also imitate the behavior of a same-sex child more often than that of a different-sex child. They model someone whom they perceive as successful and socially valued regardless of whether the teacher perceives that child as successful and socially valued.
Finally, if a child observes a model being reinforced or punished for certain behavior, this influences the likelihood that the child will then model that behavior. Modeling is a powerful tool, often underutilized by teachers. When teachers are cheerful and enthusiastic, their attitudes are contagious. When they are respectful of students, students respect each other.
When teachers are patient, fair, consistent, and optimistic, their students exhibit these traits as well. Teacher behavior sets the tone for the classroom environment. In , Kaplan described a ripple effect in transactions between teachers and misbehaving students that affected not only those students but also the entire classroom. Teachers who were firm reduced the problem behaviors both from the first child who misbehaved and from those students who saw the initial problem behavior. When teachers enforced rules, the ripple effect worked in their favor.
When they failed to follow through with rules, the ripple effect worked against them. Furthermore, the misbehaving student's social standing in the classroom was also an issue. When teachers successfully managed the behavior of high-status troublemakers, their control tended to benefit the entire classroom. Likewise, the ripple effect when high-status offenders were not managed increased negative behaviors among others.
Finally, when managing a disruptive behavior, it is important to focus on tasks and behaviors rather than on approval. In the latter situation, teachers may focus on their relationship with the disruptive student when trying to get that student to behave. This strategy, unfortunately, is usually ineffective over the long term. Waiting for the appropriate target behavior or something close to that behavior to occur before reinforcing the behavior is referred to as shaping. Shaping can be used to establish behaviors that are not routinely exhibited.
Walker and Shea described the steps to effective shaping:. Any behavior that remotely resembles the target behavior should initially be reinforced. Prompts can be used and then faded. Shaping can be used for all kinds of behavior in the classroom, including academics. Steps toward successive approximation, however, must be carefully thought out; otherwise, behaviors that are not working toward the desired goal may inadvertently be reinforced.
Punishment suppresses undesirable behavior but may not necessarily eliminate it McDaniel, In some cases, suppression may be of short duration, and when the punishment is removed, the behavior may reoccur. Punishment can involve presentation of an unpleasant consequence or the loss of a pleasurable consequence following the occurrence of the undesirable behavior. Punishment is designed to reduce the probability that the behavior that precedes it will reoccur.
Although punishment is an efficient way of changing behavior, it can become seductive and reinforcing for classroom teachers and can be overused. The greatest problem with punishment is that it does not provide an appropriate model of acceptable behavior.
Furthermore, in many classrooms, punishment is accompanied by an emotional response from the teacher. Although most teachers consider punishment as involving a reprimand, time-out, or loss of an activity such as recess, in many classrooms, physical punishment designed to embarrass children into submission is still used, even though it has a high emotional cost. Shea and Bauer made a strong case for minimizing the use of punishment, especially more severe punishment, such as embarrassment or spanking, because these interventions are likely to erode self-esteem and further impair an already strained teacher-student relationship.
When punishments are used, these guidelines should be followed:. Loss of the privilege during which the inappropriate behavior is exhibited is fair. Warning, nagging, threatening, and debating, however, should be avoided. In other words, act, don't yak. Punishment can exert a complex, negative effect in the classroom and on teacher-student relationships. Furthermore, when less punishing interventions are combined with positive reinforcers, they tend to be effective in the long run. In , Anderson and Brewer reported that teachers using dominating behaviors of force, threat, shame, and blame had classrooms in which children displayed nonconforming behavior at rates higher than in classrooms in which teachers were more positive and supportive.
Personal hostility from teachers and punishments in an atmosphere containing minimal positive reinforcement and emotional warmth are unproductive. To be effective, punishment must be related in form to the misbehavior. It must be consistent, fair, and just; must be delivered impersonally; and must not involve the assignment of extra work that is unrelated to the act for which the student is being punished.
Opportunities must also be offered for the student to exhibit and receive reinforcement for more appropriate behavior. Reprimands are the most frequent punishment used by teachers. Contacting parents, losing privileges, and time-outs come next in frequency. Reprimands include a statement of appropriate alternative behavior.
Students respond well to short reprimands followed by clear, directed statements. Effective reprimands are specific, do not humiliate the child, are provided immediately, and are given with a firm voice and controlled physical demeanor. They are often backed up with a loss of privilege, including a statement encouraging more appropriate behavior.
Attempt to describe the behavior that you observe, rather than how you feel about the certain behavior. Instead of telling a student that he or she is rude for interrupting, make a statement such as, "You have interrupted me three times. I will answer your question as soon as I finish the explanation. Jeremy had complained to his mother that his teacher was always yelling at him to keep still or be quiet.
Feeling particularly upset one afternoon, Jeremy wrote his fifth-grade teacher the letter presented in Figure 4. Fortunately, after reading this letter, his teacher understood that yelling was an ineffective way to deal with Jeremy's behavior. Abramowitz, O'Leary, and Futtersak compared the effects of short and long reprimands in an alternating treatment design.
Over the course of the study, short reprimands resulted in significantly lower off-task rates than long reprimands. Prudent reprimands that are immediate, unemotional, brief, and consistently backed up with consequences are clearly preferred to lengthy reprimands that are delayed, loud, emotional, and not matched to consequences. Abramowitz and O'Leary suggested that immediate reprimands result in much lower rates of off-task interactions with peers but do not change rates of off-task behaviors that do not involve peers.
The authors hypothesized that non-interactive, off-task behavior may be an avoidance response to difficult schoolwork.
Interactive, off-task behaviors may be reinforced by peer attention and modified more effectively by the timing of feedback. When misbehaviors followed with reprimands versus ignoring are evaluated, however, reprimands are not particularly effective in managing off-task behavior.
Reprimanding every incident of off-task behavior did not prove to be any more effective than reprimanding one quarter of misbehavior incidents. In this study, children were exposed to teachers who delivered either consistently strong reprimands from the outset with immediate brief and firm close proximity to the child or reprimands that increased in severity over time.
Results supported the hypothesis that gradually strengthening initially weak reprimands was less effective for suppressing off-task behavior than the immediate introduction and maintenance of full-strength reprimands. Response cost is a punishing technique that translates to the equivalent of losing what you possess or have earned.
Earned consequences are considered reinforcers. When they are lost, this is response cost. The child places in jeopardy what he or she has earned as the result of inappropriate behavior. In many situations, response cost in the form of a penalty or fine is combined with positive reinforcement. To be effective, more reinforcers must be earned than lost.
Response cost is often used to reduce off-task behavior and improve compliance with directions. In a traditional model of response cost, many children with ADHD may immediately go bankrupt. Alternative systems have included adjusting the ratio of the number of reinforcers provided for each positive behavior versus those lost for negative behavior as well as increasing the number of opportunities to exhibit positive behavior and receive reinforcement. In the former case, six points might be provided for the appropriate behavior but only one point lost for the negative behavior.
In the latter case, increased opportunities are provided, making it easier for children to earn a greater number of points, thereby decreasing their chances of going bankrupt when they exhibit negative behavior. Under this system, the child is initially provided with a maximum number of points or tokens to be earned during a school day and must work throughout the school day to retain those reinforcers.
Some impulsive children seem to work harder to keep their plates full rather than attempt to fill an empty plate. Possibly because they have a long history of not working well for positive reinforcement, a system in which they are provided with all of their reinforcement initially and must work to keep, a response cost system may appear more motivating or attractive to them. A substantial body of research documents the effectiveness of response cost in the classroom Kazdin, The response cost procedure resulted in significant increases in on-task behavior and academic performance.
Stimulant medication was notably less effective. Pfiffner and colleagues found that response cost in the form of lost recess was more effective than reprimands in maintaining on-task behavior. Response cost has also been compared with reward alone. Both conditions resulted in a twofold increase in academic output or reduction in inappropriate classroom behavior and a corresponding increase in on-task behavior. A response cost system can be as simple as chips in a cup, marks on a chart, or marbles in a jar.
The Attention Training System is a remote-controlled counter that sits on the student's desk. This device provides the student with a digital readout showing the number of points he or she has earned. Using a remote control device, points can be added or removed from anywhere in the classroom, contingent on the child's on- and off-task behavior.
By not having to move within physical proximity of the child, the teacher avoids becoming a negative reinforcer when the child is off task. DuPaul, Guevremont, and Barkley demonstrated the efficacy of response cost contingencies for managing classroom behavior and academic productivity using the Attention Training System. Response cost contingencies led to marked improvements on task-related attention and a reduction in ADHD symptoms during work time. The number of students in the program must be manageable, and highly motivating rewards must be provided.
Response cost can be difficult to implement.
Talking Out Loud Is Not the Same as Thinking Aloud
Though it may be as simple as chips in a cup placed on the student's desk, many teachers inadvertently become negative reinforcers when they approach the child to remove a consequence, thereby building failure into a potentially useful model. When students who become bankrupt quickly or who are oppositional from the start are placed in a group contingency situation with built-in failure e. What's more, the clothespin system had led to little change in her students' behavior; in fact, the children lost interest in the system—and, soon after, in learning.
Instead of fewer challenging behaviors, Nancy seemed to be dealing with more. Maybe it's just not the right system , she thought. As a new teacher, she was granted release time to observe teachers at work in other classrooms, so she decided to visit the room of a veteran kindergarten teacher known around the school for her kindness and gentle nature. On observation, however, Nancy found that the teacher's classroom-management system belied her reputation. At the beginning of the school year, she had invited her students to bring their favorite stuffed animals with them to keep in class.
The stuffed animals were displayed on a shelf, each one labeled with the name of its owner.
Whenever students misbehaved, they were to walk to the shelf and turn their stuffed animals around to face the wall. The looks on students' faces after doing this displayed heartbreaking sadness and anger. Nancy removed the clothespins from her classroom the very next day.
She also got rid of the time-out chair. It had dawned on her that the "consequences" she was meting out were actually punishments— and punishments don't teach, they just create more distance between teachers and students. Punishments rely on our ability as adults to leverage an unequal power relationship over children; it puts children in their places by reminding them who's really in charge. Students who are punished will come up with a list of reasons why they are the victims and will channel their negative emotion toward those doing the punishing.
Instead of reflecting on their behavior or making amends, they will plot how to avoid detection the next time. As Toner notes, punishment thwarts the development of empathy in children, who learn instead to look out for themselves regardless of their effects on others. Most troubling of all, punished children learn from adult examples that exerting power is the way for them to get what they want—a notion diametrically opposed to the social and emotional well-being we are trying to foster.
It took several years, but Nancy eventually developed new tools to use with students when their behavior proved problematic. She began to spend more time establishing and teaching rules and setting expectations, structuring conversations with students that strengthened relationships and helped develop communication skills, and learning new ways to de-escalate disruptive events. Most importantly, she learned and continues to learn that problematic behaviors signal a student's lack of skills for responding appropriately to difficult situations.
Just as students need teachers to teach them grammar and math, they need us to teach them how to respond properly to events. Children who are habitually criticized, humiliated, or shamed internalize negative feelings about themselves that hinder their healthy development. By contrast, children accustomed to loving support and guidance are much more likely to become healthy and productive citizens. The traditional consequences-and-rewards system of discipline common in many classrooms is not resulting in children who are prepared to learn.
It's fine to offer rewards "just because," regardless of whether students "deserve" them or not. In fact, noncontingent reinforcement can actually help to prevent problematic behaviors: Have you ever noticed the way kindergarten teachers will sometimes place the most attention-seeking children on their laps when reading aloud to the whole class? This is a classic example of noncontingent reinforcement employed to preempt any disruption. Teachers use noncontingent reinforcement regularly as they build the culture and climate of their classrooms.
At any moment in any class, a student may become inattentive or distracted and need to be reengaged. When you have 30 people or more in the same room, order is continuously established, lost, and restored again. People who are not educators marvel at teachers' ability to turn dozens of children into a cohesive unit. When the class is really rolling, we recognize that we're teaching with a sense of urgency that our students share. Of course, things can and will go wrong—our brief attempt at redirecting an inattentive student won't work, or students will refuse to follow our clear directions.
Being human, we might find ourselves lapsing into sarcasm or speaking more harshly than necessary. For a minority of teachers, responding in this way becomes an unfortunate habit, turning them into "the mean teachers" whom students know to avoid lest they be run roughshod over.
These are the teachers whose students are often lined up near the playground fence because they've been docked a few minutes of recess for misbehaving—a public humiliation reminiscent of the pillory in medieval town squares. Perhaps you count such teachers as colleagues—and perhaps you disagree with their approach to discipline but feel that it's not your place to say anything. Unfortunately, the actions of a single teacher can negatively affect an entire school's climate: To be clear, we don't believe that teachers who use shame and humiliation as tools are intent on crushing the spirits of their students; we simply believe that they've mistakenly bought into the conventional wisdom that exalts punishment as an effective means of altering behavior.
We are not talking here about necessary corrective discipline but, rather, of punishments specifically intended to make children "feel guilty, humiliated, or fearful in an attempt to get them to change their behavior" Hall, , p. Many of us have been on the receiving end of such punishments. For example, Doug recalls the time one of his high school teachers told him, in front of the whole class, that he'd only ever be able to work at a fast-food restaurant for the rest of his life; when he reacted with anger, the teacher punished him for it.
For her part, Nancy can recall being spanked by her 1st grade teacher for neglecting to put her completed worksheet in the right place on the windowsill. No doubt the teachers in these two examples thought they were doing us a favor with their punishments—teaching us lessons that would stay with us in life. Decades later, the only lesson we learned was to associate these teachers' classrooms with feelings of anger and fear.
Given the modeling with which they're presented, it's no surprise that many children learn to resolve problems themselves using rewards and consequences—through bullying, for instance. As educators, we invest a lot of attention in teaching students to refrain from hurting their classmates. But when we misuse our power trying to do this, we map a path for students to follow that is the opposite of what we intend. Cyberbullying is one such path that has become increasingly popular among students.
Unwelcome as they are, the swift repercussions of digital cruelties have had at least one positive outcome: It's becoming less common to encounter educators who associate bullying exclusively with the rites of childhood or who dismiss it as a gender-based trait "You know how girls are," "Boys will be boys".
Exposure to the effects of bullying behavior has led to parents and students demanding that educators intervene when it occurs. For our part as educators, we need to examine our daily interactions with students and ask ourselves whether we ourselves allow a form of bullying to occur in the name of discipline. Rates of suspension and expulsion have increased dramatically since schools began implementing zero-tolerance ZT policies in the mids. These policies evolved from the GunsFree Schools Act, which required districts to expel any student in possession of a weapon at school.
In short order, many districts expanded the policy to cover a variety of non-weapons-related violations, including possession or use of drugs and alcohol, physical altercations, damage to school property, and multiple violations within a single academic year Hoffman, Today, the list of offenses for which some schools have ZT policies in place includes truancy, tobacco use, and a cluster of behaviors described as "defiance. Another troubling aspect of ZT policies is the fact that they disproportionally affect certain demographic subgroups of students.
Black and Native American children, students with disabilities, and males of all backgrounds are overrepresented in national suspension and expulsion data Hoffman, ; Jones, ; see Figure 1. If you are a black or Native American child with a disability, the likelihood that you will be suspended or expelled from school is astronomical—25 percent for boys and 20 percent for girls. Suspension and Expulsion Data Released by the U. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights in Black students are three times more likely to be suspended or expelled than white students.
Females of color black, Native American, and Native Alaskan are suspended at a rate of 12 percent, compared to 2 percent for white girls. Students with disabilities represent 12 percent of the school-age population, but comprise 58 percent of students placed in seclusion and 75 percent of those who are physically restrained. Black children represent 18 percent of preschool enrollment, but 48 percent of preschool children receiving more than one out-of-school suspension. By contrast, white students represent 43 percent of preschool enrollment, but only 26 percent of preschool children receiving more than one out-of-school suspension.
Boys represent 54 percent of preschool enrollment, but 79 percent of preschool children suspended once and 82 percent of those suspended multiple times. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. Civil rights data collection: As the data in Figure 1. It's hard for us to imagine what violations three- and four-year-olds might commit that would warrant an extended removal from the learning environment.
Many caring administrators have expressed frustration at board policies that require them to mete out such harsh punishments; their professional training has taught them to see the child first—to respond in ways that teach, not punish. Policies that mandate exclusionary punishments rob educators of the ability to make child- and family-centered decisions. More than anyone, teachers understand how vital it is for students to be present in class each day.
When we suspend and expel, we undercut our own efforts to boost attendance. When we speak of chronic absences defined as missing more than 10 percent of the school year , how often do we consider the extent to which existing discipline policies have made the problem worse? According to Skiba , 95 percent of out-of-school suspensions are for nonviolent infractions such as chronic tardiness or "willful defiance.
The negative effects of suspension and explusion are not limited to students who directly receive the punishment. In a large-scale study of exclusionary discipline practices, Perry and Morris found that "higher levels of exclusionary discipline within schools over time generate collateral damage, negatively affecting the academic achievement of nonsuspended students in punitive contexts" p. In other words, when schools rely on exclusionary disciplinary policies, the achievement of all students is negatively affected.
We all understand the need for safe schools—not only physically but psychologically as well. Too often, exchanges in schools serve to tear people down—think of the girl who is shunned in the lunchroom by students she thought were friends or the boy receiving anonymous messages on social media urging him to harm himself. As adults, we shake our heads and tell each other that, unpleasant though it is, bullying is a natural developmental phase. If a child or parent challenges us to intervene, we might bring the parties involved together to try forging a conclusion, but most of the time we're left with the lingering feeling that the conflict isn't over for good.
When I read the examples of students being disrespectful in the article you referenced , I pictured white kids. In fact, throughout the whole article, I was picturing kids who have few rules at home and are kind of coddled by parents. And in my mind, those kids were privileged and white. So the notion that there was an underlying message of enforcing cultural norms never occurred to me. I would like to hear what others think about this. I have taught in title 1 schools my entire life.
You keep bring up race in education. I have never worked at a school with only a certain race base. Poverty is a cycle and not race based. The school I teach at all students are held to the same educational standard, despite race, economic background , learning style, ect. All students should respect the teacher, you are there to help them.
Not to judge them. My point was that we all read things from different perspectives. The fact that Elicia saw culturally insensitive, white-centric teaching in that article made me think she was picturing a more racially diverse class of students, and I can see how this would result in a different interpretation. For starters, I would recommend you read this article , and listen to my podcast interviews with Monique Morris and Dena Simmons. The way that I read the article on disrespect is that whatever the particular culture finds respectful or disrespectful needs to be taught to the students.
I moved around a lot growing up including outside of the United States and learned about other cultures ideas of respect and disrespect. It is very possible for a student to have no clue they are being disrespectful if they are from a different area or if they are a student who needs to be specifically taught how to socialize well with others. However, I thought the main idea could be taken and adapted to any culture. I always appreciated when someone explained to me what not to do or to do when I moved to a new culture. Thanks for bringing up your thoughts and ideas. I found them interesting and helped me look at the article from another point of view.
Why is everything about white privilege? Quit dragging it down, when all we really should be looking at is the concept of disrespect. When all children grow up they have to function in society based on ONE level of respect; not various ideologies. Golden Rule is my motto. Treat others as you want to be treated. The respect will follow. Enjoyed your listening to your interview with Michael Linsin.
Some good points and suggestions. My school has many second language learners and we use peer tutoring as a highly effective linguistic accommodation. So many times a student may ask her assigned peer tutor for help during direct teaching time. This could lead to others talking. Do you have any suggestions for managing this situation? This is a problem on our entire intermediate floor. Teachers have taught and retaught expectations, some more than others, and yet the problem persists. We have students in each room with just enough desks to accommodate them and little to no room for anything else.
They are on top of each other ALL day long, no matter what room they are in. When permitted to talk in group or partner work, volume then becomes an issue. I feel crushed this year even though it is my third. I will give an honest attempt today at these steps and hope it bares fruit because the way things are going now are so soul crushing. Even as a veteran teacher, I was always needing to re-examine my management, whether it was based on my group of kids, changes in my practice, or just whatever it was that was working or not in any given situation.
Having said that, there are some foundational things to put in place that can be highly effective. This post has some great suggestions. Be patient with yourself — remember to make any changes in small chunks. And try to find those marigolds for some possible support! I just started my teaching career this year and this is perfectly helping me to gain control of a class and manage their behavior.
My only concern with this is the dynamic of the classroom. I disagree with this statement. If a teacher is utilizing a variety of strategies and making the appropriate accommodations, then the students are choosing to fail themselves. I have 5 bells a day. This past year I had 4 classes where I carried out my classroom policies and rarely had issues. This was not the case for my other class.
Many have ADHD and other disorders that make it hard for them to focus and not act out. It makes the classroom become very difficult to control when several students literally cannot help it and the documentation protects them from discipline. I respect all reasons of course, but it really strains the classroom dynamic, especially when you have 2 other adults in the room and have to maintain inclusion by keeping all students in the classroom.
I get one or two classes like this every year and it becomes very challenging to handle. When students do not do the work, they should fail and be held back because they chose to fail. That should not be a part of their evaluation. Thanks for reading my concern. I know veteran teachers that have had rough classes the entire year. You bring up some very real concerns and sound like a teacher who does all she can to help her students, especially under some very challenging circumstances.
I think Michael Linsin would agree that students, not the teacher, are responsible for their behavior. My classroom management started out really strong, expectations were taught, practiced, and enforced. Then things got comfortable, winter came along, kids got antsy, and I got a bit more laid back. Before I knew it, the class was a bit more out of control. I grew more frustrated and wanted to blame them for talking too much.
After all, they knew what they were supposed to do. But in reality, I agree it was on me to take some steps back and reteach expectations. When I did this, things got back on track. It sounds like you already do these kinds of things. Some of the issues you brought up go beyond the scope of this post but would make for good discussion.
After re-entering the classroom following 15 years running newspapers, I am struggling to maintain control of my classroom. This is not an area in which I had issues previously.