MLE Essay M. J .

Perkins

1. Introduction
There are two ways in which behaviour can be dealt with in classrooms
preventative or reactionary. While the prevention of unproductive
behaviour should be every teachers desired aim, it is not always possible.
As such, it is important to know a variety of strategies within both
categories, thus not only planning for prevention, but also being equipped
to react when necessary. This essay can, and will, only scratch the surface
of possible strategies in managing a learning environments.
The structure, indicated through subheadings for sections 3 and 4, is
based on Williamss (2012) 4S framework. Through this method it allows
strategies and ideas to be highlighted which directly relate to one of the
four domains. A variety of different strategies will be outlined, all based
around the three principles set out below. The approach to the behavioural
management aspect of teaching outlined here clearly falls into the
category of constructivist and authoritative.

2. Guiding principles
Three course principles from the University of South Australia Managing
Learning Environments (MLE) course Educ 5182 have been identified as
being particularly relevant to guiding the discussion in this essay and the
intended approach to managing learning environments outlined here. By
no means is this to be seen as a dismissal of the other course principles,
but simply a selection to ensure a more focused approach here.
Firstly, Effective teaching practice should respect children's human
dignity (Sullivan 2016a) is a principle which should underpin any
approach to teaching. All teaching should respect this dignity and any
teaching practice needs to have this idea at its core. One might question
why a childs human dignity has to be mentioned specifically. However,
considering that an education advisor to the government, Kevin Donnelly,
publicly advocated corporal punishment in schools as recently as 2014
(ABC 2014) it becomes clearer why such specificity is necessary.
Secondly, Self-regulation is preferable to external control as it builds
learner capacity (Sullivan 2016a) should be the ultimate aim of classroom
management (Bohn et al. 2004; Good and Bophry 2008; see also

Zimmerman 2000). By teaching children to self-regulate fewer incidents

are likely to occur and more time can be spent on teaching the curriculum.
Finally, Learning environments that are predictable, in which expectations
are clear and scaffolding is employed best support students' pro social
behaviour (Sullivan 2016a) is a principle which fulfils the three needs of
competency, relatedness and autonomy discussed by Kohn (2006, pp. 910). Clear routines and expectations lead to a reduction in frustration and
off-task behaviour (Cothran, Kulinna and Garrahy 2003) for both the
students and teachers. Much of the discussion here has this principle at its
base.

3. Approach to promoting productive behaviours

Student and Self

This is the only section of the essay, which concentrates on two domains
of Williams (2012) 4S model. It is the interaction and resulting
relationships between these two animate domains which has strong
implications for the behaviour in classrooms (Williams 2012). In fact, Hoy
and Weinstein (2006), argue that from the students perspective one
aspect of being a good teacher is someone who is able to build good
relationships with students based on trust. This is where a teacher who
treats students with dignity (Charles 1999, p. 205) will be at an
advantage, as they are more likely to gain students trust and build strong
relationships.
In a similar vein, by using a constructivist approach, as defined by
Woolfolk and Margets (2013, p. 322), it is the students, their welfare and
their learning which is at the heart of the teachers planning and actions.
In Curwin and Mendlers (in Charles 1999, p. 203) words Schools exist for
students, not for teachers. Apart from building trust, this approach also
ensures that students individual needs are taken into account, with
consideration to the students ability, background and personality. This
ensures the delivery of quality curriculum while maintaining high
expectations of all students. The effects of paying attention to and
implementing these two aspects of the student-self interaction cannot be
underestimated in the way they promote productive behaviours in the
classroom (see Charles 1999; Cothran, Kulinna and Garrahy 2003; Hoy
and Weinstein 2006).
Systems

Two specific aspects of systems will be discussed here, routines and

classroom standards. Part of the preparation a teacher needs to carry out,

especially at the start of the year, is considering routines that will help
with the day to day running of the class. It is through routines that many
problem behaviours outlined by Good and Brophy (2008, Ch. 3) can be
prevented. Routines are an essential part of an authoritative teaching
style (McDonald 2013, pp. 122-123 in particular), in that they set clear,
and high, expectations, leading to self-regulation, and help keep students
safe, by preventing accidents and conflict situations for example (Bohn,
Roehrig and Pressley 2004). Among such routines, which need to be
thoroughly taught and practised, might be the transition between lessons,
entering and packing up class, or accessing materials.
Another system that should be put in place early in the academic year,
although there is some flexibility in this, is the introduction of classroom
standards (Bohn, Roehrig and Pressley 2004; Good and Brophy 2008, Ch.
3; McDonald 2013, in particular 116-120). It is essential that this is done in
conjunction with the students in a power with scenario (GroundwaterSmith; Ewing and Le Cornu 2015, p. 236; Sullivan 2016c). It has been
argued (McDonald 2013; Jones 2015) that students are more likely to
adhere to standards they agreed upon and accept possible consequences
should they not adhere to these standards. Further, such an approach
signals to the class that their teacher values their thoughts and opinions.
These are just two elements of the systems domain which are essential in
building student self-regulation and promoting productive behaviours.
Setting

A classroom which promotes productive behaviours has to be learning

focused, but not in a dry academic way it should be colourful and warm.
As much of curriculum delivery should be focused on group work, therefor
building pro-social behaviour, tables might best be organised in groups,
ensuring that there is enough free floor space for other activities.
(Groundwater-Smith, Ewing and Le Cornu 2015, pp. 112-117, Sullivan
2016c). It also needs to be functional in that it allows students and
teachers to move freely and have designated areas for whole class
activities and allow creativity (as discussed in Educ 5182 workshop). Not
only does this approach aid engaged learning, but also remove possible
zones of conflict, or unproductive behaviour, through overcrowding and
teacher accessibility and give students a sense of ownership over their
classroom.

4. Approach to managing unproductive behaviours

Self

Possibly one of the most important aspects to managing unproductive

behaviours is related to how the teacher views the students specifically,
whether a teacher has trust in their students or not. It is this positive or

negative view which will directly influence the way the respective student
is perceived and dealt with (Kohn 2006; Sullivan et al 2014). If a teacher
has created a warm and safe environment, and gained the students trust,
it might be argued that this would count for little if the trust does not go
both ways. With a positive outlook of the students and their behaviour it
can be assumed that this would lead to the application of positive
strategies, thus respecting the students dignity, to resolve unproductive
behaviours.
In situations where unproductive behaviours take place, the teacher has a
whole array of possible positive approaches to resolve the situation, too
many to be discussed here. Among these might be simple non-verbal cues
such as teacher proximity or eye contact (Lyons 2015, p. 49), or verbal
communication. When communicating with the students it is essential to
always maintain a students dignity (Charles 1999, pp. 202-203), if
necessary, speak in private. Using i-messages and a polite tone is
generally recommended for such communications (Lyons, Ford and Slee
2015; Jones and Jones 2015). Rogers (2012) argues, in relation to in-class
public communication that when addressing behaviours it is always the
primary issue that should remain the focus, while tactically ignoring
secondary behaviour, such as eye-rolling. This approach prevents an
escalation of the situation and ensures the students dignity, despite the
public nature of the exchange.

Student

Interestingly, Sullivan (2016b) found that within a given year 40% of

students were engaged in unproductive behaviour. The majority of these
were simply disengaged. As with the approaches a teacher might use to
deal with unproductive behaviour, the reasons for such behaviour are
many. Students might be bored because the lesson content is above their
current learning capacity and outside of their zone of proximal
development (ZDP) (Woolfolk and Margetts 2013), it might also be too
easy for them, and they are not challenged because it is again outside of
their ZDP.
The relationships and interactions within the class, be this teacher-student
or student-student can also play into this, or possibly even to gain some
form of control (Charles 1999, p. 203). In the long term a teacher might
have to review the delivery and content of the lessons to get students to
be more engaged, or build stronger relationships with these students,
however, in the short term, strategies, such as the ones outlined above,
need to be applied.

Systems

Apart from using systems, such as communally agreed class standards, to

prevent unproductive behaviour as discussed above, they also play an
important part when re-engaging students or managing their behaviour.
Through systems, especially when it is in the range of disruptive
behaviour, students can be reminded of these standards. This directly
relates once again to the idea of self-regulation, as the students are asked
to live up to the standards they set themselves (Jones and Jones 2010, p.
306). As the expectations within a system are clear and because the
teacher should trust the students it is also easy to remind students of
these expectations in a non-confronting way, making the behaviour the
issue and not the student (Williams 2012).
In cases where consequences become necessary, ideally after the student
has been given a choice (Jones and Jones 2010, p. 308), it has to be
ensured that these are proportionate and ideally be restorative (Williams
2012). Also, some of these consequences might have been agreed upon
along with the class standards. When speaking about proportionate
consequences there remains the issue of removing a student from the
class. This should be avoided unless all other means have been
exhausted. Not only does research suggest that removing students from
class is ineffective, but can be counter-productive (Osher, et al. (2010, p.
48). Further it could be argued that it infringes their basic right to
education (United Nations 1989, article 28).

5. Conclusion
Williams envisaged the 4S framework as four overlapping flexible and
dynamic circles, thus indicating the balance and interactions between
these and their changing prominence. However, if it is considered from a
constructivist-authoritative perspective it might be worth contemplating
setting the student at the centre, with all circles still overlapping. This
would reflect that the setting, systems and self, the teacher, ultimately
need to be tweaked and set up for the students benefit.
As mentioned in the introduction, at best, this essay has scratched the
surface of the essential teacher knowledge of managing learning
environments. By using the 4S framework as the underlying structure
Williamss ideas of flexibility and dynamism were demonstrated in practice
while discussing some of the essential ideas needed by graduate teachers
when entering their first classroom. Finally, while both prevention and
reaction have been discussed in equal measure here, it is hoped that the
former will be what defines the classroom interactions, and the latter
remains an underused backup.

6. Reference list
ABC 2014, Federal Government rules out return of corporal punishment,
after curriculum adviser says it can be 'very effective', 16th July,
viewed 19.02.2016, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-16/kevindonnelly-slammed-over-corporal-punishment-comments/5600408>.
Bohn, C, Roehrig, A & Pressley, M 2004, The First Days of School in the
Classroom of Two More Effective and Four Less Effective PrimaryGrades Teachers, The Elementary School Journal, vol. 104, no. 4,
pp. 269-287.
Charles, C 1999, Building Classroom Discipline, Longman, New York.
Cothran, J, Kulinna, P & Garrahy, D 2003, This is kind of giving a secret
away: students perspective on effective class management,
Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 19, pp. 435-444.
Groundwater-Smith, S, Ewing, R & Le Cornu, R 2015, Teaching Challenges
and Dilemmas, 5th edn, Cengage Learning, South Melbourne,
Victoria.
Good, T & Brophy, J 2008, Looking in Classrooms, 10th edn, Pearson/Allyn
and Bacon, Boston.
Hoy, A & Weinstein, C 2006, Student and teacher perspectives on
classroom management, in C Evertson & C Weinstein (eds),
Handbook of classroom management: research, practice, and
contemporary issues, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ,
pp. 181-219.
Jones, V 2015, Practical classroom management, 2nd edn, Pearson, Boston.
Jones, V & Jones, L 2010, Comprehensive classroom management:
creating communities of support and solving problems,
Pearson/Merrill Publishers, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kohn, A 2006, Beyond discipline: From compliance to community,
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
Alexandria, VA.
Lyons, G, Ford, M & Slee, J 2015, Classroom management: creating
positive learning, Cengage Learning Australia, South Meklbourne,
Victoria.
McDonald, T 2013, Classroom management: engaging students in
learning, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria.

Osher, D, George, Bear, G, Sprague, J & Doyle, W 2010, How can we

improve school discipline, Educational Researcher, vol. 39, no. 1,
pp. 48-58.
Rogers, B 2012, Tactical ignoring: addressing the issue, Osiris Educational,
video, YouTube, 21 September, viewed 16 February 2016,
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkBU0NALqkc>.
Sullivan, A 2014, Punish Them or Engage Them? Teachers Views of
Unproductive Student Behaviours in the Classroom, Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 43-56.
Sullivan, A 2016a, Challenging dominant views on behaviour at school:
Answering back, Lecture, Educ 5182, University of South Australia,
Adelaide, 22 January 2016.
Sullivan, A 2016b, Engagement and Behaviour: What is important?,
Lecture, Educ 5182, University of South Australia, Adelaide
Sullivan, A 2016c, When is enough enough? Never is the answer,
Lecture, Educ 5182, University of South Australia, Adelaide, 11
February 2016.
United Nations 1989, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC), United Nations, Geneva.
Williams, D 2012, Background Basics, University of South Australia,
Adelaide.
Woolfolk, A & Margetts, K 2013, Educational psychology, 3rd edn, Pearson
Education, Frenchs Forest, NSW.
Zimmerman, B 2005, Attaining self-regulation, a social cognitive
perspective, in M Boekaerts, P Pintrich & M Zeidner, Handbook of
Self-Regulation, Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, MA, pp. 13-39.