Low-level disruption nearly always continues if left unchallenged.
This is because the behaviour is the result of motives.
And those motives connect to desires that learners want to fulfil.
For example, a learner might want to enjoy the ease and pleasure of chatting to their friend, or they may want to avoid having their thinking challenged.
It follows from this that low-level disruption, once it has begun, is likely to continue until learners’ motives are satisfied.
And this satisfaction is unlikely to ever be final (the motive may be satisfied half-way through one lesson, then return in the next).
I mention this to draw attention to the fact that low-level disruption does not occur out of thin air.
It has a cause.
And that cause is connected to motives, themselves influenced by reasons, sentiments and emotions.
As with any negative behaviour, if left unchecked, there is no reason to assume the cause will go away of its own accord.
It might, or it might not.
So challenging low-level disruption is essential.
But how to do it?
Well, here are five verbal models you can use when you are teaching:
- Begin by praising the on-task behaviour of one or more learners in the class. Transition from this to asking learners to stop any low-level disruption. This juxtaposes a positive model with the request for behaviour change.
- Praise something positive the learner in question has done or is doing, then challenge the disruptive behaviour and ask for change.
- Remind the learner why what they are doing is not acceptable and follow this up by giving a concise explanation of what alternative behaviour looks like.
- Use the word ‘thanks’ instead of ‘please.’ The former foretells acquiescence while the latter hopes for it. Compare: ‘Re-focus on the task, thanks, Jim,’ with, ‘Can you re-focus on the task, please, Jim?’
- Identify off-task behaviour and, in so doing, remind learners of the goal to which the lesson is aiming. As you do this, tie the choice learners make to the degree of success they are likely to experience. Finish by indicating the behaviour you want and then wait for learners to show you this.
All these models are effective.
They won’t necessarily work every single time, but they work most of the time.
Applying Sanctions
When it comes to low-level disruption, many teachers shy away from consistently applying sanctions.
This is based on the reasonable grounds that to sanction low-level incidents can seem petty or vindictive.
On one level, this makes sense.
In the wider world we let small transgressions go.
This might be for the sake of social harmony or because the transgressions don’t have much of an impact on anyone.
The problem comes when we apply this logic to the social setting of the classroom.
There, the demands and expectations of interaction are different.
The priority is to maximise learning, rather than to ensure harmony.
We want the latter, but we want it in the context of the former, not as an absolute priority or standalone achievement.
As such, sanctions do need to be applied if we want to discourage low-level disruption.
If these consequences are not forthcoming, there will be a significantly lower incentive for learners to change their behaviour.
At the same time, proportionality is key.
Without it, learners can rightly claim that the punishment does not fit the crime.
On top of this, we will be using an approach that does not reflect the nature of wider society, and we risk stimulating rancour, as learners focus on the perceived injustices they feel they have been dealt.
It is therefore incumbent on us to carefully define the sanctions we will apply for low-level disruption.
This means we can ensure proportionality, communicate information to learners, and consistently apply our sanctions where they are needed.
Here are some suggestions of appropriate sanctions you can use to target low-level disruption:
- Non-verbal signals such as frowning, crossed arms, and facial gestures indicating displeasure. These are particularly effective when deployed as soon as you spot any low-level disruption. Over time, learners come to associate these with the need to change their behaviour, allowing you to quickly and easily nip problems in the bud.
- Asking learners to stay behind at the end of a lesson. This is a sanction in itself but should then be accompanied by a verbalisation of what the learner has done wrong, why it was wrong, and how you expect them to go about changing their behaviour. A useful technique is to cast the low-level disruption as a third-party separate from you and the learner which together you can tackle (this creates a sense that the two of you are working as a team to deal with a shared issue). For example: ‘What I saw today wasn’t what I know you are capable of. How can we work together to make sure it doesn’t come back to our classroom?’
- Verbal disapprobation. This is where we tell the learner in question why their behaviour does not meet our expectations. It is important to critique the behaviour rather than the learner. Doing this avoids labelling, helps you to maintain rapport, and gives the learner the opportunity to change how they are acting (much harder to achieve if your language implies that they, rather than their behaviour, are the problem).
- Removing privileges directly connected to the low-level disruption. For example, if a learner consistently disrupts group work by trying to send their peers off-task, deny them the privilege of taking part in group work for one lesson. This approach serves to tie the unwanted behaviour to the privilege that behaving positively gives rise to. Learners thus see an immediate, tangible consequence for their actions.
One final point to note.
It is always good to balance sanctions with praise.
For me, personally, I like to use lots of praise and to then bring in sanctions, like those above, when necessary.
This helps maintain rapport while also signalling to learners where the line is when it comes to low-level disruption, helping them to take control of their own behaviour and, over time, develop self-regulation.
