Here are three strategies to help deal with low level disruption:
1. Remove the audience factor, try and talk to the student quietly on a 1:1 basis.
Whenever possible remind them of past successes and capabilities or statrt by offering the support/assistance. They are more likely to listen when you start with something positive – ranting and nagging switches them off straight away.
2. Give them a responsibility/ask them for help
We can change the mood of difficult students very quickly by giving their egos a boost and asking them for help or giving them a responsibility. The most disruptive students are often those with leadership potential or, at the very least, a need for attention. We can use this as an advantage by meeting this need.
3. Use limited choices
Giving limited choices to students is a way of getting our instructions followed whilst still allowing them to save face. When we give direct instructions such as ‘Move here NOW!’ it can be difficult for some students to ‘back down’ and comply in front of their friends. Giving them a limited choice gives them some breathing space and is easier to swallow but still gives a clear indication of our expectations…
“Do you want to move closer to the board and work quietly or remain where you are – and work quietly?”
“Do you need me to help you finish this work or can you get on with things on your own?”
“Do you want to use a blue pen to get the work completed or a black pen to get the work completed?
“What are you supposed to be doing? What happens if you don’t do it? Is that what you want? What are you going to choose?”
I was just reading your tips on dealing with disruption in the classroom and felt I needed to add something. I totally agree with the win-win situation but surely you would need to offer two choices which would remove them from the current disruptive situation, not would you like to move or stay where you are. If you do this why would they move? or they would just say I’ll stay where I am thanks. You are then faced with the situation you were trying to avoid in the first place which is confrontation, and on the back of having been made to look foolish by offering such a choice you would be likely to be less patient and understanding. Surely you mean would you like to move nearer the board and me, where I can keep my eye on you or would you prefer to sit quietly at the back (or where ever you want them to sit) thus still giving them a choice but offering one of 2 choices that you require. Most will not want to sit near to you so will opt for the latter, thus giving a win-win for all parties and no secondary behaviour to have to deal with.
Hi Kev,
Thank you so much for pointing out my error!! You’re absolutely right and I’m kicking myself for putting that up like that. This was actually taken from an article I wrote on limited choices and I didn’t edit it properly when I did the cut and paste!
That statement ‘Do you want to move closer to the board or remain where you are?’ should have had said something along the lines of ‘Do you want to move closer to the board and work quietly or remain where you are and work quietly?‘
The limited choice gives the clear message that either way, you want them to work quietly. Thanks again for pointing that out – I’m going to edit it now in case people don’t read these comments.
Rob