By Ivan L. Harrell II and Thomas N. Hollins, Jr.
from Inquiry, Volume 14, Number 1, Spring 2009, 69-75
© Copyright 2009 Virginia Community College System
Abstract
The authors discuss what educators can do to address disruptive student behavior in a way that not only will preserve the learning environment at our institutions but also may assist students in their growth and development.
The recent tragedies at Virginia Tech, Louisiana
Technical College, and Northern Illinois University have sparked national
dialogue regarding how the higher-education community may increase safety on
campus while preserving the integrity of the learning environment.
Much of the dialogue has focused on institutions addressing student
mental-health issues, developing emergency plans, and using technology in the
event that such threats present themselves on another campus.
While all of this discussion is useful in addressing major disruptions on
campuses, it is important to remember that many of these major disruptions begin
with minor acts or even questionable disruptive behaviors that can be prevented
early by faculty and staff. Here, we
discuss what educators can do to address disruptive student behavior in a way
that not only will preserve the learning environment at our institutions but
also may assist students in their growth and development.
Specifically, we will focus on addressing disruptive behavior inside the
classroom.
Having a thorough understanding of what constitutes
disruptive student behavior is critical before faculty can effectively address
such behavior. Displayed in many
different forms, disruptive student behavior can be defined as any behavior that
causes interference in the teaching and learning environment.
This behavior includes less severe actions such as sleeping in class,
tardiness, and talking among peers to more severe actions such as cheating,
fighting, verbal, physical or suicidal abuse, or threats.
Some of the less severe behaviors are tolerated by some faculty members,
but not by others. As each faculty
member designs his/her learning environment, attention has to be given to what
student behaviors will and will not be considered disruptive.
It is important to note that
although some behaviors can lead to conflict between students and faculty or
other students, they may not necessarily be disruptive.
Cultural differences, the need for additional time or attention for a
specific reason or problem, situational frustration or stress, and disagreements
or differences of opinion may often manifest themselves within the classroom
setting (Coombs & Duncan, 2006). For
instance, in some cultures, sharing information is common and often occurs in
the academic setting. Although this is
not customary in the American higher-education learning environment, this
cultural difference can lead to conflict between the student and faculty.
In addition, needing additional time or attention for a specific reason
or problem should not be viewed as disruptive unless the student’s demands
become unreasonable and excessive.
However, this type of behavior may be the symptom of a condition with which a
student must live, such as a learning disability.
In many instances, these types of behaviors do not result in substantial
disruption of the learning environment and can be easily addressed by a
conversation with the student displaying the behavior.
The most effective method of addressing disruptive
behavior is prevention. There are
multiple approaches faculty can take to accomplish this.
The first approach is to determine what behavior is acceptable in class.
It is critical that this information is clearly and firmly communicated
to students on the first day of class; this information should also be included
in the course syllabus (Carbone, 1999; see Appendix).
Because each faculty member designs his/her learning environment
differently, the behaviors that are considered unacceptable vary from faculty to
faculty. As students engage in
various learning environments, some confusion can arise as to what behavior is
unacceptable in each learning environment.
In many instances, early definition of unacceptable behavior and the
consequences of engaging in that behavior will deter classroom disruptions.
It is also important to review with students any institutional policies
that address student behavior, including the code of conduct and
academic-honesty policy.
Secondly, we live in what has become a gaming
society with environments in which frequent interaction is commonplace.
Because of this, faculty are encouraged to make classes not only
challenging but also interesting (Amada, 1999).
Amada writes, “If instructors teach with a certain passion and zeal for
their subject and can impact their intellectual excitement and idealism to
students, it is likely to make an important difference in fostering a positive,
non-disruptive classroom environment” (p. 51).
This can be accomplished by engaging students in educational exercises
that involve active learning and collaboration.
As students become more engaged and involved in their learning
experience, the likelihood for disruptive behavior may decrease.
Thirdly, it is important for faculty to model the
behavior that they expect. For example, if a faculty member has determined that
tardiness is unacceptable, it is important for him/her to arrive to class and be
ready to instruct on time.
Disruptive behavior can sometimes stem from students sensing that they are being
held to a higher behavioral standard than the instructor or staff member.
Obviously, it is unacceptable for faculty or staff to expect a behavioral
standard of students that they are not willing to adhere to themselves.
In addition to what is listed above, faculty are
encouraged to
·
make class personable (Carbone, 1999);
·
determine if there are student needs beyond what the institution can provide (Kuhlenschmidt
& Layne, 1999) and work with local agencies to help students receive the
assistance they need;
·
be responsive to students’ need for assistance; and
·
if needed, use assigned seating (Carbone).
Managing the Disruptive Student and Situation
Taking preventive measures may reduce disruptive
behavior. However, these measures
will not eliminate all such behavior.
So, what is it that we can do to address this behavior?
Like preventing disruptive behavior, addressing disruptive behavior can
be done in a variety of fashions.
Depending on the situation,
the disruptive behavior may require immediate attention.
If inside the classroom, the instructor should address the student
committing the disruption immediately.
Immediacy positively influences student attitudes towards teacher
communication, course content, the course in general, and the course instructor
(Anderson, 1979). Further, immediacy
assists with managing student behavior across racial and cultural lines (Sanders
and Wiseman, 1994). Whether asking
the student to step outside of the classroom in order to address a situation or
addressing the situation immediately inside the classroom (Kuhlenschmidt and
Layne, 1999), faculty should speak in a calm but firm voice.
Furthermore, when addressing the student, faculty should only address the
disruptive behavior (Kuhlenschmidt &Layne, 1999).
For instance, it is better to address a student by saying, “When you
speak out of turn without raising your hand, you do not allow other students the
opportunity to speak” instead of remarking, “You are so impolite.”
Kuhlenschmidt and Layne contend that in addition to stating that the
behavior is disruptive, the faculty should also explain what the student must do
in the future. Addressing the
disruptive behavior in this manner can decrease the likelihood that the student
will become offended, which could lead to additional inappropriate behavior.
Progressive discipline should
be used, as follows:
·
verbal warning;
·
written warning; and
·
loss of credit, which should be clearly indicated on the course syllabus (see
Appendix).
In conjunction with any level of discipline, a
written agreement between the faculty and student can be made that outlines how
the student is to behave in class and what consequences will be imposed if
disruptive behavior continues (Tiberius & Flak, 1999).
If none of the previous levels of discipline curb
the disruptive behavior or a situation occurs in class that is of a more severe
nature, removing the student from class may be necessary to calm the situation
before it can escalate. However, if
the faculty member chooses this course of action, the student must be provided
the opportunity to complete the assignment(s) that may be missed while the
student is away from class.
During any one of these
scenarios, it is important that faculty document the behavior when it occurs so
that the documentation can be presented to the appropriate staff member who
manages conduct issues in the event that the student is referred for a conduct
violation.
Beyond the Scope of Faculty Responsibility
Although managing the classroom is primarily the
responsibility of faculty members teaching their courses, faculty are not alone
in orchestrating an effort to address behavior that may be disruptive and
potentially dangerous. In instances
where students are verbally or physically abusive and/or threatening, displaying
unusual behavior, or appearing to be under the influence of a drug or alcohol,
the faculty member should immediately leave the class or office and contact
police or security to come to the class to remove the student.
Alternatively, the faculty member can remain in the class and send a
student to make contact with police or security.
If contacting police or security is not an option for faculty members,
then the faculty member should contact the staff member that manages conduct
issues on campus or a student services staff member who can assist.
However, in these situations, care should be taken in order to not
elevate the situation further.
Cabello (2001) suggests the
following when dealing with a crisis situation:
·
Be empathic. Try not to be judgmental of a student’s feelings.
·
Clarify messages. Listen to what is being said. Ask reflective questions; use
both silence and restatements.
·
Respect personal space. Stand at least one-and-a-half to three feet from the
disruptive student. Encroaching personal space tends to arouse people and
escalate the situation.
·
Be aware of body position. Standing eye-to-eye, toe-to-toe with the student
sends a challenging message. Standing one leg’s length away and at an angle off
to the side is less likely to upset the student.
·
Permit verbal venting when possible. Allow the student to release as much energy
as possible by venting verbally.
·
Set and enforce reasonable limits. If the person becomes belligerent, set limits
clearly and concisely.
·
Avoid overreacting. Remain calm, rational, and professional.
How you respond will directly affect the student.
·
Ignore challenging questions. When the student challenges you, redirect his
attention to the issue at hand.
·
Keep nonverbal cues nonthreatening. Be aware of body language, movement, and
tone of voice.
·
Use physical techniques as a last resort. Use the least restrictive method of
intervention as possible. (p.16)
Explicit within the recommendation to contact
another staff member is that other units within a college are available to
assist faculty in addressing student conduct and/or performance in class.
Campus police and staff members who manage conduct issues can advise
faculty on what legal options they have in removing students from class, assess
threats, and/or other conditions affecting student behavior in class (such as
mental-health issues or drugs and alcohol) and can advise faculty before
situations escalate. Faculty are
strongly encouraged to become familiar with any institutional student-conduct or
academic-honesty policies and procedures and to attend any trainings offered by
campus police and conduct officers.
Faculty, administration, staff, conduct officers,
police and security all play a crucial role in addressing disruptive student
behavior. Because much of the
disruptive behavior starts within the classroom, this paper examines how we
might address the disruptive behavior and prevent situations from escalating.
While properly addressing disruptive student behavior may not be the most
desired role of any faculty member’s job, it is a necessary and vital component.
Through an understanding of what constitutes disruptive student behavior,
how to prevent the behavior, and how to manage disruptive students and
situations, faculty and staff will be able to assist in preserving the positive
learning environments at our institutions.
References
Amada, G. (1999). Coping with misconduct in the college
classroom: A practical model.
Asheville, NC: College
Administration Publications.
Anderson, J.A. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a
predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.) Communication Yearbook
3. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Cabello, R.G. (2001). Have a plan to calm
disruptive students and implement it when needed. In
C. McCarthy (Ed.)
40 practical ways to address student conduct (p. 16). Horsham, PA:
LRP Publications.
Carbone, E. (1999).
Students behaving badly in large
classes. In S.M. Richardson (Ed.)
Coombs, R,, & Duncan, M. (1996). Managing
disruptive student behavior on campus. Retrieved
Kuhlenschmidt, S.L. & Layne, L.E. (1999).
Strategies for dealing with difficult
behavior. In
Sanders, J.A., & Wiseman, R.L. (1994). The effects of verbal and nonverbal
teacher immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning in
the multicultural classroom. In K. Feldman and M.B. Paulsen (Eds.). Teaching
and learning in the classroom. New York: Guinn Press.
Tiberius, R.G., & Flak, E. (1999).
Incivility in dyadic teaching and
learning. In S.M. Richardson
Appendix. Sample
Syllabus Statement
Student Conduct
In order to achieve the best learning environment
possible for this class, students are expected to adhere to the highest
behavioral standards. No form of disruptive behavior will be tolerated in this
course. Disruptive behavior can be
defined as behavior that interferes with the teaching and learning process.
As such, any disruptive behavior will be addressed by the instructor
and/or reported to the dean/director of student services.
Types of Behavior Viewed as Disruptive in this Class:
In addition, please note that more than three
incidents of disruptive behavior will result in a grade of zero for
participation in your overall grade.
Single incidents that are severe will result in removal from the class until you
meet with me or the dean/director of student services and / or the loss of
participation credit for the course.
If you have any questions regarding the conduct policy, please refer to the Student Handbook or contact the Student Services Office.
Dr. Ivan L. Harrell II serves as the coordinator for student affairs at J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College. His research interests include distance learning, retention, and student success. Dr. Thomas N. Hollins, Jr. serves as associate vice president of student affairs at J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College. His research interests include the impact of student services on first-year success and retention.