Linguistic_Strategies_for_Classroom_Management

CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT Linguistic Strategies to Influence With Integrity The two groups of students under discussion in this assignment are in their late teens/early twenties and all have moderate learning and/or behavioural difficulties resulting in poor literacy levels as well as limited verbal and non verbal communication skills. In the first group there are twelve students who all display varied and extreme attention seeking behaviour with the additional management problem of poor motivation. The second group is larger with 14 in the class and while disruptive behaviour is not such a significant problem, getting the group focused and willing to tackle the work is a routine primary aim. Prior educational learning had 'taught' both groups that they were "poor learners" with resultant low self esteem and low expectations of achievements possible so this was another area to be addressed. It was important that a high level of control was established not only in the context of teaching strategies deployed but in order to maintain the health and safety of the students. Throwing missiles, objects and furniture had occurred within the smaller group in the past while verbal abuse towards other students was common practice in both classes. For learning to occur an effective communication flow between the teacher and the students must exist. Student Other student(s) Teacher Diagram 1 By accepting that "The meaning of the communication is the response that you get" (1), then by changing verbal and non verbal responses to a student when unwanted behaviour is displayed, a different outcome must be the result. Displays of high authority only antagonised these students making their behaviour more pronounced so it was important to adopt strategies which could influence with integrity. Noam Chomsky remarked that "Precisely constructed models for linguistic structure can play an important role, both negative and positive, in the process of discovery." (2) in his initial formulation of a model for modern transformational linguistics. This in turn led me to wonder what impact would occur if I changed my language structure when dealing with these two students groups. Both groups contained students who could and were disruptive. However as Frude and Gault discussed in their book, Disruptive Behaviour in Schools, "Disruption is not behaviour, but behaviour in context" and the same physical act may constitute a disruption in one context and not in another. Looking at the classroom management I became aware that frequently (and not just in education) individuals know only too well WHAT IS NOT WANTED which is then communicated by using "Don't; Shouldn't; Stop; No; Can't" From an educators perspective this is not a good strategy if the intention is to promote 'good behaviour' since by using this linguistic command structure we activate more of the same behaviour. Consider this example: Please do Not think about your favourite holiday - now what happened' You had to think about your holiday first before mentally deleting it. In order to obey the command of "Don’t think about.." the mental process involved requires us to DO the behaviour/think about the topic communicated first before we stop the action. In general terms, a teacher may use either positive or negative controls, or both. Positive controls may be either Formal - giving privileges - or Informal - relaxing routines. Negative controls may include sarcasm or censure and the balance between the two types does vary both in terms of type of class, lesson to lesson and also on the time of year - it is common for motivation to increase towards the end of the year because of exams or assessment incentives. As one would predict, a more favourable classroom atmosphere and more effective learning result when positive controls predominate (3) I identified specific behaviours I wanted from each of my students then structured language specifically to achieve my desired outcomes. So when a student's behaviour was inappropriate within the classroom context, I stated what I wanted to occur in the positive. Example: Student swinging on two legs of the chair. My former "Don’t Want" statement: "Stop swinging on that chair and staring out of the window!” would invariably lead to greater rocking back and forth. However once I started using a Positive Outcome statement “I would like you to sit with the all the chair legs firmly on the floor and listen carefully to what I would like you to do next." there was a marked change in how the students responded. When he complied, he was rewarded with a “Thank You”, when he did not, the request was clearly made using the same tone of voice. It never took more than 3 requests before he complied and soon the behaviour ceased. Using this linguistic process the student then knew in clear terms which my expectations were without ambiguity and student compliance was much more easily (and elegantly) achieved. Good and Brophy (4) suggested a model to demonstrate how teachers' expectations can function as self fulfilling prophecies and as they observe, attitudes and expectations may be a teachers allies if properly maintained and used. However as Lawrence (5) points out a pupil will only behave in ways the teacher expects if the relationship between them is a close one. As Connirae and Steve Andreas point out " "It is important to know how to talk about our children's behaviour so that we make it easy for them to behave well and feel good about themselves" (4) The next part of the linguistic classroom management lies within teacher presuppositions: If you assume negative intentions when a student misbehaves this leads only to confrontation and power conflicts. This was particularly true with the smaller student group with violent behaviour always an underlying consideration when deciding on the most appropriate classroom management strategy. By operating the presupposition that the student has a positive intention but has poor behavioural strategies for achieving it, the dynamics of the interaction between student and teacher radically alter. If the positive intention contained within the unwanted behaviour is established by asking "What is it you are trying to do'" "What is it you want'" and then followed up with "How else could you accomplish that'" such linguistic strategies help students a) consider at a deeper level their behaviour; b) what it is they DO want; and c) how successful the present behaviour is at getting it for them. By adopting this method the teacher can help the pupil self resource other, more acceptable, ways to achieve their desired outcome leading to a win/win situation. The student demonstrates acceptable behaviour within the classroom (which is one of the teaching aims) while enhancing and improving the techniques by which they can communicate their desires and needs. Another aspect of this linguistic model are Identity (Self) statements made about the student. When a teacher says things like "Why are you always so disruptive" or "You are so inconsiderate, you always arrive late." it implies permanent personality traits which cannot be altered. For example Fred has fair hair, green eyes and is inconsiderate. This is called the "the Language of Self" (5). SPIRITUAL Environment Behaviour Capability Belief Identity Because the pupil hears this as something he is, it isn't something that can be changed. However if as teachers we comment on Fred's Behaviour in a way that Fred knows he has choices and alternative ways to behave, then change is much more likely to occur. Change is easier to facilitate if the Behaviour is separated from Personality (Identity). Robert Dilt's Unified Field of NLP Diagram 2 (6) As an example of how powerful this linguistic shift can be is demonstrated when I used it to effectively eliminate an unwanted behaviour in the classroom. Swearing and abusive language were a real problem when I took over teaching the smaller class of twelve students in December 1995. I stated to the class that I wanted civil and reasonable language (behaviour) to be used during lessons and when they were in my company as respect for one each other was an important in the learning process. (Belief). Note the Positive intention. I then followed my stated outcome up with what the consequences of breaking the rule would be, :- if someone swore, their name would go up on the whiteboard and be left there for the next class to see. The majority of swearing stopped within three classes following the implementation of the rule.(!) Self Esteem has been defined by Lawrence (7) as the individual's evaluation of the discrepancy between self image and the ideal self. In both groups low self esteem was an issue held beliefs that the work was "going to be hard", they frequently claimed work set was too difficult before attempting any of it. Of course because they didn't believe they were capable, they went on to prove just that and so perpetuated their negative beliefs. Joseph O'Conner and John Seymour discuss how beliefs influence our behaviour."When we believe something, we act as if it is true. This makes it difficult to disprove; Later on in the same paragraph they continue Beliefs are not just maps of what has happened, but blueprints for future actions." (6) When we hold a belief we ignore events and actions that may challenge it, instead we focus on actions or events that confirm our belief which makes it become a self fulfilling prophesy. The Language of Self can be used to start raise self esteem by commenting on good behaviour and building it into their identity e.g. " You produced a good piece of work, you are good at learning this." and it can also be used to differentiate how misbehaviour is Temporary rather than Permanent. Example of Permanent language "Every time I set homework, you never do it." This implies that the unwanted behaviour has always been and always will be there. An implicit message that Change cannot occur is made. In contrast, Temporary language can be used to convey the behaviour happened in the 'here and now' e.g. "You were poking Alison right then". Temporary language acknowledges present behaviour but also does not presuppose it will continue into the future. These Sleight of Mouth patterns have had a profound effect on the effective management this group of students. While there is still much work to be done, these pupils now demonstrate motivation towards learning which was absent 5 months ago as well as being generally more communicative and cooperative in class. They are even a bit more tolerant of other students, their needs and difficulties. It is perhaps apt to consider at this point that intrinsic reinforcement for the student comes from making a discovery or experiencing success, however trivial it may seem to others. As V Varma states Once success has been perceived in a number of areas it is possible for learning to move to a higher level and in addition to individual acts of pro-social behaviour the response of cooperating in new situations becomes more likely. (7) BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 O'Conner J & Seymour J: Introduction to NLP Mandala, 1990 p. 36. 2 Chomsky N: Syntactic Structures, Mouton & Co, The Hague, 1957, p. 5. 3 Cohen L & Manion L: A Guide to Teaching Practice Routledge 3rd Ed, 1989, p 258. 3. Andreas C & Andreas S: Heart of the Mind Real People Press, 1989 p. 92. 4 Andreas C & Andreas S: Heart of the Mind Real People Press, 1989 p. 93. 5. O'Conner J & Seymour J: Introduction to NLP Mandala, 1990 p. 89 6 O'Conner J & Seymour J: Introduction to NLP Mandala, 1990 p. 93 7. Varma V: Management of Behaviour in Schools Longman Group UK Ltd, 1993 p. 35. ADDITIONAL NOTES: Once the students became accustomed to this new method of communicating, their behaviour improved and they began to produce more work. However they still tried to challenge and disrupt in class so I decided to use more sleight of mouth patterns of communication. One of the things I was trying to encourage this particular group of students to do, was make decisions and also take a much more active part in their learning process. I used a presupposition choice model. This is where I make the big decision e.g. what was to be studied and what homework they would be given. They were then given an either/or choice. e.g. Re homework "Would you like to choose which day next week you hand your homework in or shall I' By using this method if they didn't state a day then they had by default selected ME to state the day. Either way, they had chosen. By using this linguistic strategy I gradually got them into the habit of making small choices. They quickly realised if they didn't choose, then I would chose the earliest possible date for homework to be handed in. Since I actually didn't mind whether they handed the homework in on Monday or Wednesday, I 'generously' allowed them to make a choice which was still within my predetermined time frame. I also used the same strategy to get them to organise how they worked. I would make statements like "Which two people are you going to choose to do this exercise with'" or "Which questions are you going to do first... A or B'". In both these examples I had already presupposed that the work would be done. Therefore resistance to doing the work was minimized because I had deflected their attention onto what choice would they make. By choosing how they wanted to work implied their compliance. In this way, the students learned how to make choices which they gradually integrated into other areas of their life. At the end of the academic year, both groups of students went on to achieve success in their entered level of the City and Guilds Communications Levels I – IV.