|
|||
disrupts the class. The teacher publicly reprimands the student for misbehaving.
The student makes a disrespectful comment in return. The teacher approaches the student and in a loud voice tells
the student that he "had better shape up" or "be kicked out of the class." The student responds
by standing up and verbally abusing the teacher. The instructor calls for an administrator, who comes to the room
and escorts the angry student to the office to be disciplined.
their voices, or attempting to intimidate the student may actually
succeed only in making the student's oppositional behavior worse! While the strategies listed here may calm an
oppositional student, their main purpose is to help the teacher to keep his or her cool. Remember: any conflict
requires at least two people. A power struggle can be avoided if the instructor does not choose to take part in
that struggle.
Interrupting Tactics.
![]()
When students become upset, they may not be able to control the
headlong rush of their own anger. In such situations, the teacher can use interrupting tactics--well-timed, supportive
techniques that 'interrupt' the escalation of student anger. These 'interrupters' sometimes have the potential
to rechannel a potential teacher-student confrontation into a productive conversation. As described here, interrupting
tactics are positive and respectful in nature: a teacher who tries to shout down or talk over a defiant student
is more likely to inflame the confrontation than to calm it.
To interrupt the escalation of student anger, the teacher can:
|
|
|
individual frequently will demonstrate poor judgment and make
impulsive decisions (Lanceley, 1999). One important objective for the teacher is to know strategies to help a confrontational
student to reduce his or her anger level and reestablish self-control. Deescalating tactics are those that reduce
the sense of acute threat or defensiveness that the student may be experiencing and lower the emotional tension
in the interaction between teacher and student. Teachers who use these calming tactics, however, do not allow
students to escape appropriate disciplinary consequences for their behavior. An instructor might decide, for example,
to postpone disciplining an aggressive or confrontational student until he or she manages to lower that student's
level of anger. After the behavioral outburst is over, though, that teacher should arrange a conference with the
student to debrief about the incident and impose any disciplinary steps that seem warranted.
A note of caution: The non-verbal defusing strategies discussed here are not appropriate if the teacher feels that he or she may be in imminent danger of attack or assault. Instead, that instructor should immediately take those steps necessary to preserve his or her physical safety (Braithwaite, 2001).
Here is one example of a face-saving de-escalation tactic: When a teacher finds that he or she is in a tense standoff with a student and is running out of options, the instructor may want to ask the student, "Is there anything that we can work out at this time to earn your cooperation?" (adapted from Thompson & Jenkins, 1993). Such a statement treats the student with dignity, models negotiation as a positive means for resolving conflict, and demonstrates that the instructor wants to keep the student in the classroom. It also provides the student with a final chance to resolve the conflict with the teacher and avoid other, more serious disciplinary consequences. Teachers who use this verbal tactic should be prepared for the possibility that the student will initially give a sarcastic or unrealistic response (e.g., "Yeah, you can leave me alone and stop trying to get me to do classwork!"). The teacher ignores this student attempt to hook the adult into a power struggle and simply asks again whether there is any reasonable way to engage the student's cooperation. When asked a second time, students will often come up with good ideas for resolving the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | www.interventioncentral.org |