Original URL: http://www.teachervision.fen.com/classroom-discipline/resource/2943.html

How to Manage Disruptive Behavior in Inclusive Classrooms

by Vera I. Daniels

The Same or Different Disciplinary Strategies?

Generally, classroom teachers can use the same disciplinary practices to manage the disruptive behavior of students with disabilities that they use to manage the behavior of students without disabilities. Much of the undesirable behavior exhibited by both groups is similar in nature. The differences, however, may originate in the teacher's selection of the particular behavioral intervention. When selecting behavior interventions for students with disabilities, teachers should ensure that the strategies are developmentally appropriate and take into consideration the student's disability and due process rights. Here are 10 questions that may help you diagnostically analyze situations that foster disruptive behavior in students with disabilities. These discussions may provide guidance as you select behavior-reduction strategies.

Question 1. Could this misbehavior be a result of inappropriate curriculum or teaching strategies?

Inappropriate curriculum and teaching strategies can contribute to student misbehavior – but not all misbehavior is attributable to these factors. Some misbehavior may arise as a function of the teacher's inability to meet the diverse needs of all students. Consider these factors:

Group size.
Group composition.
Limited planning time.
Cultural and linguistic barriers.
Lack of access to equipment, materials, and resources.

If the misbehavior evolves as a result of inappropriate curriculum or teaching strategies, redress the content and skill level components of your curriculum, its futuristic benefit for the student, and the formats you use in instructional delivery. When you identify the instructional needs of students within the context of the classroom, using a diagnostic prescriptive approach, and make curricular adaptations both in content and instructional delivery, you can greatly reduce the occurrence of student misbehavior.

Question 2. Could this misbehavior be a result of the student's inability to understand the concepts being taught?

When there is a mismatch between teaching style and the learning styles of students, misbehavior inevitably results. Incidents of misbehavior may also result when students refuse to learn concepts because they are unable to see the relationship between the skills being taught and how these skills transcend to the context of the larger environment. In these situations, you should employ strategies and tactics that show students how component skills have meaning in the classroom and in the community. If you find that the cause of the inappropriate behavior is related to the student's lack of prerequisite skills or abilities to acquire concepts, you can use a simple procedure known as task analysis. By using this procedure, you can pinpoint specific functional levels of students on targeted skills and provide sequential instructional programs that will move the student with disabilities toward mastery of a targeted goal at a pace appropriate for the student (Moyer & Dardig, 1978).

Question 3. Could this misbehavior be an underlying result of the student's disability?

Some disruptive behavior may be a result of the student's disability (e.g., emotional/behavioral disorders). Meanwhile, other behavior may result from deliberate actions taken by the student to cause classroom disruption. Determining the underlying cause of a student's disruptive behavior involves a careful analysis of the behavior, as follows:

Try to clarify what kinds of behavior are causing concern.
Specify what is wrong with that behavior.
Decide what action should be taken to address the behavior. -Specify what behavior you desire from the student.
Implement a plan to correct conditions, variables, or circumstances that contribute to the problem behavior (Charles, 1996).

You should analyze the disruptive behavior and render a professional judgment as to its cause. Redl and Wattenberg (cited in Charles, 1996) suggested that teachers employ a procedure of "diagnostic thinking" when faced with incidents of student misbehavior. These procedures include forming a first hunch, gathering facts, exploring hidden factors, taking action, and remaining flexible. While such a task is not easy, having a knowledge base of the general characteristics (e.g., academic, behavioral, social/emotional, learning, physical) of students with disabilities and the associated etiologies (causes) can be helpful.
Question 4. Could this misbehavior be a result of other factors?

Many aspects of classroom life may contribute to students' misbehavior: the physical arrangement of the classroom, boredom or frustration, transitional periods, lack of awareness of what is going on in every area of the classroom. Remember, however, that classroom climate and physical arrangements can also encourage desirable behavior. You should regularly assess your teaching and learning environment for conditions or procedures that perpetuate or encourage misbehavior. Because inappropriate behavioral manifestations of students can also stem from certain types of teaching behavior, teachers need to become more cognizant of the kinds of behavior they emit and the relationship between their teaching behavior and the resultant behavior of students. Examine your instruction and interactions with students in ongoing classroom life, as follows:

The development of relevant, interesting, and appropriate curriculums.
The manner in which you give recognition and understanding of each student as an individual with his or her unique set of characteristics and needs.
Your own behavior as a teacher, and characteristics such as those identified by Kounin (1970 – withitness, overlapping – that reduce misbehavior, increase instructional time, and maintain group focus and movement management of students.

Question 5. Are there causes of misbehavior that I can control?

As a teacher, you can control many variables to thwart undesirable behavior. You may modify or change your curriculum; make adaptations in instruction to address multiple intelligences; and make changes in your communication style, attitude toward students with disabilities, and expectations of these students. Analyze how much positive feedback you give students. If you find that you use limited feedback (encouragement or praise), which accentuates positive behavior of students (and also communicates respect and promotes self-esteem and self-confidence), you may be contributing to behavior problems. Feedback (both verbal and nonverbal) is an important factor in the learning paradigm that is too often neglected, overlooked, or haphazardly orated.

Question 6. How do I determine if the misbehavior is classroom based?

This is a difficult question. Conducting a self-evaluation of teaching style and instructional practices – as in the previous questions – may provide some insight into whether the behavior is related to the disability or is classroom based. You may find a classroom ecological inventory (Fuchs, Fernstrom, Scott, Fuchs, & Vandermeer, 1994) helpful in determining cause-effect relationships of student misbehavior. The classroom ecological inventory could help you assess salient features of the learning environment of your school or classroom. In such analysis, you can gather specific information about the student, the behavior, and the environmental conditions and settings associated with the behavior (Evans, Evans, & Gable, 1989). By taking into account the learning ecology, you can be more decisive and selective in your use of resources for managing student behavior and, at the same time, obtain a more accurate and complete picture of a particular student for developing a more appropriate and comprehensive behavior-change program. Classroom ecological inventories can be useful for collecting information about a wide range of events, variables, and conditions that can influence and affect a student's behavior. Conducting a functional analysis or functional assessment can also be useful in examining cause-effect relationships of students' behavior. Functional assessments can also help you address serious problem behavior displayed by "target" students. These analyses examine the circumstances or functional relationships between, or surrounding, the occurrence or nonoccurence of the challenging behavior. The assessments can help you identify variables and events that are consistently present in those situations (Dunlap et al., 1993; Foster-Johnson & Dunlap, 1993). You may identify events, variables, and circumstances that contribute to the problem. In addition, you may devise a comprehensive, individualized approach to designing interventions logically related to the target behavior – and, in the process, better meet the student's specific needs.

Question 7. How do I teach students to self-regulate or self-manage behavior?
You can teach students to self-regulate or self-manage their behavior by teaching them to use the skills of self-management:

Self-instruction, self-recording, or self-monitoring.
Self-reinforcement, self-evaluation, and self-punishment.
Multiple-component treatment packages (Carter, 1993; Hughes, Ruhl, & Peterson, 1988; Rosenbaum & Drabman, 1979).

Many studies (e.g., McCarl, Svobodny, & Beare, 1991; Nelson, Smith, Young, & Dodd, 1991; Prater, Joy, Chilman, Temple, & Miller, 1991) focusing on self-management techniques have shown the effectiveness of self-management procedures in behavior change and academic productivity. These studies included students from many different populations, ranging from average achievers to students with mild, moderate, and severe disabilities. Teachers have found many advantages in using self-monitoring procedures: These procedures improve target behavior, stress the student's role in behavior change, allow generalization to non-school environments, free teachers for other tasks, and teach students responsibility and self-determination (Frith & Armstrong, 1986). Furthermore, these procedures are relatively simple to implement; they quickly reach a point in which little supervision is required; and, they help students become more successful and independent in their classroom and in everyday life (Dunlap, Dunlap, Koegel, & Koegel, 1991). Of course, teaching students self-management skills should not be regarded as a substitute for a high-quality curriculum of instruction (Dunlap et al., 1991) that emphasizes academic and social learning skills. Here are some steps for teaching self-management skills:

Defining the target behavior.
Defining the desired behavior.
Developing the data-collection system.
Teaching the students how to use the self-management system.
Implementing the system.
Evaluating the effectiveness of the system (Carter, 1993).
Additional steps may include identifying functional reinforcers and fading use of the self-monitoring procedure (Dunlap et al., 1991).

Question 8. How do I determine what methods of control are appropriate without violating the rights of students with disabilities mandated under P.L. 105-17?

Determining which behavior-reduction methods to use with students with disabilities is not as difficult as you may think. As mentioned previously, the behavioral interventions typically used with students without disabilities can also be used with students with disabilities – with a few exceptions. Yell and Shriner (1997) provided a comprehensive account of major issues effecting the discipline of students with disabilities addressed in Section 615 K of P.L. 105-17 (the IDEA Amendments of 1997):

Disciplinary procedures.
Behavior-intervention plans.
Manifestation determination. "Manifestation determination" refers to a review process (conducted by the student's IEP team and other qualified personnel) to determine the relationship between a student's disability and misconduct. This review process is conducted when school officials seek a change of placement, suspension, or expulsion for more than 10 school days.
Interim, alternative educational settings.
The "stay put" provision.
IDEA protection for students not yet eligible for special education.
Referral to law enforcement and judicial authorities. When applying behavior-reduction techniques, use a common sense approach and be reasonable in your application.
Regardless of the behavioral infraction, before you discipline any student with disabilities, you should talk to administrative officials (e.g., principal, special education supervisors, school attorney) about the rules, policies, regulations, and procedural safeguards outlined in the IDEA Amendments of 1997 that govern the discipline of students with disabilities.

Question 9. How do I use reinforcement strategies to reduce disruptive behavior?

Teachers can use many types of reinforcers to teach desirable behavior. Madsen and Madsen (1983) identified five categories of responses available for teaching desired behavior: the use of words, physical expressions, physical closeness, activities, and things used as rewards or positive feedback (see box, "Positive Feedback"). Remember that the effectiveness of such reinforcers is contingent on continuous, systematic use across time. Also, consider the appropriateness of each response for your individual students. Other reinforcement-based intervention strategies may also be effective: differential reinforcement of low rates of responding (DRL); differential reinforcement of other behavior(s) (DRO), also referred to as differential reinforcement of zero responding; differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI); and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior(s) (DRA). Many teachers have found such strategies effective in developing alternative response behavior to inappropriate, disruptive, or undesirable behavior. Even though these procedural alternatives use a positive (reinforcement) approach to behavior reduction, teachers have found both advantages and disadvantages in the use of such procedures. In deciding whether to use differential reinforcement procedures, you should review the works of Alberto and Troutman (1995) and Schloss and Smith (1994).

Question 10. Is it appropriate for me to use punishment?

Punishment, the most controversial aversive behavior management procedure, has been used and abused with students with disabilities (Braaten, Simpson, Rosell, & Reilly, 1988). Because of its abuse, the use of punishment as a behavioral change procedure continues to raise a number of concerns regarding legal and ethical ramifications. Although punishment is effective in suppressing unacceptable behavior, it does have some limitations:

The reduction in disruptive behavior may not be pervasive across all settings.
The effect may not be persistent over an extended period of time.
The learner may not acquire skills that replace the disruptive behavior (Schloss, 1987).

A decision regarding the use of punishment as a behavior reduction technique is an individual one. Some professionals suggest that punishment-based interventions should be eliminated, whereas others favor a variety of behavior-control procedures, including punishers (Braaten et al., 1988; Cuenin & Harris, 1986). Inasmuch as the use of punishers inhibit, reduce, or control the future occurrence of an unacceptable behavior, the effects of punishers are limited. By itself, punishment will not teach desirable behavior or reduce the desire of misbehavior (Larrivee, 1992). Whereas the use of punishment remains a matter of individual choice, currently used punishers by classroom teachers include the following:

Response cost.
Time out.
Overcorrection.
Contingent exercise.
Aversive conditioning (Braaten et al., 1988; Cuenin & Harris, 1986).

Questions such as whether, when, or if you might use punishment will always be tainted with controversy. Whatever decision you make, keep the following cautions in mind:

Punishment should be used discriminately, rather than routinely.
It should be combined with positive procedures.
Punishment should be used only in response to repeated misbehavior for students who persist in the same kinds of misbehavior.
It should be employed consciously and deliberately as a part of a planned response to repeated misbehavior.
Punishment should be used only when students are not responsive to reward-based interventions or praise/ignore strategies (Larrivee, 1992).
Punishment should be used only as a "treatment of last resort" (Larrivee), and only after you have taken appropriate steps to ensure that the due process rights of students will not be violated and that the procedures will not cause psychological or emotional harm to the student.

Final Thoughts

There is no "one plan fits all" for determining how teachers should respond to the disruptive behavior of students with disabilities in inclusion settings. An initial starting point would include establishing classroom rules, defining classroom limits, setting expectations, clarifying responsibilities, and developing a meaningful and functional curriculum in which all students can receive learning experiences that can be differentiated, individualized, and integrated. Many publications describe effective classroom-based disciplinary strategies (Carter, 1993; Schloss, 1987), but few (Ayres & Meyer, 1992; Carpenter & McKee-Higgins, 1996; Meyer & Henry, 1993; Murdick & Petch-Hogan, 1996) address effective classroom-based disciplinary strategies for students with disabilities in inclusion settings. Classroom teachers can use a variety of strategies to discipline students with disabilities in inclusion settings. The approaches most likely to be successful combine humanistic and cognitive behavioral attributes and take into consideration the teacher's diagnostic-reflective thinking and choice-making skills regarding the following:

Student's behavior.
Student's disability.
Curriculum.
Instructional program.
Classroom environment.
Due process rights.

In formulating a discipline plan, teachers must first clarify personal values in terms of acceptable and unacceptable classroom behavior. By setting classroom rules, defining limits, clarifying responsibilities, and developing a meaningful and functional curriculum, teachers can begin to build a system of discipline that will accentuate the positive behavior of all students. Finally, classroom teachers should contact appropriate administrators and seek information on administrative policies, rules, and regulations governing disciplinary practices for students with disabilities.

References

Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (1995). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ayers, B., & Meyer, L. H. (1992). Helping teachers manage the inclusive classroom: Staff development and teaming star among management strategies. The School Administrator, 49(2), 30-37.

Braaten, S., Simpson, R., Rosell, J., & Reilly, T. (1988). Using punishment with exceptional children: A dilemma for educators. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 20(2), 79-81.

Carpenter, S. L., & McKee-Higgins, E. (1996). Behavior management in inclusive classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 17(4), 195-203.

Carter, J. F. (1993). Self-management: Education's ultimate goal. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 25(3), 28-32.

Charles, C. M. (1996). Building classroom discipline (5th ed.). New York: Longman. Cuenin, L. H., & Harris, K. R. (1986). Planning, implementing, and evaluating timeout interventions with exceptional students. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 18(4), 272-276.

Dunlap, L. K., Dunlap, G., Koegel, L. K., & Koegel, R. L. (1991). Using self-monitoring to increase independence. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 23(3), 17-22.

Dunlap, G., Kern, L., dePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Childs, K. E., White, R., & Falk, G. D. (1993). Functional analysis of classroom variables for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18(4), 275-291.

Evans, S. S., Evans, W. H., & Gable, R. A. (1989). An ecological survey of student behavior. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 21(4), 12-15.

Frith, G. H., & Armstrong, S. W. (1986). Self-monitoring for behavior disordered students. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 18(2), 144-148.

Foster-Johnson, L., & Dunlap, G. (1993). Using functional assessment to develop effective individualized interventions for challenging behaviors. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 25(3), 44-50.

Fuchs, D., Fernstrom, P., Scott, S., Fuchs, L., & Vandermeer, L. (1994). Classroom ecological inventory: A process for mainstreaming. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 26(3), 11-15.

Hughes, C. A., Ruhl, K. L., & Peterson, S. K. (1988). Teaching self-management skills. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 20(2), 70-72.

Katsiyannis, A. (1995). Disciplining students with disabilities: What principals should know. NASSP Bulletin, 79(575), 92-96.

Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Larrivee, B. (1992). Strategies for effective classroom management: Creating a collaborative climate (Leader's Guide to Facilitate Learning Experiences). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Madsen, C. H., Jr., & Madsen C. K. (1983). Teaching/discipline: A positive approach for educational development (3rd ed.). Raleigh, NC: Contemporary Publishing Company.

McCarl, J. J., Svobodny, L., & Beare, P. L. (1991). Self-recording in a classroom for students with mild to moderate mental handicaps: Effects on productivity and on-task behavior. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26(1), 79-88.

Meyer, L. H., & Henry, L. A. (1993). Cooperative classroom management: Student needs and fairness in the regular classroom. In J. Putnam (Ed.), Cooperative learning and strategies for inclusion: Celebrating diversity in the classroom (pp. 93-121). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Moyer, J. R., & Dardig, J. C. (1978). Practical task analysis for special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 11(1), 16-18.

Murdick, N. L., & Petch-Hogan, B. (1996). Inclusive classroom management: Using preintervention strategies, Intervention in School and Clinic, 13(3), 172-196. National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. (1994). National study of inclusive education. New York: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375 606)

Nelson, J. R., Smith, D. J., Young, R. K., & Dodd, J. M. (1991). A review of self-management outcome research conducted with students who exhibit behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 16(13), 169-179.

Prater, M. E., Joy, R., Chilman, B., Temple, J., & Miller, S. R. (1991). Self-monitoring of on-task behavior by adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14(13), 164-177.

Rosenbaum, M. S., & Drabman, R. S. (1979). Self-control training in the classroom: A review and critique. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12(3), 467-485.

Schloss, P. J. (1987). Self-management strategies for adolescents entering the work force. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 19(4), 39-43.

Schloss, P. J., & Smith, M. A. (1994). Applied behavior analysis in the classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sorenson, G. P. (1990). Special education discipline in the 1990s. West's Educational Law Reporter, 62(2), 387-398.

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). 18th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 400 673)

Yell, M. L. (1990). The use of corporal punishment, suspension, expulsion, and timeout with behaviorally disordered students in public schools: Legal considerations. Behavioral Disorders, 15(2), 100-109.

Yell, M. L., & Shriner, J. G. (1997). The IDEA Amendments of 1997: Implications for special and general education teachers, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30(1), 1-19.

Vera I. Daniels (CEC Chapter #386), Professor, Institute for the Study and Rehabilitation of Exceptional Children and Youth, and Department of Special Education, Southern University and A&M College, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Provided in partnership with The Council for Exceptional Children.