Cuing signals is a big part of contracts. I am wondering if allowing students to receive 'signals' to stop their disruptive behavior is actually counter-intuitive. I understand it demonstrates to the student that they are being disruptive because sometimes they may not know they are doing it, but a lot of the time they do know. However, if the student does not stop misbehaving after the decided number of signals are given, asking the student "do you need two more?" allows for the behavior to go on for a longer period of time, prolonging the disruption to the class. But I do agree that telling the student you kept your part of the agreement, they had not, and therefore they can choose a consequence of going to the office, working alone, etc.
I was very interested to read that in the example of Lynne, she found it boring to be at home back-to-back during her suspension. This surprised me because I believed students would prefer an out-of-school suspension over an in-school suspension obviously because they would rather be at home than be in school. Although this was not the case for Lynne, I realized for students who do not have a comfy home environment, being at school is the better option... and perhaps that is why students misbehave to stay behind after school. It reminded me to think outside the box when dealing with children because not all students will respond to our behavior management techniques the same way.
No comments:
Post a Comment