Teacher perceptions of non-compliance in rural primary schools in New South Wales.
Reynolds, Kim ; Stephenson, Jennifer ; Beaman, Robyn 等
INTRODUCTION
The management of student non-compliance in the classroom is a
recognised and ongoing problem for Australian teachers in both primary
and high schools (Beaman, Wheldall, & Kemp, 2007; Vinson, 2002).
Frequent non-compliance, amounting to 40% or more of teacher requests
for assistance, has been shown to have serious effects on student
academic progress (Matheson & Shriver, 2005). Previous studies have
shown that co-operation and student compliance with teacher directions
are skills seen by the majority of teachers at all levels, as being
essential for achievement at school: both academically and socially.
Failure to meet these teacher expectations of behaviour in the classroom
may have negative effects on a student's progress (Lane, Pierson,
& Givner, 2003; Lane, Wehby, & Cooley, 2006). Non-compliant
students may also negatively affect other students in the classroom
(Little, 2003).
NON-COMPLIANCE IN SCHOOLS
Teachers find it stressful to deal with student misbehaviour and it
can take up time that could be spent teaching (Forlin, 2001; Little,
2003; Oswald, 1995). There have been a number of studies both in
Australia and overseas that investigate student behaviours that are
problematic for teachers. Generally these studies have found that minor
but frequent behaviours such as talking out of turn (TOOT), hindering
others and idleness are seen as more problematic for Australian primary
school teachers than more serious forms of behaviour (Clunies-Ross,
Little, & Kienhuis, 2008; Stephenson, Linfoot, & Martin, 2000).
As these studies have only been investigated in urban areas, and over a
third of NSW primary schools are found outside the main cities, there is
a need for research on rural schools.
Non-compliance may be at the root of these and other behaviour
problems in the classroom. If a student is non-compliant in the
classroom it infers that that they will be off task. While off task, the
student is likely to engage in behaviour that disrupts both his or her
own work, that of other students in the classroom and that of the
teacher (DeMartini-Scully, Bray, & Kehle, 2000).
In recent years there have been a number of studies dealing with
non-compliance, both in its own right and as a part of more general
disruptive behaviour (Reynolds & Stephenson, 2008). Walker, Ramsey
and Gresham (2004) have summarized common elements of definitions of
non-compliance: direct defiance, simple refusal, passive non-compliance
(ignoring an adult's request), attempting to negotiate an
alternative to the requested behaviour, failure to start a task within a
given time, e.g. 5-10 seconds and performing at a level that is below
the set standard when the student is capable of that standard. These
behaviour responses may be made in response to social and or academic
demands.
Most recent studies include one or more of these elements in
defining non-compliant behaviour (Reynolds & Stephenson, 2008).
Reynolds and Stephenson, however, in their review of interventions for
managing non-compliance, found that it has been the researchers rather
than the teachers of the students involved who have set the parameters
for the variables in each of the studies. While the teachers may have
been involved in implementing interventions for non-compliance, there
was no evidence to indicate that they had any input into defining the
variable of non-compliant behaviour, nor were they asked to validate
researchers' definitions. The majority of studies on interventions
for non-compliance included in the Reynolds and Stephenson review were
carried out in North America. Australian teachers may have a different
perception of what behaviours define non-compliance in Australian rural
primary schools. For successful implementation and acceptance by
teachers of research into management of non-compliance in Australian
primary schools, the definitions used need to be seen as valid by
Australian primary school teachers and therefore require some validation
by them.
It has been suggested that the use of a response latency of 5 to 10
seconds, as used in almost half the studies reviewed by Reynolds and
Stephenson (2008) and included in the working definition given by Walker
and others (2004), may be too short, leading to a high false positive
rate (Shriver & Allen, 1997). While the use of response latency in
research may be important for recording purposes, the time span used for
classroom research should reflect teachers' perceptions of when
response latency becomes non-compliance. As none of these studies were
undertaken in Australian primary school classrooms, a validation by
Australian primary teachers would enable it to be set at a level that
reflects the Australian cultural perspective of noncompliant behaviour.
Some studies have explored the form or level of support that
teachers feel they need to deal with problem behaviour in the classroom
(Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Stephenson, et al., 2000), but only one of
these (Arbuckle & Little, 2004) included rural schools and no
Australian studies have focused specifically on non-compliance. Little
work has been done in small Australian rural schools where teaching
conditions may vary. For example, there may be composite classes with up
to six grades in one classroom. The necessity for the teachers of these
classes to deal with a wide range of student ability and teach at
several academic levels may increase the effect of non-compliance on
class management. The form and level of support needed by these teachers
may also differ from their urban counterparts.
The aim of the project reported here was to explore what aspects of
non-compliant behaviour Australian rural primary teachers deal with in
the classroom and the levels of non-compliance they see as requiring
additional support in the classroom. Teachers' views on latency
were also sought in this survey.
The primary research questions of this study were:
1. Which behaviours, regarded as non-compliant by researchers, do
rural primary teachers consider to be non-compliant and to what degree?
2. What is the reported frequency of non-compliant behaviour in the
classroom?
3. Which non-compliant behaviours do rural primary teachers feel
that they need support to handle in their classrooms?
4. What forms of professional development on dealing with
non-compliance do rural primary teachers find most acceptable?
5. Do rural primary teachers view a latency of 5-20 seconds in a
student's positive response to a teacher's request as being
non-compliant behaviour?
METHOD
The research was carried out in primary schools (schools enrolling
students between the ages of 5 and 12 years) in a rural district of New
South Wales. There are 20 schools in the district. Those servicing the
main population centres have populations ranging from about 400-450
students, while those servicing more isolated rural communities have
populations of between 20 and 45. (NSW Department of Education and
Training 2009). The student population varies in socio economic status
but mainly falls into the lower to middle income bracket (Australian
Government, 2008). The majority of students come from a European
Australian background but there is a large Indigenous population in some
schools (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008).
Participants
All primary schools in a rural district of New South Wales (20)
were contacted by email and invited to participate. An attached
information email to all teachers in each school provided information
about the survey and the link to the survey that was available on the
internet. Of the 20 schools contacted, 10 agreed to participate and
forwarded the email to a total of 116 teachers (NSW Department of
Education and Training 2009). Surveys were completed by 48 teachers. Six
surveys were excluded as teachers had only filled in the demographic
section and failed to answer the other sections. This left 42 completed
surveys, a 36.2% return rate.
Materials
An online survey questionnaire, designed by the first researcher,
was made available via an online survey company, Survey Monkey
(www.surveymonkey.com). It aimed to explore teachers' views on
student non-compliant behaviour, its frequency in the classroom, and its
effect on classroom management and teacher support needs and preferred
formats of delivery of professional development. The survey was piloted
with a small number of primary school teachers working in rural schools
for clarity and acceptability to teachers and was modified slightly on
the basis of their feedback.
In the first section of the questionnaire teachers were asked to
provide demographic information (age, gender, qualifications,
experience, size of school, position, current class size, grade taught
and gender ratio). All respondents remained anonymous and no teacher or
school names were collected. Teachers were asked if they had completed
any courses in the previous three years dealing with classroom
management in general and non-compliance specifically. They were asked
to specify non-compliance management courses undertaken. They were also
asked if they had received any in-class support for non-compliant
students and to specify what kind of support this entailed.
In the second section of the questionnaire participants were asked
to rank the degree of compliance for a selection of student behaviours,
on a scale of 1 to 4 with 1 being compliant, 2 being minor
non-compliance, 3 being moderate non-compliance and 4 being serious
noncompliance. Thirteen behaviour descriptions, based on the working
definition given by Walker and others (2004) and the studies reviewed by
Reynolds and Stephenson (2008), were listed. See Table 1 (Appendix) for
a list of behaviours included. Teachers were also asked to comment on
the effect of noncompliant behaviour on class management.
In the third section teachers were asked to rank the frequency of
student behaviours on a 5-point scale (1--not at all, 2--once a month,
3--once a week, 4--once a day, 5 twice a day or more). Respondents were
asked to indicate whether or not they felt support was needed for each
form of non-compliant behaviour listed. In order to draw comparisons
between the studies carried out by Merrett and Wheldall (1984, 1988) and
Little (2005), and this survey, teachers were also asked if they spent
more time than they thought they should on 'order and control'
generally and on 'non-compliance' specifically. Teachers who
had taught for 10 years or more were asked if they spent more time now
than 10 years ago on dealing with 'order and control' and
'non-compliance'. They were also asked how many male and
female students in their class exhibited non-compliant behaviour.
In the final section, teachers were asked to rank methods of
receiving support/information about dealing with non-compliance on a
5-point likert scale according to the degree of acceptability (1.
Strongly disagree, 2. Disagree, 3. Neither agree nor disagree, 4. Agree
and 5. Strongly agree). These items were derived from Stephenson et al.
(2000) but were modified to include the use of the Internet.
Data analysis
Descriptive statistics for each item were computed. The small size
of the sample limited the number and type of statistical tests.
Chi-squared tests were carried out to establish if relationships existed
between the general need for support and completion of courses on class
management or non-compliance; attitudes to amount of time spent on order
and control or non-compliance; and composite/non-composite class. Data
were analyzed using SPSS Version 17.0. Yates's Correction for
Continuity was used as all the analyses have two categories for each
variable. Significance was set at 0.01 using the Bonferroni adjustment
to the alpha level due to multiple comparisons being performed.
RESULTS
Participant demographics
Of the 42 participants 81% were female (n=34) and 19% were male
(n=8). This reflects statistics given by the Australian Bureau of
Statistics in 2008, where 80.4% of all full-time teachers in primary
schools were female (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008). The
majority of participants (83.4%, n=35) were over the age of 40. Over
half (67.5%, n=27) were four year trained, 25.0% (n=10) three year
trained and 5.0% (n=2) two year trained. Most (85.7%, n=36) had 15 years
or more teaching experience. Classroom teachers made up 72.2% (n=26) of
participants, 11.1% (n=4) held executive positions and 16.7% (n=6) were
principals. It should be noted that five of these principals were
teaching principals, i.e. teachers fulfilling the role of classroom
teacher as well as principal in small rural schools and all executive
positions were also teaching positions. Almost half of the participants
(45%, n=18), taught in schools with between 26 and 159 students. More
than half (63.4%, n=26) of participants taught composite classes with
two or more grades in the classroom.
Participants' Professional Development and support received
Over half the teachers (57.1%, n=24) reported that they had
completed a course relevant to classroom management in the past three
years and of these 42.9% (n=15) said that their course had dealt
specifically with non-compliance. Some of the courses completed by
teachers included: 'PART, 'Autism/behaviour management'
(n=2), 'Kagan' (n=1), a behaviour management session by
Spencer Kagan; '123 Magic' (n=1), a three step discipline
approach based on Phelan (1995); 'Boys Education Strategies'
(n=1); Masters of Special Education (n=1) and in school staff
development days (n=2). Seven teachers failed to specify the course
taken.
More than half (59.5%, n=25) of the teachers had had some form of
in-class support for non-compliant students. In-class support was
provided by school counsellors (n=1), teacher aides (n=6), Special
Education teachers (n=1), behaviour teams (n=2), 'support teacher
behaviour' (n=5) and 'itinerant behaviour support' (n=7).
The last two support people fulfil the similar roles within a school.
Teacher perceptions of non-compliant behaviours
Only three behaviours--the student responding to a request by
arguing aggressively, throwing or destroying work or leaving the
room--were seen by the majority of teachers as representing serious
non-compliance. Students stopping mid-task and refusing to finish and
students ignoring directions also received mean ratings of 3 or more,
indicating moderate non-compliance. Response latencies of both 5 and 20
seconds were regarded as compliant or minor non-compliant by a majority
of teachers. Other behaviours that rated as minor non-compliant to
compliant by the majority of teachers included students going off task
and not finishing or not completing tasks to the required standard and
needing to repeat instructions once or more before starting tasks. Four
teachers rated students who followed a direction immediately as being
minor to moderately non-compliant possibly due to misunderstanding the
question. Descriptive statistics for the teacher ratings of student
behaviours are summarised in Table 1 (See Appendix).
Table 2 shows the reported mean frequency of non-compliant student
behaviour in the classroom for eight behaviours (1--not at all, 2--once
a month, 3--once a week, 4 --once a day, 5--twice a day or more). In
this table, the behaviours from Table 1 --when given a direction a
student fails to start until you repeat it" and "a direction
needs to be repeated more than once before student starts" were
combined under "failure to respond to first request".
"When asked to start work a student throws it to the ground"
and "when given a direction a student leaves the room" were
combined under "physical refusal". Table 2 also shows the
number and percentage of teachers who considered support was needed for
each type of behaviour. Two respondents failed to complete the item
relating to frequency when they had indicated that support was required.
The most frequently occurring behaviours were those that were rated as
compliant to minor non-compliant. Behaviours that had been ranked as
moderate to serious non-compliance occurred infrequently with the
exception of ignoring directions.
Just over half of the teachers did not consider that support was
needed to deal with any of the behaviours (n=24, 58.5%). Frequently
occurring behaviours were more likely to be rated as requiring support
by teachers. An exception to this was physical refusal which was
reported to occur at a low frequency or not at all. Twenty-two percent
of teachers (n=9) reported a need for support in dealing with these
behaviours.
Effects of non-compliant behaviour on classroom management
Table 3 summarises teacher responses to more general issues. Just
over half the respondents (54.8%) thought they spent more time on
problems of order and control than they ought, with 69% indicating that
they spent too much time dealing with non-compliant behaviour. Teachers
with more than 10 years experience thought they were now spending less
time overall on order and control but more time dealing with
non-compliance.
While 61.9% (n=26) of teachers thought frequent non-compliance by
one student would affect classroom management, 90.5% (n=38) thought
frequent non-compliance by five or more students would affect class
management. Teachers reported that between zero and eight male and
female students per class were non-compliant. The mean number of
non-compliant students per class was male 2.61 (SD 1.93) and female 1.03
(SD 1.68). The average class size was 21.92 (SD 5.53) students (n=36),
with 3.64 (SD 3.17) non-compliant students in total, or 16.6% of the
class.
Table 4 provides comparative data related to the number of grades
taught in each classroom. Fewer teachers of two or three grade composite
classes indicated that they had received either in-class support (37.5%)
or had completed courses on classroom management (31.3%) or managing
non-compliance (40%). Nor did they consider that they had spent more
time than they ought on order and control (37.5%). Their response,
however, was similar to single grade and four plus grade composite
teachers for non-compliant behaviour (66.7% and 62.5%).
Responses from teachers of composite classes with four or more
grades in one class were generally similar or slightly higher than other
groups. However, there were increases in teachers' reporting of the
number of students seen as non-compliant in these classes. The number of
students perceived as exhibiting non-compliant behaviour almost doubled
in four plus grade composite classes for both male (n=4.5) and female
students (n=2.3).
The percentage of teachers indicating that support was needed for
one or more noncompliant behaviours was similar across the groups.
However, teachers of the four plus composite classes indicated that they
needed support for double the number of behaviours that other teachers
did with four plus composites citing an average of 5.2 behaviours and
single and 2/3 composites citing 2.4 and 2.2 behaviours respectively.
Due to the small sample size it was not possible to do chi squared
tests for individual behaviours requiring support or not. Instead, a
general yes / no for any support indicated over all behaviours was used.
Results of the chi squared tests to explore relationships between the
need for support and course attendance, type of class, and time spent on
order and control and non-compliance are shown in Table 5. None of the
tests showed a significant relationship.
Preferred methods of support
The final section of the survey dealt with teacher preferences for
various methods of delivery of support. A summary of the mean ratings
and standard deviations is given in Table 6. Teachers preferred to
receive support from other teachers (either peers or behaviour
specialists), through professional development activities, including
school-based in-service courses and staff meetings. The least preferred
option was university courses.
DISCUSSION
The participants in this study were older, more experienced
teachers, and similar to those in the studies by Arbuckle and Little
(2004) and Stephenson et al. (2000). More than half the respondents
thought they spent too much time on order and control (54.8%) and
non-compliance (69%) in particular. This result is similar to studies by
Houghton, Wheldall, and Merrett (1988) who found 55% of UK secondary
teachers felt that they spent too much time on order and control and
Wheldall and Merrett (1988) who found 51% of UK junior teachers felt
that they spent too much time on order and control. It is lower than the
study by Little (2005) who found 68% of Australian secondary teachers
considered that they spent too much time on order and control. This is
similar to the response for time spent dealing with noncompliance in
this study.
Which behaviours, regarded as non-compliant by researchers, do
teachers consider to be non-compliant and to what degree?
Behaviours that received a mean ranking of at least 3 (indicating
moderate to serious non-compliance) were validated by teachers as
non-compliant behaviours. These included: arguing aggressively,
physically throwing or destroying work, leaving the room, ignoring the
teacher, and stopping mid-task and refusing to finish. In contrast,
there is a set of behaviours with a mean rating of less than 2 that
indicates teachers consider them as mostly minor non-compliance. These
ratings raise a question as to whether these behaviours such as failure
to finish a task at a set standard, teachers needing to repeat
instructions more than once, and failure to start a task within 5 to 20
seconds should generally be regarded as non-compliant.
Researchers have typically viewed a response latency of 5 seconds
as indicating noncompliance (Kelshaw-Levering et al., 2000; Ford et al.,
2001; Musser et al., 2001). A large proportion of teachers (42.9%,
n=18), however, viewed a response latency of 5 seconds as being
compliant. Over 70% (n=31) of teachers surveyed ranked a response
latency of 20 seconds as compliant to minor non-compliance. Since
response latency is an easily measurable indicator of non-compliance for
classroom studies, a 20 second latency may be more acceptable to
Australian teachers for use as a variable in classroom research on
non-compliance. Observation in classrooms may also be needed to confirm
whether or not teachers do tolerate latencies of 20 seconds.
What is the reported frequency of non-compliant behaviour in the
classroom?
The majority of teachers surveyed perceived a high frequency of
non-compliance as being an important factor in classroom management.
Frequent non-compliance by one student was seen to adversely affect
classroom management by 61.9% of teachers and another 28.6% conceded
that it could sometimes adversely affect it. Frequent non-compliance by
5 or more was seen as adversely affecting classroom management by over
90% of teachers surveyed. Non-compliant behaviours with a mean behaviour
rating, by teachers, of less than 2.2 (minor non-compliance) were
reported to occur on a daily basis. These behaviours, while not seen as
serious or even moderate non-compliant behaviour in isolation, become
problematic because of their frequency and even more so when multiple
students are involved. This indicates a significant problem for teachers
in dealing with 'minor non-compliant' behaviours in their
classrooms.
These results reflect those of previous studies in both primary and
high schools in mainly urban settings where relatively minor forms of
problem behaviour were perceived as troublesome by teachers (Beaman,
Wheldall, & Kemp, 2007; Little, 2005; Merrett &Wheldall, 1984;
Stephenson et al., 2000). Rural teachers in this study reaffirmed the
findings of these previous studies that high frequency, relatively minor
behaviours, particularly if a number of students were involved, made
classroom management more difficult and often indicated a need for
additional support.
More serious non-compliant behaviours were rated as occurring less
frequently (monthly or weekly), and the majority of teachers did not
report needing support to deal with them. It must be noted that the
majority of teachers in this study have ten or more years of experience
and may feel that, on the rare occasion that these behaviours present
themselves, they, or the procedures contained in their school discipline
policy, are adequate to deal with them. The one exception to this is
'physical refusal' where the student is physically aggressive
or leaves the room, as 22% of teachers see this behaviour as needing
support. This response by rural teachers reflects that found in the
study by Stephenson et al. who reported that 87% of urban teachers in
their sample were concerned about physical aggression, with 20.8%
extremely concerned (2000).
Number of students perceived by teachers to be non-compliant
The mean number of students per class identified as exhibiting
non-compliant behaviour by teachers was 3.36 (range 0-14). The mean
percentages of students rated as exhibiting non-compliant behaviour in
classes by teachers in this study was 16.6% (22.8% of boys, 9.6% of
girls). This is comparable to Wheldall and Merrett's (1988) finding
of 16%, slightly higher than Arbuckle and Little (2004) who found 18% of
males and 7% of females required additional behavioural management and
much higher than that recorded by Stephenson et al. (2000) who found 5%
of male and 2% of female students had behaviours severe enough to
require additional support. Some of this discrepancy is probably due to
the overlap of student ages with Stephenson et al. surveying the younger
age range of the present study and Arbuckle and Little the upper range.
Also, the current study only asked for students exhibiting non-compliant
behaviour not necessarily students requiring general behaviour support
as did the other studies. There could also be a rural / urban difference
in teacher perceptions of behaviour.
Effects of non-compliance on single, two/three and four plus grade
composite classes
In smaller rural schools where four or more grades are combined in
one class, teachers seemed to be more adversely affected by
non-compliant behaviour in that they perceived that a much higher
percentage of students in their classes were exhibiting non-compliant
behaviour. Teachers in these situations reported almost double the
number of non-compliant students in their classrooms compared to single
or two/three grade classes. While the percentage of teachers indicating
the need for some support for non-compliant behaviour was similar across
the groups, teachers in the four plus composite classes indicated the
need for support for double the number of behaviours compared to other
groups despite the fact that 75% had received some training in managing
non-compliance in the last three years (Table 4).
Fields, in his study of support provisions in Queensland schools,
found that there were significant differences in the services and
supports available for dealing with student behaviour problems in small
rural schools and their urban counterparts.
While larger urban schools often had specialist support personnel
permanently available on staff this was not the case for small rural
schools. In small schools, school level support--falls very much on the
shoulders of class teachers and school administrators, the very same
people who first registered the need for support over and above what
they themselves can provide" (Fields, 2008). All of the schools in
this study were in a rural district; however, some comparison may be
made between those in the larger centres and the smaller, more isolated
schools. While the number of teachers who had received support in the
smaller schools in this study was similar to those in the larger
schools, it was the amount of support and its ready availability that
may differ. For example, where one teacher in a large school had a
support teacher for three days per week a teacher in a small school
might have seen the support teacher two or three times a year or once a
fortnight. Also, some teachers in the larger schools indicated the use
of behaviour teams at their schools, but this form of support would not
be available in the smaller schools. Not all teachers indicated the
duration or frequency of the support provided. None indicated that
support was permanently available. The actual levels of support provided
to rural teachers, in terms of frequency and length of time support is
received is an area that needs further investigation.
Teachers in small schools, servicing often isolated communities,
play an important role in their communities because without them, young
students would have to travel long distances to larger centres. While
the size of the sample limits any assumptions that can be made from this
study further research into the problems of these teachers in NSW and
the services and training available to them to deal with behavioural
problems may be of benefit to both teachers and their communities.
Need for support
While most teachers indicated that they did not need support to
manage noncompliant behaviour, up to 24% of teachers indicated that they
did. This is similar to the finding by Stephenson et al. that 20% of
urban teachers surveyed were uncertain of their ability to manage
behaviour problems in their classes (2000).
There are a number of evidence-based strategies to address both
major and minor non-compliance in the classroom (Reynolds &
Stephenson, 2008). These include: behavioural momentum, verbal praise,
and a number of multi-component strategies centred on effective commands
and precision requests. It is important that support provided promotes
strategies that have been shown to be effective in reducing
noncompliance. Strategies involving 'effective commands' and
'precision requests' would seem to be one type of strategy
that should be pursued given the high frequency of teachers needing to
repeat requests before compliance by students. The prevalence of this
non-compliant behaviour and the low percentage of teachers requesting
support for this problem could indicate a tolerance or even an
expectation that this will occur in the classroom.
Preferred forms of support
In general, teachers preferred forms of support with face-to-face
contact behavioural specialists, staff meetings, school in-services,
professional development courses and advice from fellow teachers.
Classroom demonstrations or tip sheets or leaflets were next in
acceptability; then media sources. Teachers were more negatively
inclined to books and university courses. The reasons for this could be
difficulty in accessing these sources due to distance from city centres
and the high costs involved in attending. Courses offered by
universities may not be seen by teachers as addressing their needs or
may lack the face to face support that teachers may prefer.
Studies on professional development and implementation of
research-based practice by teachers have found that there are a number
of features common to the successful transfer of research to the
classroom. In general, practices need to be linked to improved student
achievement; to be realistic and to fit in with the teachers'
existing classroom practices or be modified to fit the needs of teachers
and students; they need to involve teachers in the planning of the
implementation and finally, teachers should be provided with ongoing
support and in-class coaching and feedback (Gersten, Chard, & Baker,
2000; Gersten & Dimino, 2001; Klingner, 2004).
The majority of teachers in this study found that receiving
feedback from peer observers and even video was an acceptable, if not a
preferred, method of gaining support, unlike those in Stephenson et al.
(1999) who found both forms of feedback to be unacceptable. This form of
feedback may be useful for teachers, especially in more isolated schools
where accessing support specialists may be more difficult, as a follow
up to in-service courses and other interventions.
In-service courses backed up by in-class demonstrations and
feedback from district support staff and/or fellow teacher mentors with
expertise in an area could help to provide support for teachers dealing
with less severe non-compliant behaviour. Little, Hudson, and Wilks
(2002) used 'tip sheets' in conjunction with a consultant for
support and feedback to help teachers manage students with specific
behaviour problems. They found this approach was successful in managing
students with moderate behaviour problems. For more serious levels of
non-compliant behaviour, intensive interventions providing a much higher
level of ongoing support over a longer period of time and involving
specialists may be required. All of these approaches would appear to be
acceptable to teachers given their survey responses.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The generalisation of the results of this survey is limited due to
the small size of the sample (n=42) and the fact that only one rural
district was targeted. The return rate of 36.2%, while acceptable is low
and did limit statistical analysis. The conclusions about composite
classes should be treated with caution given that the numbers of
teachers in this group was relatively small.
In the question on rating levels of non-compliance, four teachers
rated the behaviour 'given a direction a student follows it
immediately' as minor to moderate noncompliance. This group also
rated other behaviours in this question abnormally compared to the rest
of the sample. It appears that these respondents may have been confused
by the rankings for this question.
CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER STUDY
In general, the rural primary school teachers in this survey
validated the majority of definitions of non-compliant behaviour used by
researchers, although teachers did not see latencies of less than 20
seconds as non-compliance. Incomplete or substandard work and students
requiring repeated directions were also seen as issues of minor
non-compliance. As with urban primary and secondary teachers, it is the
minor but high frequency non-compliant behaviours that are causing rural
teachers the most difficulty and they are most in need of support for
the management of these behaviours.
The study also indicates a need to further investigate if behaviour
management courses available to rural teachers are fully achieving their
purpose and whether it is the content or the mode of delivery of the
professional development that is failing to equip teachers to deal
successfully with non-compliance in their classrooms. This study
suggests that the most preferred methods of providing support to
teachers are specialist support personnel, in-school meetings and
in-service or professional development courses and suggests that a
combination of information and on-going support may be a more successful
means of up skilling teachers to deal with these non-compliance
problems.
Finally, while the small study limited the statistical testing that
could be carried out, the descriptive statistics suggest that teachers
in small rural schools teaching composite classes with four or more
grades may be experiencing particular problems of classroom management
and would benefit from higher levels of ongoing face to face support.
The need for further investigation is indicated.
APPENDIX
Table 1 Teacher ratings of student responses to
teacher requests within the student's ability
Compliant Minor Moderate
noncompliance noncompliance
When given a task the student 11.9% (5) 61.9% (26) 26.2% (11)
starts but goes off task
(e.g. talking, drawing) and
fails to finish it
When given a direction (e.g.. 11.9% (5) 71.4% (30) 16.7% (7)
get your pens/books out,
start work) a student fails
to start until you repeat it
Given a direction a student 90.5% (38) 4.8% (2) 4.8% (2)
follows it immediately
A student finishes a set task 36.6% (15) 56.1% (23) 7.3% (3)
but not to the standard
required (e.g. not detailed
enough, careless work)
When given a direction a 4.8% (2) 7.1% (3) 16.7% (7)
student argues aggressively
with the teacher
When given a direction a 42.9% (18) 54.8% (23) 2.4% (1)
student takes longer than 5
seconds to commence the task
When given a direction a 7.1% (3) 38.1% (16) 54.8% (23)
student tries to negotiate to
do something else
When asked to start work the 7.1% (3) 2.4% (1) 9.5% (4)
student throws it to the
ground or destroys it
When given a direction a 31.0% (13) 42.9% (18) 26.2% (11)
student takes longer than 20
seconds to commence task
A direction needs to be 21.4% (9) 69.0% (29) 9.5% (4)
repeated more than once
before a student starts
A student stops work mid task 4.9% (2) 9.8% (4) 65.9% (27)
and refuses to finish When
given a direction a student 4.9% (2) 17.1% (7) 46.3% (19)
ignores it and carries on
with what they were doing
When given a direction a 4.8% (2) 7.1% (3) 9.5% (4)
student leaves the room and
does not follow the direction
Serious Mean Total
noncompliance rating responses
(SD)
When given a task the student 0.0% (0) 2.14 42
starts but goes off task (.61)
(e.g. talking, drawing) and
fails to finish it
When given a direction (e.g.. 0.0% (0) 2.05 42
get your pens/books out, (.54)
start work) a student fails
to start until you repeat it
Given a direction a student 0.0% (0) 1.14 42
follows it immediately (.47)
A student finishes a set task 0.0% (0) 1.71 41
but not to the standard (.60)
required (e.g. not detailed
enough, careless work)
When given a direction a 71.4% (30) 3.55 42
student argues aggressively (.83)
with the teacher
When given a direction a 0.0% (0) 1.60 42
student takes longer than 5 (.54)
seconds to commence the task
When given a direction a 0.0% (0) 2.48 42
student tries to negotiate to (.63)
do something else
When asked to start work the 81.0% (34) 3.64 42
student throws it to the (.85)
ground or destroys it
When given a direction a 0.0% (0) 1.95 42
student takes longer than 20 (.76)
seconds to commence task
A direction needs to be 0.0% (0) 1.88 42
repeated more than once (.55)
before a student starts
A student stops work mid task 19.5% (8) 3.00 41
and refuses to finish When (.71)
given a direction a student 31.7% (13) 3.05 41
ignores it and carries on (.84)
with what they were doing
When given a direction a 78.6% (33) 3.62 42
student leaves the room and (.83)
does not follow the direction
Note : Ratings were numbered 1. Compliant, 2. Minor non-
compliant, 3. Moderate non-compliant and 4. Serious non-
compliant
REFERENCES
Arbuckle, C., & Little, E. (2004). Teachers' perception
and management of disruptive classroom behaviour during the middle years
(years five to nine). Australian Journal of Educational &
Developmental Psychology, 4, 59-70. Retrieved from
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Research%20Centres/SORTI/Journals/
ATEDP/Vol%204/v4ab-arbuckle-little.pdf
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
(2008). SES Scores for Census Collection Districts (CDs) 2001-2004.
Retrieved 6 June, 2009 from Australian Government: Department of
Education, Employment and workplace Relations, SES funding help Web
site: https://schools.dest.gov.au/ssp/help/html/ses/funding_01_04/
ses_scores_cd.html
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Census Data. Retrieved
March 28, 2009 from Australian Bureau of Statistics Web site:
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/census+data
Beaman, R., Wheldall, K., & Kemp, C. (2007). Recent research on
troublesome classroom behaviour: A review. Australasian Journal of
Special Education, 31, 45-60. doi: 10.1080/10300110701189014
Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008).
Self-reported and actual use of proactive and reactive classroom
management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and
student behaviour. Educational Psychology, 28, 693-710. doi:
10.1080/01443410802206700
DeMartini-Scully, D., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. T. (2000). A
packaged intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors in general
education students. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 149-156.
Fields, B. (2008). A comparison of behaviour support provisions
provided by small rural schools and large urban schools. In Boylan, C.
(Ed.), The face of learning generation M: The mobile generation:
Conference proceedings. (pp. 92-97). Osborn Park WA: SPERA.
Ford, A. D., Olmi, D. T., Edwards, R. P., & Tringstrom, D. H.
(2001). The sequential introduction of compliance training components
with elementary-aged children in general education classroom settings.
School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 142-157. doi:
10.1521/scpq.16.2.142.18702
Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for
regular class teachers. Educational Research, 43, 235-245. doi:
10.1080/00131880110081017
Gersten, R., Chard, D., & Baker, S. (2000). Factors enhancing
sustained use of research-based instructional practices. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 33, 445-457.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, T. (2001). The realities of translating
research into classroom practice. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 16, 120-130.
Kapalka, G. M. (2005). Avoiding repetitions reduces ADHD
children's management problems in the classroom. Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties, 10, 269-279. doi: 10.1177/1363275205058999
Kelshaw-Levering, K., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Henry, T. R., &
Skinner, C. H. (2000). Randomized interdependent group contingencies:
Group reinforcement with a twist. Psychology in the Schools, 37,
523-533.
Klingner, T. (2004). The science of professional development.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 248-255.
Lane, K. L., Pierson, M. R., & Givner, C. C. (2003). Teacher
expectations of student behavior: Which skills do elementary and
secondary teachers deem necessary for success in the classroom?
Education & Treatment of Children, 26, 413-430.
Lane, K. L., Wehby, J. H., & Cooley, C. (2006). Teacher
expectations of students' classroom behavior across the grade span:
Which social skills are necessary for success? Exceptional Children, 72,
153-167.
Little, E. (2003). Kids behaving badly: Teacher strategies for
classroom behaviour. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Little, E. (2005). Secondary school teachers' perceptions of
students' problem behaviours. Educational Psychology, 25, 369-377.
doi: 10.1080/01443410500041516
Little, E., Hudson, A., & Wilks, R. (2002). The efficacy of
written teacher advice (tip sheets) for managing classroom behaviour
problems. Educational Psychology, 22, 251-266.
doi:10.1080/01443410220138494
Matheson, A. S., & Shriver, M. D. (2005). Training teachers to
give effective commands: Effects on student compliance and academic
behaviors. School Psychology Review, 34, 202-219.
Merrett, F., & Wheldall, K. (1984). Classroom behaviour
problems which junior school teachers find most troublesome. Educational
Studies, 10, 87-92. doi:10.1080/0305569840100201
Musser, E. H., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. T., & Tenson, W. R.
(2001). Reducing disruptive behaviors in students with serious emotional
disturbance. School Psychology Review, 30, 294-304.
NSW Department of Education and Training. (2009). Public Schools.
Retrieved February 2, 2009 from NSW Department of Education and Training
Web site: http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/index.php
Oswald, M. (1995). Difficult-to-manage students: A survey of
children who fail to respond to student discipline. Education Studies,
21, 265-276. doi:10.1080/0305569950210208
Phelan, T. W. (1995). 1-2-3 magic: Effective discipline for
children 2-12. (2nd ed.). Glen Ellyn, IL: Child Management Inc.
Reynolds, K., & Stephenson, T. (2008). Managing non-compliance
in the classroom: A review of empirically based interventions. Special
Education Perspectives, 17, 33-55.
Shriver, M. D., & Allen, K. D. (1997). Defining child
noncompliance: An examination of temporal parameters. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 30, 173-176. doi:10.1901/jaba.1997.30-173
Stephenson, T., Linfoot, K., & Martin, A. (1999). Dealing with
problem behaviour in young children: Teacher use and preferences for
resources and support. Special Education Perspectives, 8, 3-14.
Stephenson, T., Linfoot, K., & Martin, A. (2000). Behaviours of
concern to teachers in the early years of school. International Journal
of Disability, Development and Education, 47, 225-235.
Vinson, T. (2002). An enquiry into the provision of public
education in NSW. Sydney, Australia: NSW Teachers Federation and the
Federation of P and C Associations of NSW.
Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Antisocial
behaviour in school: Evidence-based practice. Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Wheldall, K., & Merrett, F. (1988). Which classroom behaviours
do primary school teachers say they find most troublesome? Educational
Review, 40, 13-27. doi:10.1080/0013191880400102
Kim Reynolds, Jennifer Stephenson, and Robyn Beaman
Macquarie University Special Education Centre
Macquarie University
Table 2 Comparison of behaviour rating,
frequency and whether support needed
Behaviour type Behaviour Frequency Support
rating needed
M/4 M/5 SD % (N)
Slowness to respond 1.95 4.40 0.98 14.3 (6)
(20+ sec)
Failure to respond to 1.97 4.60 0.78 9.5 (4)
first request
Physical refusal (e.g. 3.63 2.13 1.42 21.4 (9)
throws work or leaves room)
Ignores request and does 3.05 3.23 1.41 11.9 (5)
not start task
Offers an alternative to 2.48 2.92 1.48 2.4 (1)
doing task
Argues aggressively with 3.55 1.85 1.08 9.5 (4)
teacher about request
Failure to stay on task to 2.14 4.36 0.90 21.4 (9)
completion
Failure to complete task 1.71 (4.53) 0.65 23.8 (10)
at appropriate level
Note: In Behaviour a rating of 1 indicates 'compliant' and
a rating of 4 indicates 'serious non- compliance'.
In Frequency a rating of 1 indicates 'not at all', 2 1/month,
3 1/week, 4 1/day and a rating of 5 indicates '2+/day'
Table 3 Attitude to time spent on problems of control and the
effect of frequency of behaviour on classroom management
Question Yes No Sometimes
% %
Do you, in general, think that you spend 54.8 45.2 NA
more time on problems of order and control
than you ought? (n = 42)
Do you, in general, think that you spend 69.0 31.0 NA
more time dealing with non-compliant
behaviour that you ought? (n = 42)
If you have taught for 10 years or more, do
you think that you spend more time now than
10 years ago on dealing with:
Order and control (n = 40) 42.5 57.5 NA
Non-compliance (n = 37) 62.2 37.8 NA
Does frequent (2+ times a day) non-compliant 61.9 9.5 28.6
behaviour by one child in a class adversely
affect class management?(n = 42)
Does frequent (2+ times a day) non-compliant 90.5 4.8 4.8
behaviour by five or more students in a
class adversely affect class management?
(n = 42)
Table 4 Effect of increasing number of grades taught in one classroom
Number of grades taught in one
class
1 2/3 4+
Number of teachers 15 16 10
Completed courses dealing with: 73.3% 31.3% 80%
(11) (5) (8)
* classroom management
* non-compliance specific (% of 63.6% 40% 75%
those having done classroom (7) (2) (6)
management course)
Received in class support for 73.3% 37.5% 70%
non-compliant students (11) (6) (7)
Do you, in general, think that Yes Yes Yes
you spend more time on problems 66.7 % (10) 37.5% (6) 70% (7)
of order and control than you
ought?
Do you, in general, think that Yes Yes Yes
you spend more time dealing with 66.7% (10) 62.5% (10) 80% (8)
non-compliant behaviour that you
ought?
Frequent (2+times/day) 60% 68.8% 60%
non-compliance by one student (9) (11) (6)
adversely affects class
management
Frequent (2+times/day) 93.3% 87.5% 90%
non-compliance by five or more
students adversely affects class
management
Average number of non-compliant 2.71 1.81 4.5
students in class:
Boys SD SD SD
1.94 1.28 2.26
0.93 0.69 2.33
Girls SD SD SD
0.92 1.4 3.01
Percentage of teachers indicating 46.7% 31.3% 50%
support needed for non-compliant (7) (5) (5)
behaviours
For teachers indicating support 2.43 2.2 5.2
needed the average number of
behaviours requiring support
sited.
Note: Numbers in brackets indicate the actual number of teachers
Table 5 Chi squared test results exploring possible relationships
between the level support needed and possible contributing
factors
Comparison Result Significant
to 0.01
Courses on classroom N = 42 NS
management (Q9) and need [chi square] = 018 df = l
for support (Q16) p = .893
Courses on non-compliance N = 35 NS
(Q10) and need for support [chi square] = 1.269 df = l
(Q16) p = .260
Composite/non-composite N = 42 NS
and need for support (Q16) [chi square] = .000 df = l
p = 1.000
Spend more time than ought N = 42 NS
on order and control (Q17) [chi square] = .000 df = l
and need for support (Q16) p = 1.000
Spend more time on non- N = 42 NS
compliance (Q18) and need [chi square] = 1.952 df = l
for support (Q16) p = .162
Table 6 Mean ratings for method of gaining teacher support
for the management of non-compliant student behaviour
Method of support Mean SD
rating
Advice from fellow teachers 4.17 0.66
Behaviour specialists e.g. itinerant support, 4.17 0.79
psychologists
Professional development/continuing education 4.07 0.81
courses
Staff meetings 4.05 0.73
School in-service courses 4.05 0.73
Demonstrations by peers in classroom 3.78 0.99
Leaflets or tip sheets 3.67 0.87
DVD/CD 3.40 0.96
Feedback on my teaching by peer observer 3.38 1.10
Computerised sources (e.g. CDROM, internet) 3.24 0.91
Feedback on video of my teaching 2.93 1.18
Books 2.86 0.84
University courses 2.71 0.93
Note: Rating of 1 indicates 'strongly disagree', a rating of
3 is neutral and a rating of 5 indicates 'strongly agree'
