Advertisement

Planned Ignoring

Managing Disruptive Behaviours
  • Sally Scollay Booth
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter critically evaluates the way ‘planned ignoring’ is used in the classroom setting by using observations and conversations from in-school placements as well as relevant literature. Planned ignoring is a strategy predominantly used with mild and low impact behavioural problems resulting from power struggles and attention seeking. It is characterised by lack of eye contact and no verbal or physical response, thus depriving the student of the desired attention without making them aware that their actions are not in accordance with classroom rules and routine. Initially I thought ignoring a child was fundamentally wrong and highly unacademic, but I came to realise its value through working with two highly experienced mentor teachers on my placements. I learned that providing attention to students who were misbehaving simply gave them a further platform for disruption. As my placement progressed I found that many academic works promoted planned ignoring in some way: If used appropriately it can maintain the balance of respect and teach a student to monitor their own behaviour. My investigation into planned ignoring has highlighted the fact that even after years of theoretical study, a concept can arise that can challenge my mode of thought: The strategy I originally believed to be contrary to current academic thinking was in fact a highly utilised and valuable tool.

References

  1. Buck, G. H. (1992). Classroom management and the disruptive child. Music Educators Journal, 79(3), 36–42. doi: 10.2307/3398482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Conroy, M. (1989). Ignore and conquer. Learning, 18(2), 74–76.Google Scholar
  3. Fagen, S. A. (1986). Least intensive interventions for classroom behavior problems. Pointer, 31(1), 21–28. doi: 10.1080/05544246.1986.9944736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. McLean, F., & Dixon, R. (2010). Are we doing enough? Assessing the needs of teachers in isolated schools with students with oppositional defiant disorder in mainstream classrooms. Education in Rural Australia, 20(2), 53–62.Google Scholar
  5. NSWDET (New South Wales Department of Education and Training). (2003). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: A classroom practice guide. Ryde: NSWDET Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate. http://lrr.cli.det.nsw.edu.au/LRRView/14250/documents/qt_asspracg.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2016.
  6. Nunnelley, J. C. (2002). Powerful, positive, and practical practices: Behavior guidance strategies. Little Rock: Southern Early Childhood Association.Google Scholar
  7. Payne, L., Mancil, G., & Landers, E. (2005). Consequence-based behavioral interventions for classroom teachers. Beyond Behavior, 15(1), 13–20.Google Scholar
  8. Polsgrove, L. (1991). Reducing undesirable behaviors: Working with behavioral disorders. Reston: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  9. Rogers, B. (2006). Five tricky personalities—And how to handle them. Scholastic. http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/classmgmt/trickypersons.htm. Accessed 7 Jan 2016.
  10. Rogers, B. (2012, September 21). Tactical ignoring—Addressing the issue [video]. Osiris Education. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkBU0NALqkc. Accessed 29 Jan 2016.
  11. Williams, T. (2014, July 9). School naughty corner and disciplinary suspensions in schools may be human rights abuses, say South Australian academics Dr Anna Sullivan and Professor Bruce Johnson. The Advertiser. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/school-naughty-corner-and-disciplinary-suspensions-in-schools-may-be-human-rights-abuses-say-south-australian-academics-dr-anna-sullivan-and-professor-bruce-johnson/story-fni6uo1m-1226983582813?nk=0f2e55a. Accessed 7 Jan 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charles Darwin UniversityDarwinAustralia

Personalised recommendations