# data[].attributes.body
The Hierarchy of Management Intervention has been largely effective, from what I've seen in classrooms.

Non-verbal tactics such as establishing eye contact, walking by their desk or stationing yourself by their desk serve as clear first warnings and usually work to keep more compliant (just distracted) students in check.

For students who need a bit more of a nudge, a quick but pointed second warning would be given, such as firmly tapping on their desk or a comment such as "______, put that away now."

On third strike, logical consequences are implemented in the style of Canter's Assertive Discipline where the teacher emphasizes the student's agency in the matter. For instance, "_____, by choosing to continue playing with that Rubik's Cube, you have shown me you cannot concentrate when you're holding on to it. Since that is the case, I will need to hold on to it for you."

# data[].attributes.body
I have noticed that when I teach, I like to use nonverbal interventions first. I feel that over time, nonverbal interventions are enough to let students know of your displeasure. As a result, they would self-regulate their own behaviour without the teacher having to do so.

If a student is being disruptive, such as talking to his/her peers at the back, I would continue teaching but be looking right at the disruptive student (signal interference).

Another thing I would do, is casually walk towards the student’s table while still conducting the lesson. If necessary, I would conduct the lesson in close proximity to the student’s desk (proximity interference).

I try not to use verbal interventions unless necessary to not disrupt the flow of the lesson for the rest of the class.

During my TA, with my primary 5 class, I did have to confiscate storybooks from students. This Primary 5 class is very mischievous. They know that such behaviour is wrong but the moment they see someone else do it, they will follow suit. By confiscating 1 student’s book, it is enough to stop the rest of the class from reading under their desks (self-regulating their behaviour).

# data[].attributes.body
I think good intervention strategies are ones that address misbehaviours effectively while not disrupting the class's pacing and momentum. I observed a lot of withitness being used in the classroom during my TA stint as my CT's presence in the classroom is very strong and she knows how to manage her classroom well.

My CT tended to use non-verbal cues to address misbehaviour, and the students are able to sense her displeasure at such times as she is usually friendly with them. As such, the change in her body language is usually very apparent to them and she ensures that these non-verbal cues provide sufficient chances for them to self-regulate their own behaviours before she verbally intervenes. The dynamic that she had with her students thus helped her to effectively control the classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
During my contract teaching and TA stint, I found the removal of distracting objects from students to be a very effective intervention idea. However, instead of just confiscating the object or telling them to keep it when the students engage in disruptive behaviour, I would try to prevent the disruptive behaviour from even happening in the first place. For example, once I walk into class, I would tell the students to keep everything into their bags, with the exception of a pencil and an eraser (if they need it for the lesson) or even to clear their desks completely if I am about to engage in complete frontal teaching. This really helps keep the students more focused during my lesson, as they would not have any materials to fidget with. I would also pre-empt them by telling them explicitly that if I see any distracting object being played with/ taken out, it would be confiscated immediately. This helps set the stage for my implementation of logical consequences later on (if necessary) and to help them understand what they should and should not do.

# data[].attributes.body
Instead of focussing on the 'problem' student or directly addressing the negative behaviour, I prefer to affirm positive behaviour so that students who are off-task will check themselves and get back on task in order to receive the same positive affirmation.

However, I recognise that this is not always possible as some 'problem' students would intentionally demonstrate their unwillingness to be ready and the extrinsic motivation of positive affirmation is insufficient for them. In these cases, I will set time apart to speak to the student and build a better rapport with him or her as part of proactive coping skills.

I had a student who loves to draw and would doodle non-stop while I was teaching. Most teachers would tell him to stop. Instead, whenever I could, I would stop to ask him what the drawing is about to get to understand him better. Upon listening to him, I realised that he actually has many brilliant ideas. Then I reframed the task for him by telling him to channel the same creativity into his writing task, for example, and emphasised on how it could also be fun and a way to express himself. I told him he could write about something related to what he was drawing. With a good TSR, preempting of positive behavior as part of proactive coping skills tends to be more effective as students will be more likely to cooperate.

# data[].attributes.body
The removal of a distracting object can be an effective intervention idea especially since students tend to fiddle about with their stationery or read storybooks during frontal teaching, affecting their learning. This behaviour might also influence their classmates to do the same.

I have witnessed teachers walking up to students and removing the object from them, placing it at the front of their desk or gesturing for them to keep the object in their pencil boxes or their book in the bags.  In the event that the student continues the behaviour, the object is confiscated by the teacher.

I personally have confiscated storybooks from children who read during lesson time and had one-on-one talks with them after class to explain why they should not be reading during class.

# data[].attributes.body
In small-group learning, I will redirect the behaviour of off-task students and remind them of the rules. However, in whole-class learning, it is quite important to use non-verbal cues to prevent disrupting the momentum of the lesson. I find that hand signals and eye contact are most effective as most students are able to catch that the teacher is actually aware of their misbehaviour but is giving them a chance to stop their actions. Most students would also know that if they do not behave themselves, the next intervention by the teacher would be verbal and they would have to face the consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
Reinforcing positive behaviour of on-task students can be effective as it taps onto our students' natural competitiveness.

For example, when I realise that students are taking their time to turn to a page of their learning sheets for the lesson, I would deliberately point out things like "The left side of the classroom seems to be faster". This usually triggers and encourages the right side of the classroom to more on-task.

In small group settings, I would call out specific students (e.g. "Jon is ready") and I feel that this is a subtle way that give students control as they are the ones who have to look at Jon, observe what it is that makes him ready (e.g. he has his worksheet and pencil case on the table), and then do the same themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
During TA, there was a boy in the class who had difficulties controlling his own behaviour, and would often act impulsively. My CT employed the Hierarchy of Management Intervention (HMI) to handle the issue.

When he continually shouts in class, she would first make use of non-verbal cues by maintaining eye contact with him to let him know that he should control his own behaviour. On some days, he would tone down. On other days, his behaviour would escalate and he would make a din.

When this occurs, my CT would move up the HMI to remind him of the rules to sit in his seat properly. He would remain seated but would hit the cupboard next to him or slam his chair.

My CT then implements logical consequences as the last tier of HMI. She makes him position his seat such that he is unable to do either of those actions.

She would try to provide the student with the autonomy to self-regulate his behaviour, and would even ask him to evaluate his behaviour and engage in self-processing to decide whether he should have points deducted for his misbehaviour. While he may be willing to exercise control on some days, there are other days when my CT has to take measures that relinquishes the student's control.

While I agree that HMI is effective, I feel that the strategy of making a student engage in self-processing should be lauded. When students reflect on their own behaviour with some guidance, they are often able to understand whether their actions were appropriate. This still grants them autonomy to a certain extent and allows them to be disciplined with dignity.