A few years ago, I stumbled upon a study by Josephine Infantino and Emma Little titled “Students’ perceptions of classroom behaviour problems and the effectiveness of different disciplinary methods” (2005, Educational Psychology). I had been thinking about reward systems, and I was looking for evidence of what worked and what didn’t.

I had come across a lot of research, but this article from academics at RMIT University in Australia stood out for three reasons:

• It provides a helpful review of previous studies into teachers’ and students’ perceptions of behaviour, deterrents and incentives.
• It is accessible and practical, making sensible inferences that are free from ideological bias.
• It provides a wealth of new research about a topic that, in schools, is usually discussed in purely anecdotal terms.

Admittedly, it is not flawless (no study is), but the researchers recognise its methodological limitations: a smallish sample size of 350 students in three secondary schools; and a reliance on questionnaires, which leaves open the possibility of responder bias.

Nonetheless, the study is a gold mine of insights into what students really think about our efforts to motivate and manage them. Infantino and Little begin by citing studies finding that “up to 76 per cent of secondary schoolteachers’ time is taken up with controlling the disruptive behaviour of students”. By far the biggest issue is persistent low-level disruption - behaviour that, although minor in nature, occurs with such frequency that it becomes stressful for teachers to deal with.

Deterrents and incentives

Infantino and Little’s own research throws up the following data on students’ perceptions of the type and scale of behavioural issues:

• Some 54 per cent of students felt that their teachers had to spend too much time on “order and control” in the classroom.
• “Talking out of turn” was the identified as the most troublesome behaviour in class (with 27 per cent of students selecting it as the most problematic).
• An average of 6.5 students in each class (with an average of 28 students) were seen as troublesome by their peers.

What were the top three most effective deterrents identified? After-school detention; being sent to the headteacher’s office; and a good talking-to in private. While sending lots of pupils to the head’s office isn’t sustainable, detentions (if centralised) and private stern words are relatively stress-free disciplinary tools for teachers to manage.

Meanwhile, the top three incentives were: receiving a good mark for written work; a positive report being sent home; positive communication with home.

As Infantino and Little point out, teachers can’t give good academic marks or reports if they aren’t warranted. However, in the case of most pupils, it is possible to call home or send a postcard - even if it is for just one impressive lesson or piece of work.

Positive contact with home may be time-consuming, but the research suggests it’s universally effective and worth doing. This is important, in particular, when we look at the data on public and private reprimands and rewards; this is where Infantino and Little’s work gets really thought-provoking.

They write: “The results indicate that students prefer being praised quietly for both good work and good behaviour … students [also] prefer being reprimanded quietly when their behaviour is inappropriate.”

A massive 78 per cent of students preferred a quiet telling-off, compared with just 12 per cent who preferred a loud telling-off. Interestingly, the students who favoured loud rebukes were far more likely to be male.

After reading the study, I felt relieved that the advice I’d given to inexperienced or struggling teachers over the years tallied with the findings. It confirmed my view of the most important behaviour rule: nobody speaks while I, or another pupil, is speaking.

I was also reassured by the finding that pupils responded better to firm, discreet words than public censure. The apparent anomaly about some boys favouring loud reprimands made sense - rebuking attention-seeking boys in front of an audience gives them the social rewards they crave.

Yet, discovering that most students disliked public praise for their work and behaviour was a big surprise. I knew my pupils liked positive phone calls home, but I assumed most of them liked public praise as well. Infantino and Little’s work cast doubt on the effectiveness of many of the incentives - green boards, wallcharts, celebration evenings - that are the bedrock of reward systems in most schools.

Might the growth mindset mantra - especially if it emphasises publicly praising effort - be doing more harm than good?

Top 5 takeaways

Rereading the study now, I’m struck by two things. First, we need to consider the effects of peer pressure in light of Infantino and Little’s explanation of why pupils prefer private discipline and praise. Many boys, in particular, find attention that makes them more noticeable to others - good or bad - to be embarrassing.

Second, many teachers are continuing to use ineffective disciplinary methods despite recognising the futility of their actions; they know public reprimands are counterproductive but carry on dispensing them out of habit or frustration.

Rather than resulting in a radical overhaul of my practice, the study led to five behaviour management refinements:

• Take names out of the equation. Give generalised instructions, such as “I’m waiting for some of you at the back to look at me”.
• Have very quiet words with misbehaving pupils, ideally in a way that other pupils won’t even notice.
• Increase the amount of time spent making positive phone calls home.
• Hand out more after-school detentions.
• Avoid praise that uses names. Instead of “That’s a brilliant answer, James”, I opt for “How can we develop this really interesting idea?”

If you’re finding pupils are demotivated and disruptive, you might want to read Infantino and Little, and try out my five tips. Let me know if they work, but I’d prefer any praise to be given privately.

Mark Roberts is an assistant headteacher in the South West of England

This is the last in a four-part series about the research that has influenced teachers’ thinking

This article originally appeared in the 30 August 2019 issue under the headline “Lifting the lid on behaviour management”