The case is about a student who is very talkative and fails to keep quite during the lesson. Her arts teacher threatens her to be removed from another teacher’s class, knowing that numerous interventions were useless.

Concerning the behavior that this student has, it can be considered as behavior that needs minor interventions since chatting during the learning process cannot be considered as a very disruptive behavior. However, it inferred from the case that there are already so many interventions done but the problem behaviors cannot be stopped. When the problem behaviors come continuously or very often, the moderate intervention can be used for instance, removing students. Removing students from the class can be given as the consequence for her behavior.

The interesting part is that this student is removed from another teacher’s class (class of different teacher). Removing student from another teacher’s class can be considered as withholding a privilege if the class removed is the class which this student favors most. Because this student likes this class, not being able to enter this class will stop her to do unfavorable behavior. The weakness of this strategy is that if the student simply does not have a class she likes. This consequence will not give significant consequence and besides, she will miss the lesson she should get.

Another possibility is that this student is removed from another teacher’s class (same lesson subject but different meeting). This strategy can be her consequence and the benefits can be felt by the class since there will be no student who talk when it is not allowed.

Removing student from the class will be ineffective when the student actual motive of doing problem behavior is to be removed. She does not want to join the class so she hopes to be removed by having the talk during the class.

Using others as resources may lead to match solution. This girl is chatty because she has someone to talk to during the class (this student will not talk by herself, right?). By using peer mediation, teacher can make this student does not have partners to chat. Teacher may create agreement with students who sit near this girl about not having chat during some times when talking is not allowed. Teacher may inform to the student that she will not have partner to talk during the lesson or ask the peer itself to say that they cannot have conversation with her if teacher does not allow them.

Another solution can be by creating class agreement. The teacher may ask as elicitation, “If when I am explaining the lesson and someone is talking, do you feel disturbed?” When students know that this action may lead to disturbance, classroom agreement can create class atmosphere that does not allow students to disturb the class. The whole class will maintain the situation if someone is talking when it is not allowed, for instance by simply saying, “Sshh, the teacher is explaining”.

When dealing with problem behavior, it is right to move to higher level of intervention if the lower level intervention does not work. However, teacher should also reflect on whether her/his minor intervention already done in appropriate way so that the consequence given to student can be sharp and fair.


MMSEL class always become the interesting class in this semester. I learn a lot and the knowledge obtained from the course can be applied directly when I have teaching experience. MMSEL class also opens my eyes that there are lots of way in motivating and managing classroom, however teacher will always be the main role. For the lecturer, I like the way Bu Mima delivered the material. She has several strategies in managing classroom. What I learn most in this course is the group work. I learn to deal with people and that score is not everything (simply because intinsic motivation seems more meaningful). Thank you Bu Mima and friends for the journey in this course. 🙂

Namirah F.