• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Evaluate what psychologists have learned about disruptive behaviour.

Extracts from this document...


Evaluate what psychologists have learned about disruptive behaviour. (16 marks) One issue psychologists have discovered about disruptive behaviour relates to individual differences. Fontana's definition of disruptive behaviour is subjective which means it varies from one teacher to another. For example according to a biological psychologist such as Eysenck, an introverted teacher has a lower tolerance level for noise and is therefore more likely to use the label disruptive than an extraverted teacher in the same situation. A teacher's tolerance levels may change depending on the activity in hand e.g. working in groups or listening to a lecture or even depending on their mood. Kounin's Management Model which suggests ways of preventing disruption through teaching strategies implies that the teacher may even be the cause of the disruption itself and offers 5 characteristics of good teaching practice to prevent it. ...read more.


However it is effective and improves the classroom experience for the child concerned, the teacher and the rest of the class. Another ethical issue is treating children with behavioural modification using operant techniques such as Token Economies. This is a mechanistic system of bribery where tokens are given in exchange for good behaviour. However, at Wells Park School in Essex where a token economy is used, excluded children have improved their reading ages dramatically within the first year and this in turn improves the child's self esteem, making them better able to cope with a return to mainstream education. (158) Some explanations of disruptive behaviour are reductionist.. ...read more.


It can also be a direct result of poor teaching methods and failure to stimulate students and keep them on-task. (106) The biological explanation is also determinist as it implies no free will is involved and that the child is obliged to behave badly because of the state of its reticular activating system (a part of the brain implicated in arousal levels). This is biological determinism. If the child had no free will where disruptive behaviour is concerned then therapies such as Meichenbaum and Goodman's Self-Instructional Training (1971) (cognitive-behavioural) would not be effective and only Ritalin would work. Because we know that other strategies are effective too, such as the Behaviourist Token Economy, this suggests that disruptive behaviour is not just a biological condition. (103) ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Developmental Psychology section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work