The following article appears in the current issue of the Journal of College Counseling, a publication of the American College Counseling Association

Dealing With Disruptive and Emotional College Students: A Systems Model
by Thomas J. Hernandez and Deborah L. Fister

Journal of College Counseling, 2001, 4(1), 49-62 © ACA. Reprinted with permission.
No further reproduction authorized without written permission of the American Counseling Association.

Abstract: Disruptive behaviors confound faculty, staff, and administrators. This article proposes a systemic model for handling disruptive behaviors. The model, in which college counselors have a leading role, uses faculty liaisons, a faculty and staff handbook. faculty and staff training, and policy development to address the problem.

Disruptive, disrespectful, and disorderly students have begun to stymie many faculty members and administrators in community colleges, colleges, and universities. It is often expected that by the time students reach college they will know how to behave in a classroom. However, some very promising students have even committed murder at institutions such as Harvard (Thernstrom, 1996), Simon's Rock College of Bard, and the University of Iowa (Matthews, 1993). Murder is the most dramatic of all the disruptive behaviors faced by college counselors and faculty. Fortunately, few counselors or faculty members will have the experience.

Unfortunately, college instructors often experience, on a daily basis, students who are chronically late, who talk to friends during class, who eat or sleep in class, and who engage in arguments with instructors or other students (Amada, 1994). Amada (1994) also reported stalking and inappropriate erotic or romantic attachments that alarm college faculty. Instructors, using only the authority of their position, are no longer able to maintain decorum in their classrooms or a sense of personal safety.

Disruptive behaviors can be characterized as rebellious or emotional in nature. Rebellious disruptive behaviors seem to be intentional, defiant, annoying, and disrespectful. The student who antagonistically questions the expertise and authority of the instructor or the student who continuously chatters in class even after having been disciplined can be characterized as exhibiting rebellious behavior. Although emotionally disruptive behaviors may also have annoying or disrespectful qualities, these behaviors seem to be unintended and to be precipitated by underlying emotional distress. Such emotional distress can be exhibited by changes in academic performance, outbursts of anger, changes in personal hygiene, excessive absences, essays or creative works that display themes of despair or rage, and clear homicidal or suicidal threats. These students may also express their distress through unintentional outbursts or corollary behaviors, such as running out of the classroom to avoid being seen when crying. Some students exhibit both types of behaviors. These behaviors can be referred to as 'escalating behaviors." For example, students who express a high degree of neediness and who escalate their actions to threatening or aggressive gestures can be characterized as having emotional as well as behavioral concerns.

Each type of disruptive behavior requires a different set of treatment actions by the college or university and the counselor. Rebellious and escalating disruptions need to be addressed behaviorally through disciplinary action, whereas disruptive behavior precipitated by emotional distress may require consultation with counseling staff. However, regardless of the category, students who engage in disruptive behaviors may need to be dealt with behaviorally through disciplinary action, depending on the severity of their behavior.

Faculties and staffs at colleges and universities require assistance from counseling professionals in dealing with disruptive students (Amada, 1994, 1995, 1997), in dealing with students who are experiencing academic or emotional problems (Allen & Trimble, 1993), and in making appropriate referrals (Allen & Trimble, 1993; Amada, 1994,1995,1997). The proposed intervention model is designed to assist academic and student support staff who deal with disruptive and emotional students. This model suggests more than a structured set of cognitive-behavioral recommendations as proposed by Amada (1994, 1995, 1997, 1999). Rather, it posits a systemic view of the college that requires a careful look at institutional and personal relationships and the emotional reactions generated by those relationships. This analysis ultimately serves to inform the development of institution-specific means to address disruptive behaviors.

A Systems Model

Dealing with disruptive students is the one issue that seems to frustrate, baffle, and confuse most college instructors. When individual interactions are treated in isolation from the overall system, then ineffective, non generalizable responses naturally follow (Arguers, 1982; Birnbaum, 1988). Given this, it becomes imperative for administrators, faculty, and staff to attend to the systemic nature of disruptions on college campuses. In isolation, seminars, printed material, and the like inadequately address the problem. A comprehensive, multifaceted, systemic approach using print, experience, and policy development provides the tools to effectively manage disruptive behaviors in the college community.

A Systemic View of the Institution

What ultimately happens on the college campus about behavioral concerns depends largely on the relationships among faculty, staff, administration, and other students, with the disruptive student as the nucleus of these relationships. Included in this complex system are the members of the disruptive student's family and the families of the students who are affected by the actions of this student.

When the interactions with the student are perceived to be disconnected from one another, individual members of the system remain unaware of the amount of attention the disruptive student garners (Figure 1). In addition, when policies are vague and communication is poor, decisions are made in isolation from key relationships, which often divorces content from process. When students are disruptive on campus, faculty, staff, administration, and other students ask, 'What do I do?" and remain unaware of the effect that their actions may have on other members of the system.

The interactive relationship patterns that develop in the process of addressing disruptive students are of central importance and are forged by complex sets of policies and procedures to address behavioral problems. Some colleges address disruptive students by focusing on specific, content-based concerns (Figure 1), rather than focusing on relationship-based process issues (Figure 2). ** See below

Silence and limited interactions are merely symptoms of living in a closed system (Birnbaum, 1988). If any progress is to be made, it is imperative that the system be opened to observation by participants and to systemic change. Applying the proposed model opens interactions within the system and fosters change from a systemic perspective. This model suggests that colleges and universities, through their well-trained college counseling staff, use the following techniques to facilitate systemic thinking in addressing the problem of disruptive behaviors on the college campus: (a) faculty liaison, (b) faculty and staff hand- book, (c) faculty and staff training program, and (d) policy development and implementation.

Faculty Liaison

Counselors can serve as pivotal, active consultants to the entire campus community by acting as a link between faculty, staff, administration, and students. Faculty members often have nowhere to turn as they begin their odyssey with a disruptive or emotional student. Therefore, it is essential to create consultation points for the faculty as they encounter behavioral problems in and out of the classroom. Counseling staff are a valuable and appropriate consultation point. Although most faculty and staff have little or no training in assessing or providing support for students who may be expressing themselves emotionally or in a disruptive way, they see disruptive behaviors daily in the classroom and across the campus. Counseling staff are trained to deal with emotionality in its many forms and can, therefore, provide support and consultation to faculty and staff who may be experiencing disruptive behaviors in the classroom.

A faculty liaison is an identified counselor who serves as a consultant to faculty who may be unfamiliar with policies and procedures or may feel over whelmed by a particularly difficult set of circumstances. Because faculty members may feel that they alone should be able to handle what goes on in their classrooms, they may be uncomfortable contacting a third party. Some faculty members may feel embarrassment and even shame at the mere presence of such disruptions in their classrooms. Amada (1999) also indicated that faculty might remain silent for fear of receiving inadequate administrative support, for fear of harming the psychologically fragile student, and for fear of physical or legal reprisals. Amada (1999) also argued that a faculty member may remain silent because of fear that discipline might result in the student's loss of respect for the instructor or because of misperceptions about the nature of the discipline. Such thinking is a consequence of a lack of awareness of the systemic nature of the college environment. Knowing that a faculty liaison counselor is available as a consultant may ease the sense of isolated responsibility. Thus, another member of the system can assist faculty members in addressing their concerns. Bringing in a third party opens the once closed system, breaks down barriers, and creates a less isolated feeling, allowing the responsibility for addressing these disruptions to be carried by the entire system and not just by a single member. Faculty and Staff Handbook

As a way to provide all staff with critical information to address disruptive behaviors on campus, policies and procedures need to be readily accessible in print. Counselors can take the lead in developing and disseminating such a reference guide. Key types of disruptive behaviors and suggested means to address these behaviors can be presented in a concise, applicable manner in a handbook. For example, in addressing disruptive behavior that pushes the limits on the decorum of the classroom, such as arguments, name-calling, chronic or disruptive lateness, and disruptive talking, Fister (1999, pp. 10-11) suggested the following:

1. Invite the student to speak in a private area. It may help to ask the student where he or she would like to meet.
2. Acknowledge the emotions if the student seems upset, angry, frustrated, or otherwise emotional. "Sarah, I notice you seem frustrated."
3. Briefly state your concern. "Sarah, I am concerned that you have been late for class every day since the beginning of the semester."
4. Let the student talk. If he or she is reluctant or refuses, indicate that your door is open and that the student may return at another time. You may also suggest that the student seek counseling services.
5. Ask for clarification, if necessary. "I am not sure what you mean by it Ônot getting through.' Could you tell me more?"
6. Paraphrase what has been said. "I understand that you have been late for class because you work until noon and have a hard time finding a parking place.'
7. Assess the situation. Focus on the behavior and clearly state the expectations and the consequences of continued disruption. For example, "If you continue to disrupt the class by coming in late and greeting your friends, I will have to report this to the department chair and you may be removed from my class.'
8. Ask the student for comments.
9. Thank the student for his or her time.

This kind of practical manual can serve as a directory of campus resources and may suggest ways to deal with disruptive behaviors. The policies and procedures presented in such a handbook are consistent with behavioral expectations of students. This is the printed resource for all members of the campus community. Such a handbook has been implemented in a midsized, 4-year state institution and was received by staff as a welcome clarification of procedures and suggested techniques (Fister, 1999).

Faculty and Staff Training Program

The role of the professor no longer commands the respect it once did (DeLucia & lasenza, 1995). In addition, a lack of understanding of the experiences of today's college students and their subculture further widens the gap between professor and student. Because of the lack of training in assessing and addressing behavioral disruptions, it is essential to provide members of the college community with the tools to address disruptive behavior as it occurs and to address it systemically. College counselors can take a leadership role by developing and facilitating an interactive training program that focuses on group process.

Training for faculty and staff accomplishes two goals. First, it provides valuable information about the student and the way to address disruptive behavior, and, second, it fosters much needed discussions among members of the college community. Perhaps more significantly, an integrated training program increases communication among faculty and staff and forces members of the college community to function as a coherent system, instead of a series of isolated and disconnected parts. A training program accomplishes these things creating a structured opportunity for members to support one another I to share experiences and specific strategies that have been found effective. This interaction reduces the feeling of having sole responsibility for behavioral concerns and reinforces relationships that have become less silent and more open. Such a training program would include the following strands:

1. The current college student.

In any given classroom, age diversity has -come a reality. The world view, isolation, and resulting behaviors are not limited to today's adolescents but envelop students who are approximately 30 years old and younger (Astin, 1998). Information needs to be provided )out student culture and the current college student's world view. This information provides a context for and a lens through which disruptive behaviors in the college community can be understood and addressed.

Colleges and universities can be characterized as a study in contrasts and resultant conflict. Today's college students are unique in that the following factors tend to influence their behavior: (a) isolation and its consequences; b) their understanding of the boundaries between faculty, staff, and administration and students; and (c) their reasons for going to college.

The most striking difference between today's college students and students '20 to 30 years ago is their profound isolation from adults and from a traditional cultural context (Garrison, 1995; Hersch, 1998). In addition, today's college students feel isolated from decision-making resources and experience "lonely responsibility" (Garrison, 1995, p. II) for themselves, expecting to solve problems isolated from a cultural context. College students today no longer rely on cultural norms, opinions, and values transmitted through myths id stories to make decisions concerning life issues (Garrison, 1995). Furthermore, Hersch (1998) argued that adolescents live a life of isolation from adults in which they create their own rules, regulations, world view, rituals, .es of passage, and behavioral expectations with their peers. Many faculty id staff members believe that students should know how to act by the time they arrive on a college campus. In reality, these students merely use the rules at they and their peers devised. Thus, many of the behaviors associated with is subculture become what the adult world refers to as "disruptive."

The image of the world perceived by today's college student reflects rapid change, sparked by socio-political turmoil and technological growth. The proliferation of the personal computer, Internet chat rooms, and electronic mail ives many students unskilled in social graces and even incapable of developing appropriate relationships with peers and faculty members. Astin (1998) has argued that television has affected adolescence by not promoting contemplation of the meaning of life. Astin further posited that students have taken on the materialistic and fantastic images of the world portrayed by television as their philosophy of life. Students are increasingly disengaged from the academic experience and are less interested in learning than they are in social endeavors (Sax, Astin, Korn, & Mahoney, 1995). Students are more focused on getting a lucrative job than on their own intellectual development. This leads students to a sense of disillusionment when they see current economic conditions.

Students in today's colleges and universities also have blurry perceptions of the boundaries between themselves and the faculty, staff, and administration. College students tend to see themselves as the hub around which society revolves. This is consistent with students' experiences of isolation and their feeling of being responsible only to themselves (Hersch, 1998). This loosening of boundaries reflects the operationalization of their isolation from accepted social and cultural norms. Thus, college students do not see them- selves as functioning in the same social hierarchy as the instructors at the head of the class. In fact, these students see themselves as functioning within a structure in which all members are peers. They play a game of chess with faculty members, each side having a different set of rules and each side expecting the other to capitulate to its authority and power. The behavioral consequences are apparent disrespect for individuals in positions of authority, rudeness, and an overt attitude of entitlement. For example, in some cases students may expect compensation for their tuition expenditures in the form of an expected grade. In addition, institutions of higher education convey to students the message that the institution exists solely to serve the student (Miller & Nelson, 1997). Such a message is contradictory to the faculty's expectation that students will invest in their education, own and take responsibility for their college experience, and respect their teachers and the rights of others. Thus, students are growing up in isolation without seeing themselves in a social context and considering all other people with whom they come into contact as peers (Garrison, 1995; Hersch, 1998). This is in direct conflict with the drastically different expectations of faculty and staff who assume respect and deference.

There is also a current belief that a college education is a guarantee of lucrative employment (Astin, 1998) and is seen as a rite of passage. The media support the conviction that in this society an individual's earning power is directly related to the amount of education a person receives (Healy, 1994; Levine & Cureton, 1998; Sixel, 1995). In addition, going to college for the purpose of developing a meaningful philosophy of life has decreased significantly in importance over the course of the past two decades (Astin, 1998). Consequently, students are only able to focus on course content relevant to their future occupation. These students seem unaware of the importance of the journey and, thus, the process of their lives. A college education has become a means to an end, not merely an experience in and of itself. Therefore, although faculty members see the college experience as a time when lifelong learning has its genesis and intellectual discourse is a mainstay, students remain comfortable in their isolation.

2. Disruptive behaviors.

Faculty and staff members need to be provided with information about different types of disruptive behaviors. Disruptive, disrespectful, and annoying classroom behavior is distinct from dangerous or threatening behavior. Professors often cite chronic lateness, eating and drinking in class, whispering, relentlessly engaging the instructor in a discussion, and sleeping in class as types of nonthreatening, but disruptive, behavior (Amada, 1994). Offering a taxonomy of disruptive behaviors may assist faculty and staff in de- termining the most appropriate course of action. In the context of such behav- iors, it is also instructive to provide information to the college community on faculty, staff, and student rights and responsibilities. Information on due pro- cess ensures that all members of the college community are treated fairly.

College staff need to understand the experiences of the college student and know that certain behaviors may have underlying contextual antecedents (DeLucia & lasenza, 1995). Such contextual variables include attitudinal and behavioral influences from social, cultural, familial, political, and economic sources. College students often think of themselves as independent by index, because they are often left to fend for themselves by distracted adults. Many students lack adequate role models at home, at school, or in the workplace. Consequently, students may become hypersensitized to perceived or actual criticism or disparaging remarks in class. Many of them end up feeling embarrassed, powerless, or invalidated. Therefore, some students may view some class discussions or comments as a loss of safety or dignity (DeLucia & lasenza, 1995). With this in mind, instructors should examine their teaching methods for anything that could be construed as threatening and make appropriate changes (DeLucia & lasenza, 1995).

Anger, and the disruptive behavior that can stem from anger, can be fueled by loss or by conflict. For example, financial concerns plague many students. Unrealistic expectations of academic ability brought on by grade inflation (Astin, 1998) or increased competition for a limited number of jobs has the potential to create conflict between instructor and student. Therefore, students may see a bad grade as a loss of financial aid and pos- sibly the end of their college careers.

3. Facilitated group discussions.

Moderated by members of the counseling staff or professional group process facilitators, these groups are designed to be constructive fora. Most important, group discussions allow participants to engage in problem sharing and problem solving together as part of a system. These facilitated group interactions serve to reduce feelings of sole responsibility for the classroom climate that has become disrupted by one or more students. In addition, these facilitated groups address the concerns of the greater campus community by supporting a set of relationships that are less silent and more open. Thus, these group discussions afford the faculty and staff an opportunity to have voice, to share experiences, and to collectively develop useful strategies. Such collaborative opportunities among faculty, staff, and administration improve the learning experience for students and are consistent with suggestions from the literature (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).

Policy Development and Implementation: Integration Into Campus Culture

Individual institutions have different needs, values, and desired outcomes for the behavior of their students. It is therefore impossible to argue for a specific set of policies that can be universally applied with any degree of success. However, the "how" of policy development is an issue that can be discussed in the context of this model. Counselors can facilitate the process of policy development. For example, counselors can identify and help resolve conflicts between policies and institutional values. In addition, counselors can facilitate dialogue among participant groups, thereby forging a new role for counselors in campus governance.

Amada (1994, 1995, 1997, 1999) argued that policy development, principles, and strategies are central to addressing the problem of students' disruptive behavior. However, good policy development is a process that involves all members of the institution. The individual disruptive student has a great deal of power in the closed system. However, a system in which integrated relationships are the norm, power is more effectively distributed. The system's values come into balance further when clear attention is paid to the importance of individual and institutional relationships. For example, the quality of campus life improves when the values of civility, integrity, and justice are infused into the college community (Boyer, 1987). From this balance emerge policy and implementation plans that are consistent with the needs and values of the institution and its individual members.

Therefore, for the institution to develop relevant policies about disruptive behaviors, faculty, staff, and administration must first answer numerous questions.

1. What do we need?
2. What do we value?
3. How do conflicting sets of prioritized values get communicated and mediated among constituent groups of the campus community?
4. If there are conflicting values, how will we choose between them to develop a clear and consistent set of behavioral expectations?
5. What behaviors are acceptable and what behaviors are not?
6. How will we choose to address these behaviors as they emerge in the institution?

These are questions that should first be attended to during the faculty and staff training and the facilitated group discussion portions of this model. This analytic process facilitates the creation of a campus culture that not only accepts open dialogue but also reinforces connectedness between individuals in the system. As emphasized earlier, an institution-specific set of policies should be developed in consultation with the entire campus community. However, there are several general issues that should be addressed in the development and implementation of policies on the college campus. These are (a) documentation, (b) disciplinary procedures, and (c) systemically sensitive policies.

Documentation. Proper documentation is crucial. Documents should be filed with the proper authorities in a timely manner. Often instructors delay making reports until the situation becomes untenable. Addressing the situation early can keep the disruption from escalating. Documentation should include dates and times of the incident or incidents, specific behaviors, action taken (warning or referral), the student's response, and the instructor's desired resolution of the problem. Staff should avoid speculating about students' motives or providing subjective opinions about possible underlying mental health issues.

Amada (1994) encouraged all instructors to set the behavioral standards for classroom behavior. He argued that many instructors make the assumption that students are aware of rules of classroom comportment, when in reality there is a discrepancy between what students and faculty see as acceptable behavior. Therefore, behavioral standards and the consequences for violating them should be stated explicitly in course syllabi. Amada (1994, 1997) also emphasized the importance of documentation. He stated two reasons for this admonition. First he stated that "human memory is fallible and if complainants are later called on to testify . . . it is advisable that their testimonies be well fortified with contemporaneous documentation" (Amada, 1997, p. 64). Amada's (1997) second reason relates to chronically disruptive students:

Without the availability of adequate documentation, students who repeatedly engage in disruptive behavior do so with relative impunity and, even if they are eventually disciplined, it is often for an isolated incident of disruptiveness rather than their cumulative history of misconduct. (p. 64)

Disciplinary problems should be dealt with by disciplinary action. Amada's (1997) suggestions in dealing with these kinds of behaviors began with an emphasis on behavior and a possible secondary consideration of underlying pathology. Even if a student's behavior is related to an underlying medical or psychological condition, the institution is within its rights to insist that certain behaviors be prohibited (Amada, 1994). The institution's code of conduct is the centerpiece for dealing with disruptive students.

Systemically sensitive policies. By recognizing the importance of process and reflecting a careful analysis of the institutional system, the policies that emerge will be consistent, accommodating, clear, and sensitive to the needs of all constituents. Conversely, content-based policy development and implementation focuses on individual incidents in isolation and neglects important relationships and emotional responses within the system.

When decisions are made by centering on the content of a disruptive incident and the systemic process is not considered, unpredictable and ambiguous policies may result. Such inconsistent and vague behavioral standards can be detrimental to the institution in its effort to address disruption on campus. Thus, boundaries between students or parents and faculty, staff, and administration are obscured. For example, colleges and universities that are particularly concerned and focused on issues of student retention may be likely to interpret disruptive behaviors as individual incidents of poor behavior rather than as a pattern of disruptions. In this manner, the college may address the disruptive student by recommending or mandating counseling services in an attempt to retain the student, as opposed to imposing more serious disciplinary action that may result in dismissal. When such actions are taken, the institution neglects other important relationships and runs the risk of keeping one student at the expense of retaining faculty, staff, and most important, other students. In the end, this course of action results in frustration.

Another example of content-based action may be initiated by parental interference in college disciplinary matters. Parents may contact the administration to express their displeasure with appropriate disciplinary decisions and hint at or make overtures that the administration perceives as threats of litigation. Should the institution capitulate to parental intimidation to the exclusion of maintaining a sense of civility, respect, and community, relationships among students, administrators, faculty, and staff become adversarial. Institutions should not allow one relationship to have more power in disciplinary actions to the exclusion of all other relationships in the system.

Required counseling is also a content-based solution for dealing with disruptive students. Mandatory counseling tends to focus the problem intra-psychically within the disruptive student and neglects all the other relationships this individual has within the system. Obligatory counseling may seem a gentler and more humane way of approaching disruptive students than does disciplinary action. However, Amada (1994) stressed that although there may be underlying psychological issues, disruption is primarily a behavioral issue and not necessarily a mental health issue. Furthermore, mandatory counseling as the sole means of dealing with disruptive students is generally ineffective (Amada, 1994, 1995, 1997; Kiracofe, 1993). Amada (1994) argued this point emphatically:

Although many administrative referrals of students to counselors . . . are quite appropriate, especially when the students themselves indicate a desire to receive psychological services, referrals of students who have been disruptive (and are being referred because they are being disruptive) are usually inadvisable and of little value . . . this particular strategy may be of questionable legality as well. (p. 27)

There are three reasons for the ineffectiveness of mandated counseling. First, it places counselors and administrators in a bind. Mandating counseling places counselors (whose role is to heal and guide) in a quasi-disciplinary role and places administrators (whose role is to administer discipline) in a quasi-counselor role by advising students about their need for mental health services (Amada, 1994). Second, the nature of the counseling relationship requires informed consent. This implies that the student has entered the counseling voluntarily, that he or she can withdraw at any time without penalty, and that the relationship is confidential. When counseling is required by an outside office, it is expected that information about attendance or session content will be released (Kiracofe, 1993). If information is released without the student's consent, it undermines the relationship between the student and the counselor. In addition, the outside demand for behavioral change may run counter to goals the student may set. Consequently, a student who is mandated to seek counseling is likely to resent the counselor and the counseling process, and no productive work will be done. Thus, counseling ceases to be an activity designed to serve the student, but rather it merely serves the institution (Amada, 1994; Kiracofe, 1993).

Third, the counseling process is rather slow in effecting behavioral change and such change may not happen at all, despite a good working relationship between the counselor and the student. Disciplinary action is more effective than counseling in motivating students to make behavioral changes quickly (Fister, 1999).

Summary

Disruptive students, often the focus of attention, are only a part of the system so profoundly affected by their behaviors. It i's important to recognize that the entire system must participate in a collaborative manner to bring about a systemic process in dealing with disruptive students.

Colleges and universities must conduct their own individualized analyses during which they must look carefully at both process and content in their systems. College staff, faculty, administration, and students can work collaboratively to identify systemic problems and to develop ways in which the college community can address such problems. Collective work ensures that all voices are heard, thus opening a previously closed system.

Finally, this model suggests that professional college counselors can take a primary, proactive role in the development of policies and procedures that address disruptive behavior in the classroom and on the college campus. In this model, counselors are important systemic links to the faculty and staff. In addition, this model allows counselors to define their role not only through the implementation of clinical, individual, and group counseling services but also through serving in the vital role of consultant to the campus community in making the college a safe learning environment.

** References and figures for the above article are available from Journal of College Counseling, 2001, 4(1), 61-62.

Back to The Journal of College Counseling page

 

---

About ACCA  Membership  News & Special Events
Resources & Publications  Graduate Students  Members Only

Direct all questions, comments & correspondence concerning this website to Harrison Davis, Jr.