It is not always easy to discern the motivations or root causes behind a student’s behavior. However, distinguishing whether a behavior is oppositional-defiant or anxious-avoidant is critically important. This distinction shapes not only how we perceive our students, but also how they come to perceive themselves. The way we conceptualize behavior directly informs our intervention strategies, making it essential that we thoughtfully examine the thoughts, feelings, and internal narratives that may be driving avoidance.
Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) is a clinical diagnosis characterized by chronic irritability, anger, vindictiveness, and persistent resistance to tasks or expectations set by authority figures. In these cases, the central driver of behavior is often a rejection of perceived authority or control. While not all individuals diagnosed with ODD escalate these behaviors, without meaningful and timely intervention, some may later receive diagnoses such as Conduct Disorder or Antisocial Personality Disorder and engage in increasingly risky or harmful behaviors.
Anxiety-based avoidance, however, is fundamentally different. The driving force behind anxious-avoidant behavior is typically anxiety rooted in a perceived lack of control. This pattern of avoidance is far more common within neurodivergent populations than ODD. There is growing discussion in the field around Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA), particularly in relation to autistic individuals. Whether or not PDA is formally recognized as a clinical diagnosis, individuals who exhibit this pattern of avoidance are often using it as a means of regaining control in a world where their choices, identity, and future may feel dictated by external demands rather than internal motivation.
To support students in both meeting expectations and developing a genuine sense of agency, Collaborative Problem Solving is often the intervention of choice. This approach emphasizes working with students rather than on them, identifying challenges together, brainstorming solutions collaboratively, testing those solutions, and adjusting as needed. The strength of this model lies in its shared decision-making process and its recognition of the student as an active participant in their own growth.
Academically, a strength-based approach can be especially powerful. By centering students’ interests, talents, and competencies, we not only increase motivation but also foster autonomy and self-efficacy. When students experience choice and agency in their learning, they are more likely to engage meaningfully and to see themselves as capable, empowered learners navigating their own educational paths.
