An Analysis of Three Theories of Classroom Management



Nathan Fry 17861650An Analysis of Three Theories of Classroom ManagementEDP 226 Professional Studies in Managing Learing EnvironmentsThe aim of classroom management is to establish and maintain a positive, productive learning environment that provides effective learning opportunities for its students. Therefore, it is crucial for beginning teachers to understand the varying approaches to classroom management and their theoretical underpinnings. Effective classroom management is an essential skill for any new teacher, unfortunately many teachers will adopt traditional or authoritarian approaches rather than innovative evidence-based strategies (Fry, 2007). Additionally, a teacher’s beliefs, attitudes and values will often determine their classroom management strategy (Lyons, Ford & Slee, 2014) and whether they adopt a single theory, a combination of elements across multiple theories or continually adapt to their classroom environment. Here, three classroom management approaches will be analysed; Goal Centered Theory, Cognitive Behavioural Theory and Assertive Discipline.Goal Centered Theory (GCT) is a classroom management theory proposed by Rudolf Dreikurs, an Austrian psychiatrist and student of psychoeducational theory (Lyons, Ford, & Slee, 2014). GCT has its underpinnings in Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory, that students are influenced by their social groups and desire to belong (Woolfolk & Margetts, 2010). This desire to belong motivates behaviour, often negatively, through four subsequent stages; gaining attention inappropriately, exercising power, exacting revenge, and displaying inadequacy. Within GCT, prevention of such misbehaviour in the classroom is achieved through varying strategies; class discussion on expected behaviours and consequences, building class and self- responsibilities, providing choice on classroom rules and academic content, focusing on logical consequences rather than punishment, and encouraging effort rather than achievement. (Lyons, Ford, & Slee, 2014, p.23). The democratic nature of GCT promotes a positive, productive learning environment, where students are involved in their learning as they have a sense of self-management and self-control, demonstrating responsibility by fulfilling their own needs without interfering with the rights and needs of their peers. Furthermore, GCT provides the platform for teachers to identify student’s motivation to misbehave, in addition, to helping students understand and rectify their own behaviour. Conversely, GCT has its’ critics as not all students have an innate desire to belong, and therefore may have ulterior motives to misbehave. In addition, students may not want, or being able to, identify their motives to misbehave. Furthermore, inexperienced teachers may have difficultly identifying the reasons behind student misbehaviour, and when immediate discipline is required, logical consequences may not be implemented properly. Finally, the lack of evidence in the effective implementation of GCT (Lyons, Ford & Slee, 2014, p.25) discourages the adoption of theory into a classroom management practice.Cognitive Behavioural Theory (CBT) is a classroom management theory popularized by Joseph Kaplan and Jane Carter in their book Beyond Behavioural Modification: A Cognitive-Behavioural Approach to Behaviour Management in the School (Lyons, Ford & Slee, 2014). CBT aims to develop students’ self-management and self-regulation skills; setting goals, monitoring their actions and emotions, in order to become aware of the influences that affect their behaviour. It is the teacher’s role to help students develop these self-management skills in a facilitative learning environment, providing an ordered learning structure that promotes respect and outlines the expectations and consequences for behaviours.Once students develop the metacognitive skills required to become self-aware of their behavioural choices, their motivation to learn increases along with the ability to follow instruction. Importantly, CBT is effective in dealing with students who display more challenging behaviours, in particular students who display low self-esteem, disruptive behaviour or underachievement (Lyons, Ford & Slee, 2014, p.26). Furthermore, Lyons, Ford and Slee (2014) highlight the positive effect CBT can have on a student’s mental health wellbeing as it provides tools for controlling emotions and thus reducing stress they may experience in the class or social setting. Critics of CBT suggest the use or misuse of cognitive behavioural methods is unethical (Woolfolk & Margetts, 2010) and conflicting across the behavioural and cognitive elements of student management (Lyons, Ford & Slee, 2014, p.27). Additionally, a major issue with CBT interventions is the practicality of teaching students who lack the cognitive maturity the self-management skills required to control their behaviour. Finally, the distinct lack of evidence as an effective cognitive training method discredits it validity as a classroom management theory.Assertive Discipline (AD) is a classroom management theory developed by professional educators Lee and Marlene Canter. AD is developed on the principle that students are made aware of expected classroom behaviour and the consequences that will result from non-compliance (Lyons, Ford & Slee, 2014, p.28). In addition to expected classroom behaviour, the teacher must establish and enforce a set of class rules that have a clear hierarchy of punishment if the rules are broken. Furthermore, the teacher must maintain an assertive style of control over their students’ whilst developing trust and respect in the classroom by supporting their students, being approachable, and modelling positive classroom practices (Woolfolk & Margetts, 2010, p.448).As rules and consequences are made aware to students, the AD model enables a teacher to deal with students in a positive manner, to teach with little interruption, and avoid the annoyance of verbal confrontation (Marsh, 2010, p.233). Backed by effective curriculum and pedagogy, quality learning flourishes as AD creates an ordered learning environment. Furthermore, the teacher-student relationship developed through AD will discourage misbehaviour and promote academic success.Conversely, the AD model has its’ weaknesses, as Lyons, Ford and Slee (2014, p.29) highlight the lack of theoretical evidence to support the model. Additonally, Woolfolk and Margetts (2010, p.448) argue that the lack of consideration for students’ rights or opinions will negatively affect development of students’ self-discipline. Furthermore, Marsh (2010, p.234) states the AD model does not examine why a student misbehaves and believes the overuse of praise and rewards may reduce students’ intrinsic motivation to learn. Finally, Whitton, Barker, Nosworthy, Humphries and Sinclair (2016, p.245) believe students’ only do what they are told out of compliance which ultimately negatively affects their wellbeing and development of learning behaviours.GCT, AD and CBT can be classified under two main classroom management theories. GCT is strongly influenced by psychoeducational theories, AD is strongly influenced by behaviourist theories, whilst CBT is strongly influenced by both psychoeducational and behaviourist theories. The main difference between GCT, CBT and AD are their opposing viewpoints on the cause of student behaviour or misbehaviour. GCT believes students’ behaviour is driven by the need to belong to a group or gain recognition, CBT believes student behaviour is self-directed, whilst AD believes student behaviour is a result of a lack of structure and limits. The commonality between the three theorise analysed here is the need for the teacher to observe the nature of the behaviour, generate a hypothesis on how to change the behaviour, and reflect on the effectiveness of the approach (Dempsey & Arthur-Kelly, 2007, p.122). Developing a classroom management strategy that aligns with ones’ professional philosophy is an essential requirement for any new teacher. Whichever classroom management model, theory or principles you adopt, the main goal must be to establish a positive, productive and effective learning environment. ReferencesDempsey, I., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2007). Maximising learning outcomes in diverse classrooms. South Melbourne, VIC: Cengage Learning Australia. Fry, S. W. (2007). First-year teachers and induction support: Ups, downs, and in-betweens.?The Qualitative Report,?12(2), 216-237. Lyons, G., Ford, M., & Slee, J., (2014). Classroom Management: Creating positive learning environments. (4th Ed.). South Melbourne, Vic: Cengage Australia Pty Ltd.Marsh, C. (2010). Becoming a Teacher: Knowledge, skills and issues. (5th Ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education AustraliaWhitton, D., Barker, K., Nosworthy, M., Humphries, J., & Sinclair, C. (2016). Learning for Teaching: Teaching for Learning. (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, VIC: Cengage Learning Australia. Woolfolk, A., & Margetts, K. (2010). Educational Psychology. (2nd ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download