A Crash-Course in Behavior Management
As a first-year substitute teacher with no prior experience, I learned very quickly that classroom management and discipline are issues that no teacher can avoid. In some ways, they are the most important skills for a teacher to have because, as I learned in many unruly classroom situations, if your classroom looks like recess time, you will not be able to teach anything. This paper is my attempt to do an “emergency study course” in classroom management and discipline so that the rest of my year will go better. I am positive that my knowledge of this subject will continue to grow and deepen over the course of my career; however, by consulting many sources on this issue, I have come to understand a few basic ground rules for classroom management. In the following pages, I will attempt to synthesize my learning on the subject. After reading several articles and parts of two books on the subject, I noticed that many of the same ideas and concepts were common to all the sources. Since we can only hope to remember so much, especially in the “heat of the moment” when kids are misbehaving, I decided to focus my paper on the ideas that showed up in all or most of the sources. Thus, I am making the inference that the items that showed up most often are the most essential.
From my reading, I was able to classify the information I was receiving about classroom management into two categories. The first are the techniques that I think of as “background” techniques, because they are aspects of the classroom culture and the teacher-student relationship that help improve classroom management without being specific to a given misbehavior. They are just the normal day in day out procedures of behavior that a teacher establishes in his or her classroom. The second type of information regards how a teacher should handle a specific instance of misbehavior. I will begin by discussing the background factors.
The most important background technique for a teacher to employ is building good relationships with their students. Every single source I referenced mentioned the importance of this. One teacher reported the improvement in her classroom management after she began to make a more concerted effort to build relationships with her students: “Asking about their lives…can help build trust and familiarity that will foster a more respectful and manageable classroom.” (Walker, 2008). After developing a detailed classroom management system in his Tools for Teachers, Fred Jones adds the caveat: “The effectiveness of any discipline management procedure relies to a considerable degree upon the preexisting goodwill between teacher and student” (2000, p.232). The reason for this, Jones explains, is that we can not physically make students do anything. “At some point, the disruptive student must decide to ‘go along with you’ rather than fight you” (2000, p.232). Jon Saphier and Robert Gower agree with this principle; they state: “Building community is a powerful preventive force against discipline problems” (1997, p.124). Thus, while it may seem to be unrelated to the issue of classroom management, building relationships is in fact an essential component of classroom management.
The second background technique for producing a disciplined classroom is clearly and explicitly teaching desired behaviors and routines. Many of the sources I consulted agreed that a common teacher error was not wanting to “waste time” teaching simple routines and behaviors expected of students. These teachers simply hoped that students would basically know what to do and just do it. However, Saphier and Gower warn that this type of practice opens the way for discipline problems: “The students must be clear about what [the expectations] are, and thus expectations must be specific so there is no room for misunderstanding, or room for argument” (1997, p.110). Jones describes students as gamblers who are always trying to see how much they can get away with and how far they can push our limits—not because they are bad, but just because they want to know who holds the power in the classroom and what they can and can not get away with (2000, p.197). Combining these two ideas we may conclude that when we as teachers don’t specify a clear limit, we are allowing students to very effectively test our limits. Jones believes that by taking the time to establish clear rules and expectations in the beginning, we are communicating to our students that their behavior in the classroom is important to us. On the contrary, if we try to overlook discipline problems to save time for instruction, we are showing students that dealing with classroom behaviors is not worth your time. As Jones says, this is equivalent to “Declaring open season on yourself” (2000, p.180). Thus, the sources I consulted imply that taking time, no matter how much, to teach rules and expectations in the beginning while likely save time in the end because problems will not be as persistent throughout the year.
The books and articles I consulted were replete with tactics for encountering misbehaving students in one’s class, but a handful of general rules stuck out above all the rest. The single most important rule, according to the majority of the sources, was consistency in your approach to discipline. The main implication of consistency in the classroom, according to Saphier and Gower, is “Every time an expectation is not met, the teacher must react…The teacher must do something; otherwise students—especially resistant students—come to disregard the expectation” (1997, p.114). Fred Jones is also very strict about this principle. He says, “There are no degrees of consistency. Either you are consistent, or you are inconsistent. There is nothing in between” (2000, p.147). Thus, the first aspect of consistency is that we must do something when an expectation is not met. A second aspect of consistency is that the rules, once established with the students, are no longer negotiable. To borrow Jones’ phrase for this, “No means no every time, or it means less than nothing” (2000, p.181). To put these two ideas together: when a student breaks a rule, we must respond in some fashion (not necessarily punishment, but some form of acknowledgment), and once we say no to a behavior, we cannot turn back. To paraphrase Jones’ argument for this last point, when we are inconsistent, meaning that sometimes when we say no we mean it and sometimes we give in and let the student break the rule, we are actually teaching this student that it pays to pester the teacher. From their experience they learn that when a teacher says no, it is still possible to get your way if you just complain about it enough. From this perspective, giving in on a rule even once invites students to challenge you.
Another principle of classroom management I encountered, which is relevant to the paragraph above, is that teachers must develop a management system that has a range of consequences for both positive and negative behaviors (Simonsen et al, 2008, p.364). Therefore, when the authors quoted above insist that we must respond consistently to broken expectations, they are not saying we need to do the same thing every time, nor that we need to do something dramatic every time. Examples of teacher action listed included nonverbal communication such as looking and signaling students to return to work, verbal commands, warnings, behavior contracts, and, when necessary, implementing some sort of punishment (Jones, 2000, Saphier and Gower, 1997, Simonsen et al., 2008). Having many options for responding allows teachers to be flexible and prevents teachers from being forced to dole out a punishment when it is inappropriate (Saphier and Gower, 1997, p.113) . The other advantage to having a pre-established repertoire of possible consequences is that when we give a student a warning and they continue to produce the undesired behavior, we will know how to respond without hesitation. Jones warns against making empty threats, because once kids discover that you don’t know what to do or don’t plan on doing anything, they will realize that all your yelling is just a lot of hot air (2000, p.198). Saphier and Gower seem to advocate this approach as well. They tell us: “Act. Don’t talk. Too much talk is the downfall of good discipline” (1997, p.148). By taking action and not engaging in arguments with students, we are more likely to avoid what Jones calls “silly talk”, where teachers engage in meaningless back and forth exchanges with students such as: “Stop talking” “I wasn’t talking” “Yes you were” “No I wasn’t” “I saw you” “I was just asking a question”, etc. It is clear that such exchanges accomplish nothing.
A final point of good discipline mentioned in several sources was that the teacher is most effective when remaining calm, and that consequences should be delivered without emotion, in a matter of fact kind of way (Saphier and Gower, 1997, p.147, Jones, 2000, p.164-174). Consequences should seem to result naturally from the students action, giving the impression of “no choice” (Saphier and Gower, 1997, p.148). This type of advice directly contradicts the practices of many teachers I have observed, who seem think that the key to classroom order is a loud voice and emotional intimidation. I was very happy to read that I won’t have to yell and snarl at my students in order to have an effective classroom.
The literature on the subject of classroom management is vast, and in this short time of study, I have learned more than I can write in this limited space. To summarize my understanding at this point, good classroom management comes from certain general characteristics of the classroom, such as good relationships and clear expectations, as well as from the way in which a teacher responds to specific instances of misbehavior. By attentively applying both of these principles together, creating a manageable classroom, though difficult, should be possible.
References
Jones, Fred. (2000). Tools for teaching. Portland. Frederick Jones and Associates.
Saphier, J., and Gower, R.. (1997). The skillful teacher: Building your teaching skills. Acton. RBT.
Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., Sugai, G.. (8/2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research practice. Education and treatment of Children, v31(3), 351-380.
Walker, Tim. (2008). You’re in control, right? NEA Today. Fall 2008. 20-21.
No comments:
Post a Comment