Lee Canters Assertive Discipline - Case Study Example

Lee Canter’s Assertive Discipline 2008 Assertive Discipline is a management system designed for regular education settings. It was developed in 1970sby Lee and Marlene Canter. During short trainings teachers are taught how to establish and maintain control over students’ behavior through a fixed set of rewards and punishers. For a long time, this management system remained the only one helping the inexperienced teachers to gain control over students. Widely promoted by Lee Canter, the discipline acquired growing popularity in the USA and some other countries. The technique is based on the behavioral modification plans and offers a systematic approach to the reinforcement of appropriate student behavior, encouraging teachers to “catch the student being good” and implement a detailed systematic plan for the use of mild punishers for wrong behaviors (Canter 1989). The system was designed in response to the widespread need for greater classroom management skills. By 1991 about 750,000 teachers had been trained to use Assertive Discipline. However, the popularity of the discipline was mostly built on good marketing rather than on profound research. This fact has been repeatedly underlined by the scholars, who argued that Assertive Discipline and its impact on students should be examined on a wider territory and a variety of settings in a longitudinal study. Though the discipline has received many appraise, it has also met much critical argumentation about the appropriateness of the operant procedures in the modern humanistic education system. However, as Evans et al. suggested, strong criticism was mostly the result of a long-lasting argument between humanism and behaviorism and this argumentation can go forever (p.13). This paper examines researches having been done on Assertive Discipline. We will see where the program has been implemented and whether it has been effective in a variety of settings. Assertive discipline got much praise. Lee Canter (1989) enumerates the dissertations, master’s theses and research projects dealing with Assertive Discipline. The results revealed that teachers dramatically improved student behavior when they used Assertive Discipline approach. Assertive Discipline helps to reduce the frequency of disruptive behavior in the classroom, greatly reduce the number of students referred to administrators, increase students’ time-on task. The teachers implementing Assertive Discipline were evaluated as more effective in classroom management. Research carried out in school districts in Oregon, California, Ohio and Arizona showed that “an overwhelming majority of teachers” believed that Assertive discipline helped to “improve the climate in the schools and behavior of students” (Canter 1989, p.60). In fact, as Evans et al. (1991) noted, the basic elements of Assertive Discipline (reinforcement and punishment) had been verified repeatedly in research data. However, beyond the basic tenets, there was a significant lack of empirical data from carefully controlled studies to validate the effectiveness of Canter’s program. Rendler, Padilla, and Krank (1989) questioned the effectiveness of Assertive Discipline and pointed to the lack of substantive evidence in support of Canter’s claims. The database on the efficacy of Assertive Discipline was small and most of the research lacked experimental control (In Evans et al. 1991, p.14). Curwin and Mendler (1988), considered the most vocal critics of Canter’s program, protested against the use of operant procedures in education, offering rather to use a preventive approach to misbehavior. They argued that student chronic misbehave usually has underlying grounds of low self-esteem, feeling of threat to their dignity and loss of belief in their academic achievements. Most of misbehavior are insignificant and can be corrected through a direct instruction. The authors focus on students who are behaviorally at-risk. To their mind the school pays too much attention to figure out why students misbehave, instead of concentrating on how to change misbehavior patterns (In Fitzer 2004). On contrast, McCormack (1989), though acknowledging the lack of research, stated that critics hadn’t adequately reviewed prior investigations and listed the researches in support of Assertive Discipline (In Evans et al 191, p.14). McCormack believes that it is not for nothing that Canter’s assertive discipline gained nationwide support. The program provided educators with the ‘competence and confidence necessary to assert their influence and deal effectively with discipline problems.’ Making a review of 11 research projects dealing with assertive discipline, McCormack underlined that the studies revealed positive outcomes of the program, such as improvement in classroom discipline and student behavior, reduction of out-of-seat misbehavior and inappropriate talking among the third-grade students, reduction in time devoted to discipline referrals, and improvement of teachers’ and students’ self-concept. An empirical study conducted in 36 Oregon third-grade classrooms showed that classrooms using Assertive Discipline had lower levels of off-task behavior than classrooms not using the program (McCormack 1987). The scholars’ claims about studies around research concerned lack of variables control and short-terms. Evans et al. (1991) noted that the majority of research on Assertive Discipline dealt with teachers’ subjective impressions. Those were teachers who “felt” that assertive discipline was effective or that classroom behavioral disruptions decreased due to its implementation. It was necessary to research the effectiveness of the discipline in different settings and to see its effects on the students. Evans et al. also argued that lack of training in assertive discipline often resulted in non-ecological relations between teachers and students. Finding faults with students, teachers could punish students until the conflict took serious forms. However, the authors did not blame Canter for that. In fact, the problem was about the teachers themselves. They were not positive and didn’t demonstrate appropriate assertive teaching behavior (p.15-16). As Canter (1989, p.58) suggested such problems were not about assertive discipline but rather indicative of teachers possessing negative personalities, the ones who should not teach. Evans et al concluded that tit was necessary to great a management system placing more emphasis on ecologically oriented training (p.16). Canter (1989) wrote: “Assertive Discipline is not a cure‑all. It is a starting point” (p.60). Further researches demonstrate that assertive discipline is an effective instrument to be used in certain settings. Swinson and Melling (1995) conducted a pre-post intervention study in two major schools observing nine classes across grades 3-6 for on/off task, nature and frequency of off-task and rate of teacher verbal approval/disapproval, and reported increase in appropriate on-task behavior, increase in rate of praising and better atmosphere in class, decrease in teacher verbal disapproval and frequency of disruption. This supported the results of the earlier studies. Further, the reported outcomes were checked in the UK by Wools et al. They designed a study with six control schools and sic target schools across all key stages, including one nursery, two infant, two primary and one secondary in each group. Observing 30-minute lessons in the core subjects and taking interviews with teachers and administrators they found that teachers trained in assertive discipline gave more positive recognition and fewer negative reprimands to students than their colleagues not trained in it (In Fletcher-Campbell and Wilkin 2003, pp.4-5). Similarly, Swinson and Cordig (2002) studied the effectiveness of assertive discipline and the impact of in-service training of teachers on its use in a school with emotional and behavioral difficulties. They reported improved rates of on-task behavior of students across different ages and reduction in disruption occurrence, increased use of positive feedback and praise on the side of teachers. The authors concluded that assertive discipline is effective in among students with behavioral problems. Brigitte Thompson, a seasoned teacher working in some of the UK’s and Africa’s most unruly schools, states that the discipline provided an opportunity to decrease disruptions even in schools with the severest behavioral problems (Granger 2008). Positive outcomes were achieved in Bebington High School, a 1,000-strong secondary modern in the Wirral, Merseyside, which was one of the first to introduce this system. The students showed better examinations results. White Hart Lane comprehensive in Tottenham that had used to have serious discipline problems introduced an informal prize-giving for children for turning up every day, the prizes including a pen, a key ring and a coin holder (for two terms daily turning up) and a mug (if not a day is missed during the year). In the first year of the scheme nine mugs were handed out, several years later – 57 were given. The scheme also resulted in better exam results, better discipline and more parents wanting to send their children to the school, so that by 1993 the school had an attendance rate of more than 90% (Williams 1993). Assertive discipline showed itself as an ineffective technique for the work with gifted middle school students. Such students required disciplines promoting their self-discipline, encouraging interaction and engagement of students into learning process, while assertive discipline provides less emphasis on relationships and innovations and enhances control on the side of the teacher. ‘No significant differences were found in students’ perceptions between classrooms using assertive discipline and those not using assertive discipline for the areas of competition, task orientation, organization, and understanding classroom rule’, reports Parker (1994). Parker’s study suggests that some of the concerns around the discipline have to be considered. The problem is that very often control over a class is viewed as the major goal of classroom discipline. However, it is the learning that goes in the classroom that should be focused on, argued Edwards (1994). Glasser (1984) suggests that control is certainly necessary for the psychological balance of human beings, yet it does not mean that control should be interpreted as synonymous with discipline. Many students cannot manage their behavior and cope with problems they face, which makes both children and their parents frustrated. The growing rate of suicides became the evidence of this issue. Thus the task of school is to teach students self-management of their behavior, which can be done when the teacher is less controlling and more cooperative. Teachers are often not properly trained in the use of effective discipline methods or do not develop their discipline management skills. For a long time, Assertive Discipline was the only one used nation widely, so that teachers stuck on it (In Van Tassel 1995). One of the major concerns about classroom discipline and control is their relation to students’ self-esteem and performance. Though it may be suggested that better academic achievements should enhance self-esteem, some research has questioned the existence of this correlation. The focus on the improvement of students’ self-esteem does not necessarily enhance performance. However, it is most unlikely that the battering of self-esteem can increase students’ interest to learning. Children with low self-esteem tend to show behavior problems. Kohn (1994) wrote on this point: “it is entirely possible that children who feel good about themselves are not necessarily high-achievers or caring people - and yet, at the same time, that those who doubt their own worth are even less likely to be so” (p. 272, in Van Tassel 1995). “Excessive control is apparently a major contributing factor in creating at-risk conditions for school children” argued Edwards (1994, p. 344, in Van Tassel 1995). Some critics suggest that assertive discipline provides a quick fix having a long-term negative impact on children’s attitudes to school. If assertive discipline is used inappropriately with the focus on punishment, the atmosphere in class may become antagonistic. Longitudinal studies by Fox (1990, 1991) demonstrate that initially improved student behavior tends to deteriorate after several months, making teachers feeling rather pessimistic about the system over time (In Van Tassel 1995). Budd Churchward (2001) explains that assertive discipline is effective only at certain stages of teacher-student relations. It is necessary to address classroom discipline at different levels. Assertive discipline works well with students functioning at the power stage, who do not have their own rules but may follow other’s rules out of fear of punishment. These are usually small children (age 4-5), and few older students. Students functioning at the reward and punishment stage also do best with an assertive teacher. Children at the mutual interpersonal stage – ‘How can I please you?’ – need mild reminders. Assertive discipline does work with them while they understand it, but they rarely need such “a heavy handed approach”, believes Churchward. The next stage is self-discipline based on social order – “I behave because it is the right thing to do”. Students at this stage do not appreciate assertive discipline though they may not tell you about that. Assertive discipline is an effective basic instrument that can be used in classroom management. The program has brought positive results in schools with behavioral problems and in primary school, where students function at the lowest discipline levels. However, it may be an inappropriate discipline management system to be used with children being at higher discipline levels, especially with gifted students. Research conducted in the USA and UK support the positive outcomes of assertive discipline, such as reduction of the misbehavior incidents and off-task time, improvement of performance, classroom climate and teacher and student self-concept. However, these outcomes are achieved only in case the program is implemented properly by highly trained positive educators. References: Canter, Lee (1989). Assertive Discipline – More than Names on the Board and Marble in a Jar. Phi Delta Kaplan, Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 57-61. Churchward, Budd (2001). The Honor Level System: Discipline by Design. Montana Education> Homepage. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~mtpbs/Education/Discipline.pdf. Evans, William H., Evans, Susan S., Gable Robert A., Kehlhem, Melissa A. (1991). Assertive Discipline and behavioral Disorders: Is this a Marriage Made in Heaven? Beyond Behavior, Vol.22, pp.13-16. Fitzer, Kim (2004). Curwin and Mendler on Assertive Discipline. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from students.ed.uiuc.edu/fitzer/EdPsy399OL/curwinandmendler.htm - 9k Fletcher-Campbell, Felicity and Wilkin, Anne (2003). Review of the Research Literature on Educational Interventions for Pupils with Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties. National Foundation for Educational Research. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/Products/NATIONAL-REPORT/D3265D20-FD7D-11d6-B211-0060085F8572/ebdreviewFeb03.pdf. Granger, Helen (2008). School ‘was like a war zone’. South Africa. Pretoria News, March 07. Independent Online. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=105&art_id=vn20080307081111845C243704 - 84k McCormack, Sammie (1987). Assertive Discipline: What Do We Really Know? Abstract. ERIC. Retrieved March 1, 2008 from www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED286618 - 18k Parker, G. (1994). Gifted Students’ Perception of Environment in Assertive Discipline and Non-Assertive Discipline Classrooms. Dissertation Abstracts International. Employed at University of Houston, Clear Lake Campus, Houston, TX. Swinson, Jeremy and Cording, Mike (2002). Assertive Discipline in a School for Pupils with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. British Journal of Special Education, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.72–75. Van Tassel, Gene (1995). Classroom Management. Brains.org. Articles on Brain based Education. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from www.brains.org/classroom_management.htm - 39k Williams, Elaine (1993). Pupils Join a Gold Rush. The Independent, December 23. Global Ideas Bank – Assertive discipline in schools. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=132 - 32k Read More