Behaviour Management In School - Assignment Example

Full Submitted Behaviour management is undoubtedly challenging especially in a highly culturally andsocio-economically diverse student population. Knowing that behaviour management affects classroom instruction and learning, finding the best approach to effectively manage our students has led me to this study. This study in turn has proven that finding the best approach to effective behaviour management is not easy. Nevertheless it has clarified issues that matter in deciding which behavioural management approach should be chosen. Among the discipline models studied, those under the moderate approach – Driekurs’s and Glasser’s – are enticing, maybe because my management practise turns out to be approximating the moderate approach. However, following Tauber’s advice that the choice of a discipline model should be a logical choice than a convenient choice, I find Gordon’s T.E.T. Model the best approach that embodies what discipline is and what learning is. As such, the need to further study Gordon’s model is highly recommended. Behaviour Management in Secondary School 1 Introduction As a teacher, the greatest challenge I have encountered is managing the behaviour of my students. Looking back, I could proudly say, that indeed, I had managed my classes. However, evaluating my previous experiences in classroom behaviour management against current classroom behaviour management theories brings me to ponder, whether I did the right thing or not. One thing, I am sure of though, is the positive correlation of effective behaviour management to effective instruction and learning. Just like Reinke, Sprick, and Knight, I also believe that effective behaviour management directly correlates with active student participation and high performance, making it vital to effective teaching (93). Relating this to the situation of our school – how to improve our declined overall performance with an increasing number of students with challenging behaviours – I find behaviour management to be of utmost importance. 1.1 Context Our school – a public Catholic school – aims to develop in our children a set of spiritual and moral values (honesty, integrity and good judgement); a complement of basic skills (linguistic, mathematical, scientific, artistic, physical and social); an enquiring and discriminating mind and a desire for knowledge; a strong self-esteem and high personal expectation; and tolerance and respect for others. How to achieve these goals in an increasing student population with challenging behaviours is one of the great challenges confronting us today, as our students’ misbehaviours, commonly characterised by refusing to do class work, fighting, noisiness, disrespect, talking out, tardiness, and absenteeism, have resulted to our school’s declined performance, and have driven out some of our teachers. Our school’s problem in behaviour management is further exacerbated by other characteristics of our student population: 1) many come from areas where there are high levels of crime and anti-social behaviour; 2) the majority have learning difficulties or disabilities resulting to low performance/under-achievement; 3) a large proportion have special educational needs which are mainly behavioural, emotional and social in nature; 4) a high percentage are non native English speakers; 5) the majority are African and Black-British Caribbean with the rest coming from a very wide range of cultures; 6) many belong to low-income families with 3:10 ratio of students eligible for free school meals – a proportion above national averages; and 7) more are boys than girls. As such, the specific question I would like to address focuses on the principles, techniques and strategies by which our school can manage effectively the behaviour of our highly culturally and socioeconomically diverse students. 1.2 Rationale Aside from being the head-teacher of Religious Education in our school, being a member of our school team mainly tasked with the overall behaviour of students compels me to further study behaviour management in secondary school. I consider effective behaviour management pivotal to improve our school’s performance, because just like Lavay, I believe that without it, effective instruction can hardly be achieved (223). And without effective instruction, our goal to improve our school performance will remain elusive. Though, it is true that effective behaviour management does not warrant effective instruction, nonetheless, I agree with Oliver and Reschly that managing student behaviour is a prerequisite to effective instruction (1). For, how can we teach effectively if from time to time we are disrupted by our students’ misbehaviours? And how can we achieve our planned lesson if half of our limited time is consumed in putting our classes in order? This actually is the dilemma that we face almost daily in our school lives. Misbehaviours often put our patience to test, that more often than not we lose our control then end up feeling guilty and ineffective. Studies (Hastings & Bham, qtd. in Crothers & Kolbert 132; Hawe et al.; Jones, qtd. in Tauber 9; Lawrence & Steadman, qtd. in Baloglu 69; Ingersoll & Smith, Berliner, Browers & Tomic, Espin & Yell, qtd. in Oliver & Reschly 1; Walters & Frei 12) have affirmed consistently how detrimental disruptive classroom behaviours can be to teachers’ effectiveness and efficiency, consequently obstructing learning and even causing teachers’ resignation. So unless teachers learn how to effectively manage student behaviour, effective learning can hardly be achieved. Here lies the challenge because managing student behaviour is a complex matter that simple common sense is not enough. It requires self-reflection and dynamic in-depth study. And this study paper is an initial effort. 2 Literature Review Education scholars and practitioners (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 281-283; Englander 334; Kafer 3; Mathieson & Price 2; Riding & Burton 38) alike recognise that behaviour management is critical to effective instruction and learning, and that behaviour management is challenging. They also agree in defining factors important to achieve effective behaviour management. But, they never agree as how effective behaviour management can be achieved. In fact, review of a plethora of literatures, dealing with behaviour management, offer varied approaches as to how student behaviour could be managed effectively. These approaches even contradict each other. Nevertheless, the differences and justifications of these approaches help me reflect on my own classroom practices and school practices, as well. 2.1 Defining Behaviour Management Just like any other problem, it is important first to define behaviour management before attempting to find the best approach we could use. Defining behaviour management will set the boundaries and will determine direction of our actions. Literatures reviewed define behaviour management in two ways: What it is and what it is not. Hamre and Pianta describe what behaviour management is – “Behaviour management is a term that is often applied to a broad spectrum of classroom management strategies, including teacher’s abilities to engage students and make constructive use of time.” They further that as a practical guide to classroom management, behaviour management pertains to “practices intended to promote positive behaviour and prevent or terminate misbehaviour in the classroom.” (p.31) [emphasis original] Whereas, Phelan describes what behaviour management is not – behaviour management is not synonymous with classroom management. The former is only one of the most important concerns of the latter. (par. 4) Thus the latter is broader than the former. This difference of these two terms can be better understood in their relationship. Behaviour management makes classroom management a lot easier, while classroom management necessitates behaviour management. Related to this, Walters and Frei clarify that classroom management and discipline are not the same (13) The former constitutes everything teachers do – procedures, routines, and structures – to bring about effective classroom learning (Daniels, Patterson & Dunston 78); while the latter, Marshall explains, pertains to managing impulses and having self-control. As such he says; the former is the responsibility of the teacher; whereas the latter is the responsibility of students. (Qtd. in Walters & Frei 13) Another issue to be clarified is whether these two terms, behaviour management and discipline, are one and the same thing. Although literatures do not categorically answer this inquiry, it can be understood that these two terms are different. The former is the process; while the latter is the product. Behaviour management is the process by which discipline is hoped to be achieved. However these two terms are commonly used interchangeably, perhaps because, to manage behaviour essentially means to discipline. And since discipline is the object of behaviour management, defining discipline is pertinent to this study. Discipline is associated with good behaviour that definition of discipline seems self-evident. But, this is not always the case because good and bad behaviour is value-laden. What may be bad to me may not be necessarily bad to you. As Wynne clarifies, people and institutions perceive discipline and good behaviour differently depending on their system of beliefs and values. He furthers that these differences actually make effective behaviour management uncertain. (168) In fact, current literatures (Bear; Blanford; Cameron; Cameron & Sheppard; Dupper & Dingus; National Association of School Psychologists; Olley, Cohn & Cowan) tend to define discipline by criticising the traditional view, which gives too much emphasis on control and authority. Among the concerns literatures raise regarding the traditional view are the vast and wide range of behaviours and attitudes that schools consider disruptive (Blandford 1) and the detrimental effects of corporal punishments on student learning (Cameron; Cameron & Sheppard; Dupper & Dingus; Olley, Cohn & Cowan). To clarify what discipline really is, it is best to examine the purpose of school discipline, because without the purpose, school discipline will be irrelevant. According to the National Association of School Psychologists, school discipline has two equally important purposes: Primarily, it aims to “creat[e] safe, orderly, and positive learning environments” and secondly, “to develop positive behavior and self-discipline in children” (28). Both aims are equally important and should be addressed equally because the effectiveness of school discipline rests on the combined power of these two aims. However Bear observed that too much emphasis is given to school discipline’s primary purpose to the point of disregarding the other equally important purpose. Thus it is unsurprising to see if discipline models put more weight on control and punitive techniques. (8) 2.2 Understanding Behaviour Management Theories and Discipline Models As I have said earlier, managing student behaviour is not simply common sense. Underlying our approaches to classroom behavioural problems is a body of knowledge that reflects our belief and values systems in the form of theories, models and strategies, which can be categorised under traditional, moderate, and radical approaches. In his book Classroom Management: Sound Theory and Effective, Tauber has comprehensively discussed the different contending theoretical frameworks, discipline models and strategies that commonly guide teachers in managing student behaviours. In explaining the importance to behaviour management of these three concepts, Tauber emphasises their sequential relationship – That, our philosophy/theoretical framework defines our choice of discipline model, which in effect determines our choice of strategy (5). For example, I believe that children are naturally good and are capable of understanding right from wrong, but from time to time they misbehave because they are not yet equip to understand the implication of their actions. Thus they need to be taught about what is good and bad. And being a teacher, it is my role to modify their misbehaviours. So, I discipline them with determined compassion. Under which category I fall in the continuum of teachers behaviour will be understood best after discussing the different theoretical frameworks, models and strategies following Tauber’s explanation. 2.2.1 Clarifying Theoretical Frameworks Varied discipline models and strategies, Tauber explains, can be grouped together under four theoretical frameworks: 1) schools of thought, 2) social bases of power, 3) behaviorist-Humanist, and 4) keeping it simple framework. The first theoretical framework is Wolfgang and Glickman’s schools of thought framework. According to this theoretical framework, teachers perceive their roles in three different ways, qualified as interventionist, interactionalist and noninterventionist. Teachers in the interventionist continuum believe that the power to modify student behaviour is tasked on teachers. To do this, teachers must control the learning environment, through a logical plan that would condition students to behave as the school desires. To compel students’ compliance, interventionist teachers use reward and punishment. At the opposite side are the noninterventionist teachers, who believe that the power to modify student behaviour resides on the internal will of students to behave and learn. The role of noninterventionist teachers is to simply nurture the students’ intrinsic motivation. So, teachers are mere facilitators or directors. In between these two extreme views are interactionalists teachers, who believe that effective behaviour management is a shared responsibility, because behaviours are enacted choices. Ones action is ones responsibility. As such interactionist teachers handle their class in a democratic way, believing that by allowing students to fully participate in decision making, students will learn to become responsible of their actions. (Tauber 19-21) Looking at these beliefs as against the purpose of school discipline, I find the interactionist view most fitting, because it emphasises positive interrelationship, which is what effective learning requires and it develops responsibility in students, which is what self-discipline – the ultimate aim of school discipline – requires. The second theoretical framework is French and Raven’s social bases of power framework. From this framework, the school is perceived as a dynamic interrelation of power between teachers and students, and that teachers manage classrooms using five powers: coercive, reward, legitimate, referent and expert power. To show the implication of these five powers on behaviour management, French and Raven hypothetically distribute these powers as follows: coercive (35%), reward (45%), legitimate (10%), referent (5%) and expert (5%). This hypothetical power distribution implies that teachers have been ineffectively overusing coercion and reward. (Tauber 22) However, French and Raven did not define the ideal power distribution. Instead, they explained sources of these powers, which will guide us in determining the power distribution that will best achieve school discipline. Examining these five powers shows that coercive power and reward power are the weakest because their usefulness is short-termed. Worse, if these two powers are abused; they may create negative effects (Cameron 4). The other two powers – legitimate power and expert power – are more stable and stronger because their sources are socially established institutions. The school hierarchy has vested in teachers the legitimate power; while the teaching profession legitimise the teachers’ expert power. Thus these powers work only until students are studying. Finally, the referent power is the strongest because its effectiveness transcends school boundaries. Unlike the other four powers, the source of referent power is not dictated/ imposed. Its source, which is the students’ attraction to teachers, naturally blooms from the students’ admiration of teachers. Referent power is usually gained by teachers, who know how to treat students with respect. Given the different sources and effects of teachers’ powers, I believe that teachers’ legitimate power and expert power should be given the greatest weight, because effective behaviour management requires training (Blandford 3; Oliver & Reschly 3; Reinke et al. 93), and effective discipline and effective teaching go hand in hand (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 283). Furthermore, effective instruction effectively manages student behaviour, because the more students are actively engaged in learning, the lesser they are inclined to engage in disruptive behaviours (Crothers & Kolbert 133). In fact, the etymology of the term ‘discipline’ is the Greek word ‘discipere’, which means to teach (Skiba 28). Equally important to effective management behavior is the teachers’ referent power. Students unquestioningly obey teachers whom they admire, respect and trust (Froyen, qtd. in Felix 27). Given the combined effectiveness of these three powers, I don’t think that coercive power and reward power are still needed. The third theoretical framework is the behaviourist-humanist framework, which, Tauber describes, has more scholarly basis, as this addresses the basic question – “how humans learn?” This theoretical framework is relevant to behaviour management, because although classroom discipline is only a part of classroom management, discipline is important to human societies. Therefore, it is important for students to learn discipline. (28) Two extremely opposing views are categorised under the behaviourist-humanist framework: Skinner’s behaviourism and Roger’s humanism. The difference of these two theories is based on their view as to what motivates children to learn. Skinner relies on extrinsic motivations, which he calls reinforcements; whereas, Rogers relies on intrinsic motivation. (Tauber 28-30) If teachers’ are to be characterised based on these views, Skinner’s will be an interventionist and authoritative teacher; while Rogers’s will be a noninterventionist and facilitative teacher. Personally, I admire Rogers’ framework, which can be best understood in his Client-Centred Therapy. However, I believe; this is easier said than done, especially in a school like ours. The fourth theoretical framework is Lewis’s keeping it simple framework. According to this theoretical framework, models on classroom management can be simply categorised based on what they want to achieve – control, manage, or influence. To approximate this framework with the three theoretical frameworks discussed above would mean that control is to the interventionist, which gives more weight on coercive and control power, to reinforce positive behaviour; manage is to the interactionist, which balances the five powers to reinforce positive behaviour thereby triggering the intrinsic motivation latent in the student; and influence is to the noninterventionist, which disregards the coercive and reward power giving more weight on the referent power to influence the student’s intrinsic motivation to behave and learn. There are those who propose an eclectic approach, saying that it would be better to pick from each model what works in each situation. However Tauber’s criticism of this approach sounds logical, saying that each discipline model has its own strength and weaknesses. He insisted that the effectiveness of your chosen discipline model will depend on the achievement of your philosophy or belief. (36) Therefore, the discipline model that we choose should fit in with the philosophy that we espouse. 2.2.2 Using a Single Discipline Model In choosing discipline models, Tauber never fails to emphasise that what defines a discipline model effective is its consistency with the theoretical framework that we espouse and not what ‘work[s] with most [students], most of the time, in most situations’ [emphases original]. He furthers that choosing a single discipline model is truly hard, because it is essentially a choice of necessity. The eclectic approach is easier because it is a choice of convenience. Between these two choices, the single approach should prevail. (38) Generally, discipline models can be categorised as traditional, moderate, and radical approaches. The traditional approach manages behaviour by manipulating the learning environment to bring about desired student behaviour (Brereton & Tonge 125). As such, teachers dominate the learning process. In effect, discipline models espousing the interventionist schools of thought framework, coercive social basis of power framework, Skinnerian behaviourist-humanist framework, and control keep it simple framework fall under this category. On the other hand, the moderate approach promotes teacher-student classroom power sharing, two-way communication, and in building relationships. As such it is a mixture of the two extreme approaches. (Burton, par. 13) In effect discipline models espousing the interactionalist schools of thought framework, legitimate-expert-referent social basis of power framework, a mixture of Skinnerian and Rogerian behaviourist-humanist framework, and manage-influence keep it simple framework fall under this category. Lastly, I call the other extreme the radical approach because it is the direct opposite of the traditional approach. As such discipline models espousing the noninterventionist schools of thought framework, referent social basis of power framework, a Rogerian behaviourist-humanist framework, and influence keep it simple framework fall under this category. Examination of the six established models of disciplines (Tauber 41) shows that three of these discipline models are essentially traditional approaches – Dobson’s A Place for Punishment Model, Canter’s Assertive Discipline Model, and Jones Positive Discipline Model. These three models similarly propose behaviour management through manipulation, coercion, punishment, and control. Thus teachers’ role is authoritative and classroom management is teacher-centred. However among these three discipline models, Dobson’s A Place for Punishment Model is the rabid proponent of punishment to modify student behaviour. Dobson’s belief can be best summarised in a biblical quote: “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him” (Prov. 13:24, qtd. in Tauber 46). To Dobson, children need to be punished to be disciplined and grow-up as decent human beings. This is the primordial role of teachers. Punishing children is actually an act of love. Corporal punishment is to cause physical pain not to harm but to modify undesired behaviours (Straus & Donnelly, qtd. in Lyon 41). So, the more strict teachers are the better they can manage classroom behaviours. Key to Dobson’s model is the combination of “loving compassion and decisive justice” (Tauber 49), which could be understood as calculated punishment. Meaning, teachers should punish children’s misbehaviours not out of anger but out of concern for the children’s total development. (Tauber 43-65) I, myself, am a strict disciplinarian. I agree with most of Dobson’s premises. Honestly though, I am not sure on the internal effect of punishment on my students. This to me is important because I believe that what matters is the children’s internal development and self-discipline. And the internal effect of punishment on children is what Dobson misses. It is highly probable that punished children behave out of fear without understanding the true intent of the punishment. In this case, children may instead find ways not to be caught in order not to be punished. Hence what children learn is misbehaviour is bad when caught and not misbehaviour is bad because it harms others. On the other hand, Lee and Marlene Canter’s Assertive Discipline Model – a “take charge” approach to classroom management is seemingly an ambivalent approach. Examination of this model has given me the impression that the Canters try not to be identified with the traditional approach by supplanting authoritative teachers with assertive teachers, which essentially are similarly authoritative. According to this model, assertive teachers are empowered teachers. They are empowered with rules and discipline plans that emphasise positive recognition and punishment by reward. In other words, unlike Dobson’s, the Canters are against the use of punishment. Canter’s model proposes assertive teachers as against hostile teachers (teachers at war with students) and noninterventionist teachers (indecisive teachers). (Tauber 66-88) Actually among these three traditional approaches, Fredric Jones Positive Discipline Model is between the traditional and moderate approach. Nonetheless it is still grounded on the traditional approach as shown in the model’s Layer Cake Approach, Positive Classroom Discipline and Positive Classroom Instruction which essentially highlights manipulation and teacher authority, and the use of reward and coercion (Tauber 89-107), which basically are the cornerstones of traditional approach. What makes this discipline model seemingly moderate is its recognition of students’ ability to be responsible in their actions and the need for students’ voluntary cooperation. At least this model is getting away from highly teacher-centred classroom management by developing interactionist teaching style. Examining this model as against the need of our school leads me to think that this discipline model is fitting, especially with the kind of student population that our school has. Two discipline models can be categorised under the moderate approach -- Rudolf Dreikurs’s Social Discipline Model and William Glasser’s Reality Therapy, Choice Theory, and Quality Schools. Both discipline models use a mixture of the traditional and radical approaches. Discipline models in the moderate approach adopt a mixture of traditional and radical approaches not based on what works as proponents of eclectic approach propose but on their perception of students’ behaviours. From this perception they define the role teachers should play in the classroom. Teachers are not authoritative classroom controllers, but understanding classroom managers, who treat students with respect. Although Glasser’s model leans nearer to the radical approach, his model and Dreikurs’s are similar in satisfying the needs of students to be accepted and to belong. This can be seen in Glasser’s Control Theory and in Dreikurs’ focus on the purposefulness of students’ misbehaviours. They also similarly focus on the here and now. For example, Dreikurs’ focus on the purpose of students’ misbehaviours – attention seeking, power struggle, revenge seeking, and escape by withdrawal (Tauber 111) – and not on their root cause, believing that given corrective choices, students’ can be responsible because they will learn from the logical consequences of their actions. This is also the foundation of Glasser’s Reality Theory. Moreover, both reject the use of punishment, reward, and praise; instead they endorse the use of encouragement. As Driekurs argues, encouragement is the best way to help misbehaving students, because encouragement is more motivating and can be effective in developing students’ ‘self-esteem, self-confidence, and self-discipline’. He furthers that misbehaving students are in fact discouraged students. (Tauber 122-123) Encouragement accepts students as what they are now (a need basic to all human beings and a common source of students’ misbehaviour) recognises the limitations of students yet believes that there is room for them to improve by appreciating whatever effort and improvement they have shown (Balson qtd. in Tauber 123). What makes Glasser’s discipline model more progressive than Dreikurs’s is his attention on the social nature of students, schools and learning. Only one discipline model – Thomas Gordon’s Teacher Effectiveness Training Model – can be categorised under the radical approach. I find Gordon’s model the hardest to understand, perhaps because it is an entirely different approach. But as I understand Gordon’s model; I realise that this approach would truly revolutionise classroom learning. The beauty and wisdom of Gordon’s model lies in his recognition of the most powerful yet least utilised tool every human being possess and that is the power of active listening. This makes Gordon’s model a communications model. Through active listening we begin not only to understand the underlying problem in students’ behaviours, but we also begin to accept them as what they are. In accepting them, our problem with our students is lessened. (Tauber 158-167) In fact, the implications of Gordon’s approach are far-reaching that I find this very interesting for further study, because of its transformative power. Gordon’s discipline model is truly ideal. The problem of this model is in its implementation, especially with a student population like ours. 3 Conclusion 3.1 Summary This study has enlightened me in understanding my practises and our students’ challenging behaviours. I came to realise that the search for a single approach to behaviour management is not easy, not only because we tend to perceive behaviour management issues – student, misbehaviour, discipline, learning, teaching – from different points of view, but more so because, we choose not to actively listen. This probably is the reason why until today, despite the increasing oppositions against the use of punishment, majority of discipline models practised worldwide remains traditional. Among the six discipline models discussed above, I understood that my classroom management falls between the traditional and moderate approach. What has caught my interest is Gordon’s T.E.T Model. I have always believed that there should only be one definition of discipline, because we are all human beings living in one single planet. And I believe; the answer to my search is Gordon’s T.E.T Model. However, looking at the challenges that this approach might confront, especially in a school like ours, I know this will never be easy. Another thing this study also proves that behaviour management requires teachers training. Although commitment is vital to the profession, this is not enough considering the highly theoretical dimension of behaviour management. 3.2 Way Forward My study has caught my interest to study more about Gordon’s T.E.T Model. I believe; this is the answer that I am looking for ever since I started teaching. I believe Gordon’s model is consistent with what learning should be and how humans should be viewed and treated. So, I would like to understand this model fully and how could I apply this in our school. Works Cited Baloglu, Nuri. “Negative Behavior of Teachers with Regard to High School Students in Classroom Settings.” Journal of Instructional Psychology 2009: 69+. Bear, George. “Positive Psychology and School Discipline: Positive Is Not Simply the Opposite of Punitive.” National Association of School Psychologists. Communique January/February 2011: 8+. Blandford, Sonia. Managing Discipline in Schools. London: Routledge, 1998. Brereton, Avril Vaux and Bruce John Tonge. Pre-schoolers with Autism: An Education and Skills Training Programme for Parents: Manual for Clinicians. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2005. Burton, James. “Behaviour Management Theories.” Teacher Education. 01 Decemeber 2007. Education Reality.com. 10 September 2011 . Cameron, Mark. “Managing School Discipline and Implications for School Social Workers: a Review of the Literature.” Children & Schools October 2006: 219+. Cameron, Mark and Sandra M. Sheppard. “School Discipline and Social Work Practice: Application of Research and Theory to Intervention.” Children & Schools January 2006: 15+. Cohen, Louis, Lawrence Manion and Keith Morrison. A Guide to Teaching Practice. New York: Routledge, 1996. Crothers, Laura M. and Jered B. Kolbert. “Tackling a Problematic Behavior Management Issue: Teachers Intervention in Childhood Bullying Problems.” Intervention in School & Clinic 2008: 132+. Daniels, Kisha N., Gerrelyn C. Patterson and Yolanda L. Dunston. The Ultimate Student Teaching Guide. US: SAGE, 2010. Dupper, David R. and Amy E. Montgomery Dingus. “Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: a Continuing Challenge for School Social Workers.” Children & Schools. October 2008: 243+. Englander, Meryl E. Strategies for Classroom Discipline. New York: Praeger, 1987. Felix, Edwin Earl. Modern Approach to Classroom Discipline and Management: Prevention and Intervention Strategies for Students with Behavioral Problems. Britain: Xlibris Corporation, 2011. Hamre, Bridget K. and Robert C. Pianta. “Classroom Environment and Developmental Processes: Conceptualization and Measurement.” Eds. Judith L. Meece and Jacquelynne S. Eccles. Handbook of Research on Schools, Schooling and Human Development. New York, NY: Routledge, 2010. Kafer, Krista. “Student Misbehavior Impedes Learning, Drives Out Teachers.” News Heartland 1 July 2004. 10 September 2011 . Lavay, Barry W. “General Educational Approaches.” Ed. Joseph P. Winnick. Adapted Physical Education and Sport, 5th edition. US: Human Kinetics, 2010. Lyon, Christina M. Loving Smack or Lawful Assault? A Contradiction in Human Rights and Law. London: Institute for Public Policy Research, 2000. Mathieson, Kay and Meg Price. A Framework for Inclusive Behaviour Management. London: Routledge Falmer, 2002. National Association of School Psychologists. “Effective School Discipline: Promoting Safe, Positive Behavior and Academic Success.” National Association of School Psychologists. Communique. September 2010: 28+. Olley, Rivka I., Andrea Cohn and Katherine C. Cowan. “Promoting Safe Schools and Academic Success: Moving Your School from Punitive Discipline to Effective Discipline.” National Association of School Psychologists. Communique September 2010: 7+. Oliver, Regina M. and Daniel J. Reschly. “Effective Classroom Management: Teacher Preparation and Professional Development”. TQ Connection Issue Paper. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2007. 10 September 2011 . Phelan, Thomas. “Behaviour management in the classroom.” Squidoo. 10 September 2011 . Reinke, Wendy M., Randy Sprick and Jim, Knight. “Coaching, Classroom Management.” Ed. Jim Knight. Coaching: Approaches and Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2009. Riding, Richard J. and Diana Burton. “Cognitive Style, Gender and Conduct Behaviour in Secondary School Pupils.” Research in Education 1998: 38+. Skiba, Russell. “Zero Tolerance and Alternative Discipline Strategies.” National Association of School Psychologists. Communique September 2010: 28. Tauber, Robert T. Classroom Management: Sound Theory and Effective Practice. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1999. Walters, Jim and Shelly Frei. Managing Classroom Behavior and Discipline. USA: Shell Education, 2007. Wynne, Edward A. “Improving Pupil Discipline and Character.” Ed. Oliver Clinton Moles. Student Discipline Strategies: Research and Practice. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990. Read More