THE CURRENT EDUCATION STRUCTURE OF MAURITIUS

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER THREE BEHAVIOURAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

INTRODUCTION

The various internal and external factors influencing the learner behaviour in schools have been discussed and analysed in the literature review in chapter two. However, another objective of the researcher is to determine the various strategies that the principal, as the change agent in the school, should adopt to maintain or restore discipline in state secondary schools. In this third chapter, the researcher reviews some of the main behavioural management strategies that are pertinent in positive learner discipline models. He also examines the different research-based behaviour management interventions that are currently implemented in secondary schools. The role of the principal is emphasised in the implementation of the behavioural management strategies.

MODELS OF DISCIPLINE: BEHAVIOURAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Secondary schools have been ineffective in responding to learners’ lack of discipline by punishing and criminalising learners, according to Ayadin (2010: 666). As a result, there has been a shift from the reactive, punitive approaches to discipline to the comprehensive, proactive and preventive positive approaches to discipline. Suvall (2009: 547) claims that when schools do not address behaviour problems in ways that promote positive norms, their discipline management strategies are not meeting the needs of their learners. In the same vein, it is fundamental to underline that positive discipline is held up as the most appropriate method of learner discipline management in the context of the twenty-first century’s demand for respect for the inalienable rights of humanity in
general, and of the child, in particular (Oosthuizen 2010: 20).
This chapter will provide an overview of various models of positive behaviour management. As pointed out by Tiwani (2010: 58) there is no single model that can successfully work effectively for each and every learner with discipline problems at all times. The researcher considers it important to look into the models as they will help him have a deeper understanding and a wider insight into the applicability of the positive preventive and interventional discipline strategies (Wiersma & Jurs 2009: 20). The models discussed below examine classroom as well as school-wide preventive measures and interventions to discipline. The Jones’ Tools for teaching model, Nelson, Lott and Glenn’s model, the Responsive classroom model, Johnson’s and Johnson’s model, the Olweus’ bullying prevention model, Canter’s model, the school-wide positive behavioural support (SWPBS) model and the response to intervention and instruction (RTII) model are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Jones’s tools for teaching model: Discipline, instructions and motivation

Frederic Jones developed the positive classroom management theory to help improve educator effectiveness in motivating, managing and instructing learners. For learners to learn, they must enjoy learning (Jones 2007: 1). So, he developed positive techniques to promote discipline among learners. According to Jones (1987: 19), positive discipline “deals with the technology of managing group behaviour within the classroom in order to reduce disruptions and increase cooperative and responsible behaviour on the part of learners”. The objective of positive discipline is “the internalisation of discipline or self-discipline” (Jones 1987: 19). Manning and Butcher (2013: 25) add that there should be emotions, self-esteem, values and relationship building that convey dignity, cooperation, respect, and demonstrate skills, caring and effort. It is obvious that educators and principals should not assume autocratic leadership, request strict obedience and attempt to control the learners through fear. Jones (1987: 25) also stresses that educators and principals should use positive and ‘cheap’ management techniques (i.e., techniques that are simple and that require the least planning, effort, time and paperwork). This is because he found massive time wasting in classrooms, and proposed a system of preferred activity time (Jones 1987: 161).

Jones’s “Chair of discipline and management”

The Jones’s model has four legs to its “Chair of discipline and management”, namely (1) limit setting, (2) a backup system, (3) responsibility training and (4) omission training (Wolfgang 2009:58).
(1) Limit setting
Limit setting consist of actions taken by the educator to control the learner’s natural reflexes and prompt them back to work while learners are doing classwork or the educator is teaching (Wolfgang 2009: 59). When educators use the skill of limit setting, they use their bodies to say what their mouths were about to say (Manning & Bucher 2013: 128). Limit setting is used “to calm the learners and get them back on task” (Jones 1987:86). Jones (1996: 26-32) maintains that “Calm is strength. Upset is weakness.” The educator should never be under stress and regress to a fight-flight position, and he/she should never use silly talk, that is saying words that mean nothing. According to Charles (2002: 56), Jones postulates specific body language such as physical proximity, eye contact, posture and facial expression. Van Wyk (2000: 64) claims that discipline is ninety percent effective body language.
Jones (Van Wyk 2000: 65) noted that most misbehaviour occurred some distance away from the educator. Wolfgang (2009: 63) postulates that the educator may use three space distances, namely proximity-far, for across the room; proximity-near, when he/she is three feet or at the edge of the learner’s comfort bubble; and proximity-intimate when he/ she is inches from the learner’s face. This is a technique of signalling learners to desist and return to their work. “Proximity is accountability. Distance is safety” (Jones 1987: 57). The educator should keep an acceptable distance from the learner so that he or she may monitor each learner’s behaviour. Additionally, Manning and Bucher (2013: 129) assert that the educator can engage in camping out, or standing either in front of or behind a learner, to encourage the misbehaving learner to correct the behaviour.
According to Jones (1987: 90), eye contact is one of the most sensitive barometers of emotional calm or upset on a body. It conveys the message that the educator is in control of the teaching-learning situation and is committed to discipline. Expanding on this view Van Wyk (2000: 65) postulates that learners avert their eyes when educators look directly at them. This implies that learners realise that the educator, by so doing, takes continual note of their behaviour, be it good or bad. However, eye contact should be used with care due to cultural sensitivities, and as consistently stated by Van Wyk (2000: 65); it must be practised before it can be used effectively.
Facial and body expressions communicate many messages to learners. Charles (2002: 57) asserts that facial expressions can convey enthusiasm, seriousness, enjoyment and appreciation which encourage good behaviour, but they may also reveal boredom, annoyance and resignation which may encourage a lack of learner discipline. Furthermore, Van Wyk (2000: 66) states that slight shakes of the head can stop misbehaviour before it gets underway and frowns show unmistaken disapproval.
Wolfgang (2009: 63-70) identifies eight steps in limit setting. First, the educator must have his/her eye in the back of his/her head (with-it-ness). In other words, he/she must “check it out.” “Check it out” means the educator must keep his/her broad perceptions running even when he/she is focused on one learner or activity and he/she must ‘surface’ regularly to usually scan and check things out. Second, the educator should terminate instruction. Indeed, the Jones’s model cardinal rule is discipline comes before instruction. In other words, when the educator notices a learner misbehaving while he/she is instructing, he/she should stop the instruction to deal with the misbehaviour. Third, the educator should turn, look and say the learner’s name and ensure the latter has got the message and is not fooling him/her by the pseudo-compliance behaviour in the discipline poker game. Fourth, the educator must walk to the edge of the learner’s desk, never breaking eye contact, without saying a word to avoid losing the confrontation with the learner who will capitulate and get back to work. Fifth, the educator breaks the “comfort bubble of omnipotence”, that is he/she stands before the learner’s desk and signals to the latter a prompt to the desirable behaviour or the behaviour the educator wants the learner to do. Sixth, the educator places his/her palms on the learner’s desk so that the latter realises that he/she is willing to camp out in front as long as it takes. Seventh, the educator camps out from behind. Finally, the educator’s moves out by walking back to his/her original position.
(2) The backup system
Jones (1987:256) defines a backup system as a series of responses designed to meet force with force so that the uglier the learner’s behaviour becomes, the deeper he/she digs his/her hole with no escape. “It is a carefully designed hierarchy of negative sanctions which is designed as part of a larger management system to be used as infrequently as possible and for as brief a period of time as possible” (Jones 1987: 301). Manning and Bucher (2013: 131) add that an effective backup system consists of a series of discrete procedures or responses arranged in ascending order so that educators or principals can deal effectively with a wide range of unacceptable behaviours. Jones (1987: 257-259)) identifies three levels of back-up namely, level 1, which consists of small backup responses that take place in the classroom and are private between the educator and the learner; level 2, which consists of medium backup responses mostly carried out by the educator but are more public; and level 3, which consists of large backup responses that is a time-costly process involving high public visibility and the participation of others such as a counsellor, the principal or even the judicial system. Wolfgang (2009: 75) states that in the level 1 back-up system the educator may adopt ear warning, that is he/she issues a non-public warning in the ear of the misbehaving learner and quiet time when the learner is requested to go to an out-of-the-way area to reflect on his/her action and to decide to change. According to Jones (1987: 258-259), the level 2 refers to school policy that consists of a school discipline code and a hierarchy of consequences such as time out, public warning, threat, being sent to the hall, detention after school, loss of privilege, parent conference, lowering the learner’s grade and extra homework. According to Manning and Bucher (2013: 132) the level 3 backup system requires the construction of a buffer between the school system and the legal authorities. Jones (1987: 281-301) recommends sending learners to the office (the office referral system) and corporal punishment. Manning and Bucher (2013: 132) recommends psychological testing or therapy, a special remedial program, a rehabilitation program, referral to the child protection or social services or even prosecution in the juvenile court. Jones (1987: 301) even suggests more extreme strategies such as delivering a learner to a parent at work; accompanying the learner to school; calling the police; and expulsion.
(3) Responsibility training
Responsibility training is a tool for helping the educator to obtain positive or voluntary cooperation from the learner (Wolfgang 2009: 80). Jones (1987: 151) maintains that the goal of discipline is to train young people to become self-directing and to be responsible for their own behaviour. He adds that for the learners to demonstrate positive cooperation or responsible behaviour, these conditions must prevail, namely they are responsible for the time-currency that they earn, they are responsible for the control over the consumption of the time-currency, and they must be responsible for living with the consequences if they overcome and run out of time. The educator allocates learners a finite amount of time, the consumption or use of which depends on the learner’s behaviour. Jones (1987: 159) developed a system of Preferred Activity Time (PAT) to help the educator manage time. The system uses time as the reinforcer (the bonuses are more PAT; the penalties are less PAT). By giving and taking time the educator can hold the class responsible for the way the time is consumed. As such, learners develop cooperative behaviour, as it is a group accountability system. PAT is not free time to “kick back” (Jones 1987: 161). Wolfgang (2009: 83) comments that PATs are full activities that hold interest for learners but have embedded in them a routine of drill and practice, or content review of the subject matter. Jones (2000: 94) maintains that educators can use PAT in preferred instructional activities that the learners are fond of doing such as an art project, music project, learning games, computer laboratory work, and journal writing. The educator should use the Grandma’s Rule so as to hold them accountable for their behaviour; otherwise, there is the rule of penalties. A learner does not get his/her rewards or incentives until he/she demonstrates what the educator wants.
Put more clearly, “You have to finish your dinner before you get the dessert” (Jones 1987: 153). Yet, every penalty implies a corresponding bonus.
(4) Omission training
PAT bonuses and incentives are earned by the entire class. However, there may be some learners whose misbehaviour repeatedly ruins PAT for the rest of the class; and this may prevent positive cooperation. Omission training (OT) is an individualised program of incentives for the very defiant learner. “It is a generic name given to an incentive program system that rewards the omission of an unwanted behaviour” (Jones 1987: 219). When the learner misbehaves, the educator privately explains to him/her that he/she does not have to participate in PAT but he/she wants the learner to be successful with his/her own work and behaviour. The educator explains to the learner that he/she will use a timer and when he/she behaves well, he will earn time for himself/herself, and for PAT also for the class. Thus, he/she may be a hero and this is a strong incentive for good behaviour. When he/she misbehaves, he/she loses time for himself/herself, not for the class.
Jones (1987: 221-222) identifies the following steps for omission training: (a) abort the confrontation by removing the misbehaving learner from the responsibility training program, and deferring problem-solving to a non-public place at a future time; (b) estimate the OT time interval, that is the maximum duration of time in which the learner might reasonably be expected to act appropriately so as to earn rewards; (c) pinpoint target behaviours; (d) conference with the target learner; and (e) buying back into the responsibility.
Charles (2002: 64) suggests the following to introduce positive discipline in schools: (a) discuss limit setting with learners and formulate rules about behaviour; (b) explain to learners that when they violate rules, their behaviour will be corrected with body language; (c) discuss incentives and procedures for managing incentives, (d) discuss the backup system that will be used when learners misbehave seriously and refuse to comply with requests. However, Kohn (1996: 9) reports that secondary school learners may have learned to rely on power rather than reason, to exhibit aggression rather than comparison, because they have seen adults doing this.
From the assumptions and principles of the Jones’ tools teaching model, the principal must provide professional development opportunities to educators on learner discipline management strategies that adopt a positive approach to discipline. Educators in the modern school need to be well equipped and trained about limit setting, compliance techniques and the use of rewards and penalties to maintain discipline among the secondary school learners. From the researcher’s teaching experience in secondary schools, it has been observed that educators with or without pre-service educator training do not have any training in effective classroom management. However, it is also obvious that the principal should also provide personal development opportunities to learners through the curriculum so that learners are equally concerned about their responsibilities as to their rights as learners of the school as an organisation.

The responsive classroom model

The responsive classroom model is a model for the entire school. It was developed in 1981, by classroom educators at Northeast Foundation for Children in the United States (US) to use “a set of practices that help educators create classroom environments that enhance the feelings of belonging of the child, foster his/her social skills, consider his/her developmental levels, connect the parents to his/her learning goals, and produce an environment that promotes academic learning” (Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer 2004: 324-325). Dr. Sara Rimm-Kaufman undertook a three-year randomised controlled study between 2008 and 2011 to examine the effectiveness of the responsive classroom model. According to Brock, Nishida, Chiong, Grimm and Rimm-Kaufman (2008: 135), this model aims to promote self-reliance, build a sense of community, and helps learners to become engaged in their own learning. Rimm-Kaufman and Chiu (2007: 408) add that principals and educators take a proactive rather than a reactive stance towards discipline and provide a holistic support for learner growth and development as there are clear expectations for behaviour. Brock et al. (2008: 144) postulate, in the same vein, that the model allows learners to anticipate consequences for transgressions, freeing the educators from constantly redirecting misbehaviour or negotiating punishment throughout the school year. Rimm-Kaufman and Sawyer (2004: 324) point out that empathy helps educators understand learners and their needs and hence, they can provide a structure that provides guidelines and limits for learner behaviour as learners will develop self-control. In the responsive classroom model, the principal encourages educator collaboration, educators meeting to discuss teaching and problem-solving practices, and uses community groups and external resources for the educators’ own professional growth and development. Also, Rimm-Kaufman, Storm, Sawyer, Pianta and LaParo (2006: 152-155) declare that responsive classroom practices focus on the process of learning, proactive approaches to discipline, opportunity for learner choice, collaboration and reflection, and the teaching of self-regulatory skills. According to Brock et al. (2008: 133) the seven principles of the responsive classroom model highlights the following, namely (a) provide equally emphasis on social and academic learning, (b) focus on the content of learning as well as the process of learning by the child; (c) understand the support of social growth to academic growth; (d) emphasise critical social skills such as responsibility, empathy, cooperation and self-control; (e) understand that not only academic content but also the cultural and developmental characteristics of the learner are important; (f) understand and work with his/her family, and (g) understand and support the ways in which educators may work in close collaboration.
The various practices of responsive classroom are: (1) morning meetings, (2) rules and logical consequences, (3) academic choice and grounded discovery, (4) classroom organisation, (5) communication with parents, and (6) teaching as a collective enterprise and a promoting tool for collaboration (Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer 2004: 325). The morning meeting is a daily class meeting that provides time for educators and learners to share, plan and participate in group activities so that there is a positive start of the school day. During the morning meeting, learners and educators may greet each other; learners may interact, practise pro-social behaviour and use public speaking skills by sharing information on personal or national themes. Moreover, the educator and the learner work together at the beginning of the year to develop positively structured classroom rules which the educator models. The educator will remind the learners about the rules and redirect behaviour rather than providing punishment or using tokens for behaviour modification reinforcement. As the consequence for breaking a rule is developmentally appropriate and individually relevant, they relate to the rule itself.
Rimm-Kaufman and Sawyer (2004: 325) define academic choice as a choice-based approach to activity-based learning that increases children’s investment in learning and creates a forum for reflection with peers. They illustrate academic choice by stating that an educator may design a spelling activity that allows learners to practise by using a computer, pen and pad, the whiteboard, or shaving cream. In contrast, when the educator uses guided discovery, he/she introduces classroom materials in a systematic way that builds a common vocabulary, creates clear expectations for use and establishes routines for their case (Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer 2004: 337).
The educator should organise the classroom in such a way that encourages independence, cooperation and productivity. In other words, furniture should be arranged to meet both social and academic needs, and materials provided to learners who are allowed to use them independently. The interior loop desk arrangement is recommended by Manning and Bucher (2013: 140). This will allow the educator to reach any learner quickly and provide side walkways to allow movement.
The responsive classroom model also advocates a two-way flow of communication between parents and educators and parent involvement in goal setting for learners. Rimm-Kaufman and Sawyer (2004: 339) postulate that regular parent-educator conferences, materials sent home regularly and parent involvement in class activities help create a successful parent-educator partnership.
Lastly, the model encourages buddy educators who work together to support each other’s efforts to discipline the most difficult learners (Sawyer & Rimm-Kaufman 2007: 212). Manning and Bucher (2013: 139) stress that home groups and network meetings are also used. Home groups comprise of educators from across grade levels in a particular school who meet to discuss school goals, problems, issues and the successful implementation of responsive classroom practices. Network meetings include educators from various schools who use responsive classroom approaches.
Although the responsive classroom model’s ultimate goal is to teach learners to discipline themselves, Gettinger and Kohler (2006: 90) point out that a “one-size-fit-all” approach is rarely effective. The responsive classroom model does not always reflect the dynamic nature of the classroom. This is because it is too structured. Also, Manning and Bucher (2013: 142) assert that though this model discourages punishment, punitive measures sometimes will be needed as the same discipline management strategies do not work with all learners in the classroom.
According to the responsive classroom model, it is obvious the principal’s role is to promote a school culture of order and discipline through the establishment of positive relationships between the educator and the learners, the learners and the non-teaching staff, the learners and the school, and among the learners themselves. This model advocates a relationships-driven principalship where the principal’s role is to establish an active partnership between the school and the parents. He/she promotes a more democratic approach to discipline in the sense that the educators work in close collaboration not only with their colleagues but also with parents and learners on whom school procedures, principles and practices are not imposed, but with whom they are discussed and implemented collaboratively and thus more effectively.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE ORIENTATION TO THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.3 MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY
1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.5 AIMS OF THE STUDY
1.6 DEMARCATION OF THE FIELD OF THE STUDY
1.7 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1.8 CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTS
1.9 CHAPTER DIVISION
1.10 SUMMARY
CHAPTER TWO THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE DISCIPLINE PROBLEM IN THE MAURITIAN EDUCATION CONTEXT
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF EDUCATION IN MAURITIUS
2.3 THE CURRENT EDUCATION STRUCTURE OF MAURITIUS
2.4 CRITICISMS OF THE CURRENT EDUCATION SYSTEM
2.5 THE CAUSES OF A LACK OF DISCIPLINE AMONG LEARNERS IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS
2.6 THEORIES AND MODELS OF DISCIPLINE
2.7 SUMMARY
CHAPTER THREE BEHAVIOURAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 MODELS OF DISCIPLINE: BEHAVIOURAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
3.3 A SUMMARY OF THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL IN MAINTAINING LEARNER DISCIPLINE FROM THE VARIOUS DISCIPLINE MODELS
3.4 AN OVERVIEW OF THE GENERAL LITERATURE ON THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL IN MAINTAINING POSITIVE DISCIPLINE IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS
3.5 RESEARCH-BASED DISCIPLINE PREVENTIONS, INTERVENTIONS AND STRATEGIES
3.6. THE PRINCIPAL’S LEADERSHIP AND AUTHORITY IN THE MAURITIAN EDUCATION SYSTEM
3.7 SUMMARY
CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 RESEARCH AIMS
4.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
4.4 SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS
4.5 DATA COLLECTION
4.6 QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS
4.7 TRUSTWORTHINESS AND TRANSFERABILITY
4.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.9 SUMMARY
CHAPTER FIVE RESEARCH FINDINGS: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5. 2. RESEARCH FINDINGS
5.3 DISCIPLINARY STRATEGIES IN THE MAURITIAN EDUCATION SYSTEM: A MISCONCEPTION
5.4 SUMMARY
CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY, CONTRIBUTIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 A SUMMARY OF LITERATURE RESEARCH ON THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL IN LEARNER DISCIPLINE MANAGEMENT
6.3 A SUMMARY OF KEY EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
6.4 RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS
6.5 CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY: A PROPOSED MODEL FOR LEARNER DISCIPLINE MANAGEMENT IN MAURITIAN STATE SECONDARY SCHOOLS
6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE STUDY
6.7 AVENUES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
6.9 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Bibliography
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT