Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Teachers’ classroom discipline in Australia, China and Israel
Ramon Lewis, Shlomo Romi, Xing, Qui & Yaacov J. Katz.
(In Teaching and Teacher Education. 21: 729741, 2005) Abstract This paper reports students’ perceptions of the classroom discipline strategies utilized in Australia, China and Israel. It examines data from 748 teachers and 5521 students to identify the extent to which teachers’ disciplinary strategies are related to a number of variables including students’ age and sex, and teacher sex, and compares the views of students in different national settings. In general, Chinese teachers appear less punitive and aggressive than do those in Israel or Australia and more inclusive and supportive of students’ voices. Australian classrooms are perceived as having least discussion and recognition and most punishment. Implications are discussed. Introduction The issue of how best to discipline students in classrooms is of continuing interest and concern to the community. For example, in 2002, as in nearly all preceding years, students’ lack of discipline ranked within the first two most serious problems confronting the public schools in the annual Phi Delta Kappa Polls of the public’s attitudes towards the public schools (Lowell and Gallup, 2002). In 2002, 43 percent of respondents rated students’ lack of discipline as a very serious concern, with an additional 33 percent suggesting it was somewhat serious. Of all the school‐related factors capable of influencing student responsibility in classrooms, teachers’ discipline strategies, the focus of this paper, are among the most potent (Ingersoll, 1996; Lewis, 1997a). Ensuring that students behave responsibly in classrooms is important for two independent reasons. First, it serves as a means of preparing students to take their place in society as responsible citizens, an aim of primary importance to schooling (Rothstein, 2000). Secondly, without satisfactory levels of student responsibility, the best planned and potentially most engaging lessons may fail to have the desired impact. Often it may only require a small proportion of students to misbehave and they become sufficiently distracting to students and frustrating to teachers that the most carefully planned lesson fails to promote effective learning among the students (Barton, Coley and Wenglinsky, 1998). This paper examines the relationship between discipline processes and student misbehaviour in three different national settings, namely Australia, China and Israel. Interest in classroom discipline relates not only to the good it can do but also to the damage inappropriate discipline can cause. For example, two recent publications emphasize the potential negative impact of particular discipline strategies. The first conjectures that
2
“Unnecessarily harsh and punitive disciplinary practices against students create a climate that contributes to school violence. This issue is little recognized and scarcely researched.” (Hyman and Snook, 2000: 489)
The second publication reports the perceptions of over 3500 school students in Australia (Lewis, 2001). This study demonstrates empirically that, in the view of these students, their teachers are characterized by 2 distinct discipline styles. The first of these was called “Coercive” discipline and comprised punishment and aggression (yelling in anger, sarcasm group punishments, etc). The second style comprising Discussion, Hints, Recognition, Involvement and Punishment was called “Relationship based discipline”. After presenting a thorough data analysis the report concludes:
“Students who receive more Relationship based discipline are less disrupted when teachers deal with misbehaviour and generally act more responsibly in that teacher’s class. In contrast, the impact of Coercive discipline appears to be more student distraction from work and less responsibility.” (p. 315)
These findings appear consistent with those of Miller et al (2000) who, after examining students’ perceptions of what factors cause classroom misbehaviour, highlight the potential for teacher behaviour such as shouting all the time, unfairly blaming students, picking on kids, and being rude, to stimulate student resistance and subsequent misbehaviour.
“The present study has shown pupils to attribute to teachers a significantly greater responsibility for pupil misbehaviour than that they attribute to parents.” (p. 93)
It is of interest to note that in an earlier Israeli study which also examined factors seen to be causing student misbehaviour, it was reported that although students placed their teachers’ attitude the second most important cause of student misbehaviour, teachers ranked it as 20 out of 26 (Guttmann, 1982). The impetus for the research discussed in this paper came after the publication of a study of the relationship between classroom discipline and student responsibility and misbehaviour in Australia (Lewis,2001). As a result of that publication, academics in Israel and China contacted the author with a request to replicate the study in their respective national settings. Since these are very experienced and senior academics, involved in teacher training for many years, it was assumed that the issue of classroom discipline, and the research design of the previous research had some valency in both of these settings. In attempting to examine the relationship between discipline processes and student misbehaviour in three different national settings it was acknowledged that there are likely to be cultural differences associated with preferred styles of discipline. For example, differences of opinion between Chinese and other Americans (Mitchel, 2001) appear to focus on the relative virtues of submission to authority versus the child’s right to be assertive and individualistic.
3
The significance of classroom discipline rests not only on its impact on students’ behaviour and learning, as outlined above. The ability of teachers to effectively discipline students is, according to McCormick and Shi (1999) integrally related to teachers’ sense of professional adequacy. This finding appears consistent with the work of Goddard (2000), who reports the results of a study of 233 teachers’ views of their role. He notes that ‘disciplinarian’ was the third most commonly cited metaphor provided by teachers for their work, ranking only behind ‘leader’ and ‘knowledge dispenser’. It is not surprising therefore that any failure on teachers’ part to satisfactorily manage students’ classroom misbehaviour can result in stress, and in the extreme case, burnout. Overall, classroom discipline is a well‐documented source of teacher stress (Kyriacou, 1987; Borg et al, 1991; Blase,1986; DeRobbio and Iwanicki, 1996; Friedman, 1995; Keiper and Busselle, 1996). Some results however may be tenuous as teachers experiencing stress as a result of other factors (for example excessive workload) may perceive student behaviour more negatively (Whiteman, Young and Fisher, 1985) and therefore inflate its significance as a stressor. Nevertheless, discipline issues rate consistently among the strongest of teacher stressors. Chan (1998), reporting on the stressors of over 400 teachers in Hong Kong, notes that student behaviour management rates as the second most significant factor stressing teachers. More significantly, perhaps, Ingersoll (2001) studied approximately 6700 teachers in the US and states that approximately 30 percent of the 400 or so who chose to leave the profession identify student discipline as one of the reasons that causes them to give up teaching. It needs to be noted that for some teachers, the stress associated with classroom discipline relates as much to how they are treated by other teachers and members of the school administration as it does to their treatment at the hands of students (Martin,1994). Related research shows that it is not only the stress arising from ineffective discipline that is a cause for concern. The way teachers attempt to cope with their concerns may add to their stress levels rather than lower them. For example, a recent study demonstrates that teachers who are more worried about discipline and student misbehaviour report greater use of 6 maladaptive coping strategies, namely, wishful thinking, don’t tell anyone, self‐blame, worry, disruption to sleeping or eating patterns and getting sick (Lewis, 1999). These strategies are among those recently shown to be predictive of a range of non‐productive outcomes ranging from low self concept to depression (Frydenberg and Lewis 2000). Clearly, the issue of classroom discipline is of as much significance to teachers as it is to students. Classroom misbehaviour and discipline is a topic that has been studied in Australia (for example, Lewis and Lovegrove, 1987: Lewis, 2001;Oswald, 1995), China (for example, Goa, 1998; Peng, 1993; Goa and Watkins, 2001, Jin and Cortazzi, 1998) and Israel (for example, Romi and Freund, 1999; Kaplan, Gheen, and Midgley, 2002; Friedman, 1994) However, this is the first attempt to systematically examine the relationship between students’ perceptions of their teachers’ disciplinary techniques and their misbehaviour in these three national settings.
4
Measuring Classroom Discipline To measure classroom discipline in 3 national settings was problematic. Conceptualisation of classroom discipline strategies in one setting could not necessarily be assumed equivalent to those in the other two. It would have been possible to utilize exploratory factor analysis on data sets from respective nations to obtain assessments of discipline most appropriate to each setting. It would even have been possible to utilize confirmatory factor analyses and compare goodness of fit measures to examine the extent to which one particular measure applied equally to all three national settings. However, had students’ views of classroom discipline provided different measures, comparisons would have been prohibited. Consequently, since as stated above it was the aim of this research to undertake a replication, care was taken to ensure that the same measures were utilized in each national settings. To examine the relationship between discipline strategies and student misbehaviour two steps were taken. First, the 35 items on the questionnaire used in the earlier Australian study were studied by the colleagues in China and Israel to assess their relevance to their respective students. As a result, 11 items were omitted and 24 were retained. These 24 items were agreed by the researchers in each national setting to assess the 6 discipline strategies reported in the previous Australian study and to be of cultural relevance, albeit to differing degrees, in their respective national settings. The strategies measured were Punishing, Rewarding, Involvement in decision‐making, Hinting, Discussion and Aggression. Examination of a number of discipline texts (Charles, 1992; Tauber, 1999; Wolfgang, 1995; Lewis, 1997b ) indicated that one or more of these strategies were seen as underlying most of the available approaches to classroom discipline. For example, Reward and Punishment related to Interventionist approaches, Involvement to Interactional approaches and Hinting and Discussion to Non‐Interventional Approaches. Although Aggression was not recommended in any text, it was seen as potentially possible in classrooms in all settings and necessary to include given its significance in previous research. The following 4 items were designed to assess Punishment. • Gives out consequences to students who misbehave (e.g. move their seats, detention) • Increases the level of consequence if students will not do as they are told (e.g. move seats,
detention). • Increases the level of consequence if a misbehaving student argues. • Increases the level of consequence if a misbehaving student stops when told, but then does
it again. The four items developed to assess Recognition and rewards were as follows. • Rewards individual students who behave properly. • Praises the class for good behaviour. • Praises individual students for good behaviour. • Rewards the class when students behave well. The following two sets of items were included to determine the extent to which teachers attempted to include students’ voice in the decision‐making related to discipline.
5
The first four relate to an emphasis on the class as the determiner of the discipline process. • Organizes the class to work out the rules for good behaviour. • Decides with the class what should happen to students who misbehave. • Makes students leave the room until they decide to behave properly. • Lets students know that the way they are behaving is not how the class expects them to. The next four items provide for the voice of individual students. • Discusses students’ behaviour with them to allow them to figure out a better way to
behave in future. • Lets students talk about their side of things so that it can be clearly understood. • Gets students to understand why their behaviour is a problem for others by discussing it
with them. • Gets students to change the way they behave by helping them understand how their
behaviour affects others. The next set of four items relates to a strategy that usually precedes more formal intervention by the teacher, and provides students with awareness that in the teacher’s eyes, all is not as it should be. It probably also communicates some level of trust that students will self‐regulate their behaviour. The following four items were designed to assess this process which was called Hinting. • Describes what students are doing wrong, and expect them to stop. • Asks students questions like "What are you doing?" to get them to think about how to
behave better. • Reminds misbehaving students about the class rules. • Describes how students are misbehaving to make them decide whether to stop or not. The final four items were written to permit measurement of teacher Aggression. This strategy was defined as the use of techniques which, while legal, may in some settings negate the student’s sense of well‐being and possession of natural rights. • Yells angrily at students who misbehave. • Deliberately embarrasses students who misbehave • Keeps the class in because some students misbehave • Makes sarcastic comments to students who misbehave In summary therefore, six classroom discipline strategies were assessed by a total of 24 questionnaire items. To enable the collection of data without identifying any individual teacher by name, questionnaires specified one of six subject areas taught (for example Mathematics, English (Chinese, Hebrew, Social Studies ). Students were then requested to concentrate on that one class and the teacher who teaches it when completing the questionnaire. To measure the extent of student misbehaviour students were asked to indicate “How often do you misbehave in this teacher’s class?”. To respond they chose from the alternatives, Almost never, Only a little, Sometimes and Often, which were coded 1 to 4 respectively.
6
The questionnaire was translated into both Chinese and Hebrew and in each case back‐translated into English to ensure accuracy. To respond to the discipline items, students indicated on a 6 point scale how frequently the teacher acted as described in the statement “when trying to deal with misbehaviour”. The response alternatives provided, namely, Nearly always, Most of the time, A lot of the time, Some of the time, Hardly ever and Never were coded 6 to 1 respectively. Students at grade levels 7 to 12 completed these items documenting their perception of their teacher’s use of each classroom discipline strategy. The introduction to the questionnaire was brief and indicated that the questions to follow focused on “classroom discipline and how you feet about it”. There was no indication as to the research questions being addressed. Written explanation of response formats were provided as required. Sample The three purposive samples utilized in this study, and described below, were restricted to students attending years 7 to 12 at coeducational schools. Although representative sampling was not attempted, care was taken when selecting participating schools to ensure that the sample included both larger and smaller schools, situated in a range of socioeconomic and geographic areas. In addition, schools which appeared ‘atypical’ were not included, for example extremely large, small or isolated schools, or schools which were selective in intake. All secondary schools in the North Eastern region of Victoria and a small number in the Melbourne metropolitan region were invited to participate in the study. The response rate of 70 percent reflects the importance attributed to the topic of classroom discipline in Secondary schools. In Israel, a sample of 4 high schools (years 10‐12) and 8 Junior high Schools (years 7‐9) in the geographic centre of Israel were invited to participate in the study. All accepted. In China, the sample of teachers and students was drawn from 8 schools in Chengdu region, Sichuan Province. In each Chinese and Israeli school a random sample of classes at year levels 7 to 12 were selected. As a research assistant administered questionnaires to these classes their teachers completed their questionnaires. Table 1 below records the number of teachers, and students at year levels 7‐8, 9‐10 and 11‐12 for Australia, Israel and China respectively. Table 1. Study sample COUNTRY RESPONDENTS TEACHERS STUDENTS Year 78 Year 910 Year 1112 Total Australia 491 1713 1624 846 4183 Israel 98 261 334 241 836 China 159 159 147 196 502
7
Of the total of 5521 students, 48% are males, although the percentage of males varies from 38 to 60 percent depending on year level within country. The gender distribution of the 748 teachers is less evenly divided. There were 11, 42 and 46 percent of males respectively in Israel, Australia and china. It is of interest to note the small proportion of men in the Israeli sample. This is not atypical however, as noted in previous research (Romi and Katz, 2002), and reflects the predominance of women in the teaching force in non‐religious schools in Israel. Findings Prior to examining the relationship between various types of discipline perceived by students and classroom misbehaviour in each national setting, it was considered helpful to document how significant an issue classroom discipline is for the teachers of the students responding to the survey. To gain such information, a 10 percent sample of the teachers at the sampled schools answered 2 questions as part of the survey. The first required them to state “How many students misbehave in the first class you would normally be teaching next Monday?” Five alternative responses were provided, namely Nearly all, Most, Some, Hardly any and None. These responses were coded 5 to 1 respectively. Since what constituted “misbehaviour” was not defined or exemplified, it was acknowledged that the data could only provide a general indication of the extent of the issue. The second question asked “ To what extent is the issue of classroom discipline and student misbehaviour an issue of concern to you?” To answer, teachers selected either Of major concern, Of moderate concern, Of minor concern, Of almost no concern or Of no concern. These alternatives were coded 5 to 1 respectively. Tables 2 and 3 report the relevant data for teachers from the three national settings. Table 2. Level of Perceived classroom misbehaviour by setting COUNTRY LEVEL OF PERCEIVED MISBEHAVIOR Nearly All Most Some Hardly Any None Australia 1 2 33 54 10 Israel 1 2 54 41 2 China 0 2 42 50 6 Table 3. Level of concern by Setting COUNTRY LEVEL OF CONCERN Major Moderate Minor Almost None None Australia 12 27 25 24 12 Israel 90 10 0 0 0 China 11 26 30 25 8 Inspection of the Chi‐Square figures for table 2 (Chi Square (16)=20.191, p= .212) shows there are no statistically significant differences in the perceived levels of classroom misbehaviour in Australia, Israel and China.
8
In contrast, initial inspection of the data in Table 3 would seem to show that teachers in Israel report significantly more concern about classroom misbehaviour than do teachers from either Australia or China. However, the substantial differences were due to another cause. Although great care was taken to ensure that translation of all terms on the questionnaire were accurate, an error occurred for this question. In the Hebrew version of the questionnaire the word “concern” was translated as “Importance”. This discrepancy was not noted after back‐translation to English. Therefore, rather than reporting how concerned they were about issues of classroom discipline and student misbehaviour, the Israeli teachers indicated how “Important” the issue of discipline was for them. The comparison of the Australian and equivalent Chinese data showed no significant differences (Chi square (4)= 2.774, p=.596). It is of interest to note that in a recent study 294 Australian teachers were asked to indicate their levels of concern related to any inability to discipline classrooms as they would prefer. In reporting these data Lewis (1999: 162) states “it can be argued that the gap between best and current discipline practice was, on average, of only moderate concern to these teachers.” It would appear therefore that the 2 sets of data, collected over 3 years apart, from independent samples of teachers, are very consistent. As stated above, the data in Tables 2 and 3, which provide a general framework for the subsequent discussion on classroom discipline strategies used in classrooms, show that a substantial group of teachers in 2 independent national settings report at least moderate levels of concern over student misbehaviour in class. In addition, the Israeli teachers sampled clearly highlight the significance of the topic. It is likely that part of the teachers’ interest in classroom discipline is their perception that, on average, a little fewer than “some” but more than “hardly any” students in the classes they expect to teach are likely to misbehave. To document the relevance of the measures of teachers’ discipline strategies, the students’ responses to the sets of 4 items were considered for reliability (internal consistency) in each national setting, Cronbach alpha coefficients were computed for each set. If the deletion of any item from a set increased the magnitude of the respective alpha, that item was to be removed. The reliance on Alpha did not reflect a belief that high values for internal consistency of responses within a set of items was essential to justify the value of a scale. It was assumed, given the diversity of ways in which some strategies may be operationalised in different national settings, that increased likelihood of one behaviour in a set of 4 may only be a weak predictor of the utilization of those comprising the remainder of the set. Nevertheless, very low alpha’s, particularly for the respondents in Israel or China would throw doubt on the usefulness of the measures in that setting. The only scale for which any items were excluded was Involvement. In both Australia and Israel, the removal of the item “Makes students leave the room until they decide to behave properly” improved the magnitude of the respective alpha coefficient. On this basis it was removed from the scale. Consequently there were only 3 items remaining in the Involvement scale.
9
Table 4 reports the scale means, standard deviations and Cronbach alpha coefficients for each of the six scales measuring classroom discipline strategies. Table 4. Discipline technique usage by country Country Scale China Israel Australia X Ave X SD Alpha X Ave X SD Alpha X Ave X SD AlphaPunishment (n=4)
11.98 (3.00) 3.94 .62 13.02 (3.26) 4.28 .75 14.54 (3.64) 4.75 .79
Discussion (n=4)
17.45 (4.35) 4.30 .72 13.45 (3.36) 4.77 .77 13.10 (3.28) 4.46 .73
Recognition (n=4)
16.32 (4.08) 4.36 .66 13.16 (3.29) 4.92 .79 12.51 (3.13) 5.32 .83
Aggression (n=4)
9.22 (2.30) 4.03 .69 11.65 (2.92) 4.22 .62 11.02 (2.76) 4.88 .73
Involvement (n=4)
11.80 (3.93) 3.37 .49 8.49 (2.83) 3.11 .48 8.49 (2.83) 3.14 .53
Hinting (n=4)
16.04 (4.10) 3.91 .58 14.62 (3.65) 4.03 .62 14.48 (3.62) 4.04 .66
Inspection of the alpha coefficients in Table 4 shows that most alpha’s are moderate. Some are clearly low and reflect a loose (although statistically significant) association between the behaviours related to one strategy. For example, the Involvement scale’s alpha of approximately .5 reflects correlations of .17, .26 and .40 between the three respective pairs of items. The likelihood of teachers letting students know that “the way they are behaving is not how the class expects them to” is not highly associated with the likelihood of them organizing the class to work out the rules for good behaviour and what should happen to students who misbehave, even though the latter two behaviours are more likely to co‐occur. Another explanation for the low alpha coefficients is the difficulty inherent in transferring strategies conceptualized in one culture to another. Nevertheless, despite some concern about the low internal consistency of responses to items in the Involvement and Hinting scales, it was determined to use all six scales for purposes of replication, acknowledging the tenuousness of finding relating to the less reliable measures. Classroom discipline techniques in Australia, Israel and China Before examining the relationship between classroom discipline and misbehaviour, consideration was given to a comparison of the frequency of usage of different strategies in differing national settings. Inspection of the average item means, also reported in Table 4, indicates that the pattern of usage of the various classroom discipline strategies appears relatively similar in Australia and Israel. In both countries, teachers commonly react to misbehaviour by letting students know that there is a problem in the hope that they will improve their behaviour. In addition they are more than sometimes likely to Punish misbehaving students and discuss with them the impact their misbehaviour has on others in a bid to have them determine a better way to behave. They recognize appropriate behaviour more than sometimes, to increase the likelihood of its re‐occurrence, The two strategies utilized less frequently than sometimes are aggression and involvement of the class in setting
10
rules and consequences. The pattern in China is a little different in that students report greater use of all strategies except Aggression and Punishment. Although the relative usage of strategies also varies by Country the only strategy to vary rank within a country by more than 2 ranks is Punishment, which ranks as the most common strategy in Australia, and the fourth and fifth most commonly used strategy in Israel and China respectively. In order to examine the relationship between classroom discipline and student misbehaviour an analysis was performed where level of student misbehaviour in class was utilized as the independent variable and the 6 discipline strategies were the dependent variables. As part of this analysis a decision was taken to statistically control a number of other variables which may have the potential to influence the degree to which students may be on the receiving end of various discipline strategies These included the gender of the student, the gender of the teacher and year level (year 7/8, 9/10 or 11/12). In summary a 5 way MANOVA was conducted in which the 6 discipline strategies served as the dependent variables and Student sex, Teacher sex, Year level, Extent of Misbehaviour and Country acted as the independent variables. The analysis indicated that there was a total of 7 statistically significant effects. Since the analysis investigated 31 predictors, a conservative probability level of .01 was utilized for statistical significance. Table 5 reports the Mutivariate F values (Pillai’s trace) for the significant effects. Table 5. Significant predictors of Classroom Discipline strategies. INDEPENDENT VARIABLE F VALUE HYP DF ERROR DF SIGNIFICANCE
LEVEL Year Level 2.28 12 9022 .007 Country 30.10 12 9022 .000 Misbehaviour 2.92 18 13536 .000 Country X Year Level 3.25 24 18052 .000 Country X Teacher Sex 2.23 12 9022 .000 Country X Year X Misb’s 1.49 66 27090 .006 Country X Teachers Sex X Year
3.65 24 18052 .000
Inspection of the data in Table 5 shows 3 main effects and 4 interaction effects were statistically significant. Consideration of the relevant univariate tests and Sheffe tests for post hoc comparisons (p<.05) for year level indicate that there is significantly more Discussion (F= 7.04, .001), Recognition (F=5.96, p=.003) and Involvement (F=6.72, p=.001) in year 7 and 8 than in years 9 and 10, and 11 and 12 (which did not differ significantly). In addition, there is more Hinting perceived in years 7 and 8, and 9 and 19, than in years 11 and 12. These data may reflect a greater need for intervention with younger students who are new to Secondary schooling and in the process of adaption. However, if that were the case it is surprising that there in not significantly more Punishment at this level also. In summary however, it may be argued that teachers are willing to use more positive techniques, ones which imply trust, with younger students.
11
The main effect for Country applied to all 6 classroom discipline techniques and showed that students in China, compared to those in Australia or Israel, report less usage of Punishment (F=15.71, p=.000) and Aggression (F=11.92, p‐.000), and greater use of Recognition (F=56.65, p=.000), Discussion (F=71.92, p=.000), Hinting (F=14.66, p=.000) and Involvement (F=100.15, p=.000). Whereas students in Australia and Israel don’t differ in reported levels of Involvement, Aggression and Hinting, Australian students report less use of Discussion, Recognition and more Punishment than do those in Israel. The final main effect indicated that students who reported greater levels of misbehaviour were more likely to perceive Aggression by teachers (F=7.87, p=.000), although no other technique produced statistically significant univariate results. Some elaboration of these main effects comes about when interaction effects are considered. The only interaction effect which failed to produce a statistically significant univariate effect (p<.01) was Country by Year by Misbehaviour. The other 4 therefore required explanation. Firstly, the Country by Teacher Sex interaction showed that even though, as reported above, there is less Aggression reported in China, it is primarily due to it being seen as used less by men (F=7.69, p=.000). Secondly, the Country by year level interaction indicated that there were 3 strategies with statistically significant differences, namely Punishment (F=6.38, p=.000), Aggression (F=5.73, p=.000) and Discussion (F=6.60, p=.000). The first two of these show that whereas year 11 and 12 students in Australia and Israel are least likely to report the use of Punishment and Aggression, those in China report such techniques more frequently than do younger students. The last Country by Year level interaction effect, for Discussion, shows that in Israel the variation in usage by year level is four times that found in either China or Australia. The final significant interaction (Country by Teacher sex by Year level) sheds a little more light on some of the earlier findings. Four univariate effects were noted as significant, namely for Punishment (F= 5.54, p=.000), Aggression (F=3.68, p=.005), Involvement (F=7.05, p=.000) and Hinting (F=3.55, p=.007). The first two results indicate that the main reason older students in China report more Punishment and Aggression (see above) is because it is seen as coming primarily from women teachers (as is Punishment in Israel). In Australia male and female teachers display similar, low levels of Aggression and Punishment with older students. The level of involvement of students in classroom management decision‐making and the amount of hinting at the inappropriateness of student behaviour by women teachers in both Australia and China decreases with increasing student age. For women teachers in Israel, most student involvement occurs with students at years 11 and 12, although the differences between year levels are very small. For men the picture is similar in that most Hinting and Involvement occurs for students in years 7 and 8. The least is offered to years 9 and 10 in both Israel and China, and 11 and 12 in Australia. In China the differences are very small for Hinting.
12
In Israel, there is more Hinting at, and Involving of, students in years 7 and 8 by men teachers than by women. At years 9 and 10 the opposite is the case. In contrast, in Australia, women teachers are more likely than men to Involve and Hint at students in all year levels, although at years 9 and 10 the difference is very small. In China, men teachers are more likely to hint at, and involve, students in years 11 and 12. At years 7 and 8, women are more likely than men to Hint at their students. Discussion The broad pattern of results indicates that teachers sampled from China appear more inclusive and supportive of students voices when it comes to classroom discipline, and are less authoritarian (punitive and aggressive) than those in Israel or Australia. In contrast, the Australian classrooms are perceived as having least discussion and recognition and most punishment. Israeli teachers are situated between these two positions, even though they exhibit the most aggression. (Inspection of relevant means shows that their aggression is primarily in the form of yelling in anger at their students). Cultural factors may be posited as part of the reason for these patterns. In China, teachers are held in very high esteem (Li et al, 1998) and as argued by Jin and Cortazzi (1998), Chinese students would “follow what teachers say out of respect”. In a recent study for example, which compared Chinese and American students’ perceptions of the aims of schooling, Lau et al note that the former were more likely to report that learning to respect authority was a significant outcome of education. Consequently, even though Chinese teachers report as much “misbehaviour” in class as do Australian and Israeli teachers, the nature of the misbehaviour in Chinese classrooms may be less extreme. These assumptions are supported by the work of Aldridge, Fraser and Huang (1999) in Taiwan. After visiting classrooms in both countries they report
Classroom observations and interviews suggest that there could be differences in the ways in which students regard their teachers; students in Taiwan had more respect for teachers than did students in Australia. Although the teachers in both countries complained about discipline problems with students, we noted that there was more evidence of disruptive behaviour in science classes in Australia (described in the first story as answering back and chatting between friends) than in Taiwan. (p.58)
An assumption of less provocative forms of misbehaviour in Chinese classrooms could explain the lesser likelihood of the more stringent forms of disciplinary interventions such as Punishment and Aggression. The Chinese teachers’ greater usage of hinting, discussion and inclusion may reflect confidence on their part that the children will listen to them and to their peers, as argued by Jin and Cortazzi (1998). Chinese teachers can also rely on parents to support them in their attempts to make students self‐disciplined (Peng, 1993; Goa, 1998). With regard to the reported greater use of Aggression and Punishment by women teachers in China (in higher year levels), and greater involvement of older students by male teachers, it
13
may be that more traditional respect is accorded to males within the Chinese culture, particularly by older students. Consequently male teachers are less likely than females to need to resort to coercive techniques to reorient misbehaving students. This explanation could also account for why women teachers in China are also less likely to try and involve older students in determining rules, and consequences for misbehaviour. An alternative explanation may be related to the reported greater stress levels experienced by female teachers in China (Dong, 2001: Zhou et al, 1998). Such stress is likely to be more pronounced in higher year levels because of the college entrance examination, and the low entrance rate of students to universities. It may be argued that the Australian and Israeli teachers’ relative unwillingness to empower students in the decision‐making surrounding classroom discipline is related to the lower levels of unconditional respect they are likely to receive from students, and the reduced levels of support parents provide. The fact that the Australian teachers report less use of discussion and more punishment than do those in Israel may signify that the former have relatively less “Legitimate” power, and need to rely on more “Coercive” power (Tauber, 1999) to manage their classrooms. The greater likelihood for women teachers of years 8 and 9 in Australia and Israel to be inclusive could signify a lesser concern about their legitimate power, although as reported, in Israel men teachers were more inclusive for years 7 and 8. This explanation based on power may also account for the greater inclusion of younger students in all three countries, (although the effect is most pronounced in Israel). That is, students in year 7 and 8 are more likely to accord teachers unconditional respect than are those in later years. The results for teachers’ usage of recognition and reward for good behaviour is difficult to interpret in a way consistent with the above analysis. One might have assumed that teachers who have less legitimate power may try to use more “Reward” power (Tauber, 1999) to compensate. The data however show greatest use of recognition and reward by the Chinese teachers, followed by those in Israel, with the Australian sample of teachers using least. These finding suggest an additional explanation for some of the findings that is consistent with the reported associations between students’ self‐reported misbehaviour and teacher aggression. As stated earlier, in all three settings, students more prone to misbehaviour report greater levels of aggressive teacher disciplinary behaviour. It may be assumed that the more provocative students stimulate more anger in teachers and consequently more aggression. Angry or upset teachers, as argued by Glasser (1997), may not be interested in being reasonable towards unreasonable and disrespectful students. They therefore will find it unpalatable to recognize very difficult students when they act appropriately. Rewarding ‘Neanderthals’ for being normal may not come naturally. Similarly they may find it unpleasant and unproductive to spend time letting such students tell their side of events, trying to get them to acknowledge that their behaviour is unfair and needs to change.
14
Having argued why it is understandable for teachers to react to provocative and possibly confronting student behaviour by becoming more aggressive, this does not excuse such a response. It is recognised that
“children who have significant emotional and behavioural problems respond less positively to others and this elicits fewer positive responses and more negative responses from others” (Pace et al, 1999: 151)
However teachers are professionals who need to respond in the best interests of their clients, the students. As argued by Roeser et al (2000) “Teachers need to protect adolescents from situations they perceive as threatening to their self …or threatening to their social image” (p.454). If not, then “adolescents will feel less motivated to learn and more unhappy and will be more likely to manifest academic or social problems”(p.454). In summary, teachers can not allow themselves and difficult students to be locked into “a vicious cycle of reciprocal causation” (Pace et al, 1999:151). In making a recommendation that teachers need to work harder to foster quality relationships with difficult students, we are aware how difficult that may be. However a clear starting point would be to minimize the usage of aggressive disciplinary techniques while increasing the frequency with which they recognize responsible behaviour, however rare it may be. Secondly they need to make the opportunity let students talk about their side of things so that it can be clearly understood, to get them to understand why their behaviour is a problem for others and to obtain a plan for a better future. In many schools in Australia, Israel and China, this conversation is conducted by someone other than the classroom teacher, as a result of a ‘referral’. It is the year level coordinator (class teacher), school counsellor or a senior teacher who gets the advantage of the relationship power that arises from such conversations (Tauber, 1999), whereas it is the classroom teacher who needs it. Encouraging teachers to build rather than destroy good‐will with students who are more provocative is a challenging request. It will not be easy. In the experience of one of the authors who is working in schools to achieve this aim it can take many years of persistent effort accompanied by considerable support (Lewis, 2001). If teachers are to act in the best interests of students in an area as emotive as classroom discipline, then
"creating professional work environments where teachers feel supported by other professionals and school leaders in relation to their own needs for competence, autonomy, and quality relationships is essential”(Roeser et al, 2000:466)
15
References Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Huang, Tai‐Chu. I. (1999). Investigating Classroom Environments in Taiwan and Australia with Multiple research Methods. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 48‐61. Barton, P. E., Coley, R. J., & Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Order in the classroom: Violence, discipline and student achievement. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center. Educational testing service. Blase, J. J. (1986). A qualitative analysis of sources of teacher stress: Consequences for performance. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 23‐40. Borg, M. G., Riding, R. J., & Falzon, J. M. (1991). Stress in Teaching: A study of Occupational stress and its determinants, job satisfaction and career commitment among primary schoolteachers. Educational Psychology, 11(1), 59‐75. Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1992). Assertive discipline: A take charge approach for today's educator. California. Canter and Associates. Chan, D. W. (1998). Stress, Coping strategies, and Psychological distress among Secondary Teachers in Hong Kong. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1),145‐163. Charles, C. (1992). Building Classroom Discipline: From models to practise ( Ed) New York. Longman. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and Education: The Self‐Determination Perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3 & 4), 325‐346. DeRobbio, R. A., & Iwanicki, E. F. (1996). Factors accounting for burnout among secondary school teachers. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the American Educational Research Association. New York. .Dong, H (2001). A Psychological Investigation of teachers' over Strees and Anxiety. Journal of Urumqi Adult Education College, 2, 55‐58. Freiberg, H. J. (1996). From Tourists to Citizens in the Classroom. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 32‐36. Friedman, I. A. (1994). Conceptualising and measuring teacher‐perceived student behaviours: Disrespect, sociability and attentiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(4), 949‐958. Friedman I. A. (1995). Student behaviour patterns contributing to teacher burnout The Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 281‐289. Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R.. (2000). The Coping Scale for Adults: Construct validity and what the instrument tells us. ERIC TM031533 ED443 888. :12 Glasser, W. (1969). School without failure. New York. Harper and Row. Glasser, W. (1997). A New Look at School Failure and School Success. Phi Delta Kappan , April, 597‐602. Gao. L. (1998). Cultural context of school science teaching and learning in the People’s Republic of China. Science Education, 82, 1‐13.
Goddard, J. T. (2000). Teaching in Turbulent times: Teachers’ perceptions of the effects of external factors on their professional lives. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 46(4), 293‐310. Gordon, T. (1974). Teacher effectiveness training. New York. P.H. Wyden.
16
Guttmann, J. (1982). Pupils’, teachers’ and parents’ causal attributions for problem behaviour at school. Journal of Educational Research, 76(1), 14‐21. Hart P. M., Wearing, A. J., & Conn, M. (1995). Conventional wisdom is a poor predictor of the relationship between discipline policy, student misbehaviour and teacher stress. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(1), 27‐48. Hyman, I. A., & Snook, P. A. (2000). Phi Delta Kappan. 81(7),489‐501. Ingersoll, R. M. (1996). Teachers' decision‐making power and school conflict Sociology of Education, 68 (2), April, 159‐176. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001).Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (3), 499‐534. Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). Dimensions of dialogue: Large classes in China. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 739‐761. Kaplan, A., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2002) Classroom goal structure and student disruptive behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 (2), 191‐212. Kohn, A. (1996) Beyond Discipline: From Compliance to Community. Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kyriacou, C. (1980). Stress, health, and school‐teachers: A comparison with other professions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 10, 154‐59.
Lau, S., Nicholls, J. G., Thorkilsen, T. A., & Patashnick, M. (2000). Chinese and American adolescents’ perceptions of the purposes of education and beliefs about the world of work. Social Behaviour and personality, 28(1), 73‐89. Lewis, R., and Lovegrove, M.N. (1987). What students think of teacher's classroom control techniques: Results from four studies. In Hastings, J., Schwieso, J., eds, New Directions in Educational Psychology, Vol. 2: Behaviour and Motivation. The Falmer Press.pp.93‐113. Lewis, R. (1997a). Discipline in Schools. In L. J. Saha (Ed.) International Encyclopaedia of the Sociology in Education, 404‐411. Oxford, UK. Permagon. Lewis R. (1997b). The discipline dilemma, (2nd ed). Melbourne. The Australian Council for Educational Research. Lewis, R. (1999). Teachers coping with the stress of classroom discipline. Social Psychology of Education, 3, 1‐17. Lewis, R. (2001) Classroom Discipline and Student Responsibility: The Students’ view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(3), 307‐319. Li, X. Y., Xie, J. S., & Wang, Z. H.(1998). Reform and Development of Chinese Higher Teacher Education. Jiangxi, China: Jiangxi Higher Education Publishing House.
Lowell, C., & Gallup, A. M. (2002). The 34th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the Public’s attitude towards the Public Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (1),41‐56.
17
Martin, S. C. (1994). A preliminary evaluation of the adoption and implementation of assertive discipline at Robinton High School. School Organisation 14(3), 321‐330. McCormick, J., & Shi, G. (1999). Teachers’ attributions for responsibility for their occupational stress in the People’s Republic of China and Australia. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 393‐407. Miller, A., Ferguson, E., & Byrne, I. (2000). Pupils’ causal attributions for difficult classroom behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 85‐96. Mitchel, K. (2001). Education for Democratic Citizenship: Transnationalism, Multiculturalism, and the limits of Liberalism. Harvard Educational Review, 71 (1), 51‐78. Oswald, U. (1995). difficult to manage students: a survey of children who fail to respond to student discipline strategies in government schools. Educational Studies, 21, 265‐276. Pace, T. M., Mullins, L. L., Beesely, D., Hill, J. S. & Carson, K. (1999). The relationship between children’s emotional and behavioural problems and the social responses of elementary school teachers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24,140‐155. Pearl A., & Knight. A. (1998) Democratic Schooling: Theory to Guide Educational Practice. N.J. Hampton Press. Peng, S. S. (1993). Fostering student discipline and effort: Approaches used in Chinese schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (April 12‐16, 1993). Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S. & Sameroff, A. J.(2000). School as a Context of early Adolescents’ academic and Social‐Emotional Development: A Summary of the Research Findings. The Elementary School Teacher, 11(5), 443‐471. Romi, S., & Freund, M. (1999). Teachers’, Students’ and Parents’ Attitudes towards Disruptive Behaviour Problems in High School; A case study. Educational Psychology, 19(1), 53‐70. Romi, S., & Katz, Y. (2003). Affective Education: The Nature and Characteristics of Teachers’ and Students’ Attitudes Toward School in Israel. Unpublished paper, School of Education, Bar Ilan University. Israel. Rothstein, R. (20000. Towards a composite index of school performance. The Elementary School Teacher, 100(5), 409‐441. Schneider, E. (1996). Giving students a voice in the classroom. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 22‐26. Swinson, J. , & Melling, R. (1995). Assertive discipline: Four wheels on this wagon: A reply to Robinson and Maines. Educational Psychology in Practice, 11(3), 3‐8. Tauber, R. T. (1999). Classroom Management: Sound Theory and Effective practice. Penn. Bergin & Garvey. Wolfgang, C. H. (1995). Solving Discipline Problems: Strategies for classroom teachers. (3rd Ed).). Massachusetts:, Allyn and Bacon. Whiteman, J. L., Young, J. C., & Fisher, Lynette. (1985). Teacher burnout and the perception of student behaviour. Education, 105, 299‐305. Zhou, Z., & Zhao, D.(1998). A Study on the Symptoms of Anxiety and Related Factors of Primary and Secondary School Teachers. Journal of China Civilian Medicine, 10(5), 305-306.
