Upload
bcoleman91
View
21
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
dn
Citation preview
IntroductionClassroom managements is (or, is rumored to be, at least) the thorn in the side of
any poor soul trying to navigate a student teaching placement. There are many different
theories offering ideas regarding effective classroom management; it is crucial for
teachers to create a classroom management plant that will be most beneficial for their
own personality and educational philosophy. My classroom management plan will be
guided by principles of assertive discipline models and is intended to give students
responsibility in the classroom. As a result, these young adults will begin to understand
the wisdom and process of discipline, and will grow into individuals of good character.
Discussion of Classroom Management OptionsOutlined in an article written by James A. Johnson of Northern Illinois University,
Carl Glickman and Charles Wolfgang identified three different climates of control in the
classroom: Noninterventionist, interactionists, and interventionists. Each of these theories
takes a stance on the balance of control in the classroom. As we look at the strengths and
weaknesses of each of these three, it is important to keep in mind these are not three
separate categories of discipline models; rather they are major points on a spectrum of
discipline.
A classroom that follows the noninterventionist approach to classroom management
is going to emphasize a small amount of teacher control and allow students most of the
control. A prime example of the noninterventionist style is William Glasser’s Choice
Theory. Glasser believes “All of our choices and behaviors are based on the urgency for
survival, power, love, belonging, freedom, and fun” (Johnson 124). Because it is natural
for people to act out of line when these six needs are out of whack, teachers must deal
with these underlying issues rather than the symptoms by talking to counselors, social
workers and parents involved (Johnson 124).
The major weakness of this kind of behavior management is that it is nearly
impossible for a student teacher or first year teacher to implement. First of all, student
teachers need to show their ability to take the lead in the classroom; this type of
management may offer too much control to the students to work with a teacher who has
been dropped into a school system for one semester. Secondly, a new teacher is going to
have trouble (at least initially) accessing the deeper levels of needs that Glasser outlines.
Having little relationship with parents and social workers and especially the students will
not allow for proper analysis of the root causes of the misbehaviors this theory begs for.
The interactionist approach aims at the ideal of having an equal balance of student
and teacher control in the classroom. A model of this type of classroom management is
the Conflict Resolution theory, which is centered on modeling, probing and reinforcement
(Johnson 124). This theory teaches students how to identify problems and then solve
them on their own, with some guidance from the teacher. Teachers are responsible for
equipping students will the skills necessary to handle conflicts inside and outside the
classroom.
The obvious benefit of this theory is that students learn to resolve conflicts with
minimal assistance from the teacher. Those who promote this theory believe that
allowing students to partake in discipline policies and solutions “helps them to contribute
to the school and to society as a whole” (Johnson 125). The weakness of this approach is
that it is indeed a slippery slope. Interactionist classrooms require a delicate balance of
student and teacher shared power in the classroom, and students may have a foggy idea of
what they can and cannot do or say. It is important to clearly outline what will and will
not be tolerated in these kinds of classrooms.
The interventionist approach gives most of the control to the teacher, and little to
the students. The example Johnson gives of an interventionist style is the Assertive
Discipline theory developed by Lee Canter. This theory is based on “consistency, follow-
through, and positive relationship building” (Johnson 126). Here, the teachers teach and
the students learn. Teachers who choose an assertive discipline-styled plan must have a
clear, visible and immovable classroom discipline plan and is meant to “have a fair and
consistent way to establish a safe, orderly positive classroom” (Johnson 126).
Critics of the Assertive Discipline theory would complain that it sets the teacher up
as a dictator, which is detrimental for the maturation of the students. “It conveys a
message that only those with power have the right to make rules” (Johnson 126). Others
say that the plan is too simple, and that, unlike the Choice Theory, it does not get at the
root of misbehavior. Yet, students know exactly what is expected of them and will be
held to the standards that have been set up. They will be treated like adults and expected
to behave like adults.
My Classroom Management PlanOn the aforementioned classroom management spectrum, I fall somewhere between
the interactionist and interventionist style, but closer to an interventionist. I do believe,
especially at the beginning of the year, that the teacher must make it known that they are
in charge. That being said, my goal as the year goes on is to gradually release
responsibility to the students, while maintaining final authority on matters such as
classroom policies and discipline. More specifically, I agree with many of the principles
Allen Mendler outlines in his book Discipline with Dignity. Mendler’s style is almost
exactly what I am looking for: A classroom environment where the teacher is in charge,
but each student knows that he or she is a valued individual that can make a serious
difference in the classroom and in the world. Ultimately, the teacher has the final say,
but the student’s input is still esteemed and taken into account As for discipline, Mendler
encourages a responsibility model of discipline. As opposed to a model of obedience
where students are expected to follow rules without question, the responsibility model
allows students to have a serious say in the policies of the classroom. I believe in this
approach because students who just listen and obey without understanding why there are
rules in the first place are not going to achieve their potential as members of society. I
want to develop students who can make the responsible decision, not simply the obedient
decision.
Regarding specific classroom policies, I believe it necessary to set a tone for the
year on the first day of class. This means having clearly defined and visible rules, listing
what will and will not be tolerated in the classroom.
Routines: 1) Make sure to greet students at the door 2) Always outline a reason for a rule
Policies I find crucial are 1) Treat others as you want to be treated 2) Be on time 3) Late work will not be graded 4) You’re opinion is valued, but I have the final say. 5) You can expect to be graded fairly, not always equally and 6) No excuses.
Teacher policies: 1) Make sure to catch students doing good 2) Always encourage a love for reading, reward students for reading during free time. 3) Be accountable to the same policies of tardiness and late work as your students.
Classroom Layout: Conducive to large group discussions-- this is important for the social climate of the classroom and involving students in the rules of the classroom. See diagram.
Parents: Should be as involved as they would like to be. I will participate in school schedule parent-teacher conferences. I will also send home a sheet the first day of class with my phone number on it, encouraging parents to email or call me whenever they feel needed. If the parents cannot speak English, I will notify them that a translator can be arrange.
Connection Between Educational Philosophy and Classroom Management PlanOver the course of the semester, and through developing my classroom
management plan, I have realized that what I thought would be my educational
philosophy contradicts my plan for classroom management. Originally, I sided with the
existential education philosophy, in which the teacher plays the role of facilitator, and
gives much of the control of the classroom to the individual. While I like the idea of
students eventually making their own decisions, I do not think effective classroom
management can be achieved where students hold the power.
It is hard for me to pick a specific realm of philosophy that my own philosophy
completely agrees with, but I find some of my ideas lining up with perennialism.
Perennialism holds to the idea that “truth does not depend on time or place, but rather is
the same for all people.” (Martin and Loomis 46). My classroom management plan fits
best with this educational philosophy because the policies and disciplinary measures of
my classroom are results of what I believe to be the right and wrong of old; which does
not change. My desire is to guide students along these truths and show them their wisdom
and purpose, while allowing them to make them their own. These truths “have withstood
the test of time and are as important and relevant today as they were when first
conceived. The enduring wisdom of the past is a guide to the present” (Martin and
Loomis 46).
ConclusionThrough delving deeply into how my classroom is going to be managed and how
the balance of control is going to shake out, I have come to the realization that my
philosophy of education is not what I once thought it was. My desire is indeed for my
students to become brilliant human beings, but I do not think that the definition of a
brilliant human should or can be decided upon solely by the mind of teenagers. I believe
there are ancient truths that teachers have the opportunity to convey through classroom
management and discipline and can enable students to understand these truths for
themselves. I have designed my own plan accordingly.
Reference:
Curwin, Richard L., and Allen N. Mendler. Discipline with dignity. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1988. Print.
Daniels, K.N., Patterson, G.C., and Dunston, Y.L. (2010). The Ultimate Student Teaching Guide. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Johnson, James A., Diann Musical, Gene E. Hall, and Donna M. Gollnick. Foundations of American Education: Perspectives on Education in a Changin World. Boston: Pearson, 2000. Print.
Martin, David Jerner, and Kimberly S. Loomis. Building teachers: a constructivist approach to introducing education. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2007. Print.