To Measure Classroom Discipline in 3 National Settings Was Problematic

Teachers’ classroom discipline and Student Misbehavior in Australia, China and Israel

Authors

Ramon Lewis.

Associate Professor, Institute for Education, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 613 95258482.

Shlomo Romi.

Deputy Director, School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. 972 35318447

Xing, Qui

Professor, Department of Psychology, Sichuan College of Education

Sichuan Province, Chengdu. 610041, PRC.

Yakov J. Katz.

Professor. Dean, School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

972 3 5418709

Acknowledgment

The research project reported in this paper was in part sponsored by the Institute for Community Education and Research, School of Educatiion, Bar-Ilan University, Israel.

Teachers’ classroom discipline and Student Misbehavior in Australia, China and Israel

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 how teachers’ use of various disciplinary strategies, and the extent to which these relate to student misbehaviour differ in three 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. In all settings greater student misbehaviour relates only to increased use of aggressive strategies. 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

“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 misbehavior 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 misbehavior, highlight the potential for teacher behavior such as shouting all the time, unfairly blaming students, picking on kids, and being rude, to stimulate student resistance and subsequent misbehavior.

“The present study has shown pupils to attribute to teachers a significantly greater responsibility for pupil misbehavior 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 misbehavior, it was reported that although students placed their teachers’ attitude the second most important cause of student misbehavior, 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 misbehavior in Australia (Lewis,2001). As a result of that publication, academics in a number of countries contacted the author with requests to replicate the study in their respective national settings. Two additional settings were ultimately selected. These were China and Israel. Australia is a typically western country, China is a typically oriental country and Israel is approximately half western and half oriental. Consequently the use of these three cultural settings provided the opportunity for some robust comparisons. Further, since the academics from these settings who expressed interest in undertaking the research were senior, very experienced, and involved in teacher training for many years, the issue of classroom discipline, and the research design of the previous research appeared to have valency in both countries

In summary, there were two main foci for the research. First it permitted a comparison of the extent of usage of various discipline strategies in three significantly different national settings. Secondly, the relationship between student misbehavior and classroom discipline could be examined in each setting. In conducting this research it was acknowledged that there are likely to be cultural differences associated with 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.

The significance of classroom discipline rests not only on its impact on students’ behavior 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 misbehavior 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 behavior 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 behavior 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 misbehavior 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 misbehavior 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 students’ perceptions of their teachers’ disciplinary strategies and their misbehavior in these three national settings.

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 setting.

To examine the relationship between discipline strategies and student misbehavior 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 country 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, 2004; 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 (Lewis, 2001).

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 behavior.
• Praises individual students for good behavior.
• 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.

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 behavior.
• 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’ behavior 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 behavior is a problem for others by discussing it with them.
• Gets students to change the way they behave by helping them understand how their behavior 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 behavior. 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 strategies 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, the six classroom discipline strategies examined in the previous study (Lewis, 2001) 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 Science, 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 misbehavior 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.

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 misbehavior”. 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 feel 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. In Australia, all secondary schools (years 7 to 12) 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 to12) and 8 Junior high Schools (years 7 to 9) in the geographic center 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. Two of these were lower Secondary schools (years 7 to 9) and the remainder comprised years 7 to 12. In each Chinese and Israeli school a random sample of classes at all year levels 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.