The strong appeal of the assertive discipline approach is thought to be largely due to

In order for an educator to create a successful classroom environment, it is important to implement a classroom management strategy that supports student learning in alignment with personal teaching pedagogies. The three classroom management theories that are examined and compared include the Goal Centered Theory (GCT), Choice Theory (CT) and the Assertive Discipline Model (ADM).

Rudolf Dreikur’s developed a classroom management approach known as the Goal Centered Theory (GCT). Dreikur’s GCT focuses on the teacher’s ability to find the explanation behind a student’s motivation to misbehave and find alternative ways to meet their needs (Lyons, Ford & Slee, 2014, p. 23). Dreikur believed that student behaviour is highly influenced by their needs, values, beliefs and goals in alignment with the classroom environment and classroom teacher (Bear, 2009, p. 306). Dreikur emphasises the importance of social equality and how a sense of belonging could alter a student’s long and short-term goals (Fergusen, 2001). Thus, the success of Dreikur’s theory is heavily reliant on the student’s acceptance within social groups and the educator’s ability to facilitate a supportive classroom environment.

The positive aspects of Rudolf Dreikur’s GCT included the ability of the educator to exemplify a democratic teaching style (Lyons et al., 2014, p. 23). The educator has the ability to improve student behaviour and change their perceptions of situations by determining which of the ‘four mistaken goals of behaviour’ is driving their motivation to misbehave (Bear, 2009, p. 306). Determining whether the behaviour is driven by ‘attention’, ‘misguided power’, ‘revenge’ or ‘inadequacy’, the ‘Positive Discipline Model’ should be implemented; as it supports the concept that discipline should strengthen one’s self-esteem, happiness and social belonging (Bear, 2009, p. 306).

Furthermore, another strength of the GCT is the concept of meeting the student’s needs through the use of encouragement and minimising discouragement (Lyons et al., 2014, p. 24). Creating a classroom environment where students are encouraged through positive discipline, students are more likely to feel supported throughout their academic journey.

A common flaw with Driekur’s GCT is using emotions to determine the student’s goals of misbehavior (Lyons et al., 2014, p. 24). The emotions of the educator can make it difficult to articulate the emotions of the student, proving this theory to be ineffective (Johansen, 2006, p. 236). For example, a teacher showing emotions of anger may confuse a child’s misbehaviour goal, as being a power struggle, when in fact it may be a result of attention seeking (Johansen, 2006, p. 236). Another limitation of the GCT is the lack of autocratic discipline when educators are faced with challenging students (Lyons et al., 2014, p. 24). Whilst prevention is always the preferred method than intervention, often-challenging students fail to develop mutual respect for the educator (Lyons et al., 2014, p. 25).

William Glasser’s Choice Theory (CT) is based on the notion that all human behaviours and motivations are directly related to the five basic needs of survival, belonging, power, freedom and fun (Erwin, 2003, p. 20). Emphasised by Glasser, educators must ‘lead’ their students into making correct behavioural choices in alignment with their student’s ‘quality worlds’ (Lyons et al., 2014, p. 25); the people, activities and beliefs most important to them (Erwin, 2003, p. 21). Educators can maintain positive relationships with their students by appealing to their needs and in turn, they will create a classroom where students are motivated to learn, are respectful and complete high quality work (Erwin, 2003, p. 20).

A strong point of the CT is the idea that educators must take a developmental approach to behaviour management (Lyons et al., 2014, p. 25). Rather than enforcing students to comply with rules, the CT promotes the idea that teachers should be leading their students to satisfy their needs through appropriate behaviour choices (Lyons et al., 2014, p. 25). This also directly links to another positive element of cooperative learning environments. Kianipour & Hoseini (2012, p. 118) stated that by teachers sharing the influence and decisions within the classroom they can create a cooperative learning environment in which students are motivated to participate and achieve.

A common limitation with Glasser’s CT is the issue that students may not value school, education or their teachers as part of their own ‘quality worlds’ (Gabriel & Matthews, 2011, p. 22). Student’s who fail to see the value and the rewards of educational experiences will often further continue their disruptive behaviours (Gabriel & Matthews, 2011, p. 22). Furthermore, for the CT to be successful it is highly dependent on being a ‘whole-school’ initiative. This highlights a limitation with teachers with time constraints and may also conflict with teaching pedagogies within a school (Classroom Belonging, 2013).

The Assertive Discipline Model (ADM) developed by Lee Canter and Marlene Canter describes the idea of maintaining order throughout the classroom by developing a discipline plan (Lyons et al., 2014, p. 28). The educator sets clear standards and expectations for behaviours within the classroom whilst adopting an assertive yet approachable style of teaching (Lyons et al., 2014, p. 28). Woolfolk & Margetts (2013, p. 420) noted that the ADM is most effective when students are aware of the rewards for compliance and the consequences for non-compliance. The ADM promotes the idea that assertive style of teaching values the process of learning and will motivate students to change their behaviour.

A positive element of the ADM is the productive learning environment, which is created by adopting an assertive style of teaching (Charles & Senter, 2005, p. 51). Assertive teachers can deal with misbehaviours in a positive manner whilst having little disruptions to the process of learning (Charles & Senter, 2005, p. 51). Developing an assertive discipline plan within the classroom maintains consistency with student behaviours (Canter, 2011). Students are willing to accept classroom rules and disciplinary actions, if students can rely on fair and equal treatment from the teacher (Canter, 2011).

The major limitation with Canter & Canter’s ADM, is the idea that it undermines a student’s ability to self-manage their behaviours due to the penalty-focused approach (Woolfolk & Margetts, 2013, p. 420). Some critics believe that student’s best evaluate their behaviours and morals through discussions about the reasons behind these actions, in comparison to compliance of rules (Woolfolk & Margetts, 2013, p. 420). Furthermore, others believe that whilst the educator may be able to control the students misbehaving, the ADM does not account for solving the reasons for these disobediences that occur (Lyons et al., 2014, p. 29).

All three theories/models have a primary focus of building the relationships between the students and the educators in order to facilitate a positive learning environment. Dreikur’s GCT and Glasser’s CT are both derived from a psychoeducational perspective whereby the educators ‘lead’ their students into building a collaborative environment where decision making is a shared process (Lyons et al., 2014, p. 24-25). In comparison, Canter & Canter’s ADM follows a behaviourist approach in which the educators take an autocratic stance where the rules and expectations are clearly explained (Canter, 2011).

When comparing how each deal with misbehaviours, both the GCT and the CT strive to find the reasons behind the disruptive behaviour. GCT encourages the use of natural and logical consequences, that is; the natural result of students actions, for example, student’s facing rejection from others for bullying (Bear, 2009, p. 309). Comparatively, within Glasser’s CT the educator must determine the reason behind the misbehaviour, teach the student how to control these behaviours and find a way to satisfy these needs (Bechuke & Debeila, 2012, p. 243). Lastly, the ADM resorts to asserting authority over the students by explaining the consequences for such behaviours and reminds the student of their high expectations (Canter, 2011).

Each of these theories demonstrates attributes, which have an overall goal of providing a positive learning environment. Educators must analyse the underlying concepts of each theory and decide on a classroom management theory that best suits their teaching style, pedagogy, school environment and their students.

References

Bear, G., G. (2009). The positive in positive models of discipline. Handbook of positive psychology in schools. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bechuke, A., L., & Debeila, J., R. (2012). Applying choice theory in fostering discipline: Managing and modifying challenging learners behaviours in South African schools. International journal of humanities and social science, 2(22), 240-255. Retrieved from http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_22_Special_Issue_November_2012/28.pdf

Canter, L. (2011). Assertive discipline: Positive behavior management for today’s classroom. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Charles, C., M., & Senter, G. (2005). Building Classroom Discipline (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon Publishing.

Classroom Belonging. (2013, August 15). Apply with caution: The limitations of Choice Theory. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://classroombelonging.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/apply-with-caution-the-limitations-of-choice-theory/

Erwin, J. C. (2003). Giving students what they need. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 19-23. Retrieved from http://www.my-ecoach.com/online/resources/3916/Article_Giving_Students_What_They_Need.pdf

Ferguson, E., D. (2001). Adler and Dreikurs: Cognitive-social dynamic innovators. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 57(4), 324-341. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2001-10142-001

Gabriel, E., & Matthews, L. (2011). Choice theory. Retrieved from http://circle.adventist.org/files/jae/en/jae201173032003.pdf

Johansen, T., M. (2006). Readings in the Theory of Individual Psychology. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kianipour, O., & Hoseini, B. (2012). Effectiveness of training the choice theory of Glasser to teachers on improvement of students’ academic qualification. Journal of educational and instructional studies in the world, 2(2), 117-123. Retrieved from http://www.wjeis.org/FileUpload/ds217232/File/15.kianipour.pdf

Lyons, G., Ford, M., & Slee, J. (2014). Classroom management: Creating positive learning environments (4th ed.). South Melbourne, VIC: Cengage Learning.

Woolfolk, A. & Margetts, K. (2013). Educational psychology. (3rd ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia.