An effective approach to classroom management must be both theory based and context specific. A teacher must have a set of underlying theories and beliefs about adolescent development and teacher-student relationships that guide her actions; without it, she runs the risk of inconsistency and lack a foundation for her actions. That set of theories, however, must support a range of actions that can be adapted to a specific context. Different classroom management strategies must be used in different circumstances, depending upon the age, ethnicity, gender, class and other student characteristics; the time of year; the subject matter; as well as many other factors. During my four weeks in the field, I had to consider both general theories and the specific context of my classroom in order to create a preventative and active approach to classroom management.
I will begin with the underlying theories and beliefs, preventative and active, that guided my actions during the four weeks in the field, and which will probably continue to guide my actions in the near future. For me classroom management is at base concerned with how I can promote positive and productive student-teacher and student-student relationships in my classroom. I believe that creating a positive learning environment is the single most important thing I can do for those relationships. There are many factors that feed into this.
First and foremost, I must treat my students with respect and work to maintain their dignity. From my observations over the course of this year,
the power relationship that exists in the classroom between teacher and student often results in the teacher treating the student as something less than a thinking, feeling human being. I have often heard teachers say that students don't deserve their respect because they do not come into the classroom respecting authority themselves. Teachers can feel threatened by their students' attitudes and return them in kind. Whether or not it is the case that "the students started it", I believe that it is the teacher's responsibility as an adult to end the cycle of disrespect, to do whatever possible to restore the dignity of students, as well as her own. Dignity and respect are big issues with adolescents. Many psychologists believe that adolescence is a time when young people begin to grapple with the issue of identity, in all of its manifestations. Not only do adolescents have to develop a sense of identity in the individual sphere, but also in the social sphere.
Secondly, a positive learning environment must have an aura of trust, between teachers and students and between students themselves. When trust is present in the classroom, both teachers and students are more willing to expose lack of understanding, to accept constructive criticism, and to learn from each other. When trust is not present in the classroom, defensive mechanisms abound and prevent the penetrating interaction necessary for real learning to take place. But trust cannot be instantly created in the classroom; it is a long, slow process that demands constant vigilance and attention from teachers. It certainly requires teachers to adhere to the tenets of respect and dignity outlined above, but also to get to know their students in multiple contexts. For some students, school is generally mistrusted, and my position as teacher carries instant suspicion. It may not be until I can get to know these students in another context, in sports or the community, that they begin to trust me and my classroom. I can also foster trust between my students by teaching them behaviors that demonstrate respect for the ideas of others, and how to discuss issues in a civil manner. Establishing a sense of community in the classroom is vital for trust, but is also a matter of respect and dignity.
A third facet of creating a positive learning environment concerns my knowledge of and preparation in the subject matter I teach. Based on my observations this year, I believe that the most common cause of classroom management problems is a lack of adequate and meaningful lesson planning on the part of the teacher. Students have a difficult time meeting a teacher's expectations when directions are unclear, or when the goals of the lesson are v not fully mapped out. Additionally, I have witnessed very few instances of teachers thinking through ways to make the content meaningful for their students. As Curwin and Mendler (1988) state:
Demonstrating respect for students by maintaining student dignity, establishing trust, thorough planning of curriculum, and demonstrating excitement in the classroom is the underlying set of beliefs that I have established for creating a positive learning environment that fosters good interpersonal relationships. The last element I would add to the set concerns the nature of classroom management theory itself. I believe that teachers should have a set of theories that act as a foundation for actions, but that specific classroom management practice must simultaneously evolve from the context in which teachers find themselves. For the remainder of this paper, I will try to do three things: (i) analyze the context of the four-week placement this quarter and whether my classroom management strategies worked for that context; (ii) anticipate and analyze the context of the fourth quarter experience and remark on what I will do the same and differently; and (iii) fantasize about what strategies I would use with my own American government course.
For the third quarter field experiences, I was placed in a 12th grade honors American government class in a Seattle city school. Though the student population as a whole is relatively diverse, the honors classes are mostly white and middle-class. My relationship with my cooperating teacher, Mr. Rogers (not his real name), is good, though we have a few autonomy issues that need addressing. His style of classroom management is quite relaxed. Students come and go as they please, attendance is rarely taken, and students are not expected to show tardy passes when they arrive late. Mr. Rogers has a good rapport with the students and frequently jokes with them. His lesson planning was minimal; he relies heavily on units from years past and, as the year has progressed, he has become less diligent about giving students substantive work. When I was there it seemed that everyone had spring fever except for me.
Because the students' ethnic and class backgrounds were so similar to my own, those contextual issues tended to fade into the background in favor of other factors. There were several issues that concerned me most and therefore guided my actions. First of all, I had to consider the grade level of the students and the time of year in which I was teaching. Senioritis had reached epidemic proportions by the time I arrived in Mr. Rogers' class; it had even touched him. The students were already looking forward to summer and were definitely in jump-through-the-hoops mode, as long as the hoops weren't too restrictive. Mr. Rogers had acquiesced on this point, giving students only a minimal amount of work in class, and no after school assignments. The students did not want to deal with a student teacher placing all sorts of new demands on their time and attention. I really couldn't blame them, but I had to find a way to manage the situation, nonetheless.
A second concern was the difference between the classroom management style of my cooperating teacher and my own. As mentioned previously, Mr. Rogers is extremely relaxed about students' comings and goings and their behavior in the classroom. There is a large, fluffy couch in the middle of the room (which the students routinely fight over) that seems to typify his overall attitude towards the learning environment. He has told me that his attitude is different in the autumn, but at this point I do not believe that he is terribly concerned about student learning; his management style is perfectly consistent with his goals. I have different ideas about the formality of the classroom environment (ideas mostly derived from Walter Parker who believes that making students comfortable is not always the best way to get them to learn) and I had a big, fat agenda to go with those ideas. It was clear to me from many discussions we had had in the adolescent development course and elsewhere that it was I who would have to adapt to his management style and I wondered how I would be able to do what I wanted in the slothful environment Mr. Rogers had created.
Finally, I was concerned about the good rapport that Mr. Rogers had with his students. On the surface, this might seem an advantage for me because an air of general congeniality existed in the room, but I realized early on that it was actually somewhat of a disadvantage. A TEP student from the first cohort taught for an extremely popular teacher at my school last year and had immense difficulties with it. Many students had looked forward for years to have this teacher for U.S. history and resented having him replaced with a novice. Likewise, I have heard other students in the second cohort comment on the quickness with which they established relationships with their classes when the cooperating teacher was disliked. Mr. Rogers is indeed popular with the students, and this would make my job more difficult. But even more importantly, he appears to have established a McNeilesque social contract with the students, whereby he has chosen "to simplify content and reduce demands on students in return for classroom order and minimal student compliance on assignments (McNeill, 1986, p. 158)". One of my underlying beliefs about classroom management concerns establishing trust and a rapport with students, but I knew that if I violated the social contract, I would not be able to do this.
Given this context I made several decisions about classroom management before beginning my stint of teaching. After much debate, I realized that I would probably have to give up some of my goals in favor of others. For instance, I had had visions of students taking prepared reading materials home with them, and returning to participate in a structured academic controversy on whether or not the U.S. should send troops to Bosnia. I even gave them the materials several days in advance, and implored them to read it. But I knew that when the day came for the SAC, few would probably have completed the readings, because homework violated the social contract they had with Mr. Rogers. I was right; in both classes, two people did the reading. But instead of getting angry or frustrated, I made light of it, and kicked in a contingency plan I had devised for that circumstance. In one class the SAC worked brilliantly, in the other it was a failure -- again, due in large part to the classroom context. An outside observer might have believed that the students were taking advantage of me, and in a sense this may be true. But my actions sprung from conscious decisions made on the basis of my own theories on classroom management and the particular context in which I found myself.
Another decision I made concerned the senioritis phenomenon. From my observations of Mr. Rogers' class, I determined that the most visible manifestation of senioritis was excessive talking in class. (Absenteeism was also a big problem, especially since Mr. Woods didn't take roll.) The students frequently talked when Mr. Rogers was trying to lecture to them, and most of the time, he let them take the class off track. I knew that if I used too many teacher-centered lesson formats, I would be fighting an uphill battle. I had planned to use group work, anyway, but made a conscious decision to rely on it even more heavily to capitalize on the natural sociability of the students. Though I knew that there would be some off- task behavior in the groups, I believed that I could mitigate the effects of it with my vigilant presence, bouncing between them.
On the whole, I think that this strategy was successful. It took some extra work on my part to keep groups on task -- I had to make good use of my presence, and strict use of time -- but using cooperative learning enhanced my place within the classroom community in two ways. First of all, I gave them a forum to do what they were naturally inclined to do at that period of their life, and I think they were appreciative. Secondly, I got to know the students better by interacting with them in smaller groups. I really don't think that there was a better, faster way of establishing a rapport with them. It also gave me plenty of opportunities to informally assess their understanding of the material, since under the social contract I wasn't allowed to make too many formal assessments.
It is worth noting that the cooperative learning strategies worked better in my first period class than they did in the second period. This was largely due to the fact that in second period, my cooperating teacher routinely sat near groups of students and moved them off task by chatting with them about events outside of school and looking through their magazines with them. This was a completely unexpected contextual element I had to deal with on a daily basis. I was worried that confronting him about the issue would damage our relationship, something that I did not want to do before the beginning of the fourth quarter experience. So, instead, I teased him about it, hoping that he would become aware of his behavior and stop. It didn't really work, and I believe that it will be an issue that I will have to confront more directly in the fall.
Another unexpected contextual element I had to confront was a particular group of troublesome boys (and two girls) who sat in the back of the room during second period. I hadn't really perceived them as a problem in my observations of the class, but they caused me trouble from day one of my teaching stint. Their behavior was by no means outrageous; they were just generally obnoxious and showed a certain disrespect for me and the material I was presenting. For instance, we spent one class period working in small groups to brainstorm a list of things President Clinton has done as president over the past 3 1/2 years, in preparation for their vote this coming fall. I then asked the small groups to report back to the large group what they had come up with so I could use their ideas as a basis for an interactive lecture on Clinton's term in office the next day. When it came time for the groups in back to report our their ideas they came up with things like, "President Clinton has an ugly daughter and an annoying wife." I didn't know what to make of these responses, though I thought perhaps they were just trying to find buttons to push. I didn't let them find any, responding to the abovementioned comment with remarks on what a good job President Clinton has done keeping Chelsea out of the spotlight, and that Hillary's active role has indeed been controversial. By not rising to their bait and turning a stupid comment into substantive discourse, I maintained all of our dignities and showed respect for their contributions (however undeserving).
This type of thing went on for days. Both my cooperating teacher and EDTEP observer noticed their behavior and wondered whether I should address it more directly. I decided not to, based on past experience. After graduating from college, I spent a year teaching at a private school in England and had a lot of difficulty with classroom management. I realize now that the reason for the difficulties had a lot to do with my boring lessons, but at the time I reacted to the students' behavior very quickly, and took it very personally; I never took the time to analyze my or their behavior to find the causes. I was determined to not do the same here. If the students were looking for buttons to push, I wouldn't show them any by waiting to react; if there was another cause for their behavior, I needed time to fish it out.
After a week or so, the group in the back stopped trying to bait me and started becoming more involved in the lessons. I think that their change in behavior had to do with two factors. First of all, I gave them no buttons to push. Secondly, upon greater observation, I began to suspect that the boys were showing off in front of the two girls who regularly sat with them. I experimented with ways of manipulating the situation by spending more time with the group in the back, allowing them fewer opportunities to show off, and choosing a member of the group when volunteers were needed for special tasks in the lesson (divide and conquer). Whatever the cause of their behavior, it dissipated before the end of my teaching stint.
On the whole, I think that my approach to classroom management during the four weeks in the field was cautious and evaluative. I had many academic goals that I wanted to achieve during my time there -- and I did achieve many of them -- but I realized that to push my agenda too far, too fast would assure its failure. To get anything accomplished, I had to first establish a positive learning environment with the classroom's new member -- me -by working on the underlying theories that guide my beliefs about classroom management. Often I felt more like an observer in the classroom, than its teacher. When a student would act in a peculiar way, instead of reacting instantly to it, I was able to take a step back and say to myself "Hmm, that's interesting. Why is he/she is doing that?" I was fortunate to be in a context that allowed that kind of speculation; had I had younger students or a more volatile classroom situation, it may not have been possible.
Still, the issue of assessment reliability looms large in my feelings about classroom management. If I react too quickly to a student's behavior without taking the time to assess why that student is acting that way, or if that behavior is typical for the student, my decisions regarding that pupil may not be relevant or necessary (Araisian, 1996). Whenever the situation allows, I believe that it is tremendously important to discover the underlying causes of student behavior, so that my responses to that behavior really address the problem. Without such evaluation, I risk perpetuating, even encouraging, the behavior I want to change.
Looking ahead to the fourth quarter field
experience, I know that some contextual elements will be different. First
of all, I will not have to deal with the senioritis from this quarter.
Mr. Rogers has commented numerous times that the class and his own attitude
are completely different in the autumn.
The students will take the material more seriously,
and I will be able to push more of my academic agenda forward. Secondly,
I will be team-teaching with Mr. Rogers from the beginning of the term,
slowly taking on more of the classes as the weeks pass. There are many
advantages to this arrangement. I will be able to establish a rapport with
the students from the beginning of the year, while also mitigating some
of the relaxed management issues. While I know that I will not be able
to completely inject my classroom management vision onto the classroom,
the reaming environment will be a creation of the two of us and will be
easier for me to work in when I finally take over all the classes.
On the issue of Mr.- Rogers' behavior, I have decided to adopt the same approach that I would with the students, cautious and evaluative. If his behavior continues as it did this quarter, I will try to determine why he is acting as he does. I have the feeling that some subtle power issues are being played out, and if further observations confirm this, I may have to experiment to stop his behavior. One idea that I have already considered is incorporating Mr. Rogers into the class as much as possible, not only in the planning, but in the actual lessons. If I can pull it off, he may feel less excluded and it will give him an opportunity to stay in close contact with the students. I find myself almost hoping that he does continue his behavior so I can test out my theory!
Looking even farther ahead to my own U.S. govemment class, there is one main elementii I would change about my actions. (There are many smaller elements I would change, too, but for the sake of brevity I will only comment on this one.) To this point, discussion of the structure of the discipline has been absent from my contextual analysis. The kinds of management actions I have taken this quarter are broadly consistent with the structure of the discipline of U.S. govemment. In particular, showing students respect and maintaining their dignity are actions towards establishing a positive reaming environment, community of learners. I also did not attempt break down the tacit social contract that the students and Mr. Rogers had created for themselves. However, if I had my own U.S. govemment class, I would use the structure of the discipline even more directly in my management efforts. According to McNeil (and Schwab, of course), "the methods and forms of conveying knowledge affect the knowledge itself and, consequently, student perceptions of it (McNeil, 1986, p. 162)". It is extremely counterproductive to teach about democracy in an authoritarian atmosphere or through non- participatory methods.
Adopting such an approach will not only better teach students about U.S. government, but it is also consistent with my theories and beliefs about classroom management -- demonstrating respect for students by maintaining student dignity, establishing trust, thorough planning of curriculum, demonstrating excitement in the classroom, and considering the classroom context. Of course, no approach is a panacea, but I think this one will work pretty well. I am reminded of a story told to me by Wendy Eubank, who teaches in Edmonds, about her class after they adopted a social contract and set up a democracy. She told her students that if she ever violated the social contract, they could rise up in rebellion against her authority. One day, a substitute teacher came in and violated the social contract -- the class overthrew him. The substitute teacher thought the class a terrible management problem; Wendy thought the encounter a success. So do I.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Airasian, Peter W. (1996). Assessment in the classroom. New York McGrawHill, Inc.
Cole, Michael & Sheila R. Cole (1993). The development of children (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.
Curwin, Richard L. & Allen N. Mendler. (1988) Discipline with dignity. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Edwards, Clifford H. (1993). Classroom discipline and management. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993.
McNeil, L. M. (1986). Contradictions of control: school structure and school knowledge. New York: Routledge.
. . . . .
From: Susan Nolen
Re: Case Study #2
Bravo! This is a very careful analysis of your current position and future plans. You've done a fine job of interweaving concerns for developmental fit, what you're trying to teach about your discipline, and your personal history in constructing your approach. It was great to see you pulling in relevant ideas from across the TEP program to explain and justify your strategies.
I was very impressed with your thoughtful approach to classroom management during this field experience. Your analysis of the reasons behind past diff~culties clearly helped you develop a more effective approach, even given the constraints of your situation. I'd like to keep a copy of the paper in part because it can show other students constructive ways to both learn from difficult experiences and adapt to the vagaries of cooperating teachers without losing yourself and your philosophy in the process. Let me know if this is ok, and I'll make a copy.
4.0