top of page

Key Theorists & Literature

on Classroom Management

In this section, I won’t attempt to review all of the theories and frameworks currently available for behaviour management. If you are looking for a more comprehensive overview which includes all of the following leading experts and their theories and frameworks, I highly recommend Lyons, Ford and Arthur-Kelly’s Classroom Management (2011).

Bill Rogers

William Glasser

Rudolf Driekers

Fredric Jones

Jane Kaplan and Joseph Carter

Fritz Redl and Willian Wattenberg

Jacob Kounin

Paul Alberto and Anne Troutman

Lee & Marlene Canter

Hiam Ginott

B.F. Skinner

Additionally, I have provided an overview of Bill Roger’s framework for classroom management in the section entitled Good Practice and his ideas for working with a hard class in Appendix A. An overview of the Essential Skills for Classroom Management is provided in Good Practice.

 

 In this section, I will provide an overview of the three overarching theories of classroom management that have been most helpful to me at Caperberry High School.

William Glasser: Choice Theory

There are several theories that are classed as psychoeducational theories (Lyons, Ford & Arthur-Kelly, 2011, p.6). Psychoeducational theories are based on the premise that everyone has needs, and that behaviour is simply an attempt to have these needs fulfilled. Therefore, as educators, our goal should be to identify the needs of our students as individuals and then create environments in which the needs can be satisfied. These theories focus much more on positive practice than intervention practices.

 

One psychoeducational theory which appeals to my personal beliefs is William Glasser’s Choice Theory. Originally known as Control Theory, this theory posits that individuals have five basic needs (Porter, 1996, p. 140):

  • Survival

  • Love & Belonging

  • Power

  • Freedom

  • Fun

People choose all of their actions based on the information they receive and their desire to fulfil these basic needs.

 

I found this quote from Glasser elegantly summed up the principle of Choice Theory, and how it differs from stimulus-response theories:

Choice theory says we answer a phone― and do anything else―because it is the most satisfying choice for us at the time. If we have something better to do, we let it ring. The ring is not the stimulus to do anything; it is merely information. In fact all we can ever get from the outside world, which means all we can give one another, is information.   But information by itself, doesn’t make us do anything.

               (Glasser, 1997)

 

From this, I have realised that there is a limit to what I can do. I cannot control my students, I can merely explain to them that they control their actions, give them the information to make better choices and provide an environment which meets their needs and leads them to desire better choices.

 

I also found the list of “connecting habits and deadly habits” to be useful when I considered how I interacted with my students:

Connecting Habits & Deadly Habits

Connecting Habits

(helps create strong relationships)

 

1. Supporting

2. Encouraging

3. Listening

4. Accepting

5. Trusting

6. Respecting

7. Negotiating differences

 

Deadly Habits

(inhibits the creation of successful relationships)

 

1. Criticizing

2. Blaming

3. Complaining

4. Nagging

5. Threatening

6. Punishing

7. Bribing or Rewarding for control

Unfortunately, Choice Theory is best implemented as a whole-school approach and Glasser himself has published studies showing the difference between a concerted, whole-school roll out of his principles and a cherry-picking-type roll out (Glasser, 1996). It is confusing for students if such a radically different framework is implemented in just one of their classes, but not throughout the school.

 

Thus, I have used Choice Theory to inform some of my approaches with students, such as trying to identify their needs and meet them, and explaining that ultimate control for their choices rests with them and not me as the teacher, but I have not used it as the sole basis for my approach. Also, I find Choice Theory provides little insight for how to manage persistently disruptive students, especially in the short term, and as Caperberry HS teachers, you will appreciate that strategies for handling such students are of paramount importance here.

 

Should you wish to read further on the positive practices supported by Glasser’s Choice Theory, I recommend Chapter 7 of Louise Porter’s Student behaviour: Theory and practice for teachers (1996).

 

 

 

 

                             What am I responsible for, and what power do I have?

  • I am responsible for my thinking, and I've got power over my thinking.

  • I am responsible for my behaviour, and I've got power over my behaviour.

  • I am responsible for what I say, and I've got power over what I say.

  • I am responsible for my choices, and I've got power over my choices.

  • I am responsibly for my learning, and I've got power over my learning.

  • I am responsible for the consequences of my behaviour.

  • If I can change my thinking, then I can change my behaviour.

  • Everyone can see my behaviour, and everyone can hear what I say.

  • I am judged by what I do, and what I say.

  • I think, therefore I am (Descartes). I am what I think, do, say and choose.

Ragnar Purje: Responsibility Theory

A theory which  shares some of its principles with Choice Theory, but has a more pragmatic approach that can be useful for a classroom teacher, is Ragnar Purje’s Responsibility Theory (Purje, 2014). Once again, the theory posits that responsibility for the choice a student makes lies solely with the student.

 

The program is very simple and relies on the following 10 precepts:

This theory is quite loosely outlined and can be tailored to fit with a range of different classes and teaching styles. I think it is this which makes it useful to a teacher who wishes to make changes but may not have support from the whole school. According to Purje, "the aim of Responsibility Theory is to always inform the student that the student is responsible for and has power over their thinking, their behaviour, what they say, their choices, and their learning" (Purje, 2014, p. 36).

 

Students are first introduced to the concept that they have responsibility for their thinking, behaviour, choices and what they say. They are next informed that their brains are their “powerhouse”, the source of all their decisions. The concept of neuroplasticity can be introduced at a level appropriate to the age and understanding of the students. Through this, they can appreciate that the structure of the brain is not fixed, but can be moulded by use. This can help students to realise that intelligence is also not a fixed matter, but rather one that can be influenced by their own actions.

 

As students are guided to take responsibility for their behaviour and their learning, the 10 Responsibility Theory precepts are used consistently to remind students and reinforce positive behaviours. Students should be encouraged to analyse the 10 precepts and then to consciously apply them in the classroom (Purje, 2014, p.35).

 

Purje also offers some concrete advice on classroom rules, including his own personal rules (Purje, 2014, p. 89):

  1. I am responsible for what I think, do, say, choose and learn. 

  2. My negative choices will have negative consequences.

  3. My positive choices will have positive consequences.

  4. I've got the power to change my thinking and to change my behaviour.

  5. I've got the power!

Finally, Purje offers advice on dealing with persistently disruptive students with a warning and consequences system (Purje, 2014, p. 89):

  • 1st warning: name written on board.

  • 2nd warning: name written on board.

  • 3rd warning: name written on board. Time out location.

  • 4th warning: name written on board. Buddy Class.

  • 5th warning: name written on board. Behaviour management.

  • 6th warning: name written on board. Administration.

Kendall and Braswell: Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (for children)

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is particularly useful with challenging students who do not respond well to positive practices alone. No matter how carefully you establish procedures and rules, and a safe and nurturing environment in your classroom through your use of positive practices, there may be some students who do not respond. In such cases, CBT has a lot to offer. This theory is about teaching children to “stop and think” (Kendall & Braswell, 1993, p. 9). To do this, students need to be explicitly instructed in metacognitive self-management skills such as anger management, self-talk, problem-solving skills, organisational skills and social skills.

 

Intervention using CBT will require an assessment of the student to determine which skills a student is struggling with and then constructing a program to train the student in these skills. The training program needs to include modelling of the desired skills and behaviours, rehearsal of the skills and finally an opportunity to implement the skill in the classroom (Lyons, Ford & Arthur-Kelly, 2011, p. 11).

 

More information on how to use CBT with students can be found in Kendall & Braswell’s Cognitive-behavioral therapy for impulsive children (1993).

 

Additionally, Appendix A offers insight on dealing with challenging classes and Appendix B offers resources for dealing with persistently disruptive students.

 

Putting Theories into Practice

 

There are many more theories on classroom management, and I encourage you to read widely until you find one that aligns with both your personal teaching style and the policies of your school. More frameworks are discussed in the Good Practice section of this site. These frameworks are informed by theory, but also provide a lot of practical advice on how to implement theory in a real classroom. The strategies they outline have been very important to me as I have developed a personal classroom management plan for each of my classes.

 

They are also strategies that are backed by a body of research. Some of the main criticisms of many of the theories of behaviour management (including the ones explored above) lie in the lack of evidence to support their practice. A review of strategies for classroom management found good evidence to support the majority of the techniques listed in the Good Practice section (Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers & Sugai, 2008). It is important that as a professional teacher you can defend and justify your practices, so it is worthwhile to take the time to read the review.

 

Finally, after having read the overview of the theories above (and the frameworks in Good Practice), you will need to assess how to incorporate one or more in your teaching practice. For this, I suggest you refer to the Implications section which describes a step by step approach for implementing theory into practice.

Created to fulfill the requirements of EDED20455 Supportive Learning Environments

Please note that the name of the school identified in this resource has been changed for privacy reasons.

bottom of page