2.3.

4 Classroom management and discipline styles

The core function of the school is teach
ing and learning. Learners who misbehave
prevent educators from teaching, and other le
arners from learning. Educators need to
take action to protect the core function of schools. Measures taken against
transgressing learners might involve a change in classroom management or
punitive
measures against the learners. Good discipline is needed to create and
protect an
environment conducive to teaching and le
arning and in order to take counter
measures against misbehaving learners discipline plans have been
developed, as will
be discussed below.
According to Charles (1999:7), the first approa
ch to be regarded as a discipline plan
was developed by Redl and Wattenberg in
1951. Their focus was on understanding
the difference between individual behavi
our and group dynamics. They showed how
group behaviour differs from individual be
haviour. Redl and Wattenbergs specific
techniques for helping educators, deal with misbehaving learners.
In 1965 B.F. Skinner (Charles, 1999:68) introduced the concept behaviour
modification. According to this approach the
behaviour of learners
can be modified if
the misbehaviour is followed by conse
quences. In 1971 Jacob Kounins model was
constructed in which he advocates that cla

ssroom management can be used to modify

learners behaviour (Charles
, 1999:8). Rudolf Dreikers (C
harles, 1999:43) presented
his Confronting Mistaken Goals discipline
plan, which stated that educators could
model democratic behaviour by involving lear
ners in setting rules and consequences.
Ginott in 1971 (Charles, 1999:56) promoted
a form of discipline plan where
messages were used which the learners
understood. The educator addresses the
inappropriate action of the
learner and not the learners character. Following this
system was the work by Lee and Marl
ene Canter (Charl
es, 1999:82), which
culminated in the assertive discipline plan.
25
Prior to 1970 there was no real
need for systematic classr
oom control models (Allen,
1996:1) since behavioural problems in the
classrooms were minimal. Educators had
been able to maintain order by assert
ing their authority (Allen, 1996:1) and the
learners were well behaved. After this peri
od, the discipline in schools deteriorated.
This necessitated the development of fo

rmal discipline models to deal with

disciplinary problems. The following models we
re developed to assi
st the educator in
preserving some order in the
classrooms. References have already been made to the
models and a more detailed discussion of
these models will now follow. The models
to be discussed are:

The Kounin model (Research-based empirical approach)

The Neo-Skinnerian model (behavioural approach)

The Ginott model (democratic approach)

The Glasser model (non-coercive approach)

The Dreikurs model (logical consequences approach)

The Canter Model (assertive discipline approach)

The cognitive and soci

al learning approach

The ecological and ecosystemic approach

The above models are summarised from
Building Classroom Discipline:
From


The Dreikurs model
According to the Dreikurs model, ... t
eachers should encourage students without
praising their work or char
acter (Allen, 1996:3). Dreikurs believes that learners
misbehaviour is due to mistaken goals such
as getting attention or
diverting attention
from themselves in order to hide the fact that they cannot cope with the
academic
material. Mistaken goals are those goals
which learners choose when they fail to
achieve the genuine goal. This model advocates
that learners should be kept occupied
with learning activities and this should
keep the learners from misbehaving.
Discipline is regarded as a tool to enc
ourage (a) a sense of belonging and (b) learner
cooperation within the group.
This logic of Dreikurs is the
opposite to that of aversive
discipline, which focuses on
punishment (Charles, 1999:46). According
to Dreikurs good di
scipline does not
engage in the use of punishme
nt. Internal discipline is regarded as the best form of
discipline and is the result of
respectful development of

each learner. The educators

role is to redirect the mistaken-goal
behaviour towards the correct goal. This
redirection of mistaken-goals should
be undertaken in a positive way. Dreikurs
30
considers that joint decision
on rules by educators and learne
rs will lead to learners
internalising these rules and taking ownership of these rules.
(Martella
et al
. 2003:7) describe Rudolf
Dreikurss natural cons
equence model. This
was based on the assumption that people le
arn through their inte
raction with the
environment. In the interaction with the
environment our behavi
our is exposed to
three types of negative consequences i.e.
natural, arbitrary and logical. A natural
consequence of fighting is to get hurt. An
arbitrary consequence is indirect e.g., an
arbitrary consequence of fighting is being
sent to the principals office. A logical
consequence of fighting during break is to
give the learner detention during break.