Grady Bryant Assessment 2 11540786

Assessment 2: Theoretical Approaches

Understanding typical student development, misbehaviour and individual differences

can be observed through various theoretical frameworks and approaches. This
essay will discuss how operant conditioning addresses misbehaviour within the
classroom environment in relation to the personal philosophy of a teacher education
student. More specifically, the behavioural theory of operant conditioning has been
created to enforce strict teacher directed policies that address misbehaviour as it
occurs. In addition, psycho-educational theories such as Dreikurs goal-centred
theory will be analysed in its effectiveness in addressing misbehaviour using a
democratic teaching approach. Furthermore, the legislative requirements of these
theoretical approaches will be explained, through specific examples of managing
students behaviours. My personal philosophy regarding both operant conditioning
and Dreikurs goal-centred theory will also be discussed.

Behaviourism is a theoretical perspective and learning theory that objectively

observes behavioural and emotional responses and how they change as a direct
result of environmental stimuli (McDevitt, Ormrod, Cupit, Chandler, Aloa, 2013, p.
12). Burrhus Frederich Skinner, an American psychologist and theoretical
behaviourist established the approach of operant conditioning in learning. Skinners
operant conditioning theory is essentially based off previous behaviourist theories
and expands upon them by introducing new key factors, such as reinforcement or
punishment to modify and shape student behaviour and response within the
classroom environment (McDonald, 2010). Through the introduction of
reinforcement, Skinner believed that the behaviour that was reinforced tends to be
strengthened and repeated, whilst behaviour that is not reinforced would soon be
weakened and sometimes extinguished. In essence, operant conditioning occurs
where the consequence of behaviour increase or decrease the likely repetition of
similar behaviour in similar circumstances (Brady, Scully, 2005, p.144). Skinners
operant conditioning largely focused upon changing observable behaviours, mainly
replacing one behaviour with another thought to be more suitable. In Skinners
operant conditioning teachers shape student behaviour through systematic

1
Grady Bryant Assessment 2 11540786

reinforcement that includes utilising rewards and negative reinforcement to alter any
undesirable behaviour (McDonald, 2010, p.241). Operant conditioning is essentially
teacher driven and applies an authoritarian stance to teaching students and
achieving classroom outcomes. In addition, interventions based on behavioural
theories tend to be profoundly structured, strict and procedural (Lyon, Ford, Arthur-
Kelly, 2015, p. 146). Personally, an effective and well managed classroom will
operate through a student-centred approach to teaching, that allows for students to
take active role in their learning so they may build self-worth, resilience and inclusion
within the classroom (McDonald, 2010). It is crucial that a teacher works
collaboratively with students in order to develop this relationship and also act as a
facilitator to student learning within the classroom. Skinners operant conditioning is
inherently the opposite of my own personal philosophy to teaching, as it fails to
acknowledge the students role in their own learning, but rather focuses primarily
upon making intentional changes/actions that have a direct outcome on the
environment and to the students learning. However, it is evident that within the
classroom stronger types of discipline need to be used for various types of
misbehaviour and sometimes behavioural theories such as operant conditioning can
be used to defuse situations or immediately stop misbehaviour.

In order to implement operant conditioning within the classroom to address

misbehaviour it is first important for teachers to understand the characteristics of
Skinners theory. There are five basic processes in operant conditioning: positive
and negative reinforcement that strengthen behaviour; punishment, response cost,
and extinction that weakens behaviour (Huitt, Hummel, 1997, para. 8). Skinners
operant conditioning theory bases interventions on misbehaviour with the key focus
on altering observable behaviours, and has little interest in the beliefs or feelings of
individual students. (Lyon, Ford, Arthur-Kelly, 2015, p. 146). As a consequence a
key challenge for a teacher in applying Skinners principles in classroom contexts is
identifying appropriate reinforcers and punishers (Brady, Scully, 2005, p. 145).
Although operant conditioning can have direct results on discouraging misbehaviour
it does however, require extensive knowledge of students within the classroom in
order to be able to implement and apply the proper techniques of operant
conditioning (McDonald, 2013). According to operant conditioning principles student
misbehaviour such as, a student that continually acts out in class seeking attention

2
Grady Bryant Assessment 2 11540786

and frequently breaking class rules can be addressed by first using positive
reinforcement to achieve the desired behaviour. Positive reinforcement in operant
conditioning can include giving rewards or using verbal praise to draw attention to a
student who is working correctly, indicating to other students the expected behaviour
within the classroom. Another way operant conditioning addresses misbehaviour in
the classroom is through punishment. Punishment can be given in a range of ways
using operant conditioning such as giving a student time out for misbehaviour or not
letting the student participate in extra curricular activity. This form of punishment is
used to remove something that the student likes, in order to decrease the likelihood
of the behaviour that they have been exhibiting.

Psycho-educational theories are concerned with the private logic or beliefs that
students have of themselves that will influence how they solve their problems or
behave to meet social measures (McDonald, 2010, p. 13). Rudolf Dreikurs a
psycho-educational theorist introduced his goal-centered theory of teaching that
predominately concentrated on students thinking, feelings, beliefs and attitudes.
Dreikurs viewed school as a site to nurture young people and identified that
classrooms should strive to build a positive learning environment that assists in
creating an educational setting where students feel as though they are valued and
that they belong. (McDonald, 2010). The advantages of Dreikurs goal-centered
theory are that it recognises that students must take some form of responsibility for
their education and this is promoted through an inclusive learning environment used
within the classroom. However, there are some identifiable issues within Dreikurs
theory, as it fails to validate additional reasons for why children misbehave. For
instance some students misbehave or lack motivation for reasons other than the
desire to belong (Lyon, Ford, Arthur-Kelly, 2015). The issue with Dreikurs theory is
that it lacks substance and can be problematic at times when dealing with
misbehaviour, failing to deliver a sound set of ideas and practices that can defuse
situations, terminate aggression and stop disruptive behaviours quickly (ONeill,
2014, p. 15). Dreikurs theory promotes the belief that the classroom should be
democratically run and that the teacher has an obligation to be self-aware of
students needs. Within democratic classrooms the teacher works to formulate
valuable and understanding relationships with students, whilst also working

3
Grady Bryant Assessment 2 11540786

collaboratively with students to share responsibility for their learning. Personally I

identify that my teaching philosophy is best represented by Dreikurs theory and
philosophy to teaching. In my ideal classroom I want to implement a classroom
management strategy that promotes positive practices of intervention, that assist in
fostering and creating mutual relationships with students based on respect, value,
encouragement and empowerment (Lyons, Ford, Arthur-Kelly, 2015). Dreikurs
theory summaries the importance of creating a supportive classroom environment
that values students and provides them with a place to feel safe and belong. For me
personally these are some of the most important aspects of a classroom that I want
to be able to incorporate as I believe they will assist in achieving classroom
outcomes. However, there is one identifiable weakness within Dreikurs theory being
that it is less effective in handling short term misbehaviour, which is especially
challenging when dealing with disruptive students, as it can take considerable time to
produce significant behavioural change (Lyons, Ford, Arthur-Kelly, 2015, p. 136).

In order to effectively implement Dreikurs goal-centered theory to engage

misbehaviour within the classroom learning environment, the teacher must first
engage the whole class in discussion revolving around meeting general classroom
obligations. Students must understand that teachers will give them choices with
rules, be flexible with consequences and will model consistent and considerable
behaviours shown within the classroom (Lyons, Ford, Arthur-Kelly, 2015). Dreikurs
goal-centered theory employs explicit instructions, expectations and boundaries that
work towards building class trust and responsibility, whilst also utilising rational
consequences and encouragement rather then punishment for any misbehaviour
(Lyons, Ford, & Arthur-Kelly, 2015). In order to adequately use Dreikurs goal-
centered theory within the classroom to address
misbehaviour there are six key steps that must be followed to achieve change in
behaviour. For instance if a challenging student is continually leaving their seat
throughout the lesson and lays down on the floor refusing to complete their work,
then Dreikurs goal theory can be applied to address this behaviour (Lyons, Ford, &
Arthur-Kelly, 2015). Step one is to identify the goal such as the student seems to be
disengaged during English class. Moving into step two the teacher must break the
cycle of habit that they might normally use to respond to student misbehaviour. In

4
Grady Bryant Assessment 2 11540786

this case ignoring the student and not awarding them with attention can help break
the cycle (Lyons, Ford, & Arthur-Kelly, 2015). Step three is to disclose the goal and
can be achieved by questioning what the student is really trying to say through their
actions. For example could it be that the student wants the teacher to notice them or
do they want the teacher to believe that they are incapable of completing the work.
Following this, step four has the teacher asserting a reality message to the student
such as, Brock I have noticed that you are no longer engaged in my class, I feel let
down because you used to participate and complete your work within the set time.
In step five the teacher gives the student an ultimatum so that the student may
become aware of the consequences that follow this misbehaviour and may self
discipline back on task (Lyons, Ford, & Arthur-Kelly, 2015). For instance, your
continual disengagement and unwillingness to work within the classroom is
beginning to damage your own learning, either stay in the class and complete your
work or you can work under supervision by the head teacher. Within step six the
teacher applies logical consequences to address misbehaviour and does not use
any form of punishment. It can be directed to the student by continual positive
reinforcement for behaviour or even providing the student with a workspace that
provides a sense of belonging or consecutiveness to the classroom. Although this six
step goal-centered theory is quite laborious it can effectively provide teachers with a
way to address challenging classroom misbehaviours. Consequently it does however
fail to provide the teacher with any methods to correct short term misbehaviours that
occur in everyday classrooms.

Operant conditioning can be used to support Focus area 4.3 of Standard 4

managing challenging behaviour in the classroom as it involves changing voluntary
behaviours in the classroom through either reinforcement or punishment. Operant
conditioning manages challenging behaviours by either positively reinforcing
desirable behaviour through praise or a reward, whilst negative reinforcement is
used to remove any undesirable behaviours. However these interventions must be
cautiously selected as they are dependent on what students perceive as positive
and negative outcomes when being disciplined. In comparison focus area 4.3 can be
effectively managed by Dreikurs goal-centered theory as the dynamic method

5
Grady Bryant Assessment 2 11540786

applied by this theory is to create a connection between cause and effect where
consequences for inappropriate behaviour have been previously negotiated with the
class through democratic group discussion, perhaps during the process of
establishing class rules or codes of conduct (Lyons, Ford, & Arthur-Kelly, 2015, p.
135). In addition operant conditioning can also support focus area 3.5 within the
classroom to reinforce student understanding, participation, engagement and
achievement. This can be accomplished through positive and negative reinforcement
that is communicated by the teacher to the class. For instance if the teacher praises
a student in front of the class for doing the correct thing then the model behaviour is
demonstrated reinforced in the minds of each student. Furthermore, Dreikurs goal
theory can support focus area 3.5 within the classroom environment, as the whole
theory is built upon creating effective relationships with students that utilise verbal
and non verbal communication skills to support participation and engage students in
their learning. For instance Dreikurs approach to management interventions is one in
which teachers care for students is communicated through acceptance and respect
that combined promote a sense of classroom cooperation, team effort and
community (Brady, Scully, 2005, p. 157). Dreikurs goal-centered theory also
supports focus area 4.1. Within this theory an emphasises is placed on the need for
teachers to provide consistent guidance that will facilitate students in developing
their own inner goals (Brady, Scully, 2005). This form of interaction with students can
help establish a positive learning environment within the classroom, which in turn
helps students feel connected and engaged in activities.

My personal philosophy stated in assessment one has not changed considerably,

however components of my philosophy have been strengthened. This includes my
belief in running a democratic classroom in which students work collaboratively with
their teacher and begin to take responsibility for their own learning. Furthermore, I
believe that formulating a positive and nurturing relationship with each of my
students is extremely important in supporting this approach. I remain against the use
of typical behavioural theories within the everyday classroom environment. Despite
this, I have identified that occasionally certain behavioural techniques from
behaviourist theories can be used to address short term misbehaviour with greater
and more immediate outcomes. My previous beliefs and philosophies have remained
mostly unchanged, with this assessment enabling me to focus on the particular

6
Grady Bryant Assessment 2 11540786

aspects mentioned above to improve my understanding and practice of behavioural

management skills.

In summary, theoretical frameworks and approaches enable us to refine behavioural

management within the classroom. Both operant conditioning and Dreikurs goal-
centred theory contain valid techniques of addressing misbehaviour, although my
personal philosophy resonated closely with Dreikurs theory. For my personal
teaching style, operant conditioning was too teacher centred and did not focus on the
students ability to have an active role in their learning. In contrast, Dreikurs goal-
centred theory aligned more closely with my personal philosophy of teaching, by
working collaboratively with students and enabling them to actively participate and
have an input into their learning. This was further supported by the legislative
components within the AITSL framework. Therefore, as my teaching philosophy was
already leaning towards a students driven approach, my personal beliefs remained
relatively unchanged.

By Grady Bryant

References

Brady, L., & Scully, A. (2005). Classroom management and intervention. In

Engagement : inclusive classroom management (pp. 140-179).Frenchs Forest, NSW
: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Lyons, G., Ford, M., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2015). Classroom management (4th ed.).
South Melbourne, Vic.: Cengage Learning.

7
Grady Bryant Assessment 2 11540786

McDevitt, M., Ormrod, E., Cupit, G., Chandler, M., & Aloa, V. (2013). Child
Development and Education. Pearson Australia.

McDonald, T., (2010). Classroom management engaging students in learning. (1st

ed.). Oxford University Press

ONeill, S. (2014). Evidence-Based Classroom and Behaviour Management Content

in Australian Pre-service Primary Teachers' Coursework: Wherefore Art Thou?
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 1-22. Retrieved from
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2293&context=ajte

Lewis, R. (2008). The Developmental Management Approach to Classroom

Behaviour: Responding to Individual Needs. Camberwell, Vic: ACER Press

Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (1997). An introduction to operant (instrumental)

conditioning. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta
State University. Retrieved from,
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/behavior/operant.html