Effective And Cognitive Strategies In The Classroom
Most educators agree that effective learning involves a variety of cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Meece, 1994) as well as good discipline and classroom management. Whilst not ignoring the value of cognitive and metacognitive strategies for effective learning, recent research has stated that discipline and classroom management is probably the most taxing aspect of a teacher 's role (Carey, 2003; B. Rogers, 1997). For some teachers the most difficult task may not be the mastery of the content matter but learning how to deal effectively with children. Osborn and Osborn (1989) reported that there were situations when their best lesson plans were lost due to poor classroom management and discipline techniques. Misbehaviour can be hurtful;
…show more content…
it disrupts and disinhibit others learning. Discipline problems are a major concern for the teachers in schools.
Schools encourage and enhance the youths of the society to acquire skills and knowledge that will help them become responsible contributors to society as adults and teachers are the facilitators of this learning process (Carey, 2003). However, better part of the teachers ' role is to come up with solutions to the pervasive problem of maintaining discipline. Discipline is essential if students are going to learn unhampered by hostile disruptions (Osborn & Osborn, 1989; B. Rogers, 1997; W. A. Rogers, 1991; Smith & Laslett, 1993). Classroom discipline is harder these days. However, with effective discipline teachers will be able to deliver the curriculum. Teachers will need to step out of their customary role of curriculum delivery and develop skills to manage behaviour problems.
The single most cause of concern for educators are discipline problems in schools as it affects all aspects of education (Crittenden, 1991; Smith & Laslett, 1993). Teachers can face a range of disruptions in any one day or session. These disruptions may range from low level variety, such as attention seeking, tapping, and calling out, noise at the desk to high level defiance, refusal, yelling and so on. It may be the behaviour which inhibits a student 's own learning or it may be the behaviour of one student which is disruptive to the learning of another (Lewis, 1997).
Children will disrupt for many reasons. Children may disrupt a class because they may be bored, some people like being class clown, or just because they are mischievous (B. Rogers, 1997). Today disruption seems to be a normal feature of a classroom. Rogers (1997) state that some children may disrupt for reasons such as not being able to cope with work or they may be bringing significant socio-economic problems with them to classroom.
Ignoring and not addressing the potential cause of misbehaviour will result in frustration for the teacher to ameliorate the particular misbehaviour (Cameron, 1998).
However, behavioural approaches have been used in schools widely with a wide range of incentives, rewards, and punishments (Lewis, 2001). Also commonly used strategies by teachers include warnings, rebukes and punishment (Carey, 2003). Carey (2003) reported that "generally punishment is more frequently used than rewards and yet punishment has only a weak association with measures of student behaviour, attendance, examination success and delinquency" (p.3). Behavioural approaches can be decisive and involve advance planning with appropriate verbal and non-verbal repertoire to manage the range of discipline in the classroom (W. A. Rogers, 1991). Behavioural approaches are modeled on interventionist approach as it places full responsibility for specifying rules of discipline and management of behaviour on the classroom teacher.
Teachers no longer have the traditional authoritarian status, which reaffirmed their right to subdue any classroom resistance. Things are changing in the world and so is the way children are perceiving things today. There has been a transition from autocratic to more democratic society and this has influenced the way children perceive things today. Balson (1991) state that this altered pattern of teacher-student relationship may be the cause of the discipline problems that are prevalent in classrooms today. The change in the societal values reflected students ' perceptions and they expect student-teacher relationships to be based on equality and respect rather than the teacher being personally responsible for controlling the behaviour of each student.
The systemic approach covers a range of strategies and techniques on non-interventionist style where it is believed that the student operates within one or more systems and it is the best way he/she knows of dealing with his/her world at that moment (Neville, 1991). This approach emphasises that the students ' behaviour is always rational and appropriate within the system they function and can only be understood with reference to that system (Carey, 2003; Neville, 1991). The principle behind this approach is that the student, however disruptive maybe in classroom, must be accepted unconditionally for what he or she is (Morrison, Olivos, Dominguez, Gomez, & Lena, 1993). Morrison, et al. (1993) state that this program was not very effective with children with chronic behaviour problems.
Discipline techniques adopted in classrooms
Classroom techniques adopted by teachers today would have a broad mixture of the approaches discussed earlier (behavioural and social-cognitive approaches). With the acceptance by most educators of the changing nature of societal values and beliefs students are now being given ownership and are being consulted in designing the school disciple policy (Branson & Miller, 1991). However, it is expected that variation of interactive approach seem to dominate classroom discipline (Crittenden, 1991). Crittenden (1991) suggest that any behaviour modification approach need to be adapted to suit the "variables such as age of the students, the temperament and the capacity of the teacher, individual differences among students and the nature and circumstances of acts of indiscipline and so on" (p.81). Therefore it is quite logical to adapt a variation of the interactive style while the teacher still maintains authority and responsibility to manage classroom behaviour.
The effectiveness of a given strategy for the modification of classroom behaviour would ultimately be influenced by the students ' evaluative reactions to the methods (strategies) teachers ' use for the particular situations. King, Gullone and Dadds (1990) state that "the acceptability of intervention strategies has been of growing concern to behaviour therapists" (p.322). The paramount concern is over the rights of the individuals who are affected and the ethical concerns in the teachers use of power and authority. The central problem is the teachers justifying the use of power for all their actions in administering disciplinary measures in classrooms. Children sometimes can be unjustifiably disciplined.
Since children are the recipients of the punishment; they should be given the opportunity to make decisions about the consequences of their misbehaviour. Although teachers may perceive some discipline strategies to be more effective children 's acceptability of the intervention will determine whether the discipline plan can de eventually a successful one (King & Gullone, 1989; King, Gullone, & Dadds, 1990). The Quality Assurance Review Report produced in 1993 also reported that the discipline schemes that were accepted by the students were most effective in schools (Cuttance, 1993). Since too many different discipline strategies are being used in the schools today and some of these are causing concern to the students, parents and the educators, the Department of Education and Training recommended that the children be given an opportunity to have a say in the consequences of their own behaviour (Cuttance, 1993).
Children are able to discern the acceptability and the effectiveness of a behaviour modification strategy and to some extent, the choice of strategies on the part of the teacher is directed by the individuality of the child 's behaviour. There can be very little uniformity in a teacher administering the same strategy for the same behaviour for all students. This is all the reason for the students to have some say in their own discipline. The current research will examine the students ' perception on the four common strategies (Yelling, Time-out, Talking to the child and Permissiveness) used by classroom teachers.
The four strategies for review in the current research are:
Permissiveness: This disciplinary strategy can be demonstrated by consistently ignoring undesired behaviour while attending to desired behaviour (O ' Leary, Kauffman, Kass, & Drabman, 1970; Smith & Laslett, 1993). However one might argue that praising appropriate behaviour and ignoring disruptive behaviour may prove ineffectual and it could reflect that the teacher is not appropriately addressing the children 's misbehaviour. O ' Leary, et al. (1970) state that "in one class of disruptive children, praising appropriate behaviour and ignoring disruptive behaviour resulted in classroom pandemonium" (p.145). Also the inaction of a teacher (who ignores the disruptive behaviour) may further lead to other children enforcing and encouraging the misbehaviour by laughing and giggling. These peer reactions may make the disruptive behaviour highly resistant to extinction. Reaction of members of class, 'planned ignoring ' and choosing the target behaviour of disruptive children is crucial for the effectiveness of this strategy (Smith & Laslett, 1993). Studies found that children generally do not approve of permissiveness (Caffyn, 1989; Siegal & Cowen, 1984).
Talking to the child (induction): Students generally approved to classes where teachers set early, clear expectations and consequences and demonstrated a caring and respectful attitude towards students (Cothran & Garrahy, 2003).
The rules and consequences were less important to the students rather it was the teachers ' ability to communicate these rules and consequences with the students and enforcing them consistently (Brophy & Good, 1986; Cothran & Garrahy, 2003; Fink & Siedentop, 1989). Caffyn (1989) found that the teachers as well as the students regarded this strategy as the most effective reponse to classroom behaviour …show more content…
problem.
Yelling: Yelling is an emotion which generally arises from frustration at not being able to manage or deal with students or events (Lewis, 1997; B. Rogers, 1997). Teachers find it easy to lose their tempers when dealing with consistent 'trouble makers ' in the classroom. There may be some instances where it is appropriate to express some anger but the anger needs to be "weighted" so the students can see the significance of it (Rogers, 1997). However it will lose its significance when it expresses over a host of trivial things and also teachers can easily lose students respect (Cothran & Garrahy, 2003). Lewis (2001) found that teachers aggressive behaviours such as yelling are correlated with increased student misbehaviour and also when teachers yell in anger students feel more distracted from their work.
Time-out: Time-out is a procedure where students are isolated for a short period of time. It can also take the form of in-class isolation (isolation desk in the classroom), the child being withdrawn from class and sent to an isolation room or the Head of the faculty. Smith and Laslett (1993) argue that sending a child out of class into corridor can hardly be constituted a punishment and sending a student to the Head should be the ultimate deterrent.
In summary: Previous studies (King & Gullone, 1989; King et al., 1990; Lewis, 2001; O ' Leary et al., 1970) indicate that children expect teachers to be firm and take measures to modify the misbehaving child 's behavioiur. Children can see the effectiveness of an intervention method used by teachers. One of the great anguishes of children is the outrage when something is not fair. One of the assumption of previous researches is that children are most likely to accept directed discussion, as a form of intervention rather than permissiveness (King & Gullone, 1989; King et al., 1990). Student attitudes can only offer guidelines as to what might be the most effective disciplinary strategy. Educators should consider the effectiveness of the strategies they are using in modifying children 's behaviour.
The main issues to be considered for the present research are the students ' attitudes and perceptions of permissiveness, teacher yelling teacher talking (induction) and time-out as disciplinary strategies used in the classroom. This study is based on a similar study by King et al., (1990) and will evaluate students acceptability ratings of the four teacher initiated discipline strategies. It is predicted that the present research will show that:
1. The younger children are more likely to approve of power assertion (teacher yelling) and the older children are more likely to approve of induction (teacher talking).
2. More boys are likely to have a higher acceptability rating for permissiveness than girls are. This should illustrate that more boys tend to approve of permissiveness than girls do.
3. Overall more students are more likely to approve of induction (teacher talking) compared to the other three discipline strategies.
References
Branson, J., & Miller, D. (1991). Beyond individualism: a post-structuralist critique of current approaches to school discipline. In M. N. Lovegrave & R. Lewis (Eds.), Classroom discipline (pp. 172-195). Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teaching behaviour and student achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Caffyn, R. C. (1989). Attitudes of British secondary school teachers and pupils to rewards and punishments. Educational Research, 31(3), 210-220.
Cameron, R. J. (1998). School discipline in the United Kingdom: Promoting classroom behaviour which encourages effective teaching and learning. Educational and Child Psychology, 15(1), 40-45.
Carey, T. A. (2003). What is different about discipline program. Retrieved 25/06/2003, 2003, from http://responsiblethinking.com/different.htm
Cothran, D. J., & Garrahy, D. A. (2003). This is kind of giving a secret away..: Students ' perspectives on effective class management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(4), 435-444.
Crittenden, B. (1991). Three approaches to classroom discipline: philosophical perspectives. In M. N. Lovegrave & R. Lewis (Eds.), Classroom discipline (pp. 67-85). Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Cuttance, P. (1993). The development of quality assurance reviews in the NSW public school system- what works?: An information and discussion paper provided as an input into the consultation and development process for quality assurance review. Sydney: NSW Department of School Education.
Fink, J., & Siedentop, D. (1989). The development of routines, rules, and expectations at the start of the school year. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8, 198-212.
King, N.
J., & Gullone, E. (1989). Acceptability of behavioural interventions: Child and caregiver perceptions. In R. Eisler & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behaviour modification (Vol. 24). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
King, N. J., Gullone, E., & Dadds, M. R. (1990). Student perceptions of permissiveness and teacher-instigated disciplinary strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 322-329.
Lewis, R. (1997). The Discipline Dilemma: Control, management, influence (2nd ed.). Melbourne: The Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.
Lewis, R. (2001). Classroom discipline and student responsibility: The students ' view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(3), 307-319.
Meece, J. L. (1994). The role of motivation in self-regulated learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Morrison, J. A., Olivos, K., Dominguez, G., Gomez, D., & Lena, D. (1993). The application of family systems approaches to school behaviour problems on a school-level discipline board: an outcome study. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 27, 258-272.
Neville, B. (1991). The person-centered approach to classroom management. In M. N. Lovegrave & R. Lewis (Eds.), Classroom Discipline (pp. 3-22). Melbourne: Longman
Cheshire.
O ' Leary, K. D., Kauffman, K. F., Kass, R. E., & Drabman, R. S. (1970). The effects of loud and soft reprimands on the behaviour of disruptive students. Exceptional Children, 37, 145-155.
Osborn, K. D., & Osborn, J. D. (1989). Discipline and classroom management (3rd ed.). Athens: Daye Press.
Rogers, B. (1997). Language of Discipline: A practical approach to effective classroom management (2nd ed.). Plymouth: Northcote House Publishers Ltd.
Rogers, W. A. (1991). Decisive discipline. In R. Lewis (Ed.), Classroom discipline (pp. 43-66). Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Siegal, M., & Cowen, J. (1984). Appraisals of interventions: The mother 's versus the culprit 's behaviour as determinants of children 's evaluations of discipline techniques. Child Development, 55, 1760-1766.
Smith, C. J., & Laslett, R. (1993). Effective classroom management: A teacher 's guide (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
it disrupts and disinhibit others learning. Discipline problems are a major concern for the teachers in schools.
Schools encourage and enhance the youths of the society to acquire skills and knowledge that will help them become responsible contributors to society as adults and teachers are the facilitators of this learning process (Carey, 2003). However, better part of the teachers ' role is to come up with solutions to the pervasive problem of maintaining discipline. Discipline is essential if students are going to learn unhampered by hostile disruptions (Osborn & Osborn, 1989; B. Rogers, 1997; W. A. Rogers, 1991; Smith & Laslett, 1993). Classroom discipline is harder these days. However, with effective discipline teachers will be able to deliver the curriculum. Teachers will need to step out of their customary role of curriculum delivery and develop skills to manage behaviour problems.
The single most cause of concern for educators are discipline problems in schools as it affects all aspects of education (Crittenden, 1991; Smith & Laslett, 1993). Teachers can face a range of disruptions in any one day or session. These disruptions may range from low level variety, such as attention seeking, tapping, and calling out, noise at the desk to high level defiance, refusal, yelling and so on. It may be the behaviour which inhibits a student 's own learning or it may be the behaviour of one student which is disruptive to the learning of another (Lewis, 1997).
Children will disrupt for many reasons. Children may disrupt a class because they may be bored, some people like being class clown, or just because they are mischievous (B. Rogers, 1997). Today disruption seems to be a normal feature of a classroom. Rogers (1997) state that some children may disrupt for reasons such as not being able to cope with work or they may be bringing significant socio-economic problems with them to classroom.
Ignoring and not addressing the potential cause of misbehaviour will result in frustration for the teacher to ameliorate the particular misbehaviour (Cameron, 1998).
However, behavioural approaches have been used in schools widely with a wide range of incentives, rewards, and punishments (Lewis, 2001). Also commonly used strategies by teachers include warnings, rebukes and punishment (Carey, 2003). Carey (2003) reported that "generally punishment is more frequently used than rewards and yet punishment has only a weak association with measures of student behaviour, attendance, examination success and delinquency" (p.3). Behavioural approaches can be decisive and involve advance planning with appropriate verbal and non-verbal repertoire to manage the range of discipline in the classroom (W. A. Rogers, 1991). Behavioural approaches are modeled on interventionist approach as it places full responsibility for specifying rules of discipline and management of behaviour on the classroom teacher.
Teachers no longer have the traditional authoritarian status, which reaffirmed their right to subdue any classroom resistance. Things are changing in the world and so is the way children are perceiving things today. There has been a transition from autocratic to more democratic society and this has influenced the way children perceive things today. Balson (1991) state that this altered pattern of teacher-student relationship may be the cause of the discipline problems that are prevalent in classrooms today. The change in the societal values reflected students ' perceptions and they expect student-teacher relationships to be based on equality and respect rather than the teacher being personally responsible for controlling the behaviour of each student.
The systemic approach covers a range of strategies and techniques on non-interventionist style where it is believed that the student operates within one or more systems and it is the best way he/she knows of dealing with his/her world at that moment (Neville, 1991). This approach emphasises that the students ' behaviour is always rational and appropriate within the system they function and can only be understood with reference to that system (Carey, 2003; Neville, 1991). The principle behind this approach is that the student, however disruptive maybe in classroom, must be accepted unconditionally for what he or she is (Morrison, Olivos, Dominguez, Gomez, & Lena, 1993). Morrison, et al. (1993) state that this program was not very effective with children with chronic behaviour problems.
Discipline techniques adopted in classrooms
Classroom techniques adopted by teachers today would have a broad mixture of the approaches discussed earlier (behavioural and social-cognitive approaches). With the acceptance by most educators of the changing nature of societal values and beliefs students are now being given ownership and are being consulted in designing the school disciple policy (Branson & Miller, 1991). However, it is expected that variation of interactive approach seem to dominate classroom discipline (Crittenden, 1991). Crittenden (1991) suggest that any behaviour modification approach need to be adapted to suit the "variables such as age of the students, the temperament and the capacity of the teacher, individual differences among students and the nature and circumstances of acts of indiscipline and so on" (p.81). Therefore it is quite logical to adapt a variation of the interactive style while the teacher still maintains authority and responsibility to manage classroom behaviour.
The effectiveness of a given strategy for the modification of classroom behaviour would ultimately be influenced by the students ' evaluative reactions to the methods (strategies) teachers ' use for the particular situations. King, Gullone and Dadds (1990) state that "the acceptability of intervention strategies has been of growing concern to behaviour therapists" (p.322). The paramount concern is over the rights of the individuals who are affected and the ethical concerns in the teachers use of power and authority. The central problem is the teachers justifying the use of power for all their actions in administering disciplinary measures in classrooms. Children sometimes can be unjustifiably disciplined.
Since children are the recipients of the punishment; they should be given the opportunity to make decisions about the consequences of their misbehaviour. Although teachers may perceive some discipline strategies to be more effective children 's acceptability of the intervention will determine whether the discipline plan can de eventually a successful one (King & Gullone, 1989; King, Gullone, & Dadds, 1990). The Quality Assurance Review Report produced in 1993 also reported that the discipline schemes that were accepted by the students were most effective in schools (Cuttance, 1993). Since too many different discipline strategies are being used in the schools today and some of these are causing concern to the students, parents and the educators, the Department of Education and Training recommended that the children be given an opportunity to have a say in the consequences of their own behaviour (Cuttance, 1993).
Children are able to discern the acceptability and the effectiveness of a behaviour modification strategy and to some extent, the choice of strategies on the part of the teacher is directed by the individuality of the child 's behaviour. There can be very little uniformity in a teacher administering the same strategy for the same behaviour for all students. This is all the reason for the students to have some say in their own discipline. The current research will examine the students ' perception on the four common strategies (Yelling, Time-out, Talking to the child and Permissiveness) used by classroom teachers.
The four strategies for review in the current research are:
Permissiveness: This disciplinary strategy can be demonstrated by consistently ignoring undesired behaviour while attending to desired behaviour (O ' Leary, Kauffman, Kass, & Drabman, 1970; Smith & Laslett, 1993). However one might argue that praising appropriate behaviour and ignoring disruptive behaviour may prove ineffectual and it could reflect that the teacher is not appropriately addressing the children 's misbehaviour. O ' Leary, et al. (1970) state that "in one class of disruptive children, praising appropriate behaviour and ignoring disruptive behaviour resulted in classroom pandemonium" (p.145). Also the inaction of a teacher (who ignores the disruptive behaviour) may further lead to other children enforcing and encouraging the misbehaviour by laughing and giggling. These peer reactions may make the disruptive behaviour highly resistant to extinction. Reaction of members of class, 'planned ignoring ' and choosing the target behaviour of disruptive children is crucial for the effectiveness of this strategy (Smith & Laslett, 1993). Studies found that children generally do not approve of permissiveness (Caffyn, 1989; Siegal & Cowen, 1984).
Talking to the child (induction): Students generally approved to classes where teachers set early, clear expectations and consequences and demonstrated a caring and respectful attitude towards students (Cothran & Garrahy, 2003).
The rules and consequences were less important to the students rather it was the teachers ' ability to communicate these rules and consequences with the students and enforcing them consistently (Brophy & Good, 1986; Cothran & Garrahy, 2003; Fink & Siedentop, 1989). Caffyn (1989) found that the teachers as well as the students regarded this strategy as the most effective reponse to classroom behaviour …show more content…
problem.
Yelling: Yelling is an emotion which generally arises from frustration at not being able to manage or deal with students or events (Lewis, 1997; B. Rogers, 1997). Teachers find it easy to lose their tempers when dealing with consistent 'trouble makers ' in the classroom. There may be some instances where it is appropriate to express some anger but the anger needs to be "weighted" so the students can see the significance of it (Rogers, 1997). However it will lose its significance when it expresses over a host of trivial things and also teachers can easily lose students respect (Cothran & Garrahy, 2003). Lewis (2001) found that teachers aggressive behaviours such as yelling are correlated with increased student misbehaviour and also when teachers yell in anger students feel more distracted from their work.
Time-out: Time-out is a procedure where students are isolated for a short period of time. It can also take the form of in-class isolation (isolation desk in the classroom), the child being withdrawn from class and sent to an isolation room or the Head of the faculty. Smith and Laslett (1993) argue that sending a child out of class into corridor can hardly be constituted a punishment and sending a student to the Head should be the ultimate deterrent.
In summary: Previous studies (King & Gullone, 1989; King et al., 1990; Lewis, 2001; O ' Leary et al., 1970) indicate that children expect teachers to be firm and take measures to modify the misbehaving child 's behavioiur. Children can see the effectiveness of an intervention method used by teachers. One of the great anguishes of children is the outrage when something is not fair. One of the assumption of previous researches is that children are most likely to accept directed discussion, as a form of intervention rather than permissiveness (King & Gullone, 1989; King et al., 1990). Student attitudes can only offer guidelines as to what might be the most effective disciplinary strategy. Educators should consider the effectiveness of the strategies they are using in modifying children 's behaviour.
The main issues to be considered for the present research are the students ' attitudes and perceptions of permissiveness, teacher yelling teacher talking (induction) and time-out as disciplinary strategies used in the classroom. This study is based on a similar study by King et al., (1990) and will evaluate students acceptability ratings of the four teacher initiated discipline strategies. It is predicted that the present research will show that:
1. The younger children are more likely to approve of power assertion (teacher yelling) and the older children are more likely to approve of induction (teacher talking).
2. More boys are likely to have a higher acceptability rating for permissiveness than girls are. This should illustrate that more boys tend to approve of permissiveness than girls do.
3. Overall more students are more likely to approve of induction (teacher talking) compared to the other three discipline strategies.
References
Branson, J., & Miller, D. (1991). Beyond individualism: a post-structuralist critique of current approaches to school discipline. In M. N. Lovegrave & R. Lewis (Eds.), Classroom discipline (pp. 172-195). Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teaching behaviour and student achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Caffyn, R. C. (1989). Attitudes of British secondary school teachers and pupils to rewards and punishments. Educational Research, 31(3), 210-220.
Cameron, R. J. (1998). School discipline in the United Kingdom: Promoting classroom behaviour which encourages effective teaching and learning. Educational and Child Psychology, 15(1), 40-45.
Carey, T. A. (2003). What is different about discipline program. Retrieved 25/06/2003, 2003, from http://responsiblethinking.com/different.htm
Cothran, D. J., & Garrahy, D. A. (2003). This is kind of giving a secret away..: Students ' perspectives on effective class management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(4), 435-444.
Crittenden, B. (1991). Three approaches to classroom discipline: philosophical perspectives. In M. N. Lovegrave & R. Lewis (Eds.), Classroom discipline (pp. 67-85). Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Cuttance, P. (1993). The development of quality assurance reviews in the NSW public school system- what works?: An information and discussion paper provided as an input into the consultation and development process for quality assurance review. Sydney: NSW Department of School Education.
Fink, J., & Siedentop, D. (1989). The development of routines, rules, and expectations at the start of the school year. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8, 198-212.
King, N.
J., & Gullone, E. (1989). Acceptability of behavioural interventions: Child and caregiver perceptions. In R. Eisler & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behaviour modification (Vol. 24). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
King, N. J., Gullone, E., & Dadds, M. R. (1990). Student perceptions of permissiveness and teacher-instigated disciplinary strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 322-329.
Lewis, R. (1997). The Discipline Dilemma: Control, management, influence (2nd ed.). Melbourne: The Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.
Lewis, R. (2001). Classroom discipline and student responsibility: The students ' view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(3), 307-319.
Meece, J. L. (1994). The role of motivation in self-regulated learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Morrison, J. A., Olivos, K., Dominguez, G., Gomez, D., & Lena, D. (1993). The application of family systems approaches to school behaviour problems on a school-level discipline board: an outcome study. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 27, 258-272.
Neville, B. (1991). The person-centered approach to classroom management. In M. N. Lovegrave & R. Lewis (Eds.), Classroom Discipline (pp. 3-22). Melbourne: Longman
Cheshire.
O ' Leary, K. D., Kauffman, K. F., Kass, R. E., & Drabman, R. S. (1970). The effects of loud and soft reprimands on the behaviour of disruptive students. Exceptional Children, 37, 145-155.
Osborn, K. D., & Osborn, J. D. (1989). Discipline and classroom management (3rd ed.). Athens: Daye Press.
Rogers, B. (1997). Language of Discipline: A practical approach to effective classroom management (2nd ed.). Plymouth: Northcote House Publishers Ltd.
Rogers, W. A. (1991). Decisive discipline. In R. Lewis (Ed.), Classroom discipline (pp. 43-66). Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Siegal, M., & Cowen, J. (1984). Appraisals of interventions: The mother 's versus the culprit 's behaviour as determinants of children 's evaluations of discipline techniques. Child Development, 55, 1760-1766.
Smith, C. J., & Laslett, R. (1993). Effective classroom management: A teacher 's guide (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.