Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
My personal model of discipline
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

My personal model of discipline


Published on

for JIU course

for JIU course

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. My Personal Model of Discipline Philosophy Statement To create positive, and inspiring and technology structured atmosphere where students feel safe physically and emotionally that fosters sharing, learning and growth. Most importantly, to respect each student’s uniqueness, and make every effort to create educational (including technology) experiences that help students to learn, how to learn, and want to learn thereby ensuring success for every student. A classroom is not a perfect world with perfect students. It is an environment where the teacher and the students alike have personal problematic issues to contend with everyday both within and outside the classroom. My responsibility, as a teacher is to provide a safe, secure, responsible learning environment. This responsibility is based upon Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: humans need to be safe before they can advance or progress to higher-level stages of learning. Students who are distracted by the misbehavior of others, or who are unsure of the boundaries and limits within a classroom will spend their energy learning how to cope in the environment rather than learning the lessons presented by the teacher. Providing a physically safe, structured atmosphere is essential for learning. This also includes feeling emotionally safe enough to take risks. Many times students are afraid of mistakes with technology- computers. If it is true that we learn from our mistakes, then educators must allow mistakes to happen without overreacting. Computers can easily be repaired students’ feelings of safety cannot. Technology is definitely based upon the constructivist style of learning: hands-on, student-directed learning where teacher is the facilitator (driver) not all-knowing, the
  • 2. expert. In today’s world many times the student has immense technology skills that all can learn from including the teacher. Howard Gardner recognized several different styles of learning, but Dr. John Medina asserts in Brain Rules that there are countless more. Regardless learning styles are as individual as we are. My students will have the opportunity and feel secure to explore and try out various ways of learning the same material. One example used is the Educational City software of playing life using math skills, another is Tutpup for math (and spelling), and then there is Study Island. The software that is used in the computer classroom is purchased, free, and online with age specific and if needed language specific. With the unlimited opportunities student learning is adapted to different student learning styles; at times there are several different learning activities occurring simultaneously. In order to create and maintain this learning atmosphere I have be knowledgeable of and use theoretical approaches “from humanistic (low teacher control) to behavioristic (high teacher control)” by selecting a model that is “consistent with my beliefs” (JIU, 2011, EDU523, Module 1, Theme 1, para. 1). I did not realize that there were such identified approaches. In my personal experiences public school teachers used the High Control Approach. Gene Van Tassell discussed Assertive Discipline including results of a study that indicated that (2005, para. 8): Teachers are not trained in the use of effective discipline methods. (Fuhr, 1993; Hyman as quoted in Harper & Epstein, 1989; Taylor, 1987) Even though other methods are allowed, teachers most often use Assertive Discipline. Canter claims
  • 3. that 500,000 teachers have been trained in the methods of Assertive Discipline. (Render, Padilla, and Krank, 1989) No other discipline method has reported to have trained so many educators. My teachers “laid down the law” and enforced it completely with no exceptions. I found this to be the same regardless of where we lived from northern Illinois to the boot-heel of Missouri. Not every approach will work for every situation or student, “one size does not fix all.” Everyone does not lean in the same way. With this thought in mind I will maintain an explicit knowledge of each approach and use it appropriately. This knowledge in learning theories only strengthens my abilities to individualized research-based effective teaching strategies. However, overall my degree of teacher control approach is definitely Medium Control Approach as described by Burden (2010, p. 25). “Medium control approaches are based on the philosophical belief that development comes from a combination of innate and outer forces” (2010, p. 25, para. 3). Burden continues to state: Medium control teachers accept the student-centered psychology that is reflected in the low control philosophy…teacher promotes individual student control over behavior whenever possible, but places the needs of the group…over the needs of individual students. The child’s thoughts, feelings, ideas, and preferences are taken into account when dealing with instruction, classroom management, and discipline, but ultimately the teacher’s primary focus is on behavior and meeting the academic needs of the group. At times I will use Richard Curwin, Allen Mendler, and Brian Mendler’s Discipline with Dignity medium control approach (Burden, 2010, p.29). Discipline problems may be caused by student
  • 4. boredom, feelings of powerlessness, unclear limits, a lack of acceptable outlet for feelings, and attacks on dignity (2010, p. 30). Although, I have come to realize that the majority of my discipline model is based upon the Teaching with Love and Logic philosophy. Love and Logic, developed by educational expert Jim Fay, and child psychiatrist Foster W. Cline, M.D., is a method of working with students. Teachers are programmed to instruct their students what to do all of the time; it is human nature and so easy. However, research has shown that giving students choices enables the student to gain some control over the situation, and thereby making a positive difference for all. The Love and Logic philosophy enables teachers and students to share control and decision-making while improving self-concept, behavior, and achievement for each student. Like all of us, students need to learn from their mistakes and when this is done responsibility is gained over our choices. Therefore students will be given choices, and these choices will teach students to think for themselves. The consequences will be handled individually. Situations will be dealt with as they arise with the focus on enabling the child to grow and learn from his or her actions. My behaviors will demonstrate the genuine love for my students and I will use that Love & Logic (common sense) in my classroom management decisions and interactions. My teaching philosophy includes how to set limits for children in loving ways for successful behavior management. Editor Trent Lorcher (Jan. 30, 2009) explained the same philosophy in his online post: The Love and Logic program teaches very simple and “logical” ways to win the behavior management war, without the child even knowing there was a battle.
  • 5. Applying a strong dose of empathy before a consequence allows the caregiver to remain the “good guy” while the consequence is the “bad guy.” Putting an end to what feels like battles by nipping arguments in the bud. “Going Brain Dead” when a child begins to argue is a valuable tool in the Love and Logic bag. Love and Logic gives a practical guide for ending the whining, arguing on the child’s behalf and an end to the warnings, threats and the ever increasing rewards. In a nutshell I will give my students two choices. Both of these choices will be something that I can live with even though one may be more desirable and work better for me than the other. For example you can do this now, or you can do it during recess time. Preventive Discipline Measures Prevention is the cure and therefore I will use this model to facilitate learning and minimize disruptions. Whenever possible it is always best to prevent problems or for the classroom to prevent disruptions from occurring in the first place. I will strive to be an effective teacher by doing just this. I will do this by following the guidelines outlined by Kathleen Cotton in School wide and Classroom Discipline, at the Classroom Level:  Hold and communicate high behavioral expectations  Establish clear rules and procedures and instruct students in how to follow them; give primary-level children and low-SES children, in particular, a great deal of instruction, practice, and reminding.  Make clear to students the consequences of misbehavior.  Enforce classroom rules promptly, consistently, and equitably from the very first day of school.
  • 6.  Work to instill a sense of self-discipline in students; devote time to teaching self- monitoring skills.  Maintain a brisk instructional pace and make smooth transitions between activities.  Monitor classroom activities and give students feedback and reinforcement regarding their behavior.  Create opportunities for students to experience success in their learning and social behavior.  Identify those students who seem to lack a sense of personal efficacy.  Make sure of humor, when suitable, to stimulate student interest or reduce classroom tensions.  Remove distracting materials from view when instruction is in process. Corrective Discipline Behavior I cannot have a Discipline Plan without addressing what I would do if discipline problems arise. I will use the Love and Logic principles as my guide (Fay, 2007, p.1): 1. I will react without anger or haste to problem situations. 2. I will provide consequences that are not punitive but that allow the child to experience the results of a poor choice, enabling him or her to make better choices in the future. 3. I will proceed in all situations with the best interest of the child who— foremost in my mind—academic, social and emotional well-being will be fostered.
  • 7. 4. I will guide students toward personal responsibility and the decision-making skills they will need to function in the real world. 5. I will arrange consequences for problem situations in such a way that the child will not be humiliated or demeaned. 6. Equal is not always fair. Consequences will be designed to fit the problems of individual students, and they may be different even when problems appear to be the same. 7. I will make every effort to ensure that, in each situation, the students involved understand why they are involved in consequences. 8. If I at any time act or react in a way that a child truly feels is unjust, that student need only say to me, “I’m not sure that’s fair.” I will arrange a private conference during which the student can express to me why he or she feels my actions were not fair. This may or may not change my course of action. I am always open to calm, rational discussion of any matter.