Six Kinds of Power For The Effective Classroom Management
Raven (2008) names six kinds of power that influence student behaviour. They include coercive, legitimate, expert, reward, ‘referent’, and informational resources. Coercive power is the ability to control the behaviour of challenging students using punishments or by the withholding of privileges (Canter & Canter, 1992). A teacher’s role as an instructor earns is a source of legitimate power in the classroom. Referent power stems from a teacher’s attributes that earn him/her trust and respect in the classroom.
In contrast, ‘reward’ is the teacher’s power to honour or recognise a student for good behaviour or other achievements (Kohn, 1993). On the other hand, expert power arises when students perceive their teacher as being intelligent and skilled in the subject. Informational power is the influence teachers have over students that enable them to induce certain beliefs in the learners. The writer believes that referent, legitimate, coercive, and expert resources are important in classroom management because they are more interventionist and group-oriented than informational and expert power bases.
Model of Group Management Comparing to Student-Oriented and Teacher-Oriented Models
Proponents of the group-oriented approach would criticise the student-oriented and teacher-oriented models for various reasons. Concerning the teacher-oriented approach, one would argue that it is deficient because it forces children to conform to the teacher’s instructions (Lovegrove & Lewis, 1991). In this regard, the student has no right to make choices, which makes it difficult for him/her to learn to control his/her behaviour.
Such students lack self-discipline as they depend on the teacher’s guidance at all times (Pearl & Knight, 1998). In contrast, in a group-oriented approach, students have the freedom to make their own choices, which, however bad they may be, allow them to develop self-discipline. Proponents would also criticise the student-oriented model because it allows children to be entirely responsible for their own decisions. This can motivate students to behave inappropriately in a bid to gain recognition, especially if they believe it is impossible to achieve the same through normal channels (Lee-Manning & Bucher, 2012).
Kinds of Power in Relation to the Models of Classroom Management
Power is an important factor in classroom management. Teachers employ different types of power depending on the model of management in use. In the control model, which is teacher-oriented, teachers use punishments to deal with challenging students and commend good behaviour (Canter & Canter, 1992). Since the teacher uses various interventions to curb inappropriate behaviour, the kinds of power relevant to this model include legitimate, coercive, and reward.
On the other hand, the ‘influence’ model is non-interventionist (student-oriented), i.e., the teacher does not intervene; rather, he or she influences students to be self-controlled (Gordon, 1974). Thus, he or she only serves as a consultant. The kinds of power that resonate with this model are expert and referent resources. Group management model entails the use of student-teacher interaction in controlling student behaviour. As Glasser (1988) puts it, the group management model entails teacher mediation in setting student rules. In this regard, the kinds of power used in this model include referent, legitimate, coercive, and expert.
Students’ ‘Mistaken Goals’ and Their Causes
Dreikurs, Grunwald, and Pepper (1982) explain student misbehaviour in the classroom, attributing it to the development of ‘mistaken goals’. In their group-centred approach, they list four ‘mistaken goals’ developed by students who misbehave in class. One of these goals is attention-getting, which is defined as the intention to catch the interest of others (Santa, Havens & Macumber, 1996; Kohn, 1996). The second one is ‘power-seeking’, which describes the desire of a student to get what he or she wants by forcing others to act in a certain way. The third mistaken goal is revenge-seeking, which describes the intention to retaliate to get even on something one feels is an injustice to him or her. The fourth goal is ‘withdrawal’, which is the desire to shun any form of interaction with others. Students develop these goals to earn recognition and approval from others. They believe that by misbehaving, they will win peer recognition and acceptance.
Teachers’ Instructional Techniques That Lead to Student Misbehaviour
Kounin (1970) introduces several ideas on instructional techniques that prevent student misbehaviour and enhance effective lesson management. According to him, the effectiveness of instructional techniques depends on the teacher’s ability to curb classroom problems. Teachers who display greater awareness of classroom activities, hold student attention well and plan their lessons do not experience student misbehaviour. Thus, skills in withitness, lesson transition, and group orientation can help curb inappropriate behaviour in the classroom (Charles, 2008; Braithwaite, 1989). An example of how teacher behaviour contributes to student misbehaviour is the failure to name and correct a misbehaving learner with clarity and firmness. This creates a ‘ripple effect’ that causes more learners to misbehave. Another example is a teacher’s lack of awareness of the activities happening in the classroom at all times. The lack of ‘withitness’ or consciousness of what the students are doing makes it difficult to identify the ‘initiator’ and intervene appropriately to stop the misbehaviour from spreading (Glasser, 1990).
Counterproductive Teacher Classroom Control Behaviours
Research findings indicate that teachers often use coercive power to curb student misbehaviour. Lewis’ (2001) survey of 42 schools offering secondary and elementary education revealed that teachers often employ coercive discipline to tame misbehaviour. However, this approach is largely counterproductive because coercive punishment stifles growth in responsibility in the learners and disrupts classwork resulting in poor performance.
Other counterproductive classroom control behaviours include unconstructive criticism, angry outbursts, and student humiliation (Lewis & Riley, 2009). These teacher misbehaviours are counterproductive because they make learners develop feelings of fear and resentment towards the teacher, which affects learning. Another study by Roache and Lewis (2011), which involved a survey of teachers’ views on the effect of coercion versus reward-based power-on behaviour, found that the use of punishment coupled with an unfriendly attitude increases student misbehaviour. These techniques do not build trust relationships essential in fostering responsibility on the part of the student.
Theoretical Explanations for Teacher Misbehaviour
Lewis and Riley (2009) give three theoretical explanations for teacher misbehaviour, namely, attribution, efficacy, and attachment theories. Attribution theory attributes people’s actions to the internal qualities of the teacher or learner. A teacher can ascribe misbehaviour to a student’s personal qualities or characteristics such as upbringing. Efficacy theory posits that teacher misbehaviour stems from a misplaced perception of one’s efficacy when responding to inappropriate behaviour from a student. Teachers can misbehave if they feel less effective concerning their ability to deal with a situation (Arthur-Kelly, Lyons, Butterfield & Gordon, 2007). On the other hand, the attachment theory attributes teacher misbehaviour to the strength of the attachment between a learner and an instructor. The writer favours the attachment theory because he believes that the teacher-student relationship is reciprocal and anything that disrupts it can elicit aggression or misbehaviour from teachers.
References
Arthur-Kelly, M., Lyons, G., Butterfield, N. & Gordon, C. ( 2007). Classroom Management. Creating positive learning environments. Melbourne: Cengage.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canter, L. & Canter, M. (1992). Assertive discipline: A take-charge approach for today’s educator. Los Angeles: Canter and Associates.
Charles, C. M. (2008). Building Classroom Discipline: From Models To Practice. Pearson. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Dreikurs, R., Grunwald, B. & Pepper, F. (1982). Maintaining Sanity in the Classroom. New York: HarperCollins
Glasser, W. (1986). Control therapy in the classroom. New York: Harper & Row.
Glasser, W. (1988). Choice Theory in the Classroom. New York: HarperCollins.
Glasser, W. (1990). The Quality School: Managing Students Without Coercion. Melbourne: Cengage.
Gordon, T. (1974). Teacher Effectiveness Training. New York: HarperCollins.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise and other bribes. Boston: HarperCollins.
Kohn, A. (1996). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Pearson.
Lee-Manning, M. & Bucher, K. T. (2012). Classroom Management: Models, Applications and Cases. New York: Pearson.
Lewis, R. (2001). Classroom discipline and student responsibility: the students’ view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 307-319.
Lewis, R. & Riley, P. (2009). Teacher Misbehavior. In L.J. Saha, & A.G. Dworkin (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching (417–431). New York: Pearson.
Lovegrove, M. N. & Lewis, R. (1991). Classroom Discipline. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire Publishers.
Pearl, A. & Knight, A. (1998). Democratic Schooling: Theory to Guide Educational Practice. New Jersey: Hampton Press.
Raven, B. H. (2008). The Bases of Power and the Power/Interaction: Model of Interpersonal Influence. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8(1), 1-22.
Roache, J. & Lewis, R. (2011). Teachers’ views on the impact of classroom management on student responsibility. Australian Journal of Education, 55(2), 44–58.
Santa, C., Havens, L. & Macumber, E. (1996). Creating Independence Through Student-owned Strategies. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.