Lewis 2
Lewis 2
Lewis 2
Abstract
This study investigates the extent to which students from Australia, Israel, and China report that their teachers classroom
disciplinary behaviour affects their attitudes towards schoolwork and the teacher. They also report how justiable a teachers
intervention appeared. In all three settings, both punishment and aggression relate signicantly to the level of students distraction
and negative affect towards the teacher. Teachers recognition of responsible behaviour and discussion with students relate to less
distraction and greater belief that the intervention was necessary. Hinting and the involvement of students in classroom discipline
decision making relate to a stronger belief that the disciplinary actions taken are warranted. Implications are discussed.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Classroom management; Teacherstudent relationship; Students reaction
0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.05.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
716
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Lewis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 715724
In Australia, all secondary schools in the northeastern region of Victoria and a small number in the
Melbourne metropolitan region were invited to
participate in the study. The response rate was
70% and reects the importance attributed to the
topic of classroom discipline in secondary schools.
In Israel, a sample of four high schools (grades
1012) and eight junior high schools (grades 79) in
central Israel were invited to participate in the
study, and all accepted. In China, the sample of
students was drawn from eight schools in the
Chengdu region, Sichuan Province. In each Chinese
and Israeli school, a random sample of classes in
grades 712 were selected. A research assistant
administered questionnaires to the classes, and all
students completed the questionnaire.
As argued elsewhere (Lewis et al., 2005), measuring constructs such as classroom discipline strategies
and students reactions to them in three national
settings was problematic. Constructs measured in
Australia cannot be assumed equivalent to those in
Israel or China. Although it would have been
possible to apply structural modelling to statistically
examine the extent to which one particular conceptualization applies equally to all settings, the
main purpose of this study was to examine relationships that existed between disciplinary techniques
and students reactions in each setting. Had
different measures been utilized in different countries, comparisons would have been methodologically prohibited. Consequently, it was determined to
proceed with the comparisons, using a translated
questionnaire comprising identical items in each
setting. This was done despite our awareness that
students interpretations of the meaning of a
questionnaire item may vary by national setting,
in part systematically related to respective cultural
understandings. Nevertheless, given the ready acceptance of the items utilized in this study by senior
teacher educators in each national setting, it was
assumed that the use of the agreed items permitted
useful comparisons. However, further research
needs to be done to gain insight into variation in
students conceptualization of both discipline practices and their responses to them in differing
national settings.
4. Instrumentation
To measure classroom discipline, a shortened,
24-item version of the 35-item questionnaire used by
Lewis (2001) was administered to students in China
717
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Lewis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 715724
718
5. The sample
Table 2
Reactions to classroom discipline
Scale
Table 1
Study sample
Country
Australia
Israel
China
Respondents
Year 78
Year 910
Year 1112
Total
1713
261
159
1624
334
147
846
241
196
4183
836
502
No. of
items
Ave.
item
mean
Ave. item
std. dev.
Israel (n 826)
Distracted
Action justied
Negativity to teacher
5
2
2
2.3
2.9
2.8
.9
1.1
1.0
.82
.63
.64
Australia (n 4644)
Distracted
Action justied
Negativity to teacher
5
2
2
2.9
3.3
2.9
.7
.6
1.0
.82
.67
.76
China (n 503)
Distracted
Action justied
Negativity to teacher
5
2
2
2.7
3.6
2.2
.9
1.1
1.0
.81
.63
.63
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Lewis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 715724
719
Table 3
Relationships between reactions to classroom discipline
Setting
Israel
China
Australia
Justication-negativity
Distraction-negativity
Justication-distraction
.29
.57
.08
.09
.56
.08
.26
.59
.01
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Lewis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 715724
720
Table 4
Signicant predictors of classroom discipline strategies
Independent
variable
F-value
National setting
(NS)
Year level
Student
misbehaviour
NS year level
NS year
teacher sex
20.14
9762
.000
5.20
11.03
6
9
9762
14646
.000
.000
3.94
3.02
12
12
14646
14646
.000
.000
Hyp
df
Error
df
Signicance
level
Table 5
Simple and partial correlations between discipline techniques and reaction to discipline
Punishment
Discussion
Recognition
Aggression
Involvement
Hinting
Israel
Negativity to teacher
Distraction
Justication
.29 (.15)
.25 (.04)
.03 (.00)
.27 (.10)
.17 (.08)
.20 (.04)
.32 (.20)
.22 (.20)
.26 (.15)
.39 (.24)
.43 (.30)
.05 (.07)
.06 (.00)
.05 (.10)
.23 (.17)
.04 (.06)
.02 (.07)
.17 (.08)
China
Negativity to teacher
Distraction
Justication
.29 (.11)
.28 (.13)
.10 (.13)
.16 (.06)
.13 (.03)
.23 (.06)
.17 (.12)
.15 (.13)
.24 (.11)
.40 (.29)
.35 (.24)
.01 (.08)
.15 (.08)
.07 (.00)
.25 (.12)
.10 (.03)
.05 (.01)
.14 (.02)
Australia
Negativity to teacher
Distraction
Justication
.19 (.08)
.18 (.08)
.05 (.02)
.24 (.12)
.13 (.06)
.24 (.07)
.26 (.14)
.15 (.07)
.23 (.10)
.51 (.41)
.39 (.28)
.17 (.14)
.04 (.06)
.01 (.03)
.17 (.01)
.07 (.04)
.01 (.02)
.17 (.06)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Lewis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 715724
721
8. Discussion
As mentioned in the introduction to this paper, it
is important for teachers to have condence in the
disciplinary techniques they select for use in classrooms. The results of this study demonstrate that in
terms of students attitudes to their classroom work
and to their teacher, two strategies appear very
productive, two somewhat productive, and two
could be characterized as counterproductive. These
ndings apply equally to students sampled from
Australia, Israel, and China. In reaching these
conclusions, it is important to restate that representational sampling was not undertaken and there
were concerns about the cultural relevance of survey
items in different national settings. Nevertheless, the
robustness of the patterns of relationships augurs
well for cross-national comparisons in the area of
classroom management. The similarities in these
patterns of ndings, however, do not remove the
need for further research into variations in students
conceptualization of both disciplinary practices and
their responses to them in differing national
settings.
The most useful techniques for generating positive reactions are recognition and reward for
responsible behaviour, and discussions with students where a negotiated outcome is achieved.
The success of the latter technique is not surprising.
Many educators and researchers argue that inclusion of, and negotiation with, students increases
their sense of competency and belonging, which
in turn leads to a decrease in misbehaviour
(Anderman, 2002). However, according to Beck
and Malley (1998) many conventional classrooms
do not afford enough appropriate teacherstudent
interactions to provide for a sense of belonging
for students. This is most noticeably the case
for students at risk (Beck & Malley, 1998) and
more challenging students (Ellis, Hart, & SmallMcGinley, 1998).
Given the extent to which recognition and reward
related positively to all three student reactions
investigated in this study, teachers would do well
to praise both individuals and the class, and to
utilize personal and group rewards. Such a recommendation would also appear consistent with the
views of a number of other researchers who suggest
that teachers recognize students appropriate behaviour (Buisson, Murdock, Reynolds, & Cronin,
1995; Cavalier, Ferretti, & Hodges, 1997; Swiezy,
Matson, & Box, 1992).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
722
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Lewis et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 715724
References
Akin-Little, K. A., Eckert, T. L., Lovett, B. J., & Little, S. G.
(2004). Extrinsic reinforcement in the classroom: Bribery or
best practices. School Psychology Review, 33, 344362.
Anderman, E. M. (2002). School effects on psychological
outcomes during adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 795809.
Beck, J., & Horne, D. (1992). A whole school implementation of
the Stop, Think Do! Social skills training program at Minerva
Special School. In B. Willis, & J. Izard (Eds.), Student
behavior problems: Directions, perspectives and expectations.
Hawthorn, Vic.: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Beck, M., & Malley, J. (1998). A pedagogy of belonging:
Reclaiming children and youth. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Problems, 7(3), 133137.
Borg, I. (1992). Absence from school and mental health. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 154166.
Buisson, G. J., Murdock, J. Y., Reynolds, K. E., & Cronin, M. E.
(1995). Effect of tokens on response latency of students with
hearing impairments in a resource room. Education and
Treatment of Children, 18, 408421.
723
ARTICLE IN PRESS
724