students' preferences for discipline practices in schools

0742-05 1 Xi85 $3.C4+ll.llll Pcrgamon Pres\ Ltd

STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES FOR DISCIPLINE PRACTICES IN SCHOOLS

MALCOLM N. LOVEGROVE and RAMON LEWIS

La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia

CHARLES FALL

State University of New York, Buffalo, U.S.A.

HILDEGARD LOVEGROVE

Victoria College. Victoria, Australia

Abstract-Data on pupils’ perceptions of the classroom discipline techniques of “good” teachers are compared for Australian, U.S., and Norwegian pupils. The results indicate remarkable similarity in the pupils’ preferences.

Classroom discipline is not far from the center of most debates on classroom practices. It may be argued that in some countries, such as the United States and Australia, the debate is becoming more noticeable (Charles, 1981; Duke, 1978; Edgar, 1983; McDaniel, 1981; Raf- fini, 1980).

Several arguments have been proposed to show that many teachers find it difficult to manage the behavior of children in their classes. First, a marked breakdown of student and teacher relationships has occurred in a number of Western countries - a breakdown that reflects the inability of teachers to adapt to the postwar transition from an autocratic to a more democratic society. Second, many teachers are unprepared, in terms of skills, for the complex behavioral problems with which they may be confronted in the classroom. This problem is exacerbated when educational economies reduce the range and quality of support services available to teachers. Third, many teenagers perceive the contemporary school and cur- riculum as “bankrupt.” The high rate of unemployment among school-leavers makes

such students believe that schooling can no longer be justified primarily in terms of the school’s ability to provide job-related knowledge and skills. Feeling let down, they are not inclined to accommodate to traditional forms of control. Fourth, the teacher’s historic role as a purveyor of knowledge and developer of skills has been eroded by competing forms of “exper- tise”, namely, the mass media, particularly tele- vision. Finally, the factors mentioned above may have interacted in such a way as to mislead teachers into thinking that students, not teachers, have rights in the classroom and that firm control by teachers is no longer acceptable.

The response of educators to the concern of teachers and parents with classroom management have varied. They range from proposals that teachers become more assertive and adopt a “take charge approach” (Canter & Canter, 1976) to appeals to teachers to stop “crippling our children with discipline” and to engage children in power sharing, problem solving, and negotiation (Gordon, 1981).

One aspect of the debate that has not received sufficient attention is the view of pupils

326 MALCOLM N. LOVEGROVE et al.

themselves. Rarely has research on classroom discipline systematically focussed on pupils’ preferences and their perceptions of their current treatment, and we have identified areas where pupils’ preferences are not being accommodated (Lewis & Lovegrove, 1984).

The basis for our research has been an assumption that if pupils’ preferences were accommodated in the current search by teachers for appropriate classroom management techniques, the amount of disruptive behavior they exhibit would decrease and their “time on task” (Bloom, 1980) would increase accordingly.

As a first step in extending our research from Australia to other countries interested in students’ preferences for classroom discipline techniques, we replicated one aspect of the Australian studies in Tromso, Norway, and Buffalo, New York, U.S.A.

As we have indicated elsewhere (Lovegrove, Lewis, Oyvind, & Stromnes, 1983), the choice of Norway as the first country in which a replica- tion study was made was fortuitous; it resulted from the interest of two Norwegian educators in the area of research outlined by the first author at a conference in the United Kingdom in 1980. The selection of the United States was similarly pragmatic. The Comparative Centre of the School of Education at La Trobe University had had a long-standing association with the Buffalo campus of the State University of New York (SUNY-B). Colleagues at SUNY-B held that, in view of the general interest in the area of teacher-pupil interaction, it would be appropriate also to explore pupil perceptions of classroom practices in the U.S.A. Nevertheless, we believe that the study in question and the research program in general are congruent with the need for comparative education researchers to pay more attention to pedagogy, that is, who teaches what, and how, and to whom. As Kelly (1975) has pointed out, comparativists have tended to focus on the functions of institutions rather than on what goes on inside schools.

The Investigation

To assess the variety of teacher-control behaviours that were relevant to the aim of the study, we identified the approximate range of

control behaviours currently practised in schools in Australia. We conducted and analysed taped interviews with one class of level 9 pupils in each of 5 coeducational State schools in metropolitan Melbourne. The schools were selected on the basis of the degree of cooperation that could be expected from their staff in an area of research often perceived as threatening and sensitive. Level 9 pupils (13-14 years of age) were selected, rather than level 8 or those in level 10 and beyond, because experienced teachers advised that the level 9 pupils had, in the main, weathered the transition from pri- mary to secondary school that occurs at the beginning of level 7, yet their opinions were less likely to be dominated by the achievement motives generated by the pressures of external examinations conducted at level 12. These factors interacted to predispose pupils at level 9 to be more overt in their opinions than those younger or older.

The Interviews In each school two audiotaped interview ses-

sions were held. The first session was employed to elicit responses to each question, and the second to test interpretations of pupils’ comments and to provide an opportunity for a more detailed elaboration of responses. In all cases, interview sessions were conducted after pupils’ anonymity had been guaranteed and school staff had left the classroom. During the first part of the interview, pupils were asked, “What makes a good teacher, a poor teacher, and a likeable teacher?” The interview then focused on the importance of classroom control (in addition to subject-teaching skills), professional attitudes, interpersonal skills, and personal qualities in the teacher.

During the second part, pupils were asked to describe what things teachers did to control misbehaviour and which of these were good, bad, fair, or unfair. The third part of the interview required pupils to infer the “reason” the “good” and “bad” teachers had for engaging in classroom control.

The Questionnuire The questionnaire then developed took a

form similar to that of the interview. The first of its two parts comprised a list of 34 teacher characteristics and teaching practices perceived

Students’ Preferences for Discipline Practices 327

as “good” or “bad” by the pupils interviewed. len, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973). Because of Part 2 comprised a comprehensive list of 46 cultural differences, considerable time and care classroom-control behaviours derived from the were required to ensure that items retained pupils’ responses during the interviews. In each their original meaning. The translation was con- case, pupils were requested to indicate, on a 4- trolled independently by two Norwegian point scale ranging from Strongly Agree to academics. Only one item was perceived by the Strongly Disagree, the degree to which each of Norwegians as invalid in the Norwegian con- the listed characteristics and practices, and text. This item pertained to “strapping and reasons for controlling, applied to a “good” caning”, teacher behaviours that have been for- teacher. In general, to ensure that vocabulary bidden by law in Norway since 1936. The ready and meanings were relevant to the student acceptance and apparent relevance in Norway population, the words and phrasings employed of the questionnaire derived in Australia augurs in the questionnaire were those provided during well for the validity of cross-national compari- interviews. sons.

The process used to establish the reliability of the questionnaire has been detailed elsewhere (Lovegrove & Lewis, 1982). It involved consid- eration of the stability of pupils’ responses to each of the items used. However, because these reliability data were derived from a sample of Australian students answering an English version of the questionnaire, they may not be applicable to the samples of Norwegian or North American students. Therefore, because the study was exploratory, and only two of the classroom management behaviours were found to be unreliable in the earlier study, all items were retained for further study.

The questionnaire was administered to 408 level 9 pupils in 10 high schools in Melbourne, Australia, 215 level 9 pupils in 5 junior high schools in Tromso, Norway, and 532 pupils in 5 high schools in Buffalo, New York, U.S.A.

Findings and Discussion

In the conduct of international surveys, it is common to criticize researchers who seem to assume that both research questions and instrumentation can be transposed unquestion- ing from one cultural environment to another. Although, owing to the manner in which this cooperative research developed, no overt attempt was made to establish the issue of classroom management as a significant research area in each national context, recent writings in both Norway and the United States clearly evidence the current concern in those countries about classroom discipline (Martin, 1981). In addition, the interest and cooperation of both the Norwegian and the U.S. academics, school superintendents, and school principals (or their equivalents) further support the relevance of the study in the respective contexts.

To compare the responses of students from Melbourne, Tromso, and Buffalo, item means were calculated for each of the three samples. Table 1 records the 46 items on which data are available, together with the mean of each sam- pie, which indicates the degree to which respondents associate the behaviourwith the discipline practices of good teachers. For coding pur- poses, Strong Agreement was scored as 4, Agreement as 3, Disagreement as 2, and Strong Disagreement as 1.

So that the extent of the differences among the three samples could be determined, one- way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were computed for each of the statements, together with a Scheffe test to show which groups of respondents differed significantly.

With regard to the instrumentation, a Norwe- gian version of the questionnaire was con- structed by translating the Australian version into Norwegian and checking the quality of the translation by independently back-translating the Norwegian translation into English (Bris-

It is important to note that, in all three countries, the students were sampled in intact classes. Clearly, therefore, the students are not inde- pendent units of analysis, because students in the one classroom are more like one another than they are like students in a different class. Consequently, the use of inferential statistics based on simple random sampling techniques is inappropriate. Clustering of students in classes leads to artificially small measures of within- group variation. Therefore, the statistical significance of the analyses of variance would be

328 MALCOLM N. LOVEGROVE er al.

Table 1 Mean Responses of Students to Discipline Items

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

IO.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

Walk out of class when most of the class misbehave

Cane/strap kids

Explain that too much noise prevents learning from takingplace

Punish misbehaving students rather than the whole class

Keep class in for detention

Make rules for behaviour very clear

Follow up a threat if misbehaviour occurs again

Generally treat the same kind of misbehaviour with the same kind of punishment

Allow students to work out the rules for misbehaviour themselves

Tell-off kids in front of the class

Explain that he or she is annoyed by misbehaving kids

Tell-off kids in private

Separate kids who misbehave

Send misbehaving kids out of class

Explain that he or she can’t work when kids misbehave

Send kids to other teachers for telling-off (e.g.. Principal)

Explain that the kid’s class can’t work when other students misbehave

Send note to parentsof misbehaving kids

Keep individual kids in (e.g.. detention)

Keep class in (e.g.. detention) because some kids misbehave

Have misbehaving kids do yard duty

Have misbehaving kids write lines

Have kids ‘catch up’ on work missed due to their misbehaviour

Hit kids who misbehave

Ignore kids who misbehave

Yell at kids who misbehave

Give extra work as punishment

Remain calm when telling off kids for misbehaving

Embarrass kids who misbehave

Give a warning before moving kids

Give a warning before sending kids out of class

Stand and wait for misbehaviour to atop

Let kids off after promising punishment

Swear at kids

Melbourne” Trom&

1.63 1.88

1.45 1.17

-____ Buffalo’ p < 0.0001 .~ _~.___

1.63

1.30

2.80 3.19 2.86

3.35 3.08 3.53

1.95 1.57 1.72

2.98 2.92 3.25

2.63 3.07 2.82

2.68 3.03 2.92

2.39 2.43 2.24

2.41 2.11 1.77

2.98 2.81 2.98

2.74 3.02 2.76

2.95 3.01 2.Y4

2.70 2.59 2.77

2.76 2.96 2.93

2.01 2.24 2.38

2.97 3.05 3.05

2.18 2.62 2.78

2.80 2.25 2.93

I .58 1.40 1.40

2.42 I .75 2.01

2.47 1.48 2.19

2.90 2.86 2.98

1.59 1.21 1.40

1.91 1.76 I.78

2.49 1.88 2.61

2.49 1.87 2.62

3.03 3.02 I.06

2.1’) 2.07 2.03

3.11 3.30 3.16

3.01 3.20 3.20

2.34 2.02 2.27

2.07 2.09 I.81

1.77 1.9’) 1.70 continued


Table 1 continued Mean Responses of Students to Discipline Items

Melbourne” Trom& Buffalo’ p < 0.0001

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

Get angry at misbehaving kids

Name kids who misbehave

Make a loud noise to attract attention

Stare at kids who misbehave

Move among kids who misbehave

Demand an apology from misbehaving kids

Confiscate or destroy objects belonging to misbehaving kids

Have interview with parents of kids who misbehave

Remove privileges from misbehaving kids (e.g.. no excursion)

Give reasons why some types of behaviour are not allowed

Have misbehaving kids attend a different class

Reward kids when they don’t misbehave

2.60 2.74 2.62

2.46 1.54 2.42

2.32 2.62 2.37

2.36 2.19 2.36

2.58 2.41 2.65

2.56 2.41 2.50

1.80 1.56 1.60

2.24 2.91 2.77

2.24 I .62 2.91

2.96 3.09 3.19

2.01 1.66 2.19

2.35 2.36 2.11

Note. Strong Agreement = 4; Agreement = 3; Disagreement = 2; Strong Disagreement = 1. When a significant difference has no mean in bold type, each mean differed significantly from the other two; when one mean is in bold type. it differed significantly from the other two, which did not differ significantly from each other.

an = 408. Q = 209: cfl = 53i.

inflated. This question has been extensively investigated by Ross (1978), who concluded:

The influence of the complex sample design on sampling errors was shown to offer strong support for the argu- ment presented by Kish (1957) that in the social sciences the use of simple random formulae on data from the complex samples is the most frequent source of gross mistakes in the construction of confidence intervals and tests of hypotheses. (p. 165)

To determine the degree to which the clustered nature of the sample misrepresents the findings that would derive from the use of an equivalent simple random sample, Ross reported estimates of the magnitude of a measure defined as the Design Effect for a number of classroom variables. To compute the Design Effect for the current investigation would involve the use of sophisticated statistical techniques. However, a short-cut procedure is available if approximations are used. If the assumption is accepted that the perceptions of students within classes are approximately as similar as their attitudes to school, a correction to within-group sample sizes of approximately 4 will provide a measure of what Ross calls the

“simple equivalent sample.” “The simple equivalent sample is that simple random sample of elements drawn from the population which would have the same variance of the sample mean as the given complex sample” (p. 140). Such corrections result in the division of the normally computed F value by 4 prior to consid- eration of its statistical significance.

In addition, because 46 one-way analyses of variance were performed, conservative significance levels of 0.0001 were used for the overall ANOVA and 0.001 for the Scheffk test. Inspec- tion of the findings indicates that, at these levels of significance, at least two samples’ means differed by a little over one third of the average within-group standard deviation. Table 1 shows which of the respective one-way ANOVAs were statistically significant.

Examination of the data in Table 1 supports the inference that the variation across statements within samples is far greater than that across samples for any of the statements. There- fore, despite the fact that statistically significant differences are reported for approximately 43% of the statements, the relative preferences for

330 MALCOLM N. LOVEGROVE rt ul.

different discipline practices in the three places sampled do not vary substantially across location.

Similarities in Preferences Across Samples To interpret the degree of similarity of the

preferences for teacher disciplining behaviour of the pupils from Melbourne, Tromso, and Buffalo, each item mean was recoded. Any item for which the mean was between 1.0 and 1.5 was defined as describing a “very bad teaching behaviour” (in the eyes of the students). If an item mean was between 1.5 and 2.0,2.0 and 2.5, 2.5and3.0,3.0and3.5,or3.5and4.0,theitem was termed “bad”, “not suitable”, “suitable”, “good”, or “very good”, respectively.

Comparisons of the recoded item responses show that 46% of the statements were coded identically in this sense in each location from which samples were drawn. Another 29% were coded in the same category by two samples and in an adjacent category by the third (in each case, the codings were on the same side of the “neutral” position - a mean of 2.5). Both sets of items are included in Table 2, which records whether the item was best coded as a very good behaviour, a good behaviour, etc. In summary, approximately three quarters of the 46 items had similar response patterns in Melbourne, Tromso, and Buffalo. This degree of concurr- ence justifies a summary characterization of pupils’ perceptions of the disciplinary behaviour of a good teacher in Melbourne, Tromso, or Buffalo. To avoid tenuous conclu- sions, items in the middle range (equivocal

response categories of “suitable” and “not suitable”) have been omitted.

The good teacher, in terms of pupils’ preferred behaviour, may be described in the follow- ing terms. (Relevant item numbers are included in parentheses.) The good teacher in Mel- bourne, Troms0, and Buffalo would explain very clearly why certain types of behaviour are not allowed (6, 44), basing his or her explana- tion on the need to maintain an appropriate learning environment (3, 17). It is of interest that explanations based more on a teacher’s personal needs, like being annoyed (11) or finding it difficult to teach (15) are less acceptable to pupils.

Once rules have been made clear, the teacher should be consistent in acting against miscreants (7, 8) but should neither ignore misbehaviour (25) nor walk away from it (1). When disciphn- ing, the teacher should generally remain calm (28). Although pupils (with the exception of the Tromso students) do not object to a teacher’s getting angry with misbehaving pupils (35) or even yelling at them (26), the good teacher would not swear at miscreants (34). One may infer that it is the distinction between righteous indignation and hostility that concerns students (for example, the subtle difference between yelling at pupils and screaming at them). Harsh punishments are to be avoided (2, 24, 40, 41), and admonishments in private (12) are preferred to a “telling-off” in public (10). When necessary, after a warning, miscreants should be separated to prevent further disruption or they should be isolated outside the classroom

Table 2 The Degree of Acceptability of Disciplining Behaviours”

Very Good

3.54.0 Good

3.c-3.5

Acceptability of Item Not

Suitable Suitable 2.5-3.0 2.Ck2.5

Bad Very Bad 1.5-2.0 I.&l.5

Three samples in agreement 2X.30.31 11,14,15 9, 16,29. 1,5.25,34 2.24

23.25 32.37,38, 41 46

Two samples in agreement 4,17 3, 6. 7. 8, l&21,33, 20.40

12,13.44 36.45

“Item numbers are shown in the table NO&. See note for Table 1.


admonishments in private (12) are preferred to a “telling-off” in public (10). When necessary, after a warning, miscreants should be separated to prevent further disruption or they should be isolated outside the classroom (13, 30, 31). At all times care should be taken to identify the miscreant and to avoid punishment of the whole class for the actions of some class members (4, 5,20).

Differences in Preferences Across Samples Having considered the similarity among find-

ings, we should also inspect the differences in response patterns among the preferences of pupils from different countries. We looked at all items for which significant differences among means were recorded (see Table 1) and then determined for which items the pupils in Mel- bourne scored significantly higher or lower than the pupils in both Tromso and Buffalo. When similar analyses were carried out for the other two samples, Trams@ and then Buffalo could be compared with the remaining respondents. Table 3 shows the items which pupils from each of the three samples rated significantly more or less favourably than the pupils from the remaining two locations.

Table 3 Items More or Less Characteristic of Good Teachers in

Each Location as Compared with the Other Two”

Items More Items Less Location Characteristic of Characteristic of

good teachers good teachers

Melbourne, Australia 5,21.22,24 7. 16,18.42

Tromsl?, Norway 3, 7,30,37 4. 19,22.24.27. 36,43.45

Buffalo, U.S.A. 4. 6.27.43.45 lo,33

yttem numbers are shown in the table.

Although no apparent trend summarises adequately the findings for the sample of pupils from Buffalo, the remaining two groups of pupils appear to have responded in a manner that is sufficiently systematic to allow tentative interpretation. For example, one can infer that the pupils from Melbourne are less concerned than the other respondents about the use of physical punishment (24) or “arbitrary” punishment (21, 22), and they may thus be described

as more accepting of traditional autocratic sanc- tions than the pupils sampled in Buffalo and Tromso. This inference is consistent with the fact that corporal punishment is illegal in Nor- way, but the situation is less clear in Buffalo, where each school district is authorized to adjudicate the matter.

Second, pupils from Melbourne tend to be more likely than the other respondents to reject the idea that a good teacher would involve parents of a miscreant (18,42) or other teachers (16) in handling misbehaviour. This observa- tion is of particular interest because the pattern of pupils’ responses to both items concerning the involvement of parents in dealing with miscreants (18, 42) indicates that these sorts of behaviour are perceived as characteristic of a good teacher in Tromso and Buffalo but, in contrast, characteristic of a bad teacher in Mel- bourne. It would appear that both the Tromso and Buffalo pupils accept a cooperative approach to the handling of discipline problems more than the Melbourne pupils do.

The pupils in Tromso appear to be less accep- tant of autocratic or somewhat arbitrary sanc- tions (22, 24, 36, 43). In addition, the Trams@ pupils’ more humanistic preferences appear supported by the fact that they are more likely to characterise good teachers as using explanations based on the avoidance of disruption of other pupils’ ability to work (3) and warning before moving pupils in class (30).

Implications of the Findings The samples used in this research cannot be

assumed to be representative of level 9 pupils in the countries from which they were drawn. Consequently, preferences characteristic of a sample of pupils from Melbourne, Trams@, and Buffalo cannot be confidently believed to apply to all pupils in that particular location. The dif-

f erences among pupils from Melbourne, Tromscd, and Buffalo allow. us some small insight into what may be national characteristics of pupils. However, the data are sufficiently tenuous to preclude generating implications of any significance. In contrast, the findings per- taining to the similarities in preferred discipline techniques of pupils from the three locations sampled have several implications.

The reason for placing greater confidence in the findings of similarity is their large degree of

332 MALCOLM N. LOVEGROVE ef al.

communality. It is highly likely that pupils sampled within a country have greater similarity in their preferences for particular teacher disciplinary techniques than do pupils selected from different countries. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that the preferences of pupils within the three countries involved in this study would display even greater homogeneity in patterns of preferences than is shown in the data coming from Melbourne, Tromso, and Buffalo. This being so, the limitations normally placed on generalisations from nonrepresentative samples can be somewhat attenuated and the implications therefore considered of significance.

The first of these implications relates to the opportunity for cooperative and comparative research. Given the large degree of similarity in the range of management techniques in use and in the pupils’ preferences for particular management styles in different countries, one could conduct comparative research in this field, assured that many research questions would readily transfer from one national context to another. For example, it would be valuable to investigate which of several theoretical models for management (Balson, 1982; Charles, 1981; Martin, 1981) are most acceptable to pupils and teachers in different countries and the reasons for that acceptability.

Second, it would be possible to engage in international experimental research whereby the time and expense invested in the production of training materials relating to classroom management practices could be shared by par- ticipating researchers from different countries. Thus our findings suggest that, provided rules are made clear and teachers remain calm while admonishing, Australian pupils find the author- itarian teacher less offensive than do pupils in Norway and the U.S.A. This finding suggests that a model of assertively taking charge (see Canter & Canter, 1976) might be most appropriate in Australia. However, the situation is somewhat more complicated in that a key fea- ture of the model of Canter and Canter involves the cooperation of parents in the rule-selecting process. This parental cooperation appears to be less acceptable to Australian samples than it is to samples in the United States and Norway.

Comparative studies make an additional con- tribution to practice when seen in the light of teacher exchange programs. Teachers bring all

sorts of cultural expectations with them when they work in a country different from their own. Notwithstanding the similarities between pupils’ perceptions in the three samples compared, we believe that it is incumbent upon any sponsoring agency to ensure that exchange teachers are apprised of the dynamics of pupil- teacher relationships in the host country.

Studies exploring problems such as those outlined above would be consistent with the em- phasis of Kelly (1975) on comparativists’ direct- ing attention to what goes o’n inside schools and to the current interest shown in classroom instruction by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement

(IEA), which is investigating classroom behaviour in approximately ten countries (Fordham, 1983).

References

Balson, M. (1982). Understanding classroom hehaviour. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Bloom, B. S. (1980). The new direction in educational research: Alterable variables. Phi Delta Kuppan, 61, 382-385.

Brislen, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York: John Wiley.

Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1976). Assertive discipline: A take-charge approach for today’s educator. Santa Monica, CA: Canter and Associates.

Charles, C. M. (1981). Building cluss?oom discipline: From models fo practice. New York: Longman.

Duke, D. L. (1978). The etiology of student misbehaviour and the depersonalization of blame. Review of Educa- iional Research, 48.415443.

Edgar, D. (1983). Correspondence to the Editor for the Director of the Institute of Family Studies. The Age, 27 May.

Fordham, A. (1983). The context of teaching and learning. Hawthorn. Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Gordon, T. (1981). Cripoling our children with discioline. Journal of’Edu&ion,’ i63.-228-243.

Kellv. C. (1975). The transfer ofeducarional culrure and ifs i&pact: The’ case of &lon;al Vietnam. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Kish. L. (1957). Confidence intervals for clustered samples. American Sociological Review, 22, 154-157.

Lewis, R., & Lovegrove, M. N. (1983). Pupils on punishment. S. E. T. Research Information for Teachers, No. 1 1 Item 1 I.

Lewis, R., & Lovegrove, M. N. (1984). Teachers’ classroom control procedures: Are students’ preferences being met’? Journal of Education for Teaching, 10, 97-10s.

Lovegrove. M. N., & Lewis. R. (1982). Classroom control


procedures used by relationship-centred teachers. Raffini, J. R. (1980). Discipline: Negotiating conflicts with Journal of Education for Teaching, 8,55-M. today’s kids. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lovegrove, M. N., Lewis, R., Oyvind, K. J., & Stromnes, Ross, K. N. (1978). Sample design for educational survey A. C. (1983). The classroom control techniques of research. Evaluation in Education, 2, 105-195. ‘good’ teachers: A Norwegian study. Compare, 13, 157- Smyth, W. J. (1981). Research on classroom management: 165. Studies of pupil-engaged learning as a special but in-

Martin, J. (1981). Models of classroom management. structive case. Journal of Education for Teaching, 7. Calgary, Alta.: Detselig Enterprises. 127-148.

McDaniel, T. R. (1981). Power in the classroom. The Received IO September 1985 0 Educational Forum. 3143.

students' preferences for discipline practices in schools

Documents