Archive for the ‘Classroom management’ category

An exercise: Five Approaches to Classroom Management

December 18, 2009

An Exercise
Five Approaches to Classroom Management
This is a set of guidelines for a Special Assignment and for conducting an exercise in considering the five
approaches to classroom management as outlined in Robert Tauber’s book: Classroom Management
[1999]. This Special Assignment is one in a series of assignments that will be conducted under course
participant leadership. You are being asked to accept a leadership role in this exercise.
Made available to all course participants is the Creedon monograph summarizing five approaches to
classroom management as outlined by Robert Tauber in Classroom Management.
Three Principles of Learning
In this exercise three principles of learning are being embraced:
1. Begin the learning process with the identifiable learning interests and needs of the learner.
2. Those who are to be affected by a decision ought to be involved in the process of making,
implementing and being held accountable for decisions made.
3. Learning is an interactive activity.
Principle One: In the on line pre course exercises several participants expressed their concern over issues
related to CM and student behavior.
Principle Two: It has been emphasized that the course will proceed consistent with a constructivist
approach. Involvement in decision making those effected is consistent with Constructivism.
Principle Three: This course will illustrate this principle. This exercise is evidence of that.
Leading the Exercise
1. A team of no more than three will lead the exercise
2. Divide the class into small groups of not more than four members
3. Assign each small group the responsibility for looking into one of the five approaches cited by
Tauber.
4. The information on each approach found in the Creedon monograph is not enough. The group will
need to do further Internet based research: GOOGLE.
5. Counsel each group that it is follow the six categories in Bloom’s taxonomy in developing its
response.
Learning is an Interactive Activity
As you plan how to lead the exercise be certain that it features participant involvement and interaction. DO
NOT simply have each small group report its findings and views. Move beyond traditional presentations.
Enlist other tactics. What they are is up you.
Summary and Conclusion
As a culminating activity have the class express itself as to:
1. Which of the five approaches has the greatest degree of support.
2. Is it best to structure an approach that includes dimensions of several aspects of each. If so, what
are they?
3. Develop a Plan of Action for a whole school approach.
Larry Creedon  10-01-08

Advertisements

Curriculum Development, a Design for Learning, Classroom Management, and Student Behavior.

December 18, 2009

Curriculum Development, a Design for Learning,
Classroom Management,and Student Behavior.
by
Lawrence P. Creedon
This is Part One of a two part piece. Part Two is identified as:
Classroom Management – Five Approaches to Student Behavior.
All too often Curriculum Development [CD] is hostage to the four guardians of tradition,
organizational structure, parent and community expectations, and legal and bureaucratic
mandates. While each of these has its place and needs to be respected, the primary focus
of stake holders ought to be in support of what needs to be taught rather than determining
it in response to self or bureaucratic interest.
What needs to be taught is what the learner needs to know in order to move toward
becoming a self fulfilling individual, a good citizen in a democratic society, and a
competent worker. While there are common threads they unite these three purposes, there
are also distinct differences as each is applied to individuals. The differences are clear,
especially in questions one and three cited below.
The curriculum ought to be rooted on a more scholarly basis than that frequently offered
by the voices of the four guardians. Together the voices have a two pronged effect. They:
1. Represent the self or bureaucratic interests of a particular source.
2. Tend to re enforce the status quo. Honoring stability rather than change
characterizes the human condition.
Ironically while this is a reality, many of the self interest voices cry out for change.
However, change in this context means an action that will make their particular view
more influential relative to what goes on behind the classroom door.
Much of what will be found in this piece is the message addressed in the Creedon
monograph Four Questions as the Foundation of the Process of Education. The four
questions are:
1. What do you as an educator know about how your learners come to know and to what
extent do you apply what you know in your practice?
2. Of all the things that your learners can come to know what is it that they need to know now
and why?
3. Having insight into and informed opinion relative to questions one and two how do you
organize the teaching learning experience so as to be responsive to what you know?
4. Once organized, how do you move to implement what you have designed?
Responses to the Four Questions set the tone as to what the purpose of education is all
about. Given that knowledge ,responses to questions three and four shed light on how to
organize the learning community (Question Three) and how to implement what has been
organized (Question Four).
Curriculum Developmenti
Traditionally there haves been four approaches to curriculum development and they are:
Compliance,
Additive,
Integrative
Systemic.
Of the four only systemic is designed to focus directly on the learner and what he/she
needs to know now. What follows is a synopsis of each of the four.
Compliance
The prime example of other-directed in curriculum development is compliance. Since the
1970s the back-to-the-basics movement has gained momentum and now just about every
state in the union has legislated standards. In several states learners are required to pass
state mandated tests in order to be promoted to the next grade and, increasingly, to
graduate from high school with a diploma.
Traditionally public education in the United States has been controlled at the local level.
However the back to basics and standards movement is not being controlled at the local
level, but rather through state and federal legislation and mandates. It is one of
compliance with the mandates of authorities external to the local level. It is controversial
with many educators and professional education organizations registering opposition. The
program has the support of conservative politicians and elected officials. In the United
States the No Child left Behind federal law is a prime example.
The states and the federal government have moved ahead aggressively in the area of
mandates and compliance. To critics the involvement of government in such an approach
is seen as government=s entry into the domain of curriculum determination (not
development) through the back door. While government has not stipulated what will be
taught, it has determined and mandated what will be tested and how it will be tested.
What government thinks learners need to know is included on the test. Therefore, the
obvious conclusion is that many teachers are teaching-to-the-test. In the final analysis
state and federal governments are controling education. While the up-front legal authority
to determine curriculum has remained with local jurisdictions, in reality school districts
have had their authority usurped by state and federal mandates and regulations.
The tail wagging the dog is state and federal mandates. Government has told local
districts they are free to include in their curricula what they feel is important as long as
students can meet (comply) the standards in the mandated tests.
For those districts where students fail to meet the standards severe penalties are
threatened including loss of government accreditation, state take over of failing schools
and/or school districts, and loss of financial aid.
The compliance approach is not limited to the United States. An extreme student reaction
to compliance and high -risk testing came in Germany in April 2002. A student expelled
for failing the high school graduation requirement reacted by going on a rampage killing
13 teachers, two fellow students and himself.
Compliance curriculum honors the past, resists the present, and evades the future.
Initiatives that allegedly are future oriented are not necessarily characterized by open
inquiry and a serious focus on what ought to be. Rather, the focus is on adding on to what
already is. It is akin to driving a car forward while looking out the rear view mirror.
Additive
The most frequent form of curriculum development is additive. Here development begins
by honoring what is and then adding to it. Seldom does curriculum deletion or cleansing
precede development. Seldom is a conscious effort made to delete from what is in favor
of what ought to be.
A common way of curriculum cleaning is simply to stop doing something rather than a
conscious effort as the result of unbiased, non-selective research findings to stop a
particular strategy, method, or technique. The approach in use simply falls into disuse.
Gradually what was once common instructional practice or, more frequently, promoted as
an innovation, is no longer in vogue.
A good example of this is the current and continuing Reading Wars. The issue is: Should
reading be taught using a traditional phonics approach, by whole language, or a
combination of the two? At present phonics has the upper hand and is the approach being
mandated by federal legislation. While local districts are free to choose alternative
methods, federal aid will not be forthcoming to the district if phonics is not the approach.
Again, critics are voicing objections. The Phi Delta Kappan (June 2002) in an editorial
reacted strongly to the position being taken by the federal government through the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The editorial
asserted that NICHD has Aplaced all their reading-development eggs in one basket –
systematic phonics instruction.@
The editorial alleges that NICHD=s Aresearch agenda (was) narrowly constrained.@ It
asserted that the research design was developed and programmed to suit pre-determined
outcomes and to placate Congress, the agency=s source of funding. The editorial
concluded that Athose who market their partisan preferences under the guise of informing
public deliberation sully the research enterprise and violate the public trust.@
In this example the US federal government is pressing for its approach to the teaching of
reading and is using the bully pulpit of the purse to have its way. While not requiring
school districts to abandon whole language in favor of phonics it is asserting: NO phonics
no money. Without the additional federal funding, approaches to the teaching of reading
other than phonics will fall into disuse. The reason will not be the weight of non-biased,
non-selective research, but rather the actions of pocketbook sensitive education decision
makers at the local level.
In the area of content the same scenario prevails. As new topics are added seldom is there
a conscious effort to delete something from what is. To find time within the program to
add on the new something falls into disuse.
Integrative
An integrative approach to curriculum development is content and not learner centered.
Integration can take two forms: parallel and interrelated. Also, it can be structured
horizontally or vertically.
A parallel approach is when two separate courses are offered and while each might be
considering the same topic or issue there is no cross connecting – no weaving. For
example, in this actual scenario an honors history class was studying the French
revolution. At the same time an honors music appreciation class involving the same
students was studying the musical Les Miserables based on the French revolution.
While in history class the students became involved in role playing, re-enacting certain
events related to the revolution. In music class these same students dramatized a scene
from the musical and sang some of the more memorable songs. Furthermore, they went to
a performance of the musical, traveling 250 miles by bus to New York City for the event.
In parallel integration both classes operated independent of the other. The only
integration was that in both courses the same topic was being considered at the same
time. This actual example is a very limited interpretation of integration.
Interrelated integrated curriculum is where the program of studies for a cohort of students
is thematic across disciplines.. Through joint planning the faculty agrees on a theme. A
focus discipline is identified. Thematic outcomes are stipulated at the outset. Cross
discipline planning and appraisal goes on. The several disciplines support and enrich each
other.
The approach is content centered. It is not learner centered and students are seldom
involved in determining what content ought to be studied and what instructional methods
and techniques ought to be utilized.
Horizontal integration is essentially the same as interrelated integration. Weaving is an
example.
Vertical integration is when the same, or related, topic is considered recursively over a
period of time. It can continue for a period of time when a common theme is being
studied as well as last for one or more academic terms or school years. An effort is made
to present content in a consciously sequential manner. Long term learning outcomes are
projected.
A conceptually based mathematics program is a good example with its laddering of skills
and concepts.
Systemic Approach and a Design for Learning
Systemic is the only one of the four approaches to curriculum development where by
design the approach might be learner centered. Whether or not it is student centered
depends upon the structure of the design. Here the components of a student centered
systemic design will be briefly identified. See the Creedon monograph on a Student
Centered Design for Learning – 2005 at http://www.larrycreedon.info.
The components of the design are:
1. Purpose
2. Rationale for the topic and long term behavioral projections or outcomes
3. Curriculum: Content and view as to what is knowledge
4. Instruction: Strategies, Methods and Techniques
5. Learning Theory: How individuals come to know
6. Constructivist Approach: Discovery learning and student centered activities
7. Authentic Assessment
8. Total Quality Management
Purpose: Here the purpose, goals, and mission of the learning organization are
stipulated. In a systemic approach a conscious and continuing effort is made to turn
the words of purpose into action.
Rationale and Behavioral Projections: Addressed here are the issues of why and to
what end is a particular content or issue being considered? Question two of the four
questions being considered in this piece is the focal point of this component: Of all
the things that learners can come to know what is it that they need to know now and
why? Rationale relates to why? What it is that needs to be known relates to behavioral
projections (long term outcomes). The focus is on the needs of the learner.
Curriculum: Again the query posed in question two comes to the fore. Required here is
an understanding of what is knowledge? Is it simply information? Is it conceptually,
vocationally or experientially based? Does it have an essence? Is it inherited from the
past? Is it existential? Is it determined by philosopher kings and those in authority? Is it
discovered by each individual? Does it come about as the result of the simultaneous and
mutual interaction of the learner and the environment?
My experience has led me to conclude that for the most part teachers are too busy
teaching to raise serious questions about what is knowledge. Such an observation is by no
means of recent vintage. The lament has been aired for decades such as in the once
popular book Teaching as a Subversive Activity, Postman and Weingartner, 1969.
Instruction: Curriculum has to do with content. Instruction relates to process. It is the
process used by educators to work with learners on what it is that needs to be known. The
most common approach to instruction is the teacher centered, whole class (all eyes and
ears focus on the instructor), lecture approach. One type of presentation fits all. Less
frequently are alternatives to the lecture method undertaken.
The process of instruction ought to focus on how individuals come to know. How is what
needs to be known presented so that learners can grasp it, understand it, relate it to what
is already known, apply it, and analyze, synthesize and assess it? How is what needs to be
known divided into usable segments? How are segments or units expressed? Once again
the focus is on the learner and not on a teacher preferred instructional method or
technique.
Learning Theory: Learning Theory deals with question one: What do you as an educator
know about how your learners come to know and to what extent do you apply what you
know to your practice? Contrary to two extremes of conventional wisdom learning is
neither a random or eclectic process where any efficient procedure will do. Nor is it so
individualized as to make it ineffective. The contributions of an extensive cadre of apply
here. For more on them see Creedon monograph Four Questions in the Pursuit of
Excellence in Education at http://www.larrycreedon.info
A Constructivist Approach – Student Centered Learning Activities: Here the learner is
viewed as being active and interactive, rather than passive and an isolate. Learning
activities ought to be developed as much as possible consistent with a constructivist
approach. For an introduction to a constructivist approach see the Creedon monograph on
Constructivism at http://www.larrycreedon.info.
Authentic Assessment: Effort is made to move assessment beyond low order cognitive
test exercises in information and comprehension, to higher order cognitive skill
development. A wide array of authentic assessment procedures ought to be utilized. They
ought to include those procedures that address multiple intelligences as promoted by
Howard Gardner. Rubrics are applicable.
Total Quality Management: TQM is a systemic approach to organization and
management. It has many of the same characteristics as a systemic approach to
curriculum development. It is a broader concept. In reality a systemic approach to
curriculum development is a component within TQM. In the 1990s TQM was the
innovation of the moment and while it continues to have merit it has followed the path of
many innovations in education and its star has faded. Gurus associated with TQM include
W. Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran and Philip Crosby.
A systemic approach to curriculum development is holistic. It recognizes that all
components of the system are interrelated (integrated). A modification in one component
effects the whole. As a result tinkering with what is by adding to it or by attempts at
integration will not suffix. Frequently such approaches set the stage for more compliance
mandates. A systemic approach goes beyond compliance, additive and integrative
approaches. It characterizes what ought to be.
Classroom Management
Frequently when the topic of classroom management comes up in discussion among
educators thought immediately gravitates toward behavior, discipline, punishment, and
motivation. However, in reality the topic goes far beyond those considerations. A concern for
effective classroom management begins with a consideration of the Four Questionscited
above. Questions three and four directly address the issue. Once teachers have an
understanding of how their learners come to know and what it is they need to know, they
ought to address the question of classroom management. Once they know where they are
going academically and why, they need to know what they should do in order to get there.
That is classroom management.
In the field of discipline or learner behavior there is very little that is new. Alternatives range
from behaviorist strategies (Skinner) on one end of the continuum to humanism (Carl
Rogers) on the other end. Skinner and Rogers were contemporaries and since the mid
twentieth century their views have influenced what goes on behind the classroom door in the
area of behavior, discipline, motivation, and classroom management. There are several off
shoots of the theoretical framework of each of them. A good synopsis of various alternatives
to behavior and discipline is found in Robert Tauber, Classroom Management – Sound
Theory and Effective Practice (1999).
Research indicates that one of the major reasons why beginning teachers fail in the classroom
and leave the profession is related to faulty classroom management. It is common that the
deficiency in classroom management is identified as a problem with discipline. Frequently
the problem with discipline is rooted in inadequate classroom management. Also, it is
common for teachers and administrators to look for the quick fix to discipline issues while
ignoring the larger issue of effective classroom management.
Among the myths of effective classroom practice is that each practitioner should be free to
develop and implement his/her own approach to discipline and by extension classroom
management. That can be a formula for disaster. It makes no more sense than having each
motorist develop his/her rules of the road related to driving a motor vehicle. Classroom
management and its corollary discipline ought to be consistent throughout the entire school
and within all school sponsored programs. It is not a sign of good management to have
individuals developing and implementing their own approaches to classroom management
and discipline.
The topic is one that ought to be of on-going concern. All faculty and staff members have a
personal interest in designing and implementing an effective approach to classroom
management and discipline. In addition, students and parents ought to be involved in the
process. Designing an effective classroom management and discipline program ought to be a
major professional development exercise. It is not something that can be addressed in a
regularly scheduled periodic professional development session that lasts a few hours. Such
sessions, regardless of topic, are seldom effective. I know of no magic time based formula for
determining how much time should be devoted to the issue. However, I do believe that an
ineffective classroom management and discipline policy causes more discord within the
faculty and the community than any other. The issue needs to be addressed on a continuing
basis.
Also, I do not recommend a silver bullet approach to classroom management and discipline.
The approach ought not to be one of purchasing a packaged program. This is a case where
what is implemented is best planted, grown, harvested and applied locally. Clearly those at
the local level know what is needed in their situation.
A place to begin is devoting an extensive amount of time and effort to seeking consensus on
what the beliefs are locally about the basic human nature of human beings. In this case the “
human beings” are the learners who are being served. A consideration of this question goes
far beyond that proposed by question one of Creedon Four Questions (What do we know
about how our learners come to know and how do we implement what we know)? In my
experience seldom, if ever, is this question formally and openly considered in professional
development programs.. However, what goes on behind the classroom door is significantly
influenced by what teachers believe about this metaphysical question. In his book Learning
Theory for Teachers (1992), Morris Bigge addressed this question. The following Bigge
chart succinctly summarizes five views related to the question: What is the basic nature of
humankind? The phrase categorizing each has been inserted by me.
The Basic Nature of Humankind
Generic Behavioral
Good______ __________________Active
“I’m OK – You’re OK”
Bad_________________________Active
Fagin’s School – Oliver Twist
Neutral______________________Active
“As the twig is bent
so grows the tree”
Neutral______________________Passive
Grass doesn’t grow
on a busy street
Neutral______________________Interactive
SMILE
Simultaneous, mutual interaction
of the learner and environment
The views held by teachers on this issue influences how they function in the classroom. It
influences their views about classroom management and discipline. Before attempting to
move ahead in developing a classroom management and discipline program educators
need to strive to reach consensus on the question of: What is the basic nature of
humankind? Certainly with the growing public debate over Darwin based human
evolution and Intelligent Design advocates the question is relevant.
There is no scarcity of theoretical approaches to classroom management or discipline. An
excellent summary of several of the more prominent approaches is that summarized by
Robert T. Tauber in his book Classroom Management (1999). Tauber summarizes five
approaches identified as that of:
1. James Dobson A Place for Punishment
2. Frederic H. Jones Postive Discipline
3. Rudolf Dreikus Social Discipline
4. William Glasser Reality Therapy, Choice Theory and Quality
Schools
5. Thomas Gordon Teacher Effectiveness Training
Each of these five are summarized in a separate Creedon monograph identified as Part
Two of this piece and under the title of: Classrom Management: Five Approaches to
Student Behavior. http://www.larrycreedon.info.
.
A Six Phase Approach to Developing a Classroom Management Program
As indicated above it is not recommended that a package program be purchased and
applied in a given situation. Rather, it is recommended that those affected by whatever
action is ultimately taken be deeply involved in developing whatever is to be
implemented. A six phase approach is recommended. Phases 2-6 cited below are
addressed in more detail in Creedon monographs found on http://www.larrycreedon.info.
1.A consideration of what is the basic nature of humankind. A good source to use in
beginning the quest is with Morris Bigge’s work as referenced above. The goal of this
effort is to strive to reach consensus among the faculty and all those affected by decisions
made in this area.
2. The study and application of Creedon’s Four Questions to the local situation.
3. The application of a student centered design for learning such as that proposed by
Creedon.
4. The application of the Creedon, or a compatible approach, to shared decision making
and Action Research.
5. The application of a Total Quality Management as that proposed by W. Edwards
Deming or Joseph Juran.
6. Managing the undertaking by taking a critical path approach as laid out in the Creedon
monograph on Critical Path.
Each of these six phases is addressed in one or more Creedon monographs found at
http://www.larrycreedon.info.
Obviously what is being laid out here cannot be accomplished during an occasional
professional development afternoon or day long session. A concern for classroom
management and discipline must be viewed as a major and continuing effort. Without a
consistent program in classroom management an effective approach to discipline will not
result. At present countless hours are spent addressing ever changing approaches to
discipline. The broader issue of classroom management is seldom addressed.The
revolving door of frequently contrasting and conflicting strategies and tactics related to
discipline is of little value. What is called for is a paradigm shift rooted in a scholarly yet
practical application on the most basic question of all: What is the basic nature of
humankind? Is it good, bad or neutral? Consensus on this point can provide a straighter
path leading to effective classroom management and discipline.
Ipse dixit!
Lawrence P. Creedon
http://www.larrycreedon.info
Honduras 2003, Cape Cod 2005.
i The section on Curriculum development in its present form is an excerpt from Crrdon’s Four Questions as
the Foundation of the Process of Education.

Classroom Management and Student Behavior

October 23, 2009

1
Classroom Management and Student Behavior
The Periphery or The Tunnel
Lawrence P. Creedon
Without question classroom management and student behavior are primary issues of critical concern to
practitioners. Beginning teachers are cautioned to get on top of behavior issues by being firm from day
one on. Sometimes senior teachers will caution beginners: “Don’t smile until the end of the first
marking period.” Classroom management is often inadequately viewed as strategies and tactics for
getting control of the classroom and maintaining an environment where compliance reigns.
It is hard to argue with the logic of the need to be in control. However, “control” needs to be defined.
What can be challenged is a conscious deliberate repetition of strategies and tactics that in the long
term prove not only ineffective, but can result in making the situation worse as learners respond by
developing a more than youthful dislike for school, but actually come to distain school and in some
instances express that distain through unacceptable behavior. If the tunnel vision of command, control
and comply are the three Cs of your preferred approach to classroom management and learner behavior
then one among many of the programs you may wish to consider is that of Craig Segenti
craigsegenti@classroomdiscipline101.com. If you choose to go this way you are by no means alone.
On the periphery of how to approach classroom management and student behavior in the whole
domain of brain research applied to schooling. In this area there are few “How to” guides as you will
find in a three Cs approach. Rather what is called for is a theory based extrapolation from brain
research findings to education. If you consider yourself as being committed to an exploration of how
young people come to know, you and like minded colleagues can push back the horizons of the
periphery in this regard.
Brain Rules [2008] by John Medina is a resource rich in information about brain function that is
applicable to education. Concerned professionals can extrapolate from Medina’s Brain Rules strategies
and tactics for classroom management and student behavior.
In a separate Creedon monograph related to Medina’s Brain Rules I have summarized the first five of
his 12 brain rules. In most instances I have offered a comment of my own following Medina’s
statement. Frequently my comment includes a series of questions you are to react to in your response.
2
YOUR ASSIGNMENT – What follows is an assignment based on Medina’s Brain Rules. At this time
you are not being required to complete the assignment. If you are required to do so you will receive
further instructions from me. For now simply review the assignment.
The Assignment:
Choose one from among the following alternatives. Be prepared to either submit a written report
for peer review or to engage in an oral presentation. Use Bloom’s six category cognitive domain
taxonomy as an organizing construct for your presentation. See the Creedon monograph on
Bloom.
Alternative One
Working with a partner or a small group of not more than two others your assignment is to
select one of the first five chapters of brain principles taken from Brain Rules and react to it.
Choose one from the five. Follow Bloom.
Alternative Two
Working with a partner or a small group of not more than two others your assignment is to
select five of the twelve principles cited by Medina and without further research beyond
selecting five from among the twelve offer a group opinion as to what they mean to you and
your colleagues and what they imply for classroom management and student behavior. To
fulfill this assignment you will have to think outside of the box [the tunnel] of your existing
situation. You will have to go the periphery and think about what ought to be, rather than
thinking in terms of how you can make the findings of brain research fit within your existing
situation. Creative thinking is done outside the box. Follow Bloom.
Alternative Three
Working with a partner or a small group of not more than two others review Craig Segenti’s
structured program found at craigsegenti@classroomdiscipline101.com. Relate Segenti’s
program to what you do or do not do in your practice related to classroom management and
student behavior. Follow Bloom.
Alternative Four
If you are not comfortable with Segenti’s program but like the idea of a structured approach
similar to Segenti’s,then select from one of those found on found through the Internet or known
to you via another source. Relate the program to what you do or do not do in your practice
related to classroom management and student behavior. Follow Bloom.
Alternative Five
If you prefer to work alone, select anyone of the four alternatives cited above and proceed
alone. Follow Blooom.
Lawrence P. Creedon lpcreedon@aol.com; lpcreedon@gmail.com;
http://www.larrycreedon.wordpress.com.
October 2008.

Cooperative Groups and Collaborative Teams

October 23, 2009

1
Cooperative Groups and Collaborative Teams
Definition, Distinction and Application
Lawrence P. Creedon
Those who are affected by a decision ought to be involved in the process of
making, implementing and being held accountable for decisions made.
Involving students in their own learning through activity in groups and teams has been a much
talked about but little practiced instructional strategy for more than half a century. When the
approach is practiced it frequently takes on a single modality of placing learners into groups and
directing them to “discuss” or “brainstorm” a teacher determined topic. Other than to assert: that
the learners are to: “Share their ideas,” “Think of new ideas,” “Listen to others,” “Take turns
speaking,” “Talk softly,” and “Be respectful” it is unlikely that the teacher will give attention to
working with the students in developing an understanding of what it means to discuss or to
brainstorm. Discussing and brainstorming are activities that have structure.
It is not uncommon for initial attempts at working with groups and teams will fail. The teacher will
conclude that:
The kids are just fooling around engaging in non-task related chatter
Groups are seen by kids as fun time
You can’t tell who is working and who is loafing when kids are in groups
How do you give a fair grade to each student when they are in groups?
Little learning takes place when kids work in groups
The teacher can conclude: ”Enough of that! This grouping stuff doesn’t work.”
The reasons for this are many and predictable. Among them are:
1. A lack of understanding of the theory behind cooperative and collaborative learning. (See
Creedon monograph: Cooperative and Collaborative Learning).
2. A failure to understand that cooperative and collaborative learning are not the same.
3. A failure to understand that cooperative and collaborative learning environments much
more structured than a teacher-centered, whole-class approach. (See Creedon
monograph: Bloom – Principles, Modifications and Applications).
The theory behind cooperative and collaborative learning in its simplest terms is that it promotes
the notion that learning is an individual discovery process. Teachers cannot learn for their students.
They are facilitators of learning and not dispensers of knowledge. They may be able to dispense
information, but not knowledge. Learning begins after information has been accumulated. Learning
is an interactive process. Human beings are by nature interactive and interdependent.
Autonomous: Yes, however, each is not a singleton. Each is not the only card in the deck. It takes
two to tango and a whole village to raise a child. Learners learn best when they participate in
determining what needs to be learned, why it needs to be learned, and how it best can be learned
2
Groups and teams are not the same. Groups are cooperative. Teams are collaborative. Group
refers to participants working together cooperatively on an issue not of their own choosing, but
rather that of the instructor or some other external authority. Team refers to participants working
not only cooperatively but also collaboratively. Teams participate in determining the issue to be
considered. They determine amongst themselves how to proceed in addressing the issue and how
they will hold themselves accountable. The activity engaged in by groups is more under teacher
domination than is that of teams. In groups the teacher controls. In teams the teacher facilitates.
Both approaches are valid. The skillful educator determines which to use when and why. It is like a
football coach (United States style) who determines when to run the football or when to pass.
However, the purpose of each is to score a touchdown.
Cooperative groups and collaborative teams are both examples of a constructivist approach to
learning. Both are interactive. Both actively involve the learner determining what ought to be
learned,, why it ought to be learned, how the learning ought to proceed and how the learner ought
to be held accountable. As stated above, a principle difference is that in groups the teacher is the
primary decision maker, while in teams the learners are more directly involved in decision making. .
Characteristics of Constructivism
In constructivism learning is viewed as an interactive process (Dewey). My definition of learning
is that it occurs as the result of the simultaneous and mutual interaction of the learner and the
environment. The characteristics of constructivism cited here are not comprehensive, but they do
suggest major components of a constructivist platform.
1. Learners construct their own knowledge beginning with what they already know,
exploring what needs to be known next and determining the quality and
effectiveness of their pursuit through authentic assessment and application.
2. All learning begins in doubt about the validity of an idea. The goal of doubt is the
restoration of belief. (Pierce, James. As well as Bigge: Positive Relativism, p 56)).
3. Learning takes place in the personal zone of cognitive development between what
is already known, what is not known and what is desired to be known [Vygotsky].
4. Learning is achieved best through a socially interactive process [Dewey,
Vygotsky].
5. Learning is best achieved when the undertaking is consistent with the stages of
human development [Rousseau, Piaget].
6. Learning is an experience based process of inquiring, discovering, exploring,
doing and undergoing [Dewey].
7. The process of coming to know is neither random nor eclectic, it has structure
[Bruner, Bloom].
8. Learning proceeds in spiraling fashion including laddering, scaffolding, weaving,
and dialogism [Bruner, Rogoff].
9. Cognitive development occurs in a socio-cultural context – the social milieu of
individual achievement and the interaction between the learner and adults as well
as his/her peers in culturally valued activities. [Riordan – Karlsson, p.18].
3
10 The interactive process in coming to know needs to be guided by structured
cognitive and affective taxonomies [Bloom, Krathwohl].
Using Groups and Teams in an Interactive Learning Environment
Group involvement in decision making does not mean motion without direction.
It suggests power with people and not over people. It assumes that those who share in the decision
making process are more committed to implementing decisions made. [(Creedon, 1969]
There are twp parts to this monograph. The first identifies interactive tactics used by me in
working with graduate level students affiliated with the Framingham International Education
Program. The second part identifies the many responsibilities that students must assume in order
to orchestrate an effective interaction learning environment.
1. During each session the groups and teams met sequentially
2. Frequently groups or teams do not work on the same issue
3. Each class member belongs to each of the group/team categories cited below
4. Group membership is rotating or permanent depending on the purpose of the
group or team.
5. “Discussion” sessions are structured consistent with Benjamin Bloom’s six
phase cognitive taxonomyi
6. Group and team membership is held to three to four individuals.
7. Each group category is led by a student chair person
Expectations Group and Meaghan’s Queryii – Rotating Membership:
As pre course assignments students develop individual course expectations as well as
offering a response to Meaghan’s Query. Their views are shared with classmates through
participation in randomly selected small groups. As the course progresses their expectations
and responses to Meaghan’s Query are periodically reviewed and, as appropriate, modified.
Personal Odyssey Group – Rotating Membership: As a precourse assignment
participants draft a personal odyssey introducing self. The odyssey is in the form of a “personal
interest” news release rather than a resume. As a member of a randomly selected group
individuals share their odyssey with colleagues. The exercise is repeated during successive
class sessions until each participant has shared his/her odyssey with all other class members. If
class members are well known to each other this exercise ought to be curtailed or omitted.
Text and Monographs Study Group – Permanent Membership: Several times
throughout the course participants meet in a permanent membership group for the purpose of
considering the content of the text and instructor-provided monographs. Bloom’s taxonomy is
used as a guide for discussion.
Content and Issues Group – Rotating Membership: Depending on the subject area of
the course each class member participates as a member of a group that focuses on the content
or issue under considerationiii. Bloom’s taxonomy is used as a guide in discussion.
Reflections and Future Directions Team – Permanent Membership: In this
permanent membership team (in contrast to group) each class member participates with
4
colleagues in reflecting on what has been considered thus far in the course. Each team
participates in the development of suggestions for the future direction of the course. The data
generated is forwarded to the Student Agenda Team..
Peer Rubric Assessment by a Critical Friend – Pairs . In this activity class
members work in pairs. Each pair assesses (in contrast to evaluated) each other as Critical
Friends.[(See Creedon monograph: Self Directed Appraisal]. A rubric is used. The rubric may
be provided by the instructor or developed by participants. After being assessed by a critical
friend the table is turned and the person just assessed assesses his/her critical friend. A special
rubric is used for this purpose. This exercise continues to be development.
Action Research Team – Permanent Membership: A major component of the course is
team based Action Research projects. Approximately twenty-five percent of class time is
devoted to Action Research. The Action research process is outlined in the Creedon
monograph: A Constructivist Approach to Brainstorming, Shared Decision Making and Action
Research.
Facilitation Committee – Rotating Membership: This team met during every
session. It receives input from all class members. The team makes recommendations to the
instructor as to the direction and content of the course including time allocations and expected
outcomes.. Also, it has decision making authority.
Share and Slide – Rotating Pairs : This is an alternative discussion tactic. In Share
and Slide two people share their information about a particular topic. After a period of time,
one person “slides,” moving to a new partner. The second person remains in place and
welcomes a new partner. The procedure is repeated several times.
Daily Diary or Log– Rotating Membership: Two class members, on a rotating
basis, keep a computer based diary of the day’s activities. The next day, the diary entry is read
aloud at the beginning of class. A composite of the log is kept on computer disk.
Daily Climate Exercises – Rotating Pairs . At the beginning and end of each
session all class members participate in class climate exercises. Two students, on a daily
rotating basis, conduct the exercise. At the beginning and end of each session class members
respond to a short written list of climate related questions. The questions at the beginning of
the session have to do with readiness for the day’s activities. The questions asked at the end of
the session solicit individual opinions as to what has been accomplished during the session.
The end of class questions include those focusing on the pedagogical and ethical behavior of
the instructor. The data generated is shared immediately with the class. Also, it is posted on a
cumulative chart. The data on the chart is reviewed each session by the whole class.
Special Assignments for Individuals, Groups and Teams : From time to
time special assignments are given in response to a new course concern or focus..
Individual Assignments: As the course moves along, individual class members are given
special assignments. The assignments either relate to a particular interest or expertise of a class
member or have to do with course management and leadership.
Ipse dixit!
. Creedon/Ross
lpcreedon@aol.com; hross730@aol.com
Honduras, 2003
i Bloom’s six categories modified by Creedon are: Information, Comprehension, Compare and
Contrast, Synthesize, Evaluate and Apply. See Creedon monograph: Bloom – Principles,
Modifications and Applications.
ii Meaghan’s Query is an exercise where each participant is asked to respond in three sentences as to
what in his/her opinion is the purpose and significance of education.
5
iii In this case there were two Framingham IEP courses offered at Escuela International, San Pedro
Sula, Honduras.
Individual Assignments
Who Is Responsible For What?
In order for a learning program, characterized by extensive involvement of
participants, to function efficiently and effectively many tasks need to be managed.
The tasks are identified below. Each of you will be asked to assume responsibility for
one or more of these tasks.
1. Framingham Site Coordinator____________________
2. Agenda Committee____________________________
3. Climate Exercise Manager________________________
4. Instructional Objectives ________________________________
5. Pre Course Exercises Manager ______________________
6. Reflective Practitioner Three Part Series Manager _______
7. Action Research Reports: Supplies, Collating Printing___________________
8. Classroom Supplies __________________________________
9. Daily Log Manager _____________________________________
10. Time Keeper___________________________________________
11. Share/Slide Manager _____________________________________________
12. Individual Appointments With Larry “SEE ME”______________________
13. Photocopying Facilitator_________________________________
14. Collector of Instructor Requested Photocopies “PC” ___________________
15. Personal Information 3 X 5 Cards _____________________________
16. Power Point, Overhead Projector Technician _______________________
17. Computer Availability Manager __________________________________
18. Computer Resource Person _______________________________________
19. Video Technician ____________________________________________
20. Web Site Yahoo & CCI Manager _________________________________
21. Special Presentations Manager _____________________________________
22. Classroom Clean Up Manager _____________________________________.
Your Personal Calendar of Responsibilities
1. My assignment from the above list is _________________________
2. I am responsible for Objective _____________________________
3. My session to do the log is ________________________________
4. My session for the Climate Exercise is______________________
5. My Personal appointment with Larry is for ___________________
6. My session for Classroom clean up is _______________________
7. My session to provide for snack, coffee, etc is ________________
8. Pink Envelope__________________________________________
9. Special Assignment ______________________________________
10. Special Assignment______________________________________
6
. CreedonRoss, El Salvador, November 2003
.

Cooperative Groups and Collaborative Teams

October 23, 2009

1
Cooperative Groups and Collaborative Teams
Definition, Distinction and Application
Lawrence P. Creedon/ Helen L. Ross
Those who are affected by a decision ought to be involved in the process of
making, implementing and being held accountable for decisions made.
Involving students in their own learning through activity in groups and teams has been a much
talked about but little practiced instructional strategy for more than half a century. When the
approach is practiced it frequently takes on a single modality of placing learners into groups and
directing them to “discuss” or “brainstorm” a teacher determined topic. Other than to assert: that
the learners are to: “Share their ideas,” “Think of new ideas,” “Listen to others,” “Take turns
speaking,” “Talk softly,” and “Be respectful” it is unlikely that the teacher will give attention to
working with the students in developing an understanding of what it means to discuss or to
brainstorm. Discussing and brainstorming are activities that have structure.
It is not uncommon for initial attempts at working with groups and teams will fail. The teacher will
conclude that:
The kids are just fooling around engaging in non-task related chatter
Groups are seen by kids as fun time
You can’t tell who is working and who is loafing when kids are in groups
How do you give a fair grade to each student when they are in groups?
Little learning takes place when kids work in groups
The teacher can conclude: ”Enough of that! This grouping stuff doesn’t work.”
The reasons for this are many and predictable. Among them are:
1. A lack of understanding of the theory behind cooperative and collaborative learning. (See
Creedon monograph: Cooperative and Collaborative Learning).
2. A failure to understand that cooperative and collaborative learning are not the same.
3. A failure to understand that cooperative and collaborative learning environments much
more structured than a teacher-centered, whole-class approach. (See Creedon
monograph: Bloom – Principles, Modifications and Applications).
The theory behind cooperative and collaborative learning in its simplest terms is that it promotes
the notion that learning is an individual discovery process. Teachers cannot learn for their students.
They are facilitators of learning and not dispensers of knowledge. They may be able to dispense
information, but not knowledge. Learning begins after information has been accumulated. Learning
is an interactive process. Human beings are by nature interactive and interdependent.
Autonomous: Yes, however, each is not a singleton. Each is not the only card in the deck. It takes
two to tango and a whole village to raise a child. Learners learn best when they participate in
determining what needs to be learned, why it needs to be learned, and how it best can be learned
2
Groups and teams are not the same. Groups are cooperative. Teams are collaborative. Group
refers to participants working together cooperatively on an issue not of their own choosing, but
rather that of the instructor or some other external authority. Team refers to participants working
not only cooperatively but also collaboratively. Teams participate in determining the issue to be
considered. They determine amongst themselves how to proceed in addressing the issue and how
they will hold themselves accountable. The activity engaged in by groups is more under teacher
domination than is that of teams. In groups the teacher controls. In teams the teacher facilitates.
Both approaches are valid. The skillful educator determines which to use when and why. It is like a
football coach (United States style) who determines when to run the football or when to pass.
However, the purpose of each is to score a touchdown.
Cooperative groups and collaborative teams are both examples of a constructivist approach to
learning. Both are interactive. Both actively involve the learner determining what ought to be
learned,, why it ought to be learned, how the learning ought to proceed and how the learner ought
to be held accountable. As stated above, a principle difference is that in groups the teacher is the
primary decision maker, while in teams the learners are more directly involved in decision making. .
Characteristics of Constructivism
In constructivism learning is viewed as an interactive process (Dewey). My definition of learning
is that it occurs as the result of the simultaneous and mutual interaction of the learner and the
environment. The characteristics of constructivism cited here are not comprehensive, but they do
suggest major components of a constructivist platform.
1. Learners construct their own knowledge beginning with what they already know,
exploring what needs to be known next and determining the quality and
effectiveness of their pursuit through authentic assessment and application.
2. All learning begins in doubt about the validity of an idea. The goal of doubt is the
restoration of belief. (Pierce, James. As well as Bigge: Positive Relativism, p 56)).
3. Learning takes place in the personal zone of cognitive development between what
is already known, what is not known and what is desired to be known (Vygotsky).
4. Learning is achieved best through a socially interactive process (Dewey,
Vygotsky).
5. Learning is best achieved when the undertaking is consistent with the stages of
human development (Rousseau, Piaget).
6. Learning is an experience based process of inquiring, discovering, exploring,
doing and undergoing (Dewey).
7. The process of coming to know is neither random nor eclectic, it has structure
(Bruner, Bloom).
8. Learning proceeds in spiraling fashion including laddering, scaffolding, weaving,
and dialogism (Bruner, Rogoff).
9. Cognitive development occurs in a socio-cultural context – the social milieu of
individual achievement and the interaction between the learner and adults as well
as his/her peers in culturally valued activities. (Riordan – Karlsson, p.18).
10 The interactive process in coming to know needs to be guided by structured
cognitive and affective taxonomies (Bloom, Krathwohl).
3
A Practical Application of Groups and Teams at the Graduate School College Level
Group involvement in decision making does not mean motion without direction.
It suggests power with people and not over people. It assumes that those who share in the decision
making process are more committed to implementing decisions made. (Creedon, 1969)
There are twp parts to this monograph. The first identifies interactive tactis used by me in
working with graduate level students affiliated with the Framingham International Education
Program. The second part identifies the many responsibilities that students must assume in order
to orchestrate an effective interaction learning environment.
1. During each session the groups and teams met sequentially
2. Frequently groups or teams do not work on the same issue
3. Each class member belongs to each of the group/team categories cited below
4. Group membership is rotating or permanent depending on the purpose of the
group or team.
5. “Discussion” sessions are structured consistent with Benjamin Bloom’s six
phase cognitive taxonomyi
6. Group and team membership is held to three to four individuals.
7. Each group category is led by a student chair person
Expectations Group and Meaghan’s Queryii – Rotating Membership:
As pre course assignments students develop individual course expectations as well as
offering a response to Meaghan’s Query. Their views are shared with classmates through
participation in randomly selected small groups. As the course progresses their expectations
and responses to Meaghan’s Query are periodically reviewed and, as appropriate, modified.
Personal Odyssey Group – Rotating Membership: As a precourse assignment
participants draft a personal odyssey introducing self. The odyssey is in the form of a “personal
interest” news release rather than a resume. As a member of a randomly selected group
individuals share their odyssey with colleagues. The exercise is repeated during successive
class sessions until each participant has shared his/her odyssey with all other class members. If
class members are well known to each other this exercise ought to be curtailed or omitted.
Text and Monographs Study Group – Permanent Membership: Several
times throughout the course participants meet in a permanent membership group for the
purpose of considering the content of the text and instructor-provided monographs. Bloom’s
taxonomy is used as a guide for discussion.
Content and Issues Group – Rotating Membership: Depending on the
subject area of the course each class member participates as a member of a group that focuses
on the content or issue under considerationiii. Bloom’s taxonomy is used as a guide in
discussion.
Reflections and Future Directions Team – Permanent Membership: In
this permanent membership team (in contrast to group) each class member participates with
4
colleagues in reflecting on what has been considered thus far in the course. Each team
participates in the development of suggestions for the future direction of the course. The data
generated is forwarded to the Student Agenda Team..
Peer Rubric Assessment by a Critical Friend – Pairs . In this activity class
members work in pairs. Each pair assesses (in contrast to evaluated) each other as Critical
Friends. (See Creedon monograph: Self Directed Appraisal). A rubric is used. The rubric may
be provided by the instructor or developed by participants. After being assessed by a critical
friend the table is turned and the person just assessed assesses his/her critical friend. A special
rubric is used for this purpose. This exercise continues to be development.
Action Research Team – Permanent Membership: A major component of the
course is team based Action Research projects. Approximately twenty-five percent of class
time is devoted to Action Research. The Action research process is outlined in the Creedon
monograph: A Constructivist Approach to Brainstorming, Shared Decision Making and Action
Research.
Facilitation Committee – Rotating Membership: This team met during every
session. It receives input from all class members. The team makes recommendations to the
instructor as to the direction and content of the course including time allocations and expected
outcomes.. Also, it has decision making authority.
Share and Slide – Rotating Pairs : This is an alternative discussion tactic. In Share
and Slide two people share their information about a particular topic. After a period of time,
one person “slides,” moving to a new partner. The second person remains in place and
welcomes a new partner. The procedure is repeated several times.
Daily Log – Rotating Membership: Two class members, on a rotating basis, keep a
computer based diary of the day’s activities. The next day, the diary entry is read aloud at the
beginning of class. A composite of the log is kept on computer disk.
Daily Climate Exercises – Rotating Pairs . At the beginning and end of each
session all class members participate in class climate exercises. Two students, on a daily
rotating basis, conduct the exercise. At the beginning and end of each session class members
respond to a short written list of climate related questions. The questions at the beginning of
the session have to do with readiness for the day’s activities. The questions asked at the end of
the session solicit individual opinions as to what has been accomplished during the session.
The end of class questions include those focusing on the pedagogical and ethical behavior of
the instructor. The data generated is shared immediately with the class. Also, it is posted on a
cumulative chart. The data on the chart is reviewed each session by the whole class.
Special Assignments for Individuals, Groups and Teams : From time to
time special assignments are given in response to a new course concern or focus..
Individual Assignments: As the course moves along, individual class members are given
special assignments. The assignments either relate to a particular interest or expertise of a class
member or have to do with course management and leadership.
Ipse dixit!
. Creedon/Ross
lpcreedon@aol.com; hross730@aol.com
Honduras, 2003
i Bloom’s six categories modified by Creedon are: Information, Comprehension, Compare and
Contrast, Synthesize, Evaluate and Apply. See Creedon monograph: Bloom – Principles,
Modifications and Applications.
ii Meaghan’s Query is an exercise where each participant is asked to respond in three sentences as to
what in his/her opinion is the purpose and significance of education.
5
iii In this case there were two Framingham IEP courses offered at Escuela International, San Pedro
Sula, Honduras.
Individual Assignments
Who Is Responsible For What?
In order for a learning program, characterized by extensive involvement of
participants, to function efficiently and effectively many tasks need to be managed.
The tasks are identified below. Each of you will be asked to assume responsibility for
one or more of these tasks.
1. Framingham Site Coordinator____________________
2. Agenda Committee____________________________
3. Climate Exercise Manager________________________
4. Instructional Objectives ________________________________
5. Pre Course Exercises Manager ______________________
6. Reflective Practitioner Three Part Series Manager _______
7. Action Research Reports: Supplies, Collating Printing___________________
8. Classroom Supplies __________________________________
9. Daily Log Manager _____________________________________
10. Time Keeper___________________________________________
11. Share/Slide Manager _____________________________________________
12. Individual Appointments With Larry “SEE ME”______________________
13. Photocopying Facilitator_________________________________
14. Collector of Instructor Requested Photocopies “PC” ___________________
15. Personal Information 3 X 5 Cards _____________________________
16. Power Point, Overhead Projector Technician _______________________
17. Computer Availability Manager __________________________________
18. Computer Resource Person _______________________________________
19. Video Technician ____________________________________________
20. Web Site Yahoo & CCI Manager _________________________________
21. Special Presentations Manager _____________________________________
22. Classroom Clean Up Manager _____________________________________.
Your Personal Calendar of Responsibilities
1. My assignment from the above list is _________________________
2. I am responsible for Objective _____________________________
3. My session to do the log is ________________________________
4. My session for the Climate Exercise is______________________
5. My Personal appointment with Larry is for ___________________
6. My session for Classroom clean up is _______________________
7. My session to provide for snack, coffee, etc is ________________
8. Pink Envelope__________________________________________
9. Special Assignment ______________________________________
10. Special Assignment______________________________________
Larence P. Creedon/ Helen L. Ross
El Salvador, November 2003
6
.

The Reflective Practitioner – A Three Part Exercise

October 23, 2009

1
The Reflective Practitioner – A Three Part Exercise
Lawrence P. Creedon
The Reflective Practitioner Exercise [hereafter RP] is in three parts with three separate due dates. Part 1 is
the only part that is a pre course exercise. Parts 2 and 3 will be completed when class is in session.
Part One [RP 1]
RP 1 asks you to identify and describe a current issue that is impacting on your practice. Below are
examples that are drawn from several different areas and courses. You are not being asked to respond to
these examples, but rather to view them as examples. You task is to identify an issue from your practice
that is related to the subject area of the course you are taking: Curriculum Theory and Development.
Examples from other courses are:
Supervision:
Describe the actual process by which you are supervised, including not being formally supervised
at all.
Curriculum: Theory and Practice. Three Examples are:
1. Describe what is the foundation, the basis of the curriculum where you practice?
2. In your practice is there a difference between the curriculum and the instructional
program?
3. To what extent are you involved in the development of the curriculum?
Note: You are not being asked to use one of these examples. Cite your own issue.
Classroom management
What is the system of classroom management (CM) in your classroom, in your school? In
describing it go beyond discipline. Discipline is a dimension of CM. It is not the whole thing.
Issues and Influences
Describe an issue in education that is impacting on your practice? Is it helpful or harmful?
Research
Is your practice guided by the findings of research in education? What impact do the findings of
research have on your practice?
RP Exercise Related to the Course You are Enrolled In.
In this exercise you are not being asked to react to each of the course areas cited above. Your assignment is
to focus on the course you are currently enrolled in or are about to take. You are not being asked to
comment on all the course areas cited above. Cite your own concern. You are not being asked to comment
on one of the examples cited above.
Same Topic for all Three Parts of RP
Be careful in the issue you choose to describe in RP 1. It will be the topic you consider in RP 2 and RP 3.
Just Describe, Nothing Else
Your assignment is to just describe a situation, practice or issue that you are engaged in or that has had an
impact on your practice. You are not being asked to critique the situation, praise it, endorse it, or offer your
opinion relative to it. Just describe it. However, do not submit a report that is more fitting as a promotional
or marketing piece. You are not being asked to give “spin” or perpetuate a “myth” related to a situation.
Make your description real and not fiction or wishful thinking. Competent colleagues can recognize fact
from fiction as well as spin and myth from reality.
Length of Your RP 1 Report
Begin when you have something to say and end when you have said it. However, in order to give you some
explicit guidance please limit you report to approximately 500 words. I offer this advice because you are
receiving this assignment over the Internet and possibly your prior experience has been that some
instructors you have worked with have placed a length factor on reports you are asked to submit. I do not.
However, in the absence of personal contact between us, if you are more comfortable with a standard
relative to length, 500 words, arbitrarily arrived at by me, will suffice. Single spaced using WORD.
Format of Report:
1. Your name, date, location, grade or subject specialization, and name of the course
2. Identify your report as RP 1.
3. Give your report a descriptive title
4. Single space
2
5. Processing using WORD
Submitting Your Report:.
1. Submit you RP 1 report to me no later than three weeks [21 calendar days] before the first meeting of the
course.
2. Submit it to me directly to me [lpcreedon@aol.com]. Also upload to the appropriate folder on
FraminghamMaracaibo. If the nature of your report is confidential indicate that to me and do not upload it
on the Framingham Yahoo website.. Send it directly to me at lpcreedon@aol.com. It will be kept
confidential.
3. Submit as early as possible after you receive this assignment
Instructor Response: ASK ME, SEE ME
I will respond to your RP 1 report by “Reply e mail.” In my response I might ask you questions and direct
you to ASK ME or SEE ME. Do not gloss over or ignore this request. There is something in your report that
I wish to discuss with you. It is not an indication that I have found fault with what you have reported. It is
an invitation for a more personal dialogue. You are responsible for arranging to ASK ME or for you to SEE
ME. Do not assume that I will ask you. A classmate will have as a duty to keep a calendar of one-on-one
appointments with me. See that person and make an appointment. You do not have to respond via e mail to
me a second or third time in response to questions I ask you. However, please feel free to do so if you wish
to engage in such a dialogue.
Your Grade on RP 1
Your RP 1 report is not graded. It is your opinion. I will not be assessing it. It will not receive a grade.
Final Caution: Rejecting Your RP 1 Report
While your RP 1 report will not be graded I will reject it if it reads as if it is was copied or summarized
from a piece of promotional literature promulgated by your school or by a publisher. These are readily
identifiable.
Reflective Practitioner Part 2
Your RP 2 report is directly related to your RP 1 report. In RP 2 you are being asked to engage in an
Internet search related to what you described in RP 1. RP 2 is a continuation of RP 1. RP 1 cannot be about
one thing and RP 2 something else. If you have not clearly described a situation, practice or issue in RP 1,
you will find it extremely difficult to proceed with RP 2. And, it will unacceptable to me.
Three Research articles: In RP 2 you are to search the Internet, or other source, for a minimum of at least
three articles or sources that are related to what you have described in your RP1 report. A personal
interview with a competent person on the issue you describe in RP 1 can count as one article. Reporting on
a program on radio, TV or from a conference you attended can also count as an article. Reporting on more
than 3 articles is encouraged.
Only Research Findings
In RP 2 you report on the results of your Internet search. Do not interpret, support, or compare your
research findings to RP 1. Just report what the research says. This is an example of a Bloom low order
cognitive exercise: Information and Comprehension. See the Creedon monograph on Bloom.
Develop a Rubric for Self Assessment.
Using the Creedon monographs on rubric development and self assessment as part of this exercise you are
to develop a rubric indicating how you will hold your self accountable for engaging in and completing Part
2 of the RP exercise. You will be assessed by a peer [Your critical friend] using the rubric you have
developed as the assessment instrument. All of this will be reviewed in class.
Format of Report
1. You do not need to follow a specific format. Use a format that is comfortable for you.
2. Begin with the heading information called for in RP 1. Identify the report as RP 2.
3. Include a complete bibliographical reference for each article reviewed
Upload Your Report onto the Framingham Yahoo Site.
Upload your report including your rubric onto the site. If you have difficulty uploading consult with the
classmate who is responsible for this activity. When your report has been uploaded inform the classmate
responsible for this activity. If you do not do this you WILL NOT receive credit for having completed the
exercise. Do not submit your report directly to the instructor, rather, upload it. The purpose for uploading
your report is so that colleagues can have access to your research and your research can contribute to a
locally developed library of information related to specific topics.
3
Due Date for RP 2: The third Session of Course
Sharing Your RP Research in Class with Classmates
Using an in class interactive exercise you will share your research findings with classmates. The exercise
will be led by your classmate responsible for this activity. Your personally developed rubric will be used in
this exercise.
Your Grade on RP 2.
Your RP 2 report will be rubric assessed using the rubric developed by you
Reflective Practitioner Part 3
It is in RP 3 where you express your point of view. It is here where you indicate what in your point of view
“ought to be.” RP 3 is related to RP1 and RP2. In RP1 your described an issue, in RP 2 you reported on
research related to RP 1. Now in RP 3 you indicate your point of view. Make certain that your point of
view reflects your research. Do you agree or disagree with the research?
Consistent With Bloom
Your RP 3 must reflect Bloom’s higher order cognitive process. See the Creedon monograph on Bloom. It
is here that you compare and contrast, analyze, synthesize and evaluate. It is here that you indicate how you
can apply your findings and point of view to your own practice.
Opinion versus Point of View.
Your RP 3 report is more than your “opinion.” In this context an “opinion” implies that the position taken
is not necessarily supported by research. A “point of view” indicates that your opinion has been enriched
by research.
Format For Your RP 3 Report
Depending upon circumstances as they develop in our course your RP 3 report will be either written or oral.
If written, be guided by the Creedon mantra: Begin when you have something to say. End when you have
said it. Do not ask me how long it should be. Use the format stipulated in RP 1 above.
If oral it will be presented using an interactive small group procedure such as share and slide.
Your Grade on RP 3
You will not be assessed on the point of view you take in your RP 3 report. Assessment will focus on the
extent to which you followed the steps outlined in Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy. This aspect of your RP 3
will be colleague assessed by a “Critical Friend.” using Bloom as a guide.
Due Date for RP 3: Eighth Session of the Course or as announced.
ALTERNATIVE TO PARTS TWO AND THREE OF THE RP EXERCISE.
DEPENDING ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLASS IT IS POSSIBLE THAT PARTS
TWO AND THREE OF THE RP EXERCISE WILL BECOMPLETED USING AN
ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE THAN THAT OUTLINED HERE. IF THAT IS THE
CASE THE ALTERNATIVER PROCEDURE WILL BE SHARED WITH YOU IN AN E
MAI, OR POSTED ON THE FRAMINGHAM YAHOO SITE BEFORE THE COURSE
BEGINS, OR IMMEDIATELYY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE COURSE WHEN WE
MEET IN CLASS. BE CERTAIN YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED
PROCEDURE.
Summary of RP Exercise
The whole RP process is a limited example of teacher initiated action research. The
exercise is intended to be suggestive of how a community of educators can identify an
issue that impacts on their practice, engage in research related to it and offer a resolution.
You will note that it does not suggest a plan of action. That comes next and is considered
in more detail in the Creedon monograph on Brainstorming and Action Research.
4
Ipse dixit!
Lawrence P. Creedon
www,larrycreedon.info
April 2004, January, 2007, October 2007.

Classroom Management: Five Approaches to Student Behavior

October 23, 2009

Classroom Management: Five Approaches to Student Behavior
By
Lawrence P. Creedon
Second of two monographs devoted to classroom management.
In his book Classroom Management [1999] Robert Tauber summarizes five approaches to student behavior ranging from
a behaviorist to a humanist orientation. A brief, selective synopsis of each of Tauber’s five is cited here. Reader caution
must be exercised here, as separate book length volumes have been devoted to each. In contrast, this brief synopsis
numbers approximately 3500 words.
1. A Place for Discipline – Dr. James Dobson [born 1936] http://www.family.org/
Dr. Dobson is a well known conservative and spokesperson for the religious right in American politics and its influence in
public education. He is an outspoken critic of what he terms as “permissive parents,” and says it is a result of the influence
of John Dewey based pragmatism. Dobson is the founder of the conservative organization Focus on the Family. The
organization employs over 1300 people. Focus on the Family has its own syndicated radio network. His book Dare to
Discipline [1970] and The New Dare to Discipline [1992], as of the publication of Tauber [1999], had sold more than 3
million copies. Dobson has a doctorate in child development and has served as a clinical professor of pediatrics.
Dr. Dobson is an advocate of punishment in child-rearing. He points to a “strong” Biblical foundation as the justification
for his views such as Solomon’s admonition “Spare the rod and spoil the child.” He cites Proverbs, to wit:
􀀁 “Withhold not correction from the child – for it thou beatest him with a rod, you will save his life from Hell.” [23:
13-14].
􀀁 “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he loves him is diligent to discipline him.” [23: 24].
Children, Dobson believes, do not have an innate desire to learn. Therefore, at times, punishment is in order if they resist
learning what is determined by those in authority they need to learn. He advocates that some strong willed children need
to be “spanked” and that spanking is neither optional nor old-fashioned. He scorns scientific inquiry related to childrearing.
By no means is Dobson alone in his beliefs. A cadre of others echo and promote in their own spheres of influence the
same or similar views. While a school or school system may not identify with Dobson’s views, individual teachers may
personally subscribe to his beliefs. .Individual teachers will gravitate to their core beliefs about the basic nature of
humankind and those beliefs will influence their approach to classroom management and discipline.
2. Assertive Discipline – Lee and Marlene Canter [born 1947, 1948 respectively].
Lee and Marlene Canter are a husband and wife team. Together they have written over 40 books and numerous video
programs. They assert that their Assertive Discipline approach has been shared with over one million people.
They promote the concept of praise as the most significant factor in getting children to respond positively. A mantra of
Assertive Discipline is that: Teachers have the right to teach, and students have the right to learn. The basic features of
Assertive Discipline are coercion, control and reward. The teacher is clearly in control, is in a “take charge” position and
is empowered to act accordingly. Another feature of Assertive Discipline is that of praising students. The slogan of “Catch
students doing something and reward that action” is associated with the Canters.
The Canters claim that their approach is research based. However, critics challenge that assertion.
To the Canters, teachers fall into three categories:
1. Assertive – Assertive teachers get their needs met first, and then go on to act in the best interests of their students.
Teachers make their expectations known to students in a calm and businesslike manner, and then go on to
address the interests of students in a similar way. The language of Assertive Discipline speaks of developing
expectations for learners; however, critics say the expectations are more akin to demands.
2
2. Hostile – Hostile teachers get their needs met first, but do not go on to act in the best interests of their students.
Sarcasm and threats might characterize the behavior of the teacher toward students.
3. Non-assertive – Teachers do not get their needs met and do not go on to act in the best interests of their students.
They might be passive, often inconsistent, and reluctant to place behavior demands on students.
In an Assertive Discipline approach discipline comes first. First the teacher must establish who is in charge and in control,
and then instruction can follow. The teacher is the “sage on stage” and not “the guide on the side.”
In dealing directly with a student or a group of students “I messaging” is encouraged. In “I messages” the communicator
(the teacher) informs those he/she is communication with how their behavior or action has made the teacher feel.
Projections can then be made as to how that feeling can manifest in behavior by the teacher and the student. This is in
contrast to a more traditional approach where the teacher might ask a student why they are acting in a certain way thus
inviting the student to respond and possibly create the conditions for a confrontation between teacher and student.
Praise, prompt and leave are three teacher behaviors associated Assertive Discipline:
Praise the learner
Prompt the learner on what to do next
Leave and allow the learner to “get to work.”
3. Social Discipline – Rudolf Dreikurs [1897-1972]
Rudolf Dreikurs is the person most associated with Social Discipline. Dreikurs’ theory is rooted in his optimistic view of
the basic nature of humankind and his belief that people are capable of changing and that human problems are
interpersonal and socially embedded. Dreikurs reflects the individual psychology of Alfred Adler (1870-1937). [In his
psychological theory known as Individual Psychology Adler focused on the whole person as a functioning entity reacting
to the environment, rather than as a summation of instincts and drives. To Adler coming to know rested on doubting the
conventional wisdom. Adler’s classic book on Understanding Human Nature was used as a high school text for decades].
Both Dreikurs and Adler were born and raised in Vienna, Austria at approximately the same time. Dreikurs emphasized
the values of respect, cooperation, and self-discipline. These are consistent with a contemporary approach to
constructivism.
Dreikurs believed that children are social beings and have a need to know that they belong. They need interaction with
other human beings and have a need to be recognized. If unable to achieve these personal goals/needs children will tend to
engage in antisocial behavior and will act out in order to gain recognition.
Dreikurs cited four reasons, or goals, in the thinking of the transgressor, for misbehavior:
1. To gain attention
2. A struggle to gain and maintain power
3. For revenge
4. To submerge and mask a feeling of inadequacy.
The mantra that seems to apply is:
If you can’t be the best at being the best, be the best at being the worst.
In the Dreikurs concept of Social Discipline there are three types of response to misbehavior:
1. Natural – Consequences of an action not imposed by anyone. They flow naturally from the behavior. For
example, if the student does not study for a test then the natural result of failure or poor performance results.
2. Logical – Consequences supplied by someone else such as the teacher. However, consequences must be logical
and appropriate versus hasty, rendered in anger, arbitrary, and punitive. Logical consequences ought to be related
to the issue, respectful toward the person affected and reasonable.
3. Contrived – Invented or contrived by the person in authority. Little or no logical connection between the
misbehavior and the consequence. Punishment is the intent.
3
In contrast to the notion of praise as asserted by Lee and Marlene Canter, Dreikurs advocated encouragement. In Social
Discipline, encouragement is an important part of child rearing. Lack of it is a major cause of misbehavior. Lack of
encouragement and the resulting discouragement is the most important obstacle to learning. To Dreikurs encouragement
not praise held the potential for motivating students, and for building individual self-esteem, self-confidence and selfdiscipline.
Advocates of Social Discipline assert that research does show negative long term affects of praise, but not of
encouragement. In a Social Discipline approach not all persons and actions are praiseworthy.
4. Reality Therapy – William Glasser [born 1925] http://www.wglasser.com/
William Glasser is the founder of the Institute of Reality Therapy now known as the William Glasser Institute. The basic
premise of reality therapy is that it is most important for a person to confront inappropriate behavior by dealing with the
present rather than the past. Glasser’s views codified for application in schools took shape in his book Schools Without
Failure [1969]. In the 1990s Glasser and W. EdwardsDeming, the guru of Total Quality Management, began working
together in the common interest of schools. [See Creedon monographs on Total Quality Management
http://www.larrycreedon.info]. To Glasser there was no point in focusing on the past since it can’t be changed; therefore, the
focus should be on the present, or as he stated it: “The reality of the human condition.”
Glasser identified five elements of the reality therapy as it related to schools.
1. School ought to be a good and fair place. It ought to begin with rule formation and students ought to be
involved in determining the rules. School ought to be a good place to be. This notion s developed further by
Ted Sizer in his book: School – A Place of Learning , A Place of Joy (1973). In such a good and fair place
where the needs of students are being met, discipline problems will be kept to a minimum. Glasser defined a
good school as a place where:
􀀁People are courteous, especially the adults
􀀁Laughter springs forth from genuine joy brought about by involvement with caring people engaged in
relevant work
􀀁Communication is practiced and not just preached. People talk with, not at, one another.
􀀁Reasonable rules are beneficial to both individuals and the group
􀀁Administrators actively support and participate in an approach to discipline that teaches selfresponsibility.
2. Forming rules – Reasonable rules do not just happen they come about as the result of reasonable people
reasoning. Glasser asserted that reasonable rules must be firmly enforced, but not as punishment. Such an
action as separation of someone misbehaving from a program for misbehavior would be reasonable.
3. Reasonable rules are those in which a cause-and-effect relationship is evident. According to Glass if a causeand-
effect relationship cannot be shown, then the question arises as to whether or not the rule was necessary
in the first place.
4. Students are involved in forming the rules.
5. Students are rationale beings and they choose their behaviors.
The steps of Reality Therapy are:
1. Student involvement
2. Identify the problem behavior. Do not focus on the why of the behavior, but rather on: What are you doing?
3. In making value judgments about the behavior there must be a cause-and-effect relationship
4. Develop a plan of action for a new behavior. Let students assume the primary responsibility for their
misbehavior and for developing a plan to change that behavior.
5. Get a commitment from those affected for working toward the implementation of the new plan of behavior.
6. Accept no excuses
7. Don’t punish
8. Never give up – be persistent.
Glasser ultimately labeled his approach as Choice Therapy. Choice Therapy is founded on two assumptions:
1. All of behavior is our best attempt to satisfy one or more of the five basic needs [See Abraham Maslow’s
Needs Therapy. Maslow’s Needs Theory is related to Alfred Adler’s Individual Psychology which in turn is
related to Rudolph Dreikurs theory of Social Discipline].
4
2. All we can do is behave. This is in contrast to the stimulus/response theory of Behaviorism. Choice theory
asserts that all of our behavior is internally motivated.
In Choice Theory learning is promoted as the basic tool for meeting all of an individual’s basic human needs as
understood by Maslow. Knowledge is viewed as power, but not power over people. Rather power that allows successful
learners to have more freedom and more choices than unsuccessful learners. Fun is viewed as what is taking place when
the learner successfully learns something. I interpret that to mean that learning comes about as a result of the simultaneous
and mutual interaction between the learner and the environment. The acronym is SMILE and true to form the learner
smiles when learning takes place.
In Glasser’s work with Total Quality Management guru W. Edwards Deming, the quest was to develop a template for
quality schools without resorting to coercion. Such an action is in sharp contrast to what critics assert about the US federal
No Child Left Behind legislation.
5. Teacher Effectiveness Training – Thomas Gordon [born 1918]. http://www.gordontraining.com/
Thomas Gordon is the founder of the Teacher Effectiveness Institute commonly known as TET – Teacher Effectiveness
Training. TET programs are offered in over 30 countries worldwide. Gordon was greatly influenced by the work of Carl
Rogers
TET is best understood as a model for effective communications between persons and in this case between teacher and
student. Tauber makes the point that it translates ideology into practical skills. The ideology has to do with the recognized
worth of every individual. The practical skills relate to effective classroom management, dialogue and discipline.
The focus of TET is on acceptable behavior. Acceptable behavior is that which does not interfere with the legitimate
interests and needs of another. It does not be assent to the behavior as no moral judgment is made. Resistance to
interference does not result in assent to a given behavior. Unacceptable means that a behavior interferes with another
meeting his or her needs. As acceptable does not mean assent, unacceptable does not condemnation or a negative
judgment. Acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are fluid, and relative in the light of conditions and circumstances.
TET is concerned with equality. However, equality does mean a one-size-fits-all approach. Equality has more to do with
the needs of each individual being met in a manner that does not interfere with needs of others.[A hasty but false
conclusion could be drawn that this understanding of equally echoes the communist mantra of: To each in
accordance with his needs.]
As understood by Gordon, teachers can be more accepting of the behavior of one student versus another. Gordon contents
that is unrealistic to expect teachers to be equally accepting of all students. Factors that influence acceptance include
dress, behavior, role in class, personal hygiene, etc.
In TET programs teachers learn effective responding skills and role play how and when to apply them. If the behavior is
acceptable, then no responding skill is required. If it is unacceptable effective responding skills are necessary. The teacher
does not solve the problem for the “owner,” but rather functions as a facilitator as the “owner” of the problem solves it.
TET focuses on what it identifies as Roadblocks to Communication. Roadblocks can emerge when a person with a
problem seeks the advice of a colleague and rather than getting help with the problem the person seeking advice is
subjected to input that aggravates the problem. Gordon cites 12 major roadblocks to effective communication. They are
1. Ordering, directing 7. Praising, agreeing, ‘me-tooing’
2. Admonishing, threatening 8. Ridiculing, shaming
3. Moralizing, preaching 9. Analyzing, diagnosing
4. Advising, giving solutions 10. Sympathizing, consoling
5. Lecturing, giving logical arguments 11. Probing, questioning, interrogating
6. Judging, criticizing 12. Withdrawing, humoring
5
In TET there are alternatives to Roadblocking. Gordon identifies at least six. They are:
1. Attentive silence 4. Decoding the feelings oriented message behind the words spoken.
2. Active listening . 5. I-Messaging (Not identical with that of the Canters).
3. Noncommittal responses 6. Straightforward, conversational “Door Openers.”
TET is interested in conflict resolution and proposes a six step approach that is compatible with the long established
scientific method. It is:
1. Define the problem 4. Choose a solution
2. Generate possible solutions 5. Implement the solution
3. Evaluate solutions 6. Evaluate the solution
Conflict resolution programs have gained considerable support in secondary schools across the United States. The
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, Virginia, USA is among the prominent
organizations dealing with schools on this issue. The institute has been working with the Fairfax County Public Schools in
this regard since 1988. In 2004 the school district referred 784 cases to conflict mediation culminating in a successful
result and thus avoiding confrontation.
Successful conflict mediation depends on the parties involved being skilled in the process. In Fairfax County conflict
resolution classes are offered as part of the regular curriculum. Topics considered include communication skills, the
nature of conflict, ethics, and diversity. A 1999 evaluation of the process conducted by George Mason University showed
that conflict resolution training reduced staff time dealing with conflicts, lessened the number of verbal and physical
confrontations, and lowered the suspension rates. [Washington Post, September 14, 2005, letter-to-the-editor, Sara Cobb,
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, Virginia, USA.]
An Action Plan
Some proponents of one approach versus another advocate that the whole program of a given system must be adopted.
They assert that a cafeteria approach will not give the benefits of the program. I believe that assumption is subject to
challenge. However, I do agree that a random potpourri approach will not be effective. Rather, a systemic approach needs
to be taken and it needs to be rooted in the reality of a specific environment. Among the things that needs to be considered
in developing a systemic approach call to mind the scholarship of such individuals as M.L. Bigge, Benjamin Bloom, and
Jerome Bruner. A systemic approach implies a need for a specific comprehensive design for learning. [See the Creedon
monograph on a Ten Component Design for Learning http://www.larrycreedon.info]
The development of a plan for action ought to begin with the entire faculty, staff, parents, student body, and other stake
holders striving to reach a common understanding of what they consider to be the basic nature of humankind and of
reality. Granted these are philosophical questions. And, some may conclude at the outset that they have little practical
application. On the contrary, I consider questions such as these to be at the rooted of everything that follows. Belief about
these matters provides the foundation upon which everything else is built. For the serious minded there is no shortcut.
Consensus on these points focuses the learning community toward a common purpose and identifiable goals. This is more
philosophical in nature than the traditional and often innocuous regurgitation of values. Indeed values are important and
need to be identified. However, there are prerequisites to a direct focus on values. Consideration must be given to the
foundation upon which the values are based. A consideration of this question can certainly take a full school year or more
of dialogue. Consensus built on understanding takes a long time. It is a never ending process.
Once exhaustive consideration has been given to considering the questions posed immediately above, alternative
approaches to classroom management, behavior and discipline ought to be considered. A process vehicle for such a
consideration is Benjamin Bloom’s Six Category Cognitive Taxonomy.[See the Creedon monographs on Bloom
http://www.larrycreedon.info]. Each approach to classroom management and discipline ought to analyzed through the lens of
Bloom’s taxonomy.
6
Jerome Bruner’s notion of the spiral curriculum with its provision for scaffolding and weaving is applicable to building a
plan of action.
A place to begin is devoting an extensive amount of time and effort to seeking consensus on what the beliefs are locally
about the basic human nature of human beings. In this case the “human beings” are the learners who are being served. A
consideration of this question goes far beyond that proposed by question one of Creedon Four Questions (What do we
know about how our learners come to know and how do we implement what we know)? In my experience seldom, if ever,
is this question formally and openly considered in professional development programs.. However, what goes on behind
the classroom door is significantly influenced by what teachers believe about this metaphysical question. In his book
Learning Theory for Teachers [1992], Morris Bigge addressed this question. The following Bigge chart succinctly
summarizes five views related to the question: What is the basic nature of humankind? The phrase categorizing each has
been inserted by me.
The Basic Nature of Humankind
Generic Behavioral
Good___________________________________Active
“I’m OK – You’re OK”
Bad___________________________________Active
Fagin’s School – Oliver Twist
Neutral________________________________Active
“As the twig is bent so grows the tree”
Neutral________________________________Passive
Grass doesn’t grow on a busy street
Neutral__________________________________Interactive
SMILE: Simultaneous, Mutual Interaction between the Learner and Environment
The views held by teachers on this issue influences how they function in the classroom. It influences their views about
classroom management and discipline. Before attempting to move ahead in developing a classroom management and
discipline program educators need to strive to reach consensus on the question of: What is the basic nature of humankind?
Certainly with the current public debate casting advocates of Darwin based human evolution against proponents of
Intelligent Design the question is relevant.
Ipsi dixit
Lawrence P Creedon
http://www.larrycreedon.info
Arlington, VA
September 2005