Discipline in the classroom using withdraw designs

Introduction

Discipline refers to the practice of training people to obey rules or a given code of behavior. Normally   punishment is used to correct disobedience.    It is also viewed as ways to Train (someone) to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience. School discipline refers to the regulation given to children and the efforts to maintain order in schools by laying down rules.   This term is also used to refer to the punishment that is a consequence of violating or contravening the behavior code laid down.

Different ways have been put forward as ways of ensuring discipline in classroom, many scholars have put forward strategies that are deemed as effective in ensuring discipline in classroom. This is so because discipline problem has been cited as a major concern for most teachers and tutors.  The biggest challenge in discipline management is more so because strategies that seem to work with a specific group may not be equally effective with another (Cooper et. al, 1987). Early approaches to classroom management were primarily punitive , e.g. one of the first school house in USA was equipped with a whipping post (Manning, 1959) and throughout the history of mankind, all sorts of techniques have been used to inflict both physical and psychological punishment on students as a means of keeping order in the classroom. However though remnants of punitive and primitive time still linger in some schools, most contemporary methods of maintaining classroom discipline are more humane and positive (Pazulinec et al, 1983). Withdraw design is one of a disciplinary intervention. As a practical issue, successful classroom management requires more than creating appropriate physical settings and managing the class, it also includes establishment of working personal relationships with students.   According to Everton & Weinstein, classroom management is not an end itself but a means for both creating and maintaining a learning environment that will give optimum results.

According to Green (1938) classrooms are communicative environment i.e. the relationship between the teachers and students are asymmetrical and that the communicative participation affects students achievement.

The contexts are construed during the interactions, e.g. behavior expectations are construed part of the interactions. He also argued that the meaning of context is specific and that the meaning is signaled verbally and nonverbally.

Historical founders of need to have classroom management in order to ensure discipline such as William Chandler Bagley (1907), argued that the idea is to transform the child from a savage to a creature of law and order, he argued that since a school is supposed to prepare a child for life in the civilized society, unnecessarily anxiety inducing or punitive ways are inappropriate as well as excessively competition oriented methods that make students selfish or even antisocial. He argued that by distinguishing routine factors such as disorder, irregular attendance and judgmental factors such inattention, cheating and slow learning then the issue of discipline can be effectively handled.

Withdraw design has grown both in terms of its use and effectiveness.    In the use of these corrections techniques, the child must connect the privilege withdrawal with the behavior being discouraged.  Withdraw techniques however work more efficiently if they are a part of a pre-agreed behavior management strategy decided unanimously among the parties, consistency in its use also make the correction method more efficient. Putting this expectation in writing is also very helpful in ensuring that the withdrawal techniques are efficient, this is more so if these are written by the group and conspicuously displayed in the class.

Methods of withdraw design techniques

Response cost

This involves loss of a specified amount of reinforcement, contingemt upon inappropriate behavior (cooper et.al.1987). The loss of reinforcers is generally in the form of conditioned rein forcers such as points, token or stars. An Incentive is like a pull that appeals to everyone, some incentives are so desirable that they can motivate behavior, for example a teacher can inform the class that anyone who comes late to class will lose the weekly pizza party. The fear of the child missing the delicious pizza will have them come early without any other motivation. Cooper however emphasized that response cost should only be implemented if it reduces the target behaviors (Pazulinec et.al 1983).

Time out

This is the withdrawal of an opportunity to earn positive reinforcement or loss of access to positive reinforcers for a specified period of time (Cooper et.al, 1987).  It involves denying the student access to all source of reinforcement such as teacher, peer attention, participation in ongoing activities for a specified period as a result of undesired behavior  whereas response cost involves the withdraw of a positive stimulus such as a token which is contingent upon the occurrence of the target behavior. Time out involves withholding the reinforcing consequence such as being involved in the class discussion for the day, being locked out of the class gymnasium and so on , time out can either be exclusionary ,  non exclusionary or seclusionary. Exclusionary time out involves the physical removal of the student from the ongoing activity , while non exclusionary involves sitting the student on the periphery to watch the behavior of the classmate without being involved in them, seclusionary is more restrictive and it involves sending the student out of the classroom completely.

Love withdraw style

This involves adult behavior refusal to speak or listen to the children, expression of

dislike or disappointment and threats to leave the child. Adults normally give a cold

shoulder to a child who practices inappropriate behavior.

Effectiveness of withdraw designs method in classroom discipline management

Time outs and response cost are very effective when used combined with other discipline intervention.   Withdraw design helps the teacher not to engage in power struggles with the students, physical punishment may put the teacher in a compromising situation in a scenario where the students become resistant, this can typically lead to escalation of situation which may lead to injury of both staff and student. With the withdrawal designs the teachers are in control and can properly contain the situation

According to Lee Canter the key technique in this withdraw design is catching students being good and giving them recognition and support when they behave appropriately and denying them something as a consequence of breaking the rules and thus it is very easy to apply. It is also timeless as it can be applied for most situations.

Disadvantages of using these designs

In withdraw design, most children conform for fear of punishment and thus if they find themselves in situations they think they will not be caught they are likely to engage in inappropriate behavior. Thus the motivations for appropriate behavior are external and conformations are only so as to avoid punishment.   In a classroom where the teacher uses these designs, students are often caught trying to play hide and seek with the teachers, mostly they will behave very appropriately when the teacher is around and will gladly practice whatever they feel they were not able to do behind the teachers back.    This is mostly followed by sense of achievement if one is not caught and a feeling of  I will do it  better next time if one is caught and this leads to continuous cycle of inappropriate behavior.

Withdraw design leads to fear in children and so produces an external motivation for appropriate behavior, this means that children will behave appropriately as long as there is the threat of them being abandoned or rejected or denied some privilege by the teacher.

Guidelines to effective use of withdraw designs

Obtain the permission of the parents or guardian before use of the designs , let them be informed of likely use of the method incase of inappropriate behavior of their children, written consent forms can be given to the parents or guardian during the admission of their students to the class.

Only use it alongside other component of behavior interventions.  These methods of discipline management have their limit and should not be used in isolation, they should form a component of an effective strategy behavior change and not the only one and it is upon the teacher to choose from the array of his behavior change strategy. Seclusionary time out for example should only be used when other restrictive interventions have been attempted and documented evidence show that they have been ineffective.

Do not engage in the power struggles with the students in class.   Use of force to make students adhere to the withdraw design should be avoided, when the situation goes physical the teacher should exercise prudence and plan of action should be in place to avoid injury to the teacher and the student.

Withdraw design should not be used excessively. Repeated application of these techniques just like any other method of discipline management would lead to ineffectiveness of the strategies, particular guidelines should be laid down on how these techniques are to be implemented depending with the age of the child and also the magnitude of the offence. This is more so for strict withdraw design like, seclusionary time out which should only be implemented where there is data supporting its effectiveness in reducing the inappropriate behavior.

Maintain a view of the student all times. Even when the students are placed in seclusion whether physically or emotionally, the teacher should always ensure a close observation of the student. This is more so because at that time of punishment students are more prone to engaging in other inappropriate behavior.

Maintain written records of withdraw design s used on each students.   Detailed report should be kept including the students name, date time and incident, other interventions tried should also be noted down.

Perform continuous assessment of effectiveness of withdraw design techniques in managing discipline in the classroom.   Continuous functionality of these designs should be performed to ensure their continuous effectiveness in reducing the inappropriate behavior.

Implementation of withdrawal designs in the classroom

Identify reinforcers   that are maintaining the undesired behavior.

Conduct a thorough functional assessment to identify the function of the (undesired) behavior. Behavior has two functions: to obtain something the student wants (e.g. teacher or peer attention), or to escape or avoid something he doesn't want (e.g.

undesired task).  If withdrawal techniques have either of these functions, it will not have the desired effect on behavior, e.g., If the student is able to escape an undesired academic activity by going to timeout, behavior resulting in timeout will continue.   Timeout also will not be effective if it provides an opportunity to engage in behavior that is self reinforcing.   In addition to withdrawal designs, plans should be in place to support desired replacement behaviors.

 Specify in advance if possible in writing the behaviors that will result in the application of withdrawal techniques.  Use less intrusive behavior reduction procedures first (i.e., differential reinforcement, extinction, verbal aversive, response cost before taking on strict withdrawal techniques like seclusionary time out.

Conclusion

Withdrawal designs can be used to ensure effective discipline in the classroom. The teacher should do a thorough functional analysis before implementing in order to determine the effectiveness of each method. Behavior analysis of each student should be carried out and the teacher should have written records of implemented behavior remedy for each student.

For more theory and case studies on: http://expertresearchers.blogspot.com/

 References

Gast, D. L., and Nelson, C. M. (1977). Legal and ethical considerations for the use of timeout in special education settings. Journal of Special Education, 11: pp. 457-467.

Iawata, B. A., & Bailey, J. S. (1974). Reward versus cost token system: An analysis of theeffects on students and teacher/ Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol  7,  pp 567-576.

Lannie A.L and McCurdy B.L. (2007). Preventing Disruptive Behavior in the Urban Classroom: Effects of the Good Behavior Game on Student and Teacher Behavior/ Education and Treatment Of Children, Vol. 30, No. 1: Pp 85-94.

Mace, F. C., Page, T. J., Ivancic, M. T., & O’Brien, S. (1986). Effectiveness of a brief time-out with and without contingent delay: A comparative analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 79–86.

 McLaren M.E and Nelson M.C. (2009).Using Functional Behavior Assessment to Develop Behavior Interventions for Students in Head Start/Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions Vol. 11(1): pp. 3-21

Reilly D. O (2005). Conduct disorder and behavioral parent training, research and practice, London. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Zabel, M. K. (1986). Time out use with behaviorally disordered students. Behavioral Disorders,  Vol 12, pp 15–21.