Discipline Reflection: Low-Control Model vs Assertive Model

There is a wide range of theory of models for maintaining classroom discipline, each with their pros and cons depending on the environment, culture, class size among other factors. In this discipline reflection essay, we compare Lee and Canter's assertive discipline model which is a highcontrol/intervening model with Kohn's constructivist's theory of creating a positive classroom through a guiding model.

The biggest difference between the two theories is that the assertive discipline is teacher-centric while Kohn's theory is student focus. Assertive discipline is a strategy created and asserted on the students by the teacher. The teacher first set the classroom rules at the beginning of term, then decides rewards for students who follow the rules and consequences for those who break the rules. The idea is that teachers oversee their classroom and can choose the rules, rewards and punishments that they deem are suitable for a calm and effective classroom. On the other hand, Kohn believes that classroom disciplinary policy should focus on student's learning and their motivation and promote a sense of community and positive environment in the classroom.

The main advantage of assertive discipline is that the teacher can feel calm and in control. Having a sense of control, the teacher can focus on teaching the class. For example, the teacher can find comfort that there are clear rules on how to discipline a student if he disobeys the rule. This gives teacher confidence, especially for new teacher or in a class of rowdy students. This contrasts Kohn's method where rules are discussed and agreed among the teachers and students. New teachers might feel uncertain and nervous starting a term in such a way as he does not know how the discussion will go with the students.

Assertive discipline is often easier to implement, especially for large classes or schools where a lot of material has to be covered in the curriculum with limited amount of time. For example, in Japanese public school where class size is large and teachers are under pressure to deliver a strict curriculum and to prepare students for the public examinations, it is useful for teachers to be the assertive and authoritative voice in the classroom. On the other hand, Kohn's constructive principle of involving students in all aspect and allow them to learn by experience could be time-consuming and might not be feasible when the system is rigid.

When having the time and support to implement properly, Kohn's method has valuable long-term benefit to the students. His method advocates going beyond the action that warrants discipline, but drill down into why the student misbehave. This way, the teacher does not just solve the temporary classroom disruption issue but is able to understand and help the student with the root cause of the behavior.

I remember in my primary school, one of the students often interruptted the teacher's lecture by making a funny comment or making loud noises with his chair or throwing erasers at other students. The teacher would punish his behavior by making him stand in the corner of the classroom. Following Kohn's theory, the teacher should consider that reason behind the boy's action could be attention seeking, in which case making him stand in the front would reward the behavior. Finding ways for the boy to connect with the teacher and the class to feed his need of attention will be beneficial to the class in the long run. Assertive discipline runs the risk of only solving the problem in the short term as it does not address the root cause of the behavior but only require students to follow the rules and be rewarded or break the rules and suffer the consequence.

The positive classroom environment promoted by Kohn is also valuable in developing life skills such as self-discipline, conflict management and independent thinking in students. Having students participating in the development of the rules can make students feel respected and valued. They learn self-discipline as the rules are not imposedon them by the teacher, rather, they are a form of essential agreement. In my children's IB school, students are asked to brainstorm and come up with factors that will enhance their learning. They then discussed their ideas and collectively choose three most important points as their classroom agreement. As a result, students are proud and happy with the rules and will make extra effort to oblige without needing the teacher to nudge or offer rewards. Under assertive discipline methods, student's motivation to follow the rules are based on the teacher's authority, the reward, and the punishment. These are external driven and in absence of these the students might not behave. For instance, if the teacher needs to leave the room unexpectedly, he might come back to a room of chaos as he was not there to assert the authority and to offer the reward and punishment.

Developing critical thinking and conflict management skills are crucial for students. Father of progressive education, John Dewey, believed that the purpose of education is not about knowledge transfer, but for students to learn to think critically so as to build a better society. Kohn's style of discipline can help develop such skills while assertive discipline tends to train students to be compliant and rule followers.

To conclude, I find Kohn's disciplinary theory very much aligned with my personal philosophy in education and discipline. I believe that education should focus on students, not teachers, not schools, not parents and not nations. The ultimate goal of classroom discipline is to provide an environment for all the students to learn and to grow, not just academically but also in their character, thinking skills and social skills. I support the ideology of IB and of Dewey that education is a force for a better world. IB's mission statement is 'to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect'. The classroom is the first place where students can learn mutual respect and understanding, not just by following the rules set by the teachers but by being part of the conversation.