Classroom

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/319178957
Classroom Discipline: Theory and Practice
Chapter · August 2017
CITATIONS READS
0 3,258
2 authors, including:
João Lopes
University of Minho
35 PUBLICATIONS 135 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Teacher Education View project
Learning and Memory [Aprendizagem e Memória] View project
All content following this page was uploaded by João Lopes on 10 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

Lopes, J., & Oliveira, C. (2017). Classroom discipline: Theory and practice. In J. P. Bakken (Ed.), Classrooms:
Academic content and behavior strategy instruction for students with and without disabilities (Vol. 2,
pp. 231-253). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
CHAPTER
CLASSROOM DISCIPLINE: THEORY AND PRACTICE
João Lopes1,* and Célia Oliveira2
1
University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
2
Lusófona University, Porto, Portugal
ABSTRACT
Classroom discipline is a complex issue and a key concern for teachers, school administrators,
students and parents. The issue also attracts significant attention from the public and from the
media. Researchers in fields such as psychology, economics, school administration and sociology
have provided numerous explanatory models of classroom discipline and behavior. In this article,
classroom discipline is presented in the framework of the broader concept of classroom teaching.
Several important but often-ignored causes of classroom discipline (e.g., the culture, and academic
achievement), as well as their likely consequences for students’ classroom behavior, are also
examined. Throughout the text, more effective and less effective methods of dealing with
classroom discipline are explored and discussed. General conclusions resulting from the revision
of the previous literature on classroom discipline are presented at the end of the chapter.
Keywords: classroom discipline; classroom management; teacher education; academic

achievement; instruction
INTRODUCTION
Classroom disruption is a major challenge faced by teachers (Simón & Alonso-

Tapia, 2016). Teachers direct a great deal of energy toward classroom disruption while
trying to reach their instructional goals (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000; Espelage & Lopes,
2013; Grayson & Alvarez, 2008). Classroom disruption is indeed often indicated as one
of the main causes of wasted classroom time (Tsouloupas, Carson, & Matthews, 2014)
and as a foremost reason for teachers’ emotional exhaustion (Carson, Plemmons,
Templin, & Weiss, 2011). This issue is also responsible for teacher turnover (Tsouloupas,
Carson, Matthews, Grawitch, & Barber, 2010), primarily in situations in which teachers
perceive high levels of disciplinary problems and poor administrative support (Kersaint,
Lewis, Potter, & Meisels, 2007). Rinke (2008), for instance, cites the following four
studies suggesting that student discipline (the opposite of student indiscipline) is an
“important predictor of teacher retention, commitment, and satisfaction” (p. 5): (1)
Haberman and Richards’ study (1990) suggests that teachers initially predicted that
underachievers would be their main classroom problem before teaching but later
considered student disruption as their main concern after teaching; (2) Ingersoll (2001)
*
School of Psychology - University of Minho: Campus de Gualtar 4710-057 Braga - Portugal
Email:joaols@psi.uminho.pt.
found that 18% of teacher movers and 30% of teacher leavers report indiscipline as the
main cause of their resignation; (3) Rosenholtz and Simpson (1990) showed that the
school-wide management of student behavior was significantly correlated with teachers’
commitment to the profession; (4) Smith and Smith (2006) found that school violence
was the main cause of attrition in the first five years of teaching. Notably, because
teachers may be exhausted from addressing classroom disruption and because teaching
time may be significantly affected by classroom disruption, students’ opportunities to
learn are likely decreased (Cothran, 2003; Sun, 2015).
Classroom discipline clearly is a complex issue that cannot be reduced to a
technical and/or scientific problem. Classroom discipline encompasses complex
interactions among teacher variables, student variables, school variables and societal
variables (e.g., general attitudes and values towards schooling). In fact, because
classroom discipline is structured around the parceling of power in a specific public space,
the issue becomes important politically and educationally (Buzzelli & Johnston, 2001;
Pane, Rocco, Miller, & Salmon, 2014). Thus, the specific link between school goals and
students’ compliance is subject to political and ideological interpretations. These different
interpretations are very clearly expressed in the classical division between a format of
classroom management (or schools) in which the power is teacher-centered versus a
classroom management format in which power is shared with the students (student-
centered perspectives) (Ding, Li, Li, & Kulm, 2010; Evrim, Gökçe, & Enisa, 2009; Lau
et al., 2006; Lewis, Romi, Qui, & Katz, 2005; Mullarkey, Recchia, Lee, Shin, & Lee,
2005; Psunder, 2005).
In general, classroom indiscipline (or misbehavior) can be thought of as the
behavior or behaviors that conflict with teaching (the primary vector1 of the class) and
that the teacher attempts to correct through his actions (Doyle, 1985, 1986). Classroom
discipline is therefore a breach of the management actions undertaken by the teacher to
enable student learning. Basically, classroom discipline refers to a set of teacher actions
that constitute organizational and management processes aimed at establishing classroom
order (routines, norms, procedures, etc.). Discipline, in turn, refers to the actions that the
teacher undertakes to end indiscipline and to restore order. It must be stressed, however,
that although students are by far the most frequent source of indiscipline (Kulinna,
Cothran, & Regualos, 2006), they are not the only source. The teacher or school staff may
also be a source of disruption (Doyle, 1980; Good & Brophy, 2000). Thus, the issue of
classroom discipline can be studied under a number of close designations such as
“classroom order”, “classroom misbehavior”, “classroom disruption”, “classroom
indiscipline”, or “classroom disorder”, just to name a few.
To discuss the myriad features involved in classroom discipline is beyond the
scope of any book chapter. Therefore, this article will review only certain relevant but
often overlooked issues related to classroom discipline.
Classroom discipline in the context of teaching
Classroom discipline is not a straightforward concept. The concept is even ill-

defined because it is prone to multiple and subjective interpretations (Espelage & Lopes,
1
According to Merrit (1982), the classroom activities contain vectors that once put in place “pull events and participants
along their course” (Doyle, 1986, p. 102)
2013). The concept of classroom indiscipline (the opposite of classroom discipline) seems
more easily definable but is seldom used in the international literature. Whether we
discuss discipline or indiscipline, it is useful to approach these concepts in the framework
of the general task of classroom teaching 2.
Classroom teaching involves at least two different but intertwined features of a
teacher’s classroom action: the first feature has to do with the teacher’s behaviors to
promote cognitive changes (i.e., learning) in students; the second feature creates the
organizational conditions that allow learning to occur.
Learning promotion is closely related to: (1) the knowledge of subject matter and
(2) how the teacher transmits the subject matter to the students. This feature of teaching,
as a whole, is usually known as “instruction”. However, the way in which a teacher
organizes the transmission of content is usually labeled “didactics” (the part of pedagogy
that addresses teaching methods). Notably, students learn as individuals, not as a group,
even if most classroom teaching assumes a whole-group format.
The second feature of classroom teaching has long been known in the literature as
classroom order (Doyle, 1986). According to Doyle (2006), “From an ecological
perspective, classroom management is about how order is established and maintained in
classroom environments” (p. 99). Ecological models view classrooms as behavioral
settings that can be divided into segments. Each segment is characterized by a specific
activity, by a specific arrangement of participants, by a specific format of participation,
etc., and has a specific vector or program of action (Doyle, 2006; Osher, Bear, Sprague,
& Doyle, 2010). From this perspective, the main management goal of the teacher is to
involve students in the specific programs of action during a class session and/or to create
in the students a sense of belonging to that particular class.
To fully understand the importance of classroom order with regard to student
learning, it is useful to conceptualize classrooms as micro-organizations in which
countless interactions occur during a class session. Classrooms are crowded places that
demand clear rules, procedures and routines so that instruction can take place
(Hochweber, Hosenfeld, & Klieme, 2014; Rogers & Mirra, 2014). Classroom order
therefore refers to the set of procedures that the teacher develops to maximize the time
devoted to instruction (Doyle, 1986).
Classroom order, unlike what one might think, is only indirectly linked to and is
conceptually independent of classroom disruption. The ultimate goal of classroom order
is to enable instruction. Classroom order is not a goal in itself, nor is it a way to correct
classroom disruption. Effective teachers have fewer classroom disciplinary problems not
because they are good at restoring discipline, but because they are good at establishing
classroom procedures that maximize time available for instruction. These teachers tend,
for instance, to keep up the lesson pace and to use the curriculum effectively to establish
order and to maximize students’ on-task behaviors. More effective teachers realize that a
lesson that is too fast or a two slow pace may negatively affect students’ focus on
classroom tasks. Thus, they adapt the lesson pace to a specific curriculum, to the students’
perceived knowledge, to the difficulty level of the subject being taught, etc.
2
The set of tasks conducted by teachers in the classroom has been labeled as “classroom organization and management” or
simply “classroom management” (Doyle, 1980, 1986; Evertson, Emmer, & Worsham, 2000; O'Leary, 1977; O'Neill &
Stephenson, 2012; Tauber, 2007; Thanasoulas, 2010)
In addition to mastering disciplinary contents, instruction/didactics and classroom

order, teachers must also accomplish another vital task in the classroom: to restore
classroom order when students’ misbehaviors threat the lesson flow (Emmer & Stough,
2001; Evertson & Emmer, 1982; Evertson et al., 2000; Freiberg, Templeton, & Helton,
2013; Kounin, 1977). Even the most effective teachers must occasionally address student
misbehavior. However, research has also long shown (e.g., Bagley, 1907; Doyle, 1980;
Kounin, 1977, 1983) that although there is not a significant difference in the way effective
and ineffective teachers address classroom indiscipline, there is a notable difference in
the way that effective and ineffective teachers manage the classroom. Specifically,
effective teachers focus on teaching/instruction, whereas less effective teachers easily
lose the lesson flow. Thus, the former maximize instructional time while the latter must
address interruptions and off-task behaviors, thereby losing instructional time and energy.
As Gore and Parkes (2007) eloquently state, “The literature has shown that a focus on
relevant, engaging and stimulating curriculum coupled with challenging, engaging and
supportive pedagogy…renders ‘management issues’ a far less troubling second place
consideration” (p. 3). Unsurprisingly, teacher stress and burnout are far more likely to
strike ineffective teachers (Curry & O'Brien, 2012; Košir, Tement, Licardo, & Habe,
2015; Ullrich, Lambert, & McCarthy, 2012).
In sum, it is useful to conceptualize classroom (in)discipline in the framework of
the overall task of classroom teaching or classroom management. Classroom
(in)discipline can be conceptualized as a failure or a breakdown in classroom order and
instruction. Theoretically, this means that when teachers focus on instruction (i.e.,
maintaining the lesson flow), they will have to address fewer disciplinary issues.
Causes of classroom indiscipline
Numerous models, theories and explanations have been developed regarding

classroom indiscipline/misbehavior (e.g.,(Hagenauer, Hascher, & Volet, 2015; Mitchell
& Bradshaw, 2013; Pane et al., 2014; Riley, Lewis, & Wang, 2012; Way, 2011), and the
issue extends beyond academic approaches by an array of scientific fields (e.g.,
psychology, sociology, education, politics, historical sciences, economics, social
psychiatry). Classroom indiscipline and violence in schools also receive attention from
the general public and from the media (Kupchik & Bracy, 2009; Mills & Keddie, 2010).
In a certain sense, every citizen has his or her own model of classroom indiscipline
because every citizen once was or still is a student in most countries.
Classroom indiscipline is as old as school itself, and a school without (at least
some) indiscipline is virtually nonexistent. As Osher et al. (2010) noted, “The holding
power of programs of action is, of course, always vulnerable to some degree, and
misbehavior (i.e., alternative vectors) is an ever-present possibility” (p.49). School
indiscipline has indeed been reported since ancient Greece and persists in contemporary
times. The difference is that in ancient Greece only a rather small number of citizens
received formal education, whereas formal schooling now reaches the entire population.
Moreover, modern technologies (e.g., cellphones) converted a semi-public space (the
classroom) into a real-time universal space, which can be perceived as threatening for a
significant number of teachers (Mohammad, Fayyoumi, & AlShathry, 2015; O'Bannon
& Thomas, 2014; O'Bannon & Thomas, 2015; Thomas, O'Bannon, & Britt, 2014).
Ecological models usually emphasize situation-specific factors that contribute to

occurrences in the classroom, including classroom indiscipline (Conroy, Sutherland,
Haydon, Stormont, & Harmon, 2009; Gresalfi, Barnes, & Cross, 2012; O'Donovan &
Kirk, 2007). A particular teacher establishes specific “scene coordinates” (Burnett, 1973),
with specific students and specific physical settings, therefore shaping idiosyncratic
student-teacher interactions. However, certain less proximal variables such as school
culture and certain distal variables such as societal (cultural) values or curriculum reforms
have a powerful but not easily perceived influence over teachers’ and students’ classroom
behaviors and interactions (Margutti & Piirainen-Marsh, 2011; Pane, 2010).
Examining every cause of classroom indiscipline is beyond the scope of this
chapter, and therefore, we have chosen to focus on a small but significant set of factors
that from our perspective have been unduly neglected in the explanation of classroom
indiscipline. Specifically, we will first explore the relation between culture (a distal
factor) and classroom discipline. We will then examine the relation between teacher
education programs in the area of classroom management (a more proximal factor) and
classroom discipline. Finally, we will address the critical importance of academic
achievement (a proximal factor) to classroom discipline.
Culture and classroom (in)discipline
Certain studies (e.g., Lewis et al., 2005; Biggs, 1998) have suggested that culture
plays a relevant role in the greater or lesser degree of average discipline found in schools
and classrooms in countries with diverse traditions and cultures. These studies note that
in Far Eastern countries such as China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan,
Singapore, etc., the lower levels of indiscipline can be fundamentally explained by a
culture that values collectivism over individualism. Biggs (1998) suggests that this
phenomenon occurs even if the average number of students per class is much higher
(between 38 and 50 pupils, with elite schools reaching 60 pupils) than in Western
countries. Biggs explains that these countries share a Confucian-based cultural heritage
(CHC) in which the group is valued over the individuals. Students’ task-oriented
behaviors and compliance with the teacher are therefore much more likely in CHC
countries than in countries in which individualism and personal assertiveness are valued.
When Stigler and Herbert (1999) compared how Japanese, German and American
teachers organize their teaching, the study found that intragroup differences are much
smaller than intergroup differences, meaning that although there are competent and
incompetent teachers in any of these groups, teachers from the same culture tend to
replicate a similar model of action. According to Stigler and Herbert (1999), this finding
can be explained by the fact that classroom teaching is a “cultural script” (as much as a
family dinner) basically learned through modeling, neither born with us nor learned by
direct instruction. Along the same line of thought, Alexander (2005) suggested that
societal values such as individualism, community and collectivism significantly influence
social relationships and, consequently, the interpersonal relations in schools.
Chiu and Chow (2011) discussed the likely implications of cultural values in
teaching, taking into account four different social aspects (formulated by Hofstede, 2003)3
3
Hofsted (2003) shows how the culture models values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations.
as follows: (a) the induction of responsible individual behaviors to keep the social fabric
active. According to Chiu and Chow (2011),individual social responsibility is prompted
in some countries by instilling obedience to authority and social hierarchy (e.g., Russia),
and in other countries by valuing democratic relations between people; (b) individual
interests versus group interests. There are essentially collectivist societies (e.g., Hong
Kong) that value the interests of the group, and others that predominantly emphasize the
individual (e.g., New Zealand); (c) the role of men and women. Some societies have rigid
gender roles (e.g., Austria) whereas others are liberal (e.g., Denmark); (d) attitudes
towards risk and change. Some societies avoid risk and uncertainty (e.g., Portugal), while
others live well with risk and uncertainty (e.g., Ireland) (Chiu and Chow, 2011).
One research trend suggests that classrooms in several countries in the Far East
are more structured and orderly than most classrooms in Western societies and that
academic results are higher in Far Eastern countries despite the large number of students
per class (Chiu & Khoo, 2003; Dekker & Fischer, 2008). Other studies indicate that the
relation between culture and classroom order is complex and can be mediated by a variety
of factors. Lewis et al. (2005), for instance, found that Chinese teachers have less
classroom misbehavior than Israeli and Australian teachers because Chinese educators
are more inclusive, more supportive, less punitive, and less aggressive than their Israeli
and Australian fellows, a contradiction in what westerners would expect to find in
Chinese classrooms. Chiu and Chow (2011), using data from PISA (OECD, 2002), found
that cultural values related to social hierarchy, collectivism and risk avoidance are not
related to the discipline reported in the classroom but rather that cultural values such as
gender and social equality are related.
Classroom discipline variations from country to country appear to be more
qualitative than quantitative (Lopes & Santos, 2013). In some countries (e.g., Portugal),
although a significant number of teachers may be subject to stress and burnout, serious
reported acts of disruption or violence are rare (Lopes, 2009; Lopes &Santos, 2008).
Aggression with weapons in schools, for instance, is extremely rare, with virtually no
reported cases of assaults with firearms. Safety in Portuguese schools and classrooms
seems favorable when compared to most European countries or the United States, a
country where each year more than 5,000 children and adolescents die as a result of
attacks, although a significant proportion of these offenses occur outside of schools
(Gottfredson, 2001).
If teachers’ stress in countries with lower levels of classroom disruption does not
stem from high-impact/low-incidence behaviors (e.g., murder, armed robbery, or various
types of physical harm), teachers’ stress and burnout are more likely related to low-
impact/high-incidence classroom behaviors (e.g., disobeying, not collaborating on tasks,
mocking the teacher). Low-impact/high-incidence classroom behaviors have the potential
to burn out a significant number of teachers (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000; Kyriacou &
Martín, 2010).
The impact of culture (lato sensu) in teachers’ and students’ classroom behavior
may be mediated by a closer form of culture, the school culture, a concept that is often
used interchangeably with school climate or with school ethos (Allder, 1993; Glover &
Coleman, 2005; McLaughlin, 2005). Glover and Coleman (2005) suggest that it is useful
to use the term school climate when objective data are available, ethos when data are
more subjective and culture as an integrative form of both terms.
The culture of a specific school emanates from the broad cultural context but is,
at least in part, strictly idiosyncratic (Forsberg, Hortlund, & Malmberg, 2016; Hoadley &
Galant, 2016; Seashore Louis & Lee, 2016). As Glover and Coleman (2005) suggest,
“There is general recognition that each school, indeed each institution, has its own unique
culture, although this culture will be influenced by the context of the wider culture of the
society in which the institution sits” (p. 253).
The cultural perspective in schools has been related to the advances of research
on school effectiveness, school improvement and teachers’ professional development,
among other features (Cherubini, 2009; Scheerens, 2000). Authors have long stressed the
critical importance of the socialization process into the school culture of beginning
teachers. Ryan (1986), for instance, suggests that after the first five weeks of teaching,
beginning teachers face a “curve of disenchantment" (p.8) and often perceive their teacher
education programs of little use for classroom practice. In addition, beginning teachers
and experienced teachers who move from school to school must adapt to the culture of
specific schools. For some teachers, this movement represents a difficult process during
which they must shape their beliefs, attitudes, academic background, previous
experiences, etc., to what is expected from teachers in each particular context
(Grosemans, Boon, Verclairen, Dochy, & Kyndt, 2015; Seashore Louis & Lee, 2016).
Wong and Zhang (2014) found that kindergarten teachers who perceive their school
culture as more positive tend to show higher levels of self-esteem and job satisfaction and
fewer mental health complaints.
In sum, culture exerts an invisible but powerful influence over student and teacher
behavior. This influence may even frustrate the effects of continuous teacher training,
mainly in areas such as classroom discipline, in which teachers’ expectations and beliefs
about classroom order, the distribution of power, etc., may be a stronger influence than
professional teacher training.
Teacher education and classroom (in)discipline
Classroom teaching is a rather challenging task. Unlike tutorial teaching, group

teaching is highly demanding because of student-teacher interactions and classroom
behavior management (Aus, Jõgi, Poom-Valickis, Eisenschmidt, & Kikas, 2016; O'Neill,
2016). Moreover, it is not unusual to find at least some students in every classroom who
are more motivated to disrupt the lesson than to comply with the teacher (Seidman, 2005;
Sun, 2015). Therefore, it is not sufficient for teachers to master academic contents; in
addition, they must ensure order and protect teaching time from disruption. As van
Tartwijk, Veldman, and Verloop (2011) noted, “Effective instructional strategies and
good classroom curriculum design are built on the foundation of effective classroom
management, because learning is much more difficult, if not impossible, in a disorderly
environment” (p. 109).
Classroom management has been considered an essential skill by both teachers
and school administrators (O'Neill, 2016; Stoughton, 2007) and a basic dimension of the
quality of classroom instruction (Scheerens & Blömeke, 2016). A significant number of
studies show that most teachers express the need for additional training in classroom
behavior management (e.g., (Hemmeter, Corso, & Cheatham, 2006; Hemmeter, Santos,
& Ostrosky, 2008). Although classroom order and classroom misbehavior are major
concerns for most teachers, particularly beginning teachers, the research on classroom
management is scarce. In many countries, teacher education programs do not provide
specific courses on classroom management (Wubbels, 2011). Stough (2006) found that
in the United States, only 30% of teacher education programs offer courses related to
classroom management. Moreover, these courses had unclear names such as “Creating
community in the classroom” or “Curriculum and management” (Wubbels, 2011).
O’Neill and Stevenson (2012) reviewed a number of studies that show that classroom
management is an occasional topic in teacher education programs. Landau (2001)
reviewed 20 teacher education programs in the United States and found that only one had
a course with the explicit name of “Classroom Management”. Gore and Parkes (2007)
found that approximately half of the teacher education programs they reviewed in
Australia had a discrete unit about the subject. Oliveira and Lopes (2015), in a study of
3,900 teachers for 1st through 12th grade in Portugal, found that 60% of the participants
received no continuous professional development training on the topics of classroom
discipline or classroom management and that only 12% received more than 25 hours of
any training on this topic. Taking into account that approximately 50% of the sample had
more than 20 years of professional experience, it becomes evident that classroom
discipline and/or classroom management are not priorities for continuous professional
development training. Interestingly, in a study by Ben-Peretz, Eilam, and Landler-Pardo
(2011), Israeli teachers suggest that information they have learned in their teacher
education programs is not particularly useful in their everyday life in classrooms.
Van Tartwijk and Hammerness (2011), commenting on the papers published in a
special edition of Teaching Education dedicated to classroom management in teacher
education programs, state that the papers confirm that classroom management is a
neglected topic in teacher education programs worldwide, although classroom order and
classroom misbehavior are major concerns for teachers in nearly every country. In that
same issue of Teaching Education, Wubbels (2011) asserts that “…there are small
differences in emphasis between countries or cultures, but probably a larger variation
occurs within countries or among people with similar ethnic backgrounds” (p. 127).
Van Tartwijk and Hammerness (2011) suggest that when teachers enrolled in
classroom management courses perceive that the courses are neither concrete nor
practical, they feel ill-prepared in that area. However, the authors also found from their
own experience in the teacher education program at the Leiden University Graduate
School of Teaching that when classroom management contents are linked to real
classroom issues, teachers feel much more confident concerning their ability to address
classroom order and disorder. Christophersen, Elstad, Turmo, and Solhaug (2016) reach
a similar conclusion. These authors suggest that in Norway, teacher education programs
at the university level (highly focused in academic subject courses) do not provide as
many teaching skills in classroom management as university programs (more focused in
practical classroom skills) and that students from teacher education university programs
also show higher dropout rates than students from other teacher education programs. In
addition, at least one study by Reynolds, Howley, Southgate, & Brown (2016) showed
that the quality of the classroom mentor is more important than the number of hours of
practical pre-service teacher training.
In sum, classroom management, although widely recognized as a critical skill for
teachers, is scarcely examined and scarcely addressed in teacher education programs.
This finding is troubling because classroom management is an integral part of teachers’

classroom action. Nevertheless, it seems wise to note that classroom management can
hardly be separated from didactics. Some authors (e.g., Gore & Parks, 2007) even
consider that effective classroom management is a consequence rather than a precondition
of effective didactics. Successful teachers focus their actions on the engagement of
students in class contents, not on the systematic amendment of students’ misbehavior,
therefore maximizing teaching and learning time and preventing classroom misbehavior
from occurring.
Academic achievement and classroom (in)discipline
“Classroom management becomes the gatekeeper to student learning by either

supporting a consistent and predictable classroom or allowing a disruptive, chaotic, and
random learning environment to occur” (p. 79). This statement by Freiberg, Huzinec &
Templeton (2009) clearly summarizes the relation between classroom management,
disruptive classroom behaviors and students’ academic achievement. Doyle (1986)
referred to this complex relation as a “delicate balance” between classroom management
and classroom work. When students are required to develop high-level cognitive and
demanding classroom work, the likelihood of misbehavior increases (Espelage & Lopes,
2013). It may therefore be difficult for teachers to decide whether it is better to load
students with harder work (increasing the likelihood of misbehavior) or to lower academic
work demands (decreasing the likelihood of misbehavior but eventually limiting student
learning). Doyle (1986) notes, “Issues such as these suggest that management studies that
ignore content can be misleading, and instructional design studies that ignore
management can miss an essential dimension related to the practical use of designs” (p.
111). This complex issue often requires teachers to make systematic decisions at a
moment’s notice.
Taking into account that classroom management, classroom work and classroom
discipline are inextricably linked, teachers must develop an accurate sense of what is best
for the class in every moment. Research suggests that student learning must not be
sacrificed by the need for classroom order or classroom management. Conversely,
teachers must be aware that without a certain level of classroom order, student learning
will suffer (Martinez, McMahon, Coker, & Keys, 2016; Närhi, Kiiski, Peitso, &
Savolainen, 2015).
Given that student learning is the ultimate goal of teacher actions, classroom
management must be considered as an instrument for student learning and not an end in
and of itself. As Witt, VanDerHeyden, and Gilbertson (2004) note, “If children cannot
perform expected work, if there is a lack of consequences for doing or not doing academic
work, and/or if the teacher is not competent to teach the subject matter, then there is no
behavior management program in existence that can produce enduring behavior change
in such classroom” (p. 427). Although some teachers are effective classroom managers,
their students’ commitment and academic achievement are low. Instead, an effective
teacher ensures that the lesson is the main vector of action (Doyle, 1986) of the class,
preventing other vectors of action (that contend with the lesson) to occur. Classroom
misbehavior is the most likely of these undesirable vectors of action in classes in which
the teacher has difficulty keeping the primary vector (the lesson) active (Lopes & Santos,
2013).
Perhaps the most striking evidence in the relation between academic achievement
and classroom (in)discipline is that the majority of defiant classroom behavior is carried
out by low-achieving students (Gottfredson, 2001; Way, 2011). High-achieving students
only occasionally misbehave; unlike low achievers, their eventual misbehavior tends to
occur during classroom transitions, not during the lesson because they do not intend to
interrupt the lesson, which underachievers often do (Lopes, Monteiro, Sil, Rutherford, &
Quinn, 2004). This pattern has even been found in college and university students
(Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1986; Seidman, 2005; Warren et al., 2006). As a consequence,
academic underachievers increasingly miss out on learning opportunities, potentially
worsening their behavioral and academic performance (Gottfredson, 2001; Myers, Baker,
Milne, & Ginsburg, 1987; Way, 2011).
A critical factor for intervening in classroom misbehavior is the question of
whether misbehavior causes learning problems or whether learning problems lead to
classroom misbehavior. Although there is no single answer, it is possible to identify
several broad trends in a relation that often appears to be bi-directional.
Research suggests that the majority of students enter 1st grade strongly committed
to learn. However, the motivation to learn typically decreases throughout schooling and
decreases much more sharply for students who exhibit early school failure (Borkowski,
1994; Covington, 1992; Hidi, 2006; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Stipeck, 1984;
Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). Research has also shown that the gap
between school underachievers and their peers tends to systematically deepen throughout
schooling (Bast & Reitsma, 1998; Juel, 1988; Stanovich, 1986). The growing disaffection
of underachievers significantly increases the likelihood of classroom misbehaviors and
disruption. This process reduces the opportunity to learn and again increases the
likelihood of classroom misbehavior, disciplinary referrals, grade retention, learned
helplessness, etc., in a seemingly endless cycle (Seligman, 1975). Gunter, Denny, Jack,
Shores, and Nelson (1993); Gunter and Coutinho (1997) labeled this process involving
the relation of the underachieving student with the teacher, peers, and himself as a
“negative reinforcement cycle”.
A number of students exhibit defiant and/or aggressive behavior once they enter
st
1 grade. These behaviors almost inevitably impair academic achievement. Yet these
academic paths are far less common than an academic path marked by early experiences
of academic failure, followed by misbehavior and classroom disruption (and sometimes
by mood depression) (Casillas et al., 2012; Lucio, Hunt, & Bornovalova, 2012; Raftery-
Helmer & Grolnick, 2016). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that for some underachievers,
behavioral interventions should come first; however, for most underachievers who
misbehave, educators must first address these students’ learning problems.
Overall, academic achievement is critical for encouraging appropriate student
classroom behavior. Ignoring the long-term negative impact of academic
underachievement on student behavior may be problematic for teachers. Interestingly,
classroom misbehavior may become a type of self-fulfilling prophecy if student defiance
increases in response to teacher action. In those circumstances, punishing misbehavior
may be worthless. Although early and direct intervention in student learning problems
requires time and energy, this approach is more promising than simply trying to control
misbehavior. Indeed, each student develops specific relations with the academic tasks
(broadly speaking) throughout the school years. These particular relations fuel and
explain the majority of students’ classroom behavior. Any intervention aimed at changing
the classroom behavior of specific students must therefore take academic achievement
into account.
CONCLUSION
Five main ideas can be drawn from the literature regarding classroom
(in)discipline:
(1) The concept of classroom (in)discipline is not used in the same way from
country to country and is used interchangeably with a number of other related
concepts (e.g., classroom disruption, classroom misbehavior).
(2) Classroom (in)indiscipline is a major concern for teachers worldwide and
contributes significantly to teacher stress, burnout, leaving the profession (at
least in some countries), wasted classroom time, etc.
(3) Classroom misbehavior “is predictable and preventable” (Landrum, Lingo, &
Scott, 2011). Providing effective instruction is likely the single best way to
prevent classroom misbehavior, to increase students’ on-task behavior, to
enhance students’ commitment and to assure students’ collaboration with the
teacher. Research (e.g.,(Hattie, 2009; Marzano, Marzano, & Pickering, 2003)
suggests that there are many effective teaching methods that increase student
commitment while avoiding indiscipline, but that other methods are quite
ineffective.
(4) To provide effective instruction and to effectively address misbehavior
whenever it occurs, teachers must accurately identify the cause(s) of
classroom misbehavior, whether it is individual or collective. Teachers must
also be aware that there are causes for students’ misbehavior that are
manageable by the teacher and that other causes are out of teachers’ control.
Only the former can be approached in the short term, that is, in the classroom;
the latter must be approached elsewhere.
(5) It is not possible to eliminate classroom (in)discipline. Even the best teachers
must occasionally address episodes of indiscipline. However, it is possible in
most circumstances to prevent indiscipline from occurring or from becoming
the primary vector of the class.
REFERENCES
Alexander, R. (2005). Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy.

Keynote for the International Association for Cognitive Education and
Psychology (IACEP) 10th International Conference: University of Durham.
Allder, M. (1993). The Meaning of ‘School Ethos’. Westminster Studies in Education,
16(1), 59-69. doi: 10.1080/0140672930160109
Aus, K., Jõgi, A. L., Poom-Valickis, K., Eisenschmidt, E., & Kikas, E. (2016).
Associations of newly qualified teachers’ beliefs with classroom management
practices and approaches to instruction over one school year. European Journal
of Teacher Education, 1-18. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2016.1251897
Bagley, W. C. (1907). Classroom management: Its principles and technique. New York:
MacMillan.
Bast, J., & Reitsma, P. (1998). Analyzing the Development of Individual Differences in
Terms of Matthew Effects in Reading: Results From a Dutch Longitudinal Study.
Developmental Psychology, 34(6), 1373-1399.
Ben-Peretz, M., Eilam, B., & Landler-Pardo, G. (2011). Teacher education for classroom
management in Israel: Structures and orientations. Teaching Education, 22(2),
133-150. doi: 10.1080/10476210.2011.567842
Borkowski, J. G., & Thorpe, P. K. (1994). Self-regulation and motivation: A life-span
perspective on underachievement. In D. C. Schunck, & B. Zimmerman (Ed.), Self-
regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp.
45-73). Hillsdale: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived
self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16,
239-253.
Burnett, J. H. (1973). . Event description and analysis in the microethnography of urban
classrooms. In F. A. J. Lanni & E. Storey (Eds.), Cultural relevance and
educational issues: Readings in anthropology and education. Boston: Little,
Brown.
Buzzelli, C., & Johnston, B. (2001). Authority, power, and morality in classroom
discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(8), 873-884.
Carson, R. L., Plemmons, S., Templin, T. J., & Weiss, H. M. (2011). "You are who you
are:" A mixed-method study of affectivity and emotion regulation in curbing
teacher burnout. In G. M. Reeve & E. Frydenberg (Eds.), Personality, stress and
coping. Implications for education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Casillas, A., Robbins, S., Allen, J., Kuo, Y. L., Hanson, M. A., & Schmeiser, C. (2012).
Predicting Early Academic Failure in High School From Prior Academic
Achievement, Psychosocial Characteristics, and Behavior. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104(2), 407-420. doi: 10.1037/a0027180
Cherubini, L. (2009). Reconciling the tensions of new teachers' socialisation into school
culture: A review of the research. Issues in Educational Research, 19(2), 83-99.
Chiu, M. M., & Chow, B. W. Y. (2011). Classroom discipline across forty-one countries:
School, economic, and cultural differences. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 42(3), 516-533.
Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2003). Rudeness and status effects during group problem
solving: do they bias evaluations and reduce the likelihood of correct solutions?
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 506-523. doi: 10.1037/0022-
0663.95.3.506
Christophersen, K. A., Elstad, E., Turmo, A., & Solhaug, T. (2016). Teacher Education
Programmes and Their Contribution to Student Teacher Efficacy in Classroom
Management and Pupil Engagement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 60(2), 240-254. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2015.1024162
Conroy, M., Sutherland, K., Haydon, T., Stormont, M., & Harmon, J. (2009). Preventing
and ameliorating young children's chronic problem behaviors: An ecological
classroom-based approach. Psychology in the Schools, 46(1), 3-17. doi:
10.1002/pits.20350
Cothran, D. J., Kulinna, P. H. & Garrahy, D. A. (2003). “This is kind of giving a secret
away...": students' perspectives on effective class management. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 19, 435-444.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and
school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Curry, J. R., & O'Brien, E. R. (2012). Shifting to a wellness paradigm in teacher
education: A promising practice for fostering teacher stress reduction, burnout
resilience, and promoting retention. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry,
14(3), 178-191. doi: 10.1891/1559-4343.14.3.178
Dekker, S., & Fischer, R. (2008). Cultural differences in academic motivation goals: A
meta-analysis across 13 societies. Journal of Educational Research, 102(2), 99-
110. doi: 10.3200/JOER.102.2.99-110
Ding, M., Li, Y., Li, X., & Kulm, G. (2010). Chinese teachers' attributions and coping
strategies for student classroom misbehaviour. Asia Pacific Journal of Education,
30(3), 321-337. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2010.495832
Doyle, W. (1980). Classroom management. West Lafayette: Kappa Delta Pi.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392-431). New York: Mcmillan.
Doyle, W. (2006). Ecological approaches to classroom management. In C. Evertson & C.
Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and
contemporary issues (pp. 97–125). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of
educational pscyhology, with implications for teacher education. Educational
Psychologist, 36(2), 103-112. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3602_5
Espelage, D., & Lopes, J. (2013). Indisciplina na escola [Indiscipline in the school].
Lisboa: Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos.
Evertson, C., & Emmer, E. T. (1982). Effective management at the beginning of the year
in junior high classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 485-498.
Evertson, C., Emmer, E. T., & Worsham, M. E. (2000). Classroom management for
elementary teachers (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Evrim, E. A., Gökçe, K., & Enisa, M. (2009). Exploring the relationship between teacher
beliefs and styles on classroom management in relation to actual teaching
practices: a case study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 612-617.
Forsberg, E., Hortlund, T., & Malmberg, K. (2016). The assessment culture of school
leadership. Nordic Studies in Education, 36(2), 141-158. doi: 10.18261/issn.1891-
5949-2016-02-05
Freiberg, J. H., Templeton, S. M., & Helton, S. (2013) Classroom management: A
pathway to improving school climate in two British secondary schools. Vol. 18.
Advances in Research on Teaching (pp. 203-225).
Glover, D., & Coleman, M. (2005). School culture, climate and ethos: interchangeable or
distinctive concepts? Journal of In-Service Education, 31(2), 251-272. doi:
10.1080/13674580500200278
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2000). Looking in classrooms. New York: Longman.
Gore, J. M., & Parkes, R. J. (2007). On the mistreatment of management. In A. Phelan &
J. Sumsion (Eds.), Critical reading in teacher education (pp. 1-16). New York,
NY: Sense Publishing.
Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Schools and delinquency. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Grayson, J. L., & Alvarez, H. K. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher
burnout. A mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International
Journal of Research and Studies, 24(5), 1349-1363. doi:
:10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.005
Gresalfi, M. S., Barnes, J., & Cross, D. (2012). When does an opportunity become an
opportunity? Unpacking classroom practice through the lens of ecological
psychology. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1-2), 249-267. doi:
10.1007/s10649-011-9367-5
Grosemans, I., Boon, A., Verclairen, C., Dochy, F., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Informal learning
of primary school teachers: Considering the role of teaching experience and
school culture. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 151-161. doi:
10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.011
Gunter, P., Denny, R. K., Jack, S., Shores, R. E., & Nelson, C. M. (1993). Aversive
stimuli in academic interactions between students with serious emotional
disturbance and their teachers. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 265-274.
Gunter, P. L., & Coutinho, M. J. (1997). Negative reinforcement in classrooms: What
we’re beginning to learn. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 249–264.
Hagenauer, G., Hascher, T., & Volet, S. E. (2015). Teacher emotions in the classroom:
associations with students’ engagement, classroom discipline and the
interpersonal teacher-student relationship. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 30(4), 385-403. doi: 10.1007/s10212-015-0250-0
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating
to achievement. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Hemmeter, M. L., Corso, R., & Cheatham (2006). [Issues in addressing challenging
behaviors in young children: A national survey of early childhood educators].
Hemmeter, M. L., Santos, R. M., & Ostrosky, M. M. (2008). Preparing early childhood
educators to address young children’s social-emotional development and
challenging behavior. Journal of Early Intervention, 30, 321-340. doi:
10.1177/1053815108320900
Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review,
1(2), 69-82.
Hoadley, U., & Galant, J. (2016). Specialization and school organization: investigating
pedagogic culture. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(8), 1187-1210.
doi: 10.1080/01425692.2015.1042149
Hochweber, J., Hosenfeld, I., & Klieme, E. (2014). Classroom composition, classroom
management, and the relationship between student attributes and grades. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 289-300. doi: 10.1037/a0033829
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Comparing values, behaviors, institutions,
and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of

schools. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of fifty-four children
from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
Kersaint, G., Lewis, J., Potter, R., & Meisels, G. (2007). Why teachers leave: Factors that
influence retention and resignation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 775-
794. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.12.004
Košir, K., Tement, S., Licardo, M., & Habe, K. (2015). Two sides of the same coin? The
role of rumination and reflection in elementary school teachers' classroom stress
and burnout. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 131-141. doi:
10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.006
Kounin, J. (1977). Discipline and group management. New York: Robert E. Krieger.
Kounin, J. S. (1983). Classrooms: Individuals or behavior settings? Bloomington: Indiana
University, School of Education.
Kulinna, P. H., Cothran, D. J., & Regualos, R. (2006). Teachers' reports of student
misbehavior in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
77(1), 32-40.
Kupchik, A., & Bracy, N. L. (2009). The news media on school crime and violence:
Constructing dangerousness and fueling fear. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 7(2), 136-155. doi: 10.1177/1541204008328800
Kyriacou, C., & Martín, J. L. O. (2010). Beginning secondary school teachers' perceptions
of pupil misbehaviour in Spain. Teacher Development, 14(4), 415-426. doi:
10.1080/13664530.2010.533481
Landau, B. E. (2001). Teaching classroom management: A stand-alone necessity for
preparing new teachers. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Landrum, T. J., Lingo, A. S., & Scott, T. M. (2011). Classroom misbehavior is predictable
and preventable. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 30-34.
Lau, M. Y., Sieler, J. D., Muyskens, P., Canter, A., Vankeuren, B., & Marston, D. (2006).
Perspectives on the use of the problem-solving model from the viewpoint of a
school administrator, and teacher from a large midwest urban school district
Psychology in the Schools, 43, 117-127. doi: 10.1002/pits.20135
Lewis, R., Romi, S., Qui, X., & Katz, Y. J. (2005). Teachers' classroom discipline and
student misbehavior in Australia, China and Israel. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21(6), 729-741. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.008
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an Enabler for Academic
Success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313-327.
Lopes, J., & Santos, M. (2013). Teachers’ beliefs, teachers’ goals and teachers’ classroom
management: A study with primary teachers. Revista de Psicodidáctica / Journal
of Psychodidactics, 18(1), 5-24. doi: 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.4615
Lopes, J. A., Monteiro, I., Sil, V., Rutherford, R. B., & Quinn, M. M. (2004). Teachers'
perceptions about teaching problem students in regular classrooms. Education and
Treatment of Children, 27(4), 394-419.
Lucio, R., Hunt, E., & Bornovalova, M. (2012). Identifying the necessary and sufficient
number of risk factors for predicting academic failure. Developmental
Psychology, 48(2), 422-428. doi: 10.1037/a0025939
Margutti, P., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2011). The interactional management of discipline
and morality in the classroom: An introduction. Linguistics and Education, 22(4),
305-309.
Martinez, A., McMahon, S. D., Coker, C., & Keys, C. B. (2016). TEACHER
BEHAVIORAL PRACTICES: RELATIONS TO STUDENT RISK
BEHAVIORS, LEARNING BARRIERS, AND SCHOOL CLIMATE.
Psychology in the Schools, 53(8), 817-830. doi: 10.1002/pits.21946
Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. J. (2003). Classroom management that
works. Research-based strategies for every teacher (Vol. Association for
Supervision and Development): Alexandria, VA.
McLaughlin, T. (2005). The educative importance of Ethos British Journal of
Educational Studies, 53(3), 306-325. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00297.x
Mills, M., & Keddie, A. (2010). Cultural reductionism and the media: Polarising
discourses around schools, violence and masculinity in an age of terror. Oxford
Review of Education, 36(4), 427-444. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2010.494449
Mitchell, M. M., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Examining classroom influences on student
perceptions of school climate: The role of classroom management and
exclusionary discipline strategies. Journal of School Psychology, 51(5), 599-610.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2013.05.005
Mohammad, H., Fayyoumi, A., & AlShathry, O. (2015). Do we have to prohibit the use
of mobile phones in classrooms? International Journal of Interactive Mobile
Technologies, 9(2), 54-57. doi: 10.3991/ijim.v9i2.4394
Mullarkey, L. S., Recchia, S. L., Lee, S. Y., Shin, M. S., & Lee, Y. J. (2005). Manipulative
managers and devilish dictators: Teachers' perspectives on the dilemmas and
challenges of classroom leadership. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education, 25(2), 123-129. doi: 10.1080/1090102050250205
Myers, D. E., Baker, K., Milne, A. M., & Ginsburg, A. (1987). Student Discipline and
High School Performance. Sociology of Education, 60, 18-33.
Närhi, V., Kiiski, T., Peitso, S., & Savolainen, H. (2015). Reducing disruptive behaviours
and improving learning climates with class-wide positive behaviour support in
middle schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(2), 274-285.
doi: 10.1080/08856257.2014.986913
O'Bannon, B. W., & Thomas, K. (2014). Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in
the classroom: Age matters! Computers and Education, 74, 15-25. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.006
O'Bannon, B. W., & Thomas, K. M. (2015). Mobile phones in the classroom: Preservice
teachers answer the call. Computers and Education, 85, 110-122. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.010
O'Donovan, T. M., & Kirk, D. (2007). Managing classroom entry: An ecological analysis
of ritual interaction and negotiation in the changing room. Sport, Education and
Society, 12(4), 399-413. doi: 10.1080/13573320701600647
O'Leary, K. D., & O'Leary, S. G. (1977). Classroom management: The successful use of
behavior modification (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon Press.
O'Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2012). Does classroom management coursework influence
pre-service teachers' perceived preparedness or confidence? Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28(8), 1131-1143. doi: doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.008
O'Neill, S. C. (2016). Preparing preservice teachers for inclusive classrooms: Does
completing coursework on managing challenging behaviours increase their
classroom management sense of efficacy? . Australasian Journal of Special
Education, 40(2), 117-140. doi: 10.1017/jse.2015.10
Oliveira, C. R., & Lopes, J. (2015). Indiscipina escolar: Um estudo com professores do
Ensino Básico, Secundário e Superior. Assembleia da República: Assembleia da
República.
Osher, D., Bear, G. G., Sprague, J. R., & Doyle, W. (2010). How can we improve school
discipline? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 48-58. doi:
10.3102/0013189X09357618
Pane, D. M. (2010). Viewing classroom discipline as negotiable social interaction: A
communities of practice perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(1), 87-
97.
Pane, D. M., Rocco, T. S., Miller, L. D., & Salmon, A. K. (2014). How teachers use power
in the classroom to avoid or support exclusionary school discipline practices.
Urban Education, 49(3), 297-328.
Psunder, M. (2005). How effective is school discipline in preparing students to become
responsible citizens? Slovenian teachers’ and students’ views. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21, 273-286 doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.005
Raftery-Helmer, J. N., & Grolnick, W. S. (2016). Children’s Coping With Academic
Failure: Relations With Contextual and Motivational Resources Supporting
Competence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 36(8), 1017-1041. doi:
10.1177/0272431615594459
Reynolds, R., Howley, P., Southgate, E., & Brown, J. (2016). Just add hours? An
assessment of pre-service teachers’ perception of the value of professional
experience in attaining teacher competencies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 44(5), 455-469. doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2015.1086971
Riley, P., Lewis, R., & Wang, B. (2012). Investigating teachers' explanations for
aggressive classroom discipline strategies in China and Australia. Educational
Psychology, 32(3), 389-403. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2012.662151
Rinke, C. R. (2008). Understanding teachers’ careers: Linking professional life to
professional path. Educational Research Review, 3(1), 1–13. doi:
10.1016/j.edurev.2007.10.001
Rogers, J., & Mirra, N. (2014). It's about time - Learning time and educational
opportunity in California High Schools. Los Angeles: UCLA IDEA.
Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. . (1990). Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of
teachers’ commitment. Sociology of Education, 63, 241–257.
Ryan, K. (1986). The induction of new teachers. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa
Educational Foundation.
Scheerens, J. (2000). Improving school effectiveness. Paris: IIEP - UNESCO.
Scheerens, J., & Blömeke, S. (2016). Integrating teacher education effectiveness research
into educational effectiveness models. Educational Research Review, 18, 70-87.
doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.03.002
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1986). Academic characteristics of behaviorally
disordered and learning disabled students. Behavioral Disorders, 11, 184-190.
Seashore Louis, K., & Lee, M. (2016). Teachers’ capacity for organizational learning: the
effects of school culture and context. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 27(4), 534-556. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2016.1189437
Seidman, A. (2005). The Learning Killer: Disruptive student behavior in the classroom.
Reading Improvement, 42(1), 40-47.
Seligman, M. E. (1975). Helplessness. On depression, development and death. San
Francisco: Freeman.
Simón, C., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2016). Positive classroom management: Effects of

disruption management climate on behaviour and satisfaction with teacher.
Revista de Psicodidactica, 21(1), 65-86. doi: 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.13202
Smith, D. L., & Smith, B. J. (2006). Perceptions of violence: The views of teachers who
left urban schools. The High School Journal, 89(3), 34–42. doi:
10.1080/00131940903338308
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-
407.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: Free Press.
Stipeck, D. J. (1984). Development of achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames
(Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Student motivation (Vol. 1, pp. 145-
175). New York: Academic Press.
Stough, L. (2006). The place of classroom management and standards in teacher
education. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom
management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues. Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Stoughton, E. H. (2007). "How will I get them to behave?": Pre service teachers reflect
on classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1024-1037.
doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.001
Sun, R. C. F. (2015). Teachers' experiences of effective strategies for managing classroom
misbehavior in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 94-103. doi:
10.1016/j.tate.2014.11.005
Tauber, R. (2007). Classroom management: Sound theory and effective practice: Praeger
Publishers, CT.
Thanasoulas, D. (2010). Classroom Management styles: Where do you stand? , from
<http://dimitristhanasoulas.com/Articles/Classroom Management Styles.doc>
Thomas, K. M., O'Bannon, B. W., & Britt, V. G. (2014). Standing in the schoolhouse
door: Teacher perceptions of mobile phones in the classroom. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 46(4), 373-395. doi:
10.1080/15391523.2014.925686
Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K. (2010).
Exploring the association between teachers' perceived student misbehaviour and
emotional exhaustion: The importance of teacher efficacy beliefs and emotion
regulation. Educational Psychology, 30(2), 173-189. doi:
10.1080/01443410903494460
Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., & Matthews, R. A. (2014). Personal and school cultural
factors associated with the perceptions of teachers' efficacy in handling student
misbehavior. Psychology in the Schools, 51(2), 164-180. doi: 10.1002/pits.21739
Ullrich, A., Lambert, R. G., & McCarthy, C. J. (2012). Relationship of German
elementary teachers' occupational experience, stress, and coping resources to
burnout symptoms. International Journal of Stress Management, 19(4), 333-342.
doi: 10.1037/a0030121
van Tartwijk, J., & Hammerness, K. (2011). The neglected role of classroom management
in teacher education. Teaching Education, 22(2), 109-112. doi:
10.1080/10476210.2011.567836
van Tartwijk, J., Veldman, I., & Verloop, N. (2011). Classroom management in a dutch
teacher education program: A realistic approach. Teaching Education, 22(2), 169-
184. doi: 10.1080/10476210.2011.567847
Warren, J. S., Bohanon-Edmonson, H. M., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W., Wickham, D.,
Griggs, P., & Beech, S. E. (2006). School-wide positive behavior support:
Addressing behavior problems that impede student learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 18(2), 187-198. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9008-1
Way, S. M. (2011). School discipline and disruptive classroom behavior: The moderating
effects of student perceptions. Sociological Quarterly, 52(3), 346-375. doi:
10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01210.x
Witt, J. C., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Gilbertson, D. (2004). Instruction and classroom
management: Prevention and intervention research. In R. Rutherford, M. Quinn
& S. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders (pp. 426-445). New York: Guilford Press.
Wong, Y. H. P., & Zhang, L. F. (2014). Perceived school culture, personality types, and
wellbeing among kindergarten teachers in Hong Kong. Australasian Journal of
Early Childhood, 39(2), 100-108.
Wubbels, T. (2011). An international perspective on classroom management: what hould
prospective teachers learn? Teaching Education, 22(2), 113–131.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for
academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 29, 663-676.
View publication stats

Classroom

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Classroom

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Classroom Discipline: Theory and Practice

Chapter · August 2017

Teacher Education View project

Learning and Memory [Aprendizagem e Memória] View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

CLASSROOM DISCIPLINE: THEORY AND PRACTICE

João Lopes1,* and Célia Oliveira2

Keywords: classroom discipline; classroom management; teacher education; academic

Classroom disruption is a major challenge faced by teachers (Simón & Alonso-

Classroom discipline in the context of teaching

Classroom discipline is not a straightforward concept. The concept is even ill-

In addition to mastering disciplinary contents, instruction/didactics and classroom

Causes of classroom indiscipline

Numerous models, theories and explanations have been developed regarding

Ecological models usually emphasize situation-specific factors that contribute to

Culture and classroom (in)discipline

Teacher education and classroom (in)discipline

Classroom teaching is a rather challenging task. Unlike tutorial teaching, group

This finding is troubling because classroom management is an integral part of teachers’

Academic achievement and classroom (in)discipline

“Classroom management becomes the gatekeeper to student learning by either

Alexander, R. (2005). Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of

Simón, C., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2016). Positive classroom management: Effects of

View publication stats

Potrebbero piacerti anche