Teachers' classroom control procedures: are students' preferences being met?

Lewis, Ramon; Lovegrove, Malcolm N.

doi:10.1080/0260747840100201

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers suggested that children developed self-regulated thought processes along with emotional control when adults established a warm, responsive, trusting social atmosphere and high expectations accompanied by multiple guidance strategies (Baumrind 1989;Gartrell 1987;Hoffman 1983;Lewis and Lovegrove 1984). The benefits of combining teacher responsiveness with high demandingness were reported by research (Baumrind 1989) and recommended by textbook authors (Cherry 1983;Dreikurs et al 1982).…”

Section: Control Power and Anger In The 1970s And 1980smentioning

confidence: 89%

Decreasing Child Defiance: Is Inquiry Indispensable?

Keat

2008

Early Childhood Educ J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teachers report that teaching young children who exhibit defiant and challenging behavior is the most difficult component of their work. This article explores four decades of textbook and research literature recommendations and 4 years of teacher reflections. Common themes of control, power, and anger were identified. A significant finding was that systematic teacher inquiry fostered teacher development of ability to decrease child defiance while fostering children's emotional self-regulation.

show abstract

Section: Control Power and Anger In The 1970s And 1980smentioning

confidence: 89%

Decreasing Child Defiance: Is Inquiry Indispensable?

Keat

2008

Early Childhood Educ J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lewis and Lovegrove (1987) claimed that, despite serious offenders being a minority in schools, the management behaviours of teachers engender fear and negative attitudes in the majority of students, distract them from their work and may promote sympathy for the miscreants. The teacher behaviours preferred by students include calmness, rule clarity and reasonableness [of rules], appropriate punishments, fairness and acceptance of responsibility [for maintaining discipline] (Lewis & Lovegrove, 1984). Given the social construction of schooling, teachers in many schools believe they have few options apart from suspension when student misbehaviour exceeds the limits set by the school.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student Suspensions: The Influence on Students and Their Parents

Partington

2001

Australian Journal of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, secondary school students in Years 8-10 who were suspended from school were interviewed during their suspension to obtain their views on the validity, efficacy and consequences of suspension as a strategy in behaviour management. Also, their parents were interviewed for their views on the effect of the suspension on the family and on the student. Students were penalised with periods of suspension from two to 10 days, and these suspensions were supposed to be spent in the care of the parents. The actual operation of these out-of-school suspensions depended upon the parents: in some cases students were allowed to roam free; in others they were grounded. The findings indicate mixed consequences of suspension depending upon the context in which it occurs and the characteristics of the student. The study suggests that student responses reflect the extent to which they accept the authority of the school, with more resistant students being less submissive. Their responses also relate to the perceptions of their care givers, with more resistant students coming from families where the school is viewed negatively. Alternative strategies to suspension might be more effective for the target students as suspension did little to improve behaviour or performance.

show abstract