Good behaviour is critical for effective learning: not only does it create positive and nurturing environment pupils for succeed, but it also shapes and prepares pupils for social norms and expectations as they leave school (Haydn, 2014; Helman, 2017; Spielman, 2019). So, behaviour management is often seen as one of the most important skills of a classroom teacher. Whilst effective behaviour management comes with experience, a critical understanding of the educational theories that underpin the skill is undoubtedly essential. In this essay, I will critically evaluate the impact and effectiveness of behaviourist and constructivist approaches to behaviour management, with reference to my own teaching experience and A-school’s behaviour policy.
As a traditional approach to learning and managing behaviour, behaviourism remains a dominant approach today in school behaviour policies (Brophy, 2011). For example, echoing Freiberg and Lamb (2009), Helman (2017) criticised how, despite the ‘superficial’ adoption of pupil-centred, constructivist lesson delivery, most American schools have teacher-directed classroom discipline management system. The behaviourist approach to classroom management is first and foremost influenced by Pavlov classical conditioning (Woolfolk, 2021: 293, 320) and Skinner’s (1963) operant conditioning theories. Both theories emphasise on using stimuli - positive reinforcements (rewards) and negative reinforcements (sanctions) - to encourage and discourage certain behaviours. A-school’s behaviour policy is largely influenced by the behaviourist approach. For example, on the one hand the policy directs teachers to give out ‘behaviour point’ and use the ‘three-strikes and out’ (reminder-warning-on call) systems to sanction pupils in class. On the other hand, the policy encourages teachers to give out ‘achievement points’ as positive reinforcement. The behaviourist approach is simple to implement but a promising result is difficult to achieve in the classroom environment due to the requirement of having to give steady and immediate rewards and sanctions. Nevertheless, behaviourism’s rather scientific input-output approach means the outcomes and, in turn, the effectiveness are easily measurable. For example, A-school uses a behaviour point system to measure pupils’ behaviour, and the policy requires pupils who have accumulated a certain number of (negative) behaviour points to collect evidence that they are going to behave well in all lessons. From my experience, this works well because pupils have a visual and material reference (a report pamphlet) that reminds them to behave. They could often be easily re-focused when I show them the pamphlet.
In the conditioning process, rewards generally work better than sanctions in educating a person. For example, reflecting on my learning experience, it is difficult to recall any specific sanctions but instead I could remember vividly a small personal gift from my history teacher as a reward for diligence. At the time, and still now, I felt much encouraged when the teacher was personally congratulating me. Whereas A-school’s behaviour policy discourages any kind of personal reward from teachers and directs that reward must be given in the form of ‘achievement points’: an immaterial, non-visual, and relatively impersonal way of rewarding positive behaviour. Reflecting on my teaching practice, although pupils do strive to get those points because they like to be praised, the points were not as effective as material rewards such as a sweet after class for good behaviour. This year, A-school has introduced a new ‘advanced reward’, which is that teachers are offering ‘good phone call home’ to pupils who have behaved exceptionally well in class (cf. Landau, 2019: 743). This, in fact, works much better than before as pupils often remind me about the call I have promised to make: a more personal form of recognition indeed.
Reflecting on my experience, I realise that the same rewards and sanctions work differently for different pupils. For example, pupil E once told me, “I don’t care if you give me behaviour points, it doesn’t mean anything to me,” while pupil A reminded them, ‘No! You get to go to movies and have free ice-creams if you get lots of points!’ This shows that the two pupils have different value judgements, which the behavioural system depends on. I also found that rewards and sanctions need to be given immediately to make a close connection with the targeted behaviours, as pupils often challenges sanctions. For example, one told me, “Pfft … [they] didn’t even do anything!”
Yet, removal of undesirable behaviours does not guarantee showing up of the associated positive behaviours. For example, sanctions on contemptuous behaviours would not lead to one respecting others since some desirable behaviours such as respecting others and self-discipline might need voluntary self-control and compromise but will not show up naturally. The conditioning process, however, relies on behaviour to be displayed before it could be reinforced. According to Freiberg and Lamb (2009), these positive behaviours could better be developed with the constructivist approach.
Worse, externally conditioned behaviour might gradually disappear when rewards and sanctions are removed, sometimes because of the external environment, which is another element the behaviourist approach overlooks. The lack of school-based education during coronavirus lockdowns is a perfect example. Teachers (G, pers. comm., 9 Oct 2022) pointed out that there has been significant worsening in pupil’s behaviour post-pandemic as the pre-existing school behavioural system has been absent for long, or inconsistently applied at home.
This failure proves how important consistency is to facilitate the behaviourist conditioning process. That explains why the message often repeated by the A-school Behaviour Lead was that “every pupil should be able to predict the response of every adult in the building” (R, Pers. Comm., 7 Nov 2022). However, a rigid behavioural system is often criticised as non-pupil-centred and offer little room for creativity in discipline (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). It is surely not educative to constantly force pupils to submit themselves to authority without reasoning. However, even with this emphasis on consistency, A-school’s ‘behaviourist’ behaviour policy is far from perfect from my teaching experience. Firstly, the rigidness of the policy has been exploited by pupils as they knew that teachers would have to follow the policy strictly. For example, some pupils stopped behaving towards the end of my lessons because they claimed that support teachers would not have enough time to remove them for persistent disruption. Furthermore, the urge to use ‘professional judgement’ on a case-by-case basis means that there is bound to be inconsistency between teachers. Worse, the empirical behaviour system causes a lot of administrative work for staff which could deter them from giving out the sanction in the first place. Thirdly, the sanctions require follow-up actions as they were devised by the schools in a ‘top-down’ manner. Pupils do not necessarily learn from the consequences or understand the importance of following the rules as they were not included in drafting the policies. For example, there were times when pupils and even parents complained to me that they do not ‘see the point’ in elements of the behaviour policy (e.g. that pupils were not allowed to use the toilet during lessons), although they have no choice but to sign on the document prepared by the school (Mrs F, Pers. Comm., 22 Sept 2022). Teachers who are using the policy also criticised elements of the behaviour policy as having ‘too many loopholes and too idealistic’ (B, Pers. Comm., 8 Nov 2022). For example, the ‘reflection room’ is too relaxed to the point that it attracted pupils to get voluntarily removed from lessons they did not enjoy.
In fact, some of the criticisms and weaknesses of the behaviourist approach could be addressed by a constructivist approach to behaviour management. Constructivist learning theory maintains that knowledge is actively constructed by pupils, who interpret it based upon their perceptions of experiences in specific social and cultural contexts (Vygotsky, 1997). Underpinned by Jean Piaget’s (1954) writing, it emphasises on pupil-centred learning as well as pupils’ cognitive developmental stages. As this theory recognises pupils’ different needs and stages of learning, the constructivist approach to behaviour management believes in a non-judgmental way of thinking that puts understanding and empathising with pupils at the centre (Dollard et al., 1996: 11). It follows that the main goal of a constructivist would be to build a positive pupil-teacher relationship, from which pupils’ growth and development would be enabled and facilitated, but without their behaviour be merely restricted.
Firstly, in this theory, teachers should strive to help children learn to control themselves, rather than relying on rules and consequences enforced by teachers, the latter being the focus of behaviourist approach. Instead, pupils should be encouraged to choose their own rewards, incentives, and reinforcement mechanisms (Dollard et al., 1996: 10; Landau, 2019: 744, 750). This democratic practice, with the teacher as the facilitator rather than authoritarian, provides both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for pupils (cf. Woolfolk, 2021: 491-493). Nevertheless, it is here that constructivists converge with behaviourists where contracting, rewards and sanctions are endorsed, albeit the connection is clearer and the consequences are more acceptable. In this way, pupils are more likely to work hard for addressing the specific behaviours identified in order to get the ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’ as well as the scenario that would be applied that have been decided before by the pupils.
Although this approach is not used in A-school’s behaviour policy in general, there are elements that mimic the essence of constructivism. For example, policy states that following sanctions, teachers should use restorative practice to find a meaningful solution that meets the needs of pupils, and to build constructive and empathic bridges. Whilst fundamentally being a part of cognitive behavioural therapy (Daunic et al., 2006; Kumuyi et al., 2022), it is relevant to constructivism too. In addition, there are behaviourist elements in disguise of the constructivist approach in the policy. At the beginning of the academic year, the school asks pupils to pledge on and endorse the ‘Home-School Behaviour Agreement’ using words such as ‘we agree on’, ‘we will’ (Landau, 2019: 744). Nevertheless, it is uncertain – unlikely – whether pupils were consulted when A-school’s behaviour policy was drafted. So, these elements of constructivism are at best half-hearted.
Furthermore, the constructivists do not prefer universal behavioural interventions for all pupils. Rather, as constructivists acknowledge that pupils may react differently to learning due to the stage of development they are in (cf. Piaget, 1954), teachers should account for pupils’ individual circumstances and needs when choosing the best behaviour management technique (Dollard et al., 1996: 11). For example, Helman (2017: 65-67) found that creative and developmentally enriching ‘consequences’ such as assigning drawing, writing out the lyrics to a song for misbehaving pupils in their class not only successfully resolved the misbehaviours, but also helped to build a level of trust between the teacher and pupils. Similarly, through an empirical research Kaya and Donmez (2010) found that pupils reacted better to constructivist rather than behaviourist classroom management approach. Therefore, in order for the approach to be successfully implemented, trainee teachers should be equipped with better interpersonal communication skills. There should also be time and opportunities for the trainee teacher to develop good relationship with individual pupils.
Although, as aforementioned, A-school’s behaviour policy emphasises consistency, it at the same time encourages teachers to use their professional judgement to differentiate and cater to the needs of individual pupils in their application. For example, in my practice, instead of immediately sanctioning a pupil with special education needs (SEN), I addressed them individually outside of the classroom to repeat my classroom expectation, which de-escalated the situation. I adapted my practice after a prior incident when that pupil lost emotional control and exited the classroom even with a low-level sanction. However, from my experience, the constructivist approach is ineffective in a large class with many SEN pupils (e.g. 10 in 30) without adequate support from learning support assistants. And pupils often complain that teachers are being unfair when they see that sanctions were not equally applied, as they were – rightly so – not aware of other pupils’ SEN status.
As it has been discussed so far, both behaviourist and constructivist approaches to behaviour management have their strengths and weaknesses. Neither one approach could solely make behaviour management work effectively at school. Behaviourist approach might be better at the system level but constructivist approach should be employed for exceptionally challenging pupils. Moreover, while school behaviour policies rarely subscribe purely to one of them, it is down to the teacher’s experience to make judgements in situ.
With experience playing a huge part in behaviour management, it is one of the biggest hurdles for trainee teachers, who are rather inexperienced, to meet. For example, when I first started teaching, after a poorly managed lesson due to my lack of experience, a crying pupil complained to me, “I’ve got distracted so much that I could not learn in your class. What’s the point of me even trying if you could not manage your class?” While these were very hurtful words to me as I have spent much time preparing for the lesson, it shows how a poorly managed class could not only render a lesson ineffective and inaccessible, but also lead to distress in the more sensitive pupils. Deficits in classroom climate, according to Haydn (2014), also casts a huge impact on pupil attainment. It is therefore important that trainee teacher master the art of behaviour management, including developing strategies in both prevention and treatment (Palardy, 1988: 14-15).
To improve on behaviour management, trainee teachers should, before the lesson, make sure that knowledge is accessible to all pupils. This includes getting to know the pupils, their needs, learning styles and developmental stages, which would help the teacher adapt the activities and provide suitable scaffolding and differentiation materials. It is certain that pupils could misbehave if the lesson is too difficult for them to understand or too easy for them to be challenged intellectually. Pupils with exceptional issues, either cognitive, emotional or behavioural ones, should be identified and contacted as soon as possible. In this regard, trainee teachers should learn better ways to approach, communicate with and gain trust from those pupils, and ways to identify interest and needs of them. All these issues should be firmly and thoroughly grounded in educational theory, a superficial understanding would only hamper the effect of any derivative techniques (Jones, 1977). During the lesson, trainee teachers should strive to be consistent in applying the behaviour policy yet prepared to adjust to individual pupils’ needs. Active observation, questioning, and testing techniques are most needed from the trainee teachers to avoid cognitive overload and fatigue on pupils, which could otherwise lead to misbehaviours. After and outside of lessons, teachers should obtain and take action on feedbacks from both pupils and experienced teachers, so as to improve on their practice.
To summarise, both constructivist and behaviourist approaches impact on behaviour management in schools today, with their effectiveness dependent on pupil profiles, class size, school background, and cultural context. While the behaviourist approach is relatively simple and the constructivist approach requires good communication skills from teachers, both are needed to make behaviour management effective in schools, with behaviourist approach mainly on the system level and constructivist approach tackling difficult pupils. Although behaviourism underpins A-school’s behaviour policy, it embodies elements from both approaches. Furthermore, the policy is constantly evolving, showing how the school is adapting to different challenges and external circumstances. In theory, as much as they have different theoretical basis (cf. Haywood and Brown, 1990), behaviourist and constructivist approaches to behaviour management converge in multiple ways (Woolfolk, 2021: 410-412), just as they are intertwined in practice. With concrete understanding of these educational theories and the associated skills which underpin learning and behaviour management, adequate and inclusive preparations of lessons, observation of experienced teachers, trainee teachers could improve on behaviour management in classroom settings.Inspired by a ‘triarchal instruction method’ (Guey et al., 2010, cf. Al-Shammari et al., 2019), I commit to developing behaviour management techniques based on ‘constructivist behaviourism’: a pupil-centred, democratic and creative conditioning process that promises to differentiate and adapt.
Key words: behaviour management, behaviourism, constructivism
Biography: Joseph Yu is currently a secondary history and politics teacher in London. He completed his doctorate in Anthropology at Oxford University researching the development of museum in postcolonial Hong Kong. Trained in anthropology, history, international relations and education, Joseph's research interest lies in the development of colonial social institutions.
References
Al-Shammari, Z., Faulkner, P., & Forlin, C. (2019). Theories- based Inclusive Education Practices. Education Quarterly Reviews, 2(2), 408–414.
Brophy, J. (2011). History of Research on Classroom Management. In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice and Contingency Issues (pp. 17–46). Routledge.
Daunic, A., Smith, S., Brank, E. M., & Penfield, R. (2006). Classroom-Based Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention to Prevent Aggression: Efficacy and Social Validity. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 123–139.
Dollard, N., Christensen, L., Colucci, K., & Epanchin, B. (1996). Constructive Classroom Management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 25, X–12.
Forness, S. R. (1970). Behavioristic approach to classroom management and motivation. Psychology in the Schools, 7(4), 356–363.
Freiberg, H. J., & Lamb, S. M. (2009). Dimensions of Person-Centered Classroom Management. Theory Into Practice, 48(2), 99–105.
Guey, C., Cheng, Y., & Shibata, S. (2010). A triarchal instruction model: Integration of principles from Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Humanism. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 105–118.
Haydn, T. (2014). To what extent is behaviour a problem in English schools? Exploring the scale and prevalence of deficits in classroom climate. Review of Education, 2(1), 31–64.
Haywood, H. C., & Brown, A. L. (1990). Behavior Management in Cognitive Early Education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 5(2), 243–252. JSTOR.
Helman, D. (2017). Constructivist Discipline for a Student-Centered Classroom. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 21(3), 64–69.
Jones, V. F. (1977). Humanistic behaviorism: A tool for creating healthy learning environments. Journal of School Psychology, 15(4), 320–328.
Kaya, A., & Donmez, B. (2010). A comparison of the classroom management approaches of the teachers implementing “Constructivist Learning Approach” and not implementing this approach. Innovation and Creativity in Education, 2(2), 1820–1824.
Kumuyi, D., Akinnawo, E., Akpunne, B., Akintola, A., Onisile, D., & Aniemeka, O. (2022). Effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy and social skills training in management of conduct disorder. The South African Journal of Psychiatry, 28, 1737.
Landau, B. (2009). Classroom Management. In L. J. Saha & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching (pp. 739–753). Springer US.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child (M. Cook, Trans.). Basic Books.
Palardy, J. M. (1988). Behaviorism: An approach to more effective discipline. The Teacher Educator, 24(1), 10–15.
Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. New Directions for Youth Development. New Directions for Youth Development, 92, 17–43.
Skinner, B. (1963). Operant behavior. American Psychologist, 18, 503–515.
Spielman, A. (2019, September 11). Good behaviour is a necessary condition for learning. FE News. https://www.fenews.co.uk/skills/research-commentary-managing-behaviour/
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational psychology (R. Silverman, Trans.). St Lucie.
Woolfolk, A. (2021). Educational psychology (14th ed.). Pearson.
Comments