The Importance of Classroom Management

Earlier I posted about my issues with current classroom management styles I've seen. With everything I now know about learning theory, I am aware that many teachers' styles are ineffective and detrimental to students both intellectually and behaviorally. While I do think that learning theory influences classroom management, I don't think that the topic can just be ignored and expected to develop on its own.
Whether we think about it or not, how we manage our classroom has an impact on who the students grow up to be just as much as how well they learn the content--if not more. We've spoken a lot about a "hidden curriculum" in other education classes, and it's entirely a real thing. Teachers are role models, and finding a balance between an authoritative robot, and a human being deserving of respect is necessary.

As a teacher I want to get to know each of my students individually. I want to know what they think their strengths, weaknesses, and goals are (okay, this idea was presented to me by a peer, but I've adapted it to my own philosophy). I want to set aside some time...sporadically during work time, not too formal...with each student throughout each term as a sort of student-teacher conference. I hope to build both a student-teacher relationship in terms of curriculum, and then a relationship that allows the students to just be comfortable to talk about interests, or life outside of my classroom. If I'm more than a teacher, I think the students will learn better.

The relationship teachers form with their class is very critical in classroom management. It influences a student's willingness to learn, what type of person they grow up to become, and how they relate with their peers.

What Runs Your Classroom?

Last year when I completed my 40 hour practicum in Ed. 103, I think I approached it all wrong. I spent most of my time taking mental notes of how the teacher handles her class, and not so much on how she teaches. While I believe that there are strategies teachers can use to effectively teach AND manage the students, I think it is a common mistake to put classroom management before learning theory.

Now that I'm in 106 and taking a 20 hour practicum, part of me is relieved to be taking 107 at the same time, while the other part wishes I had taken it before doing any practicum.

I am finding it difficult to associate learning theory with how I'm seeing teachers teaching.

I am enjoying my practicum, and think the teacher I'm with is a great teacher, but when she has a rough time she handles the class by going up to the front and taking notes on the board. When I watch this, I don't see active mental engagement changing at all. The students who weren't paying attention or participating in the first place, still aren't participating. The students who were previously cooperating in groups or with partners are now losing the social interaction.

It also changes the lesson to a less than ideal process that is not concrete to abstract. When students first learn the notes and definitions, they may not have the experience to apply it to a situation. It messes up the scaffolding, and I don't think it helps students learn.

But the problem I see here is that things like this are easy to fall back on. When students aren't cooperating, or are being disruptive, and you're strapped for time and need to think fast, who wouldn't consider a tactic that forces the students to be silent and let you have control as the teacher?

The two teachers I've been assigned to for practicum this semester and last semester had different ways of managing the class, but what they had in common was that their methods were directly linked to their lesson plans. Whether there are ways that the two do not link, I'm not sure, but I think there are clear negative examples of the linkage.

Playing a video and giving students a worksheet to fill out while watching it? Yes. That is a good way to keep the class's volume down, but it is also a good way to put everyone to sleep and prevent true learning/understanding.

What do teachers think when they wake up every morning? I'm starting to think it's more "I hope my students behave today" when it should be "I hope my students learn today."

In a sense, I suppose Prof. Kruse considers classroom management when he decides how to teach. When the same people participate in class discussions, and other people remain quiet consistently, we start discussing in smaller groups at our tables. This is a strategy better associated with learning theory because it takes advantage of social, AME, and developmental aspects of learning.

To an extent, I think classroom management runs classrooms--and unfortunately has a negative impact on students' learning. Too often, teachers resort to negative tactics. Why aren't they putting their students before their patience?

My Latest Attempt to Understand Learning Theory

I'd like to cover the points that stuck out as significant explanations of learning theory.


Constructivist Learning Theory
mental representations are subjective
Everyone can imagines, or links new ideas to things they already know from past experiences. Since we all have different experiences, the mental representations are subjective to the individual. Some individuals learn things more quickly than others because they have different prior knowledge. These varying rates support the idea that knowledge is constructed rather than acquired. If it was passively acquired, we all would learn at the same pace. 


as teachers we feel a need to construct for them 
We help students understand the world but they need to construct it in a way that makes sense to them. They can't really construct the wrong world as long as they're properly understanding what needs to be learned.


learning to learn and learning
For a student to accept knowledge (learn), they need to have a way of achieving it. They need to know how to learn. Everyone learns differently, as we all know. Everyone constructs their way of learning differently, too. As teachers, we should find a way to meet all students' needs. Through the social, contextual, repetitive practice, and motivational aspects of learning, hopefully they can effectively apply these learned skills in future contextual learning.


information must fit into systems of mutually supported ideas for success
This sort of goes back to the metaphor of grabbing on to the old accepted idea (even if it's wrong) with both hands. Then letting go with one hand to catch the new idea (the right one) and waiting until stable before letting go of the old completely. When something is unfamiliar or complicated, it doesn't help to abandon what you thought completely, but instead to see how the right answer fits with what you thought was right.
This idea also fits into how teachers order their curriculum. A science teacher likely wouldn't teach organic chemistry before teaching general chemistry. A math teacher probably wouldn't go from addition to division. An English teacher would probably start with nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs before going into gerunds, participles and infinitives. All these examples wouldn't structurally make sense, because without some sort of basic understanding as the foundation for more complex subject matter, there is nothing to relate the new ideas to. 


The steps mentioned Ausubel's article would coincide with the ideas above. I do appreciate the sixth step--the one for the student to be responsible for. Implementing the powers of higher order thinking in his/her life. It really suggests that learning never ends, there is always a higher level that builds off the ones before it.


Social Learning Theory
Within the Vygotsky article I appreciated the links to constructivism. Learning an idea socially first and individually later is a construct. Learning from a more knowledgeable other is a construct. It is also important that teachers be the facilitators. The student is responsible for learning, but as teachers, we have a responsibility for assisting them along the way. 


Bandura's aspects of modeling (attention, retention, reproduction, motivation) are all true. If a student cannot focus on the topic they won't retain it, if they don't retain it they can't reproduce it, just as if they don't reproduce it they can't retain it. Additionally, learning requires the motivation to know more--this motivation often comes only with success.


I've always agreed with the world and environment affecting behavior, but I'm a little foggy and hesitant to define the argument that our behavior impacts the world. And I'm unsure of how this directly relates to learning theory. When I figure it out, I will complete this portion of the post.

What I know

We've learned a few things in class. Some things were familiar and others were new to me.

The most significant concept I have taken from Ed. 107 so far is the Developmental Learning Theory (Concrete first, abstract later). When we drew the line from concrete to abstract and applied the different aspects of learning (tangible, simulations, pictures, drawings, textbooks, formulas) the ease/difficulty of each aspect was put into perspective. I have always known that it is harder to learn a subject from a textbook than it is from a person. That much is obvious, but I never considered that reading a chapter before being taught what it is about makes learning the subject more difficult. I had a chemistry teacher who told us to read a chapter before class, then again after the lesson so we learned it completely. Maybe that first step is unnecessary, but it was probably unnecessary for us all to groan about reading the chapter period.

After the first few classes, I now can apply the term "zone of proximal development." As a teacher, I know I'll have students with varying abilities. I know some will be behind the curriculum, some will be able to keep up and others will be breezing through it. Everyone has different levels of difficulty--different zones. I can remember this falls under the social learning theory due to the variability among every student. I learned to expect my first teaching job to be a challenge. Not only am I going to need to formulate a curriculum with my content, but I'll need to consider the curriculum from the students' view points; and not all students are the same kind of student as I am.

Going from the social learning theory to the constructivist learning theory, is somewhat easy to think about because I can think of the ZPD applying to the role of prior knowledge. If something falls under the "too easy" zone for a student, the knowledge is likely prior knowledge. I think this theory is significant because it shows that learning is a process. Learning step by step, experiencing bit by bit, and building off what a student already knows is precisely how we should be teaching. Encouraging students to ask questions and try to answer them for themselves is how we should be teaching. Letting them think is how they are going to learn. Leading them to understand without simply 'telling' them why is how we can be successful. This may end up being the hardest part of the job.

But he still wasn't a great teacher.

Aside from failing to teach subjects other than music, he taught kids it was okay to lie in order to get what you want (when they faked being terminally sick to get into the contest). He made them keep secrets from their parents, and deceive their principal. This is not something a teacher should be having his kids do.


Dewey was a good music teacher. I will give him that. He taught passion, something that a lot of average teachers cannot do. (A passionate math teacher might struggle to teach students to be passionate about learning math). He looked at each students' strengths and used them to create a band--a team. Each student had a responsibility, and it became a fun interactive experience. They were all motivated to reach the Battle of the Bands and be the best they could be.


If Dewey were a real teacher--in the sense that he wasn't committing fraud--I think he could apply his teaching to other subjects. He seems young and hip (did I really just say that?) enough to know what interests the students. In terms of math he could come up with a band fund and help students handle accounting.


As a Language Arts lesson they could all write a song.


If he wanted a really cool stage show, with special effects, maybe he could apply some sort of chemical reaction. 


I am honestly having a hard time coming up with ways he can apply his methods outside of the band situation. He is a good motivator, and a good teacher in the music context. However, in reality, he wasn't going to be the best thing for the students in terms of a complete education. Maybe it's backwards of me to think so; maybe I'm trapped inside the box.


Madeline