This article was downloaded by: [New York University] On: 08 May 2015, At: 17:10 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20

Teachers' Conceptualization of Pupil Control in Elementary School Physical Education Steven A. Henkel Published online: 07 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Steven A. Henkel (1991) Teachers' Conceptualization of Pupil Control in Elementary School Physical Education, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62:1, 52-60, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1991.10607518 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1991.10607518

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Research Quarterly for Exercise andSport © 1991 by the American Alliance for Health,

Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Vol. 62, No.1, pp. 52·60

Teachers' Conceptualization of Pupil Control in Elementary School Physical Education

Downloaded by [New York University] at 17:10 08 May 2015

Steven A. Henkel Management ofconduct has been considered the most important problem facing schools in America during 16 of the last 20 years (Gallup, 1988). Yet little is known about specific techniques teachers use to achieve pupil control in physical education. One purpose of this work is to describe the development of a conceptual framework for pupil control techniques. The framework was derived from 64 live observations and audiotapes ofelementary school physical education lessons. A second purpose is to describe how teachers may potentially foster pupil self-control. Data were reduced through analytic induction, constant comparison, and topological analysis. The investigator placed 23 categories into three classifications as perceived by teachers: anticipatory, tutorial, and punitive. Teachers confirmed frequency ofusing techniques during interviews and on surveys. Intraobseroer agreement tests yielded 88 % for distinguishing among categories. Interobseroer scores ranged from 83 to 86 % agreement. Categories may serve to increase teachers' repertoire of control techniques in accordance with their ideological beliefs. For teachers in this study, facilitating self-control involves (a) selecting tutorial control techniques, (b) using indirect forms of techniques, and (c) conveying reasons for using techniques.

Key words: control techniques, discipline, elementary physical education, pupil control, self-discipline

R

esp onsibility for managing classrooms includes the management of learning tasks, thinking processes, and pupil conduct (Soar & Soar, 1979). This work concerns the management of conduct. Conduct refers to "non-task, behavioral aspects of the classroom, such as amount of physical movement, frequency of pupil socializing, and fluidity ofgroupings" (Soar & Soar, 1979, p. 99). Beginning in 1986, management of conduct ranked second only to drug abuse as a problem in schools (Gallup, 1988). Managing a class free from undue distraction and disruption is essential for optimum learning. Indeed, Curwin and Mendler (1984) estimated pupil off-task behavior may decrease instructional time by 15 to 25%. Managing conduct effectively requires using a variety of specific control techniques. This work seeks to classify control techniques used in the classroom. One purpose was to describe an inventory or framework oftechniques teachers use to manage pupil conduct. The framework was derived from naturalistic observations of elementary school physical educators, and it conceptualizes pupil control from the teachers' perspective.

Steven A.Henkel isanassociate professor of physical education who oversees courses inpedagogy andsupervises preservice teachers intheundergraduate physical education program at Bethel College, 3900 Bethel Drive, St. Paul, MN 55112, (612) 638-6392. Submitted: June 23, 1988 Revision accepted: May 17, 1990 52

The second purpose was to describe the ways teachers do and do not intentionally foster self-control. Many educators seek to encourage pupils to assume increasing responsibility for their conduct as they are developmentally able. To remain consistent with selected literature, the term pupil control is used synonymously with management of conduct throughout the paper. Literature is discussed with reference to classifying control techniques in physical education. Readers are directed elsewhere for a broad base ofresearch on pupil control in the classroom (Doyle, 1986; Duke, 1982; Kounin, 1970).

Nature ofPupil Control Ideological orientations to pupil control are described in Table 1 and are positioned from top to bottom in terms ofthe amount ofcontrol imposed on pupils. The table includes descriptions of ideologies (column 2), definitions of discipline (column 3), and possible corresponding control techniques (column 4) from the literature. Table 1 depicts primary emphases of ideologies rather than all possible features. Although empirical support for distinctions between ideologies are numerous (Drozda, 1975; Helsel & Willower, 1974; Hoy, 1968; Templin, 1978), the same teacher may believe and implement aspects of several ideologies.

Definition of Discipline At the permissive end of the spectrum in Table 1, discipline is defined as the child's self-con trol. Permissive

RDES: March 1991

Henkel

teachers believe children will naturally behave ifengaged in meaningful learning. Control techniques are considered both unnecessary and contrary to the child's normal creativity and development. At the authoritarian end of the spectrum, discipline is an end in itself to maintain teacher power and status. Since children are considered naturally deviant, control techniques may be punitive, even at the cost of ridicule or embarrassment to the children.

In this study, the investigator defined discipline as "internal or external exhibition of control that results in acceptance of, and compliance with, a standard for conduct." The definition includes an active (verb) and passive (noun) element. Active discipline is exerted by the agent(s) of control through the use of particular techniques in the short term. The teacher (external) usually serves as the agent, although a pupil (internal) may help establish and reinforce rules (Duke, 1982).

Downloaded by [New York University] at 17:10 08 May 2015

Table 1. Ideological orientations to pupil control

Ideology

Description of Ideology

Definition of Discipline

Characteristic Control Techniques

Permissive" or

Minimum external control; rulesencourage misconduct

Natural self-control

Control techniques are unnecessary

l.aissez-faire"

Intervention stifles natural creativity and development

Discipline as a meansto facilitate self-control and moral training

Establish ruleswith children

Rational, nonarbitrary

Punish misconduct when necessary

Discipline as a means to understand and treat misconduct

Establish ruleswith children Explicate expectations Identify "problem times" Co nfiscatio n Physical proximity Eye contact Behavior modification Occasional punishment

Trustchildren to work according to own rules

Demccratic" or

Moderate external control

Humanistic"

Trustchildren, butthey need adultguidance

Reward good conduct

Respectdignity of children Diaqnostic-

Moderate external control Trustchildren because they will fulfill whatever expectations teachers have

Individualized

Respectdignity of children Behavioristic"

Between moderate and maximum externalcontrol

Discipline as a means to condition behavior

Behavior modification: Reward good conduct Ignore bad conduct

Implied mistrust of children; need to motivate them to overcome deviance

Authcritarian-" or Custodial"

Maximal external control Do nottrust children because they are naturally deviant Demand respect from children

Establish rules

Discipline as an end (maintain teacher power and status)

Establish rules Highlight misconduct through Ridicule Embarrassment Punishment

Note. Terms used inthis table are taken from sources cited infootnotes to the table. Full citations can be found inthe listof references. Theterm ideology is used to refer to a set of beliefs regarding pupil control. This is different from its broader usage,which includes cultural, economic, and political influences within the schools (Apple, 1981).lde910gies expressed by Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) represented leadership styles ratherthan pupil control ideologies. 8Ausubel (1961). bLewin, Lippitt, & White (1939). ·Palardy&Mudrey (1973). dHelsel &Willower (1974). ROES: March 1991

53

Downloaded by [New York University] at 17:10 08 May 2015

Henkel

Rules and rule enforcement contribute to discipline, but neither term, or their sum, is equivalent to discipline. Discipline also includes a passive element, the pupil's acceptance and compliance with a standard for conduct. Acceptance refers to a pupil's state ofmind. Compliance with a standard shows evidence ofacceptance, except for situations involving ''blind acceptance" (Wilson, 1981). Blind acceptance occurs when a pupil obeys a teacher simply to avoid a threatening alternative: "I expect you to keep your mouth quiet, oryou will not be moving much!" Threats may achieve blind acceptance temporarily, but they do not achieve discipline in the long term. When pupils are compliant, either discipline or selfdiscipline is theoretically achieved over time. Discipline is achieved when compliance follows external control (i.e., a teacher states rules and pupils willingly comply) . Self-discipline is achieved when compliance follows internal control (i.e., pupils complywithoutbeing reminded ofrules) . Children are more likely to exhibitself-discipline if they understand why cooperative conduct ultimately promotes the good of the class (Wilson, 1981). The investigator's definition of discipline is most consistent with the democratic and diagnostic ideologies in Table 1. When teachers are permissive, pupils are given few standardswith which to comply. When teachers are authoritarian, they may induce children to comply without achieving true acceptance. Facilitating pupil selfdiscipline (rather than expecting it naturally) theoretically helps alleviate the need for administering consequences for misconduct. This partially explains why teachers with predominantly democratic or diagnostic beliefs limit use of punishment.

Classifying Control Techniques Among physical educators, control techniques have been classified primarily by the broad orientations of prevention and punishment. Preventive techniques include "getting pupil attention" (Siedentop, Herkowitz, & Rink, 1984), "stating and reinforcing rules" (Graham, Holt/Hale, & Parker, 1987; Morris, 1980; Siedentop et aI., 1984), "managing time" (Morris, 1980; Siedentop et aI., 1984), "modeling" desirable conduct (Hoffman, Young, & Klesius, 1981; Siedentop et aI., 1984), "praising" desirable conduct (Graham et aI., 1987; Siedentop etaI., 1984), and "rewarding" desirable conduct (Graham etaI., 1987; Siedentop etaI., 1984; Werner, 1985). Punishment refers to unpleasant consequences intended to reduce the chances of recurring misconduct. Punishment may have either psychological or physical! emotional impact (Siedentop et aI., 1984). Examples include "desist," "extinction," "omission training," "positive practice," "reward cost," "rewarding other behavior," "timeout," "corporal punishment," and "exercise as punishment." Werner (1985) lists additional techniques that may be potentially punitive under the classifi-

54

cation consequences that deter misconduct ("assigning detention," "calling parents," "denying a privilege," "isolating student"). In addition to specific preventive and punitive techniques, general principles of self-discipline have been targeted in physical education. Siedentop et aI. (1984) suggested modeling good conduct, explaining consequences for misconduct, and progressively teaching children prosocial behavior skills. Hellison (1985) placed self-discipline as the second of five levels in achieving prosocial behavior with high-risk youth. Self-discipline was considered a prerequisite to becoming self-responsible and eventually caring for others. Although general principles and specific techniques for pupil control have been prescribed for physical educators, classifications of techniques have been substantiated by research in the high school setting only. Limitations of the research underscore the need for the current study.

Need for the Study Prewitt (1971) surveyed male physical educators regarding disciplinary procedures, which were defined as "corrective or punitive measures used to maintain class order" (p, 3). As with studies in the classroom (Barnes, 1963; Pittman, 1985), the narrow definition excluded control techniques teachers used before students misbehaved. Prewitt's questionnaires also depended on teachers' recall and on presumed association between techniques teachers intended to use and those actually used. Although Kennedy (1980) observed physical education classes, he used a preconceived observation instrument to "fit" teacher behaviors to categories found in the literature. In addition to the limitations of previous studies, elementary school children and their physical ed ucators could be expected to in teract in ways differen t from their high school counterparts. Therefore, a need existed for developing a conceptual framework ofcontrol techniques for elementary school physical education, without being bound to prior theoretical systems. The framework provides physical educators with a repertoire of control techniques representing different points on the pupil control spectrum. Later discussion particularly targets ways teachers do and do not foster pupil self-discipline, as derived from the naturalistic data.

Method Observational Data The entire population of elementary school physical educators from Madison, Wisconsin (N= 27) was stratified

ROES: March 1991

Henkel

Downloaded by [New York University] at 17:10 08 May 2015

by gender before selecting eight teachers randomly (five men and three women). Age and teaching experience of subjects averaged 42 and 17 years, respectively. Subjects gave informed consent knowing an observation tool would be developed. No mention was made of discipline or pupil control. Each teacher was observed eight times (T=64) , across at least three grade levels and two content units. In field notes, the investigator described each control technique and the contextual variables of class size, organizational formation, nature of misconduct, and pupil(s) misbehaving and receiving control. Field notes also included teachers' spontaneous comments between classes that might help determine their ideological orientation(s) to pupil control. Each lesson was audiotaped to capture extended dialogue excluded from field notes and to preserve the sequence of events.

Preliminary Data Reduction andAnalysis Segments from audiotapes involving pupil con trol were transcribed word for word. Transcriptions occasionally revealed use of control techniques not captured in field notes, and field notes provided helpful contextual features of the word for word accounts. For instance, teachers' rationales for using control techniques were iden tified by noting key words commonly associated with purpose statements, such as "so," "because," and "in order to." Purpose statemen ts also helped determine whether teachers sought to develop pupil self-discipline. Data were analyzed with three ongoing strategies: analytic induction, constant comparison, and topological analysis. Analytic induction (Patton, 1980) involved scanning data for categories of teacher behavior and for relationships among categories. Categories emerged from the data by grouping together the word for word accounts of control techniques according to like substance or intent of the teacher. Although intent was often obvious (i.e., "positioning" or "locating" children), it was sometimes best obtained during subsequent interviews. For example, the category "immobilizing" was established by grouping together phrases such as "Hold the ball," "Place the ball between your feet," and "Put your seat belt around your ball," because teachers said their common intent was to keep the playground balls still. The constant comparison strategy (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) involved comparing poten tial categories ofcon trol techniques across broader contexts. Data revealed "immobilizing" was commonly used in many contexts. Teachers immobilized several different types of equipment with children in a variety of organizational formations. Topologicalanalysis (Patton, 1980) was used to "crossclassify" (p. 316) classifications and categories. Crossclassifications were used to broadly facilitate, rather than to narrowly structure, data reduction and analysis. This

ROES: March 1991

was necessary since, in crossing control techniques with their larger classifications, some techniques represented all classifications and others represented a single classification (see Table 2). After developing a preliminary conceptual framework of control techniques, the strategies of analytic induction, constant comparison, and topological analysis were used with data obtained from interviews with and surveys of teachers.

InterviewData An informal semistructured in terviewwas conducted with each subject after preliminary analysis of observational data. Prior to the interview, teachers read preliminary operational definitions and examples ofcontrol techniques. During interviews, teachers (a) confirmed using control techniques categorized from observations, (b) identified control techniques not yet categorized by the researcher, (c) described additional control techniques not used during observed lessons, and (d) clarified intent of, and rationale for, using techniques. The latter item provided another means of determining teachers' desire to foster pupil self-discipline. Interview data revealed teachers used all techniques identified by the researcher during preliminary analysis. A few labels of techniques were changed to better represent teachers' perspectives. For example, the label "corporal punishment" was changed to "physically reprimanding" because four teachers thought the previous category was often narrowly defined with negative connotations. Three new categories of control techniques were established after teachers commented on direct quotes containing unlabeled control techniques from their respective lessons: "reinstating," "gaining attention," and "gaining attention-stopping" (see Table 2). "Reinstating" often included a conditional clause requiring that conduct improve: "You may return to the game ifyou can use the stick properly." "Gaining attention" and the subcategory "gaining attention-stopping" replaced earlier subcategories that targeted the audio (listening), oral (not talking), and visual (looking at teacher) modes. "Referring" was the only new category added to the inventory that the researcher did not observe. Four teachers indicated having sent pupils to the principal and/or con tacting parents about a child's conduct, even though these alternatives did not occur during the 64 lessons observed.

Survey Data All 27 teachers in the population were forwarded a survey to achieve broader support for categories of observed control techniques. Sixteen teachers (the eight teachers observed and eight others) completed surveys. Teachers indicated perceived frequency of using each

55

Henkel

Downloaded by [New York University] at 17:10 08 May 2015

preliminary control technique on a Likert-type scale represented by the choices "never," "seldom," "sometimes," "often," and 'very often." All control techniques identified by the researcher were represented byatleastone teacher surveyed. Eleven teachers indicated using all techniques except for "exercising" (see Table 2). Only one teacher indicated she used a technique thatwas not identified by the researcher, "warning" pupils to alleviate misconduct. The investigator did not omit the essence ofwarning pupils, however. Warnings were recorded as the technique "relinquishing," because several teachers indicated a warning was a precursor to a timeout or other loss of privilege. Individual survey items were correlated within each classification or subscale using the Pearson product

moment correlation. Relatively high correlations demonstrated that teachers who indicated frequent use of a particular control technique also indicated frequent use of its corresponding classification (s). Within the anticipatory, tutorial, and punitive classifications, most survey items yielded correlations between .32 and .98. Ongoing inductive analysis of data from audiotapes, interviews, and surveys resulted in modifying the preliminary conceptual framework. Modifications were made by changing the framework to accommodate observed con trol techniques or by redefining existing categories to exclude events not involving pupil control. Gradually, the framework was refined until all control techniques could be satisfactorily categorized, yielding the Physical Education Pupil Control Inventory (PEPCI).

Table 2. Category definitions ofthe Physical Education Pupil Control Inventory Amending (A,T)-Requiring child to amend improper conductbyexhibiting properconduct Correcting (T}-Modifying child's misconduct byemphasizing that something is wrong Exercising (A,T, PI-Administeringexercise as a consequencefor misconduct Gaining attention (A,T,)-Requiring child to keep mouth quiet,listen, think, or watch Calling name (T)-Saying child'snamewithout referenceto actual or expected conduct Immobilizing (A,T)-Instructing child to gain control ofgym equipment Stopping (A,T)-Requiring child to stop activity Ignoring (T)-Intentionally ignoring misconduct Locating (A,T)-Instructing child to assume a designated or chosen space to begin or resumeactivity Physically reprimanding (T,P)- Disapproving of misconduct through aggressive physical contact (drag, grab,shake) Positioning (A,T)-Instructing child to assume a designated or chosen body position Praising (A,T)-Acknowledging properconductwithout using a material rewardor special privilege Redirecting (T)-Directing attention from misconduct to properconductwithout direct mention that the child is doing something wrong Referring (T,P)-Contactinganother authority or sending child to anotherauthority (i.e., parentor principal) Reinstating (A)-Returning child to previous status of participation and/or privilege Relinquishing (A,T,P)-Taking a privilege away as a consequence of misconduct Confiscating (A,T,P)-Taking away equipment or personal belongings or having child return equipment prematurely Removing (A,T,P)-Removing child from activity Rewarding (A,T)-Acknowledging properconductwith a material rewardor special privilege Starting (A)-Clearly indicating when activity is to begin Stating rule (A,T)-Establishing or reinforcing a behavioral rule or expectation Waiting (T)-Delaying class until a problem ceases

Note. Letters in parentheses (A,T,P) indicate different classifications of control techniques(anticipating, tutoring, punishing) used by teachers.

56

ROES: March 1991

Henkel

Downloaded by [New York University] at 17:10 08 May 2015

Resulting Conceptual Framework The 23 categories of the PEPCI are defined in Table 2. Control techniques used by teachers occurred in two time frames and were placed in three classifications. Letters beside categories in Table 2 indicate which techniques were placed in each classification. First ofall, teachers anticipated misconduct and took precautions to avoid problems (preactive time frame). This classification was not labeled "preventive" (Kennedy, 1980; Siedentop et aI., 1984), since any control technique could potentially prevent misconduct from recurring. An example of anticipating misconduct occurred when teachers "gained attention" before giving directions to get equipment or perform a movement pattern: ''When I say go, you may. . . ." According to teachers, this technique encouraged better listening skills and sensitized pupils to wait for a clear starting signal. When misconduct did occur (reactive time frame), teachers most frequently tutored pupils through a process of deciding how to act. Since tutoring pupils alleviated misconductwithout punishing children, the process was less direct than the blind acceptance example given earlier. The relative directness of a tutorial technique could still vary, depending on how suggestive teachers were. Ifteachers considered misconduct serious (also reactive time frame), they often punished pupils. Misconduct was considered serious if it placed others in physical or emotional danger or if it recurred frequently. Punishment usually resulted in loss of an immediate (i.e., participation in the activity) or future (i.e., recess) privilege. Punishment referred to the substance of an unpleasant consequence rather than the manner or emotional tone in which the consequence was administered. This distinction is consistent with the work of Soar and Soar (1979), which distinguished between emotional control and control as management. Soar and Soar placed the teacher's expressions of positive and negative effect under the rubric of emotional control. After all, even "praising"achild'sconduct (substance) could be done in a negative, sarcastic manner (emotional control): ''Well, it's about time you listened to directions!" Occasionally, teachers employed more than one technique simultaneously (i.e., one teacher "removed" and "physically reprimanded" a child by dragging him to the side for a timeout). In addition to simultaneous occurrence, control techniques could be placed in more than one classification (as noted in Table 2). The following quotes from lessons exemplify placing the subcategory "confiscating" into all three classifications: Anticipating - "Ifyou don't use the hoop as I've asked, I'll have you put it away" (spoken before the children began using the hoops).

ROES: March 1991

Tutoring - "Ifyou twirl the hoop again, I'm going to have you put it away" (child was expected to leave hoop on the floor). Punishing - "I'm going to take the hoop, because you're not using it properly" (child was tossing hoop while the teacher was talking). Although anticipating and tutoring misconduct sometimes included intent to punish, control techniques involving intent to punish were not universally classified as punitive. For one thing, teachers granted pupils a grace period duringwhich to change their conduct. In addition, pupils may not have perceived punishment as a real likelihood, since teachers often failed to follow through with it.

Validity of Classifications andCategories Classifications and categories of control techniques were validated by triangulating data from observations, interviews, and surveys. Logical validity was achieved by inductively formulating categories of control techniques from live observations in natural settings. Con ten tvalidity was supported by teachers' wide use ofcon trol techniques categorized in the PEPCI. On average, teachers exhibited 18 of the 23 control techniques. Ofthe 2,089 total control techniques, those used most frequently were "gaining attention" (399), "gaining attention-stopping" (297), "positioning" (205), "starting" (160), "locating" (150), and "stating rule" (145). Furthermore, all techniques except "exercising" and "referring" were used by at least two teachers. Content validity was also enhanced by the ability to place all observed pupil control techniques within an established category. Responses of teachers from interviews and surveys provided further evidence of content validity. Teachers confirmed the adequacy and accuracy of preliminary categories and described additional control techniques used within their particular setting.

ReliabHity of Classifications andCategories Measures of percent agreement were determined from lessons videotaped subsequent to observations and prior to interviews (two lessons per teacher). The investigator and two collateral coders independen tly observed segments ofrandomly selected tapes. Seventy-eight percent of the techniques (18 of 23) were represented on tapes, a high percentage given that "referring" was not used during the 64 lessons observed and the only teacher who used "exercising" was not randomly selected for reliability tests. Categories of control techniques were recorded by classification and compared tally for tally. Procedures and decision rules for recording techniques and contextual variables on the tally sheet are explained in depth in the original document (Henkel, 1986).

57

Downloaded by [New York University] at 17:10 08 May 2015

Henkel

Interobserver agreement percentages of 83 and 81 (scores between the researcher and two collateral recorders) reflect consistency of placing control techniques within the anticipatory, tutorial, and punitive classifications. The 23 categories could be distinguished from one another 86 and 83% of the time, respectively. Percent agreement was not determined for each control technique, given the relatively low frequencies observed for certain techniques. Coders could disagree on classification, yet agree on the category, since some categories overlapped classifications. Intraobserver agreement for classificationsand for distinguishing among the 23 con trol techniques reached 90 and 88%, respectively. Although the investigator achieved the targeted agreemen t figures, coders could improve figures with practice, depending on the confidence level desired in supporting future statistical tests. Use of the PEPCI may also require modification of categories to represent other populations.

Discussion The PEPCI (or modification thereof) and corresponding recording instrumen tmay be used to determine differences in use ofcon trol techniques among elemen tary school physical educators. Ifsignificantdifferences exist, researchers could begin to examine potential effects of differences on pupils. Tests for differences were not conducted in the current study, because the investigator focused on developing the inventory. Teachers in this study did, however, exhibit wide variability in using certain control techniques. Total frequency of "immobilizing" equipment ranged from 0 to 38, frequency of "praising" conduct ranged from 3 to 33, and frequency of "relinquishing" a privilege ranged from 1 to 29. Differences in lesson focus account for some of the variability. For example, frequency of "immobilizing" equipment (defined in Table 2) is a function oflesson content and the ratio of pupils to equipment. The remaining discussion focuses on variability among teachers as it relates to developing pupil selfdiscipline, since self-discipline emerged as a key emphasis among several teachers. Four teachers indicated they deliberately tried to foster pupil self-discipline by (a) selecting tutorial control techniques, (b) using indirect forms oftechniques, and (c) conveying reasons for using techniques. The teachers' deliberate intent is consistent with their ideological preferences expressed during informal discussions and interviews. Column 4 in Table 1 highlights control techniques that characterize the presupposed link between ideology and practice expressed in the literature. Discussion contrasts the beliefs and practices of one self-discipline oriented teacher with a teacher who, admittedly, did not try to foster pupil selfdiscipline.

58

Selecting Tutorial Control Techniques The beliefs of Phil and Karen (fictitious names) in the current study characterized the authoritarian and democratic ideologies, respectively. Their practices were generallyconsistentwith their beliefs, as revealed through field notes and tape analysis. For Phil, maximum external control was a top priority, and pupil control was an explicit end rather than a means to other ends. In his words, ''It's like night and day between classes. This class I have to teach. You should stay for the next class; they're like this" (snapping fingers, as if to indicate the children respond on command without questioning teacher authority). Phil said he announced all rules of conduct in "no uncertain terms" at the beginning of the school year. He also said that, unlike some other teachers, he never "ignored" misconduct for the purpose ofhelping students modify their own conduct. Phil's practices were consistent with his beliefs. Following misconduct, Phil "corrected" pupils more than any other teacher (n = 29) and was the only teacher who used (or intended to use) "exercise" as punishment (n=5). He also used curt remarks to ridicule or embarrass children who failed to complywith expectations (brackets enclose the child's responses): "Lenny, that is late! Does it take you six minutes to get dressed every morning?" ["I hurt my finger."] ''You hurt your what?" ["My finger"] ''Your finger hurts? This one? What happened? ... Just because your finger is hurt, it's not the end of the world ... Are you going to the doctor?" [no response] ''You should! Now listen. Don't be such a baby. You remind me ofa two year old. You are going to have to learn to accept things ... Things happen to you. That deal with your foot last week was, I mean, I thought I was dealing with a ... What grade are you in? Fourth grade? Now come on, Lenny! You need to get tough!" In contrast to Phil, Karen considered pupil control a means to other educational ends, and said she trusted children to achieve self-discipline. She believed children were more likely to develop self-discipline if they experienced spontaneous situations requiring them to think about and even "test" appropriate rules for conduct. Therefore, Karen tried to introduce rules throughout the school year only as they were necessary. Karen's practiceswere also consistentwith her beliefs. Since she tried to introduce rules situationally, as necessary, she "stated rules" five times as often as Phil in lessons observed well into the year. "Stating rules" following pupil misconduct falls within the tutorial classification. Her orientation to pupil self-discipline was also exemplified by the differential use of the techniques "locating" and "positioning." Phil used these techniques only four times in total, because children were expected to sit in the same squad in the same place at several times throughout each lesson. Karen, on the other hand, "located" children 24 times and "positioned" them

ROES: March 1991

Henkel

39 times because she grouped children differently and in a variety of places throughout her lessons.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 17:10 08 May 2015

Using IndirectForms of Control Techniques The relationship between the form of a control technique and the amount of discretion pupils have regarding conduct may be key in fostering self-discipline. Forms ofcon trol techniques were distinguished post hoc according to the categories "directing," "eliciting," and "informing" (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975, p. 56). It is hypothesized here that pupils' discretion over their conduct increases as the form of the control technique becomes more indirect. Phil primarily directed pupils, as evidenced by previous quotes. He also used the command mode of directing seven times more often than Karen. The blind acceptance command given earlier (p, xx) would theoretically afford pupils little or no discretion over conduct, since pupils are induced to comply to avoid the threatening alternative. Karen directed children less than Phil and elicited pupil responses about their conduct much more frequently, as evidenced by the following excerpt from a second grade lesson: 'Was that a safe way to put your scooter away?" ["No."] "Next time, I'll bet if you weren't trying to go quite so fast you wouldn't slip. Why am I concerned ifyour scooter goes that way?" ["The scooter might break."] "Well, even more than the scooter breaking; what else might happen?" [no response] "If! were standing here and your scooter came, what could happen to my ankle or foot?" ["It could get hurt."] "Right, I could get hurt." Elicitations would theoretically afford pupils a lot of discretion over conduct, since emphasis is placed on understanding misconduct rather than on administering consequences. With rhetorical questions, however, pupils may have little discretion over conduct, even though the sentence structure used by the teacher is at the indirect end of the continuum. Therefore, Sinclair and Coulthard would consider Phil's rhetorical questions given earlier (i.e., "What grade are you in?") as directives, rather than genuine elicitations. Both Phil and Karen informed studen ts about expectations for conduct and potential consequences. In general, informational statements may be considered less direct than directives and more direct than elicitations. As with rhetorical questions, informational statements may be more or less direct depending on the teacher's attitude and tone ofvoice. A relatively indirect statement could be characterized by Karen's empathetic remarks to a couple first graders: "We're waiting for two people. I know it's hard to get those scooters over there."

Conveying Reasons for Using Techniques Karen was one of several teachers who believed providing reasons for expectations and related control

ROES: March 1991

techniques was key to fostering self-discipline. Examples ofher reasons are contained in the following exerptfrom a third grade lesson: 'When you hear this drum it means to freeze; it means your mouth, it means your feet, it means everything. There may be an acciden t that I wan t to checkoutso that other people don'tgetinjured; itmay mean that somebody stole the pin and the game is over." Karen assumed conveying reasons over time helped children internalize the importance of using self-discipline. During the eight lessons observed, Karen gave reasons for using tutorial control techniques 34 times. Phil provided reasons along with tutorial techniques only 14 times, and half of those could be red uced to the basic reason "because I said so." Karen gave this same rationale 4 times, but in most instances provided more information to enhance children's understanding. The PEPCI could help Karen, Phil, and other elementary school physical educators examine their beliefs about pupil control and monitor the consistency between their practices and beliefs. Awareness of the PEPCI classifications and categories could enhance teachers' forethought in deciding which control techniques to use in given situations. Once teachers have clear intentions they may use the instrumen t that accompanies the PEPCI to determine how closely their pupil control practices correspond to their intentions. Inexperienced teachers might particularly take note, since they may undergo considerable change in pupil control ideology and behavior (Drozda, 1975; Hoy, 1968; Templin, 1978). Larger questions may remain for some time. Adequately understanding the variables influencing use of control techniques and the impact of these techniques on children will require studying pupil control from many perspectives. Who knows better than pupils how they feel and act when a teacher uses a tutorial control technique or accompanies a technique with an indirect form or thoughtful reason? Answers to such questions will begin to provide elementary school physical educators with concrete guidelines for fostering pupil selfdiscipline.

References Apple, M. (1981). Ideologyand curriculum. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Ausubel,D. (1961) .Anew look at classroom discipline. PhiDelta Kappan, 43 (1),25-30. Barnes, D. (1963). Analysis of remedial activities used by elementary teachers in coping with classroom behavior problems. Journal a/Educational Research, 56, 544-577. Curwin, R., & Mendler, A. (1984). High standards for effective discipline. Educational Leadership, 41(8),75-76. Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook a/research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan.

59

Henkel

Downloaded by [New York University] at 17:10 08 May 2015

Drozda, D. (1975). The impact of organizational socialization on the pupil control ideologyofelementary school teachers as a result of the first year's teaching experience. In D. Willower (Ed.), Some comments on inquiries on schools and pupil control. Teacher CollegeRecord, 77,219-230. Duke, D. (1982). Helping teachers manage classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Gallup, G. (1988, September). The 20th annual Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. The Gallup Report, No. 276,41-51. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery ofgrounded theury: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Graham, G., Holt/Ha,le, S., & Parker, M. (1987). Children moving: A teacher'sguide to deoelopinga successfulphysicaleducation program. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Hellison, D. (1985). Goals and strategies for teaching physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Helsel, A., & Willower, D. (1974). Toward definition and measurement of pupil control behavior. Journal ofEducationalAdministration, 12(1),114-123. Henkel, S. (1986). Development ofan inventury for recording pupil control techniques used by elementary school physical educators.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofWisconsin-Madison. Hoffman, H., Young,]., & Klesius, S. (1981). Meaningful movement for children. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Hoy, W. (1968). Pupil control ideology and organization s0cialization: The influence ofexperience on the beginning teacher. School Review, 76, 312-323. Kennedy, E. (1980). The deoelopmera ofan observational system for the recording of disciplinary episodes in high school physical education classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Teachers College, Columbia University. Kounin,]. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

60

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R, & White, R (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentallycreated "social climates."Journal ofSocialPsychol1Jgy, 10,271-299.

Morris, G. (1980). Elementary physical education: Toward inclusion. Salt Lake City, UT: Brighton. Palardy,]., & Mudrey,]. (1973). Discipline: Four approaches. Elementary School journal, 73,297-305. Patton, M. (1980). 0talitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pittman, S. (1985). A cognitive ethnography and quantification of a first grade teacher's selection routines for classroom management. Elementary SchoolJournal, 85,541-555. Prewitt,]. (1971). A survey ofthe disciplinary procedures used byboys' high school physical education teachers. U npublished master's thesis, Sacramento State College. Siedentop, D., Herkowitz,]., & Rink,]. (1984). Elementary physical education methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Sinclair,]., & Coulthard, R. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press. Soar, R S., & Soar, R M. (1979). Emotional climate and management. In P. Peterson & H. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts,findings and implications. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Templin, T. (1978). Pupil control ideology and behavior and selected socialization [actors influencing the physical education student teacher. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Michigan. Werner,P. (1985). The learning environment. In]. Rink (Ed.), Teaching physical education [or learning (chap. 3). St. Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby. Wilson,]. (1981). Discipline and moraleducation: A survey ofpublic opinion and understanding. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities.

ROES: March 1991