A review of Marvin Marshall's "Discipline without Stress, Punishments, or Rewards"

** If you would like a word document version to make it easier to read please let me know and I can provide it via email!**

All students are different, and therefore, every classroom situation is unique. With that said, the general concept of school itself is universal. That is, school is a place where people go to learn, to be taught. But for learning to occur, there must be some sort of order in place within the classroom. This order can come in the form of routines, procedures, behavior contracts and so much more. All of these aspects of order are typically classified under the wide umbrella of classroom management. Many aspects of classroom management are put in place to increase desired behaviors of students so that the classroom is a place where learning can occur. If all students are different and every classroom situation is unique, how can a teacher possibly know how to most effectively increase desired behaviors in those particular students? Do you discipline them with punishments and consequences, and reward with tangible objects and praise? Or do you simply require the student to reflect upon their behavior?  It would seem beneficial to have a theory that would be applicable across multiple different situations. Luckily, educational literature has just that: many theories that a teacher can choose from on how to increase desired student behaviors in the classroom to make it an appropriate environment for learning. “Discipline without Stress, Punishment, or Rewards” is an article written by Marvin Marshall suggesting how teachers can easily influence the behaviors of students( 2005). In his article he distinguishes discipline and classroom management as two separate entities, and he explains that discipline is the responsibility of the student not the teacher. In his article, Marshall suggests a system that allows this separation to occur. Although Marshall has many valid points, can discipline be separated from classroom management and is it realistic to think that a teacher can “discipline without stress, punishments, or rewards”?

Marshall begins his article by defining classroom management as most classroom teachers would: “structure, procedures, and routines” (Marshall, 2005). However, he does not include discipline as an aspect of classroom management. In fact, Marshall makes a point to distinguish classroom management and discipline as two separate entities. He explains that classroom management is the responsibility of the teacher, whereas discipline is the students’ responsibility (Marshall, 2005). He even goes as far as to say, “when teachers take on the role of disciplining students, they deprive young people of the opportunity to become more responsible” (Marshall, 2005). Marshall continues by summarizing three “principles to practice” that teachers should incorporate into their classroom management techniques, which also promote responsibility in students. The first of the three principles is positivity. Marshall suggests avoiding “no” statements and turning them in to more positive and constructive statements. The second principle is choice. Offering choices in all situations means that students must take responsibility for their own decisions and actions. The third principle is reflection. Marshall believes that if you ask reflective questions regarding a students’ behavior it will have a longer lasting effect and possibly help shape their behavior in the future, as compared to simply telling them to stop a certain behavior (2005).

Marshall then goes on to explain a system that he says should raise responsibility in students so that they can self-discipline; the “Raise Responsibility System” This system is based on three aspects; the teaching hierarchy, checking for understanding, and guided choices. The teaching hierarchy is comprised of four levels of “social development”, or four levels of behavior. As with most hierarchies, the top level is the most desirable level. The highest level is given the title of “Democracy” and those who are within it show “internal motivation, responsibility, initiative, and self-discipline”.  It is Marshall’s suggestion that “exposure to the levels encourages responsible behavior if for no other reason than the motivating principle of challenge” (2005).  Checking for understanding, the second aspect of the “Raise Responsibly System”, suggests that a checking of understanding should follow all student disruptions. The disruptive student is to acknowledge what level of behavior, according to the hierarchy, they are currently portraying, prompting a reflection on their behavior. This is when students can begin to self-discipline. They act inappropriately, the teacher prompts them to reflect, and they correct their behavior. Marshall suggests that it is this reflection process that helps students become more responsible for their actions in the future. The final piece to the system is the “guided choices” aspect. This piece is to deal with repeated events of unwanted behaviors. Rather than the teacher telling the student exactly what action needs to be taken, the teacher is to give the student choices which will guide them in the right direction or towards a more appropriate behavior. Marshall concludes his article by proposing that using the “three principles to practice and the raise responsibility system is a significantly more effective approach to promoting responsible behavior than are traditional adversarial and negative approaches.”

Marshalls article provides a seemingly simple and to the point way of managing a classroom and disciplining students. Basically, the teacher sets up procedures and routines, and the students follow them and self-discipline when they find their behaviors do not match expectations. Marshall does not once mention giving students any type of reward for good behavior, or even for showing that they can self-discipline appropriately; nor does he suggest punishing students for inappropriate behavior. I believe that both of these aspects are what would contribute to the success of this theory. Recent research has shown that extrinsically motivating students with rewards, tangible objects or with praise, results in a decline of a students’ intrinsic motivation (Moberly, Waddle & Duff, 2005). If a teacher is constantly rewarding students for appropriate behavior it only seems natural that the students will begin to expect a reward for everything that they do. With that, students may not show particular behaviors if they know that they are not going to be rewarded for them. So, Marshall avoids this completely by suggesting no rewards should be given, and that students should act a certain way “if for no other reason than the motivating principle of challenge” (2005). As appealing as this sounds, it is hard to picture young students acting a certain way for a reason all their own (Akin-Little, Eckert, Lovett & Little, 2004). In order for this to happen, I think that students would need to be shown how a certain behavior would benefit them in the future; make the behavior look appealing. This would still maintain the integrity of the theory while showing students the practicality of certain behaviors.

On the other hand, Marshall also believes that punishment is not necessary to correct or change behavior. Punishment, even when it is for the right reasons, can often have the opposite effect than intended. Once a teacher begins to punish, the perspective the students have of the teacher may change. Students may begin to perceive that the teacher is punishing more often than they actually are, and this could diminish any positive relationships that have been created in the classroom, and in turn decrease the efficiency of their classroom management (Roache & Lewis, 2011). So, as long as students know what behavior is expected of them, prompting them to reflect on their behavior means that punishment is not necessary, and the classroom climate can remain in tact.

But, as any teacher would tell you, nothing ever goes exactly as planned. Even if a teacher were to follow this system exactly as it is laid out there would still be bumps along the way. Fortunately, Marshall also provides three practices that all teachers should use within their classroom management techniques: positivity, choice, and reflection. If nothing else, these three elements help the teacher avoid trying to control a students’ behavior which often has the opposite effect.  Instead, these three things allow the teacher and student to work together to shape behavior (Roache & Lewis, 2011).

In conclusion, Marshall’s idea of “Discipline without Stress, Punishments, or Rewards” has a lot of validity to it. Regardless if you agree that classroom management and discipline are one or separate, his approach to increase student responsibility seems to take in to consideration much of the current research. The lack of rewards means that student intrinsic motivation is left in tact, and the lack of punishment means that relationships within the classroom can stay positive. However, there is always an exception. It is unrealistic to think that this one method would eliminate all misbehaviors, but Marshall does provide a foundation for dealing with such exceptions.  So, Marshall has shown that discipline without punishment and rewards is possible, but discipline without stress? I’m not sure that could ever be achieved.

References

Akin-Little, K., Eckert, T. L., Lovett, B. J., & Little, S. G. (2004). Extrinsic Reinforcement in the Classroom: Bribery or Best Practice. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 344-362.

Marshall, M. (2005, September). Discipline withoug Stress, punishments, or Rewards. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 79(1), 51-55.

Moberly, D. A., Waddle, J. L., & Duff, R. (2005, July). The use of rewards and punishment in early childhood classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25, 356-359.

Roache, J., & Lewis, R. (2011, November). Teacher's views on the impact of classroom management on student responsibility. Australian Journal of Education, 55(2), 132-146.