Frederick Jones\' Model Should Instruction

Frederick Jones' Model

Should instruction be terminated when discipline is needed?

Instruction should be put on hold until the class is 100% alert to what is being presented by the teacher. As Jones explains, discipline should come before instruction. Jones says discipline is "…the only priority that makes any sense." If there is a disruption in any area of the classroom while students are on task -- following the assignment's instructions -- learning cannot take place. If a teacher makes a rule that while students are working individually no one should have conversations, or get up out of their seat, or otherwise disrupt the class, then the teacher has to back that up with action. "Making a rule that you are not willing to enforce every time has severe consequences," Jones says (Education World). If the teacher lets a situation fester, and doesn't enforce the rules, he has lost control and respect. Earlier in his presentation Jones mentioned that a teacher should spend the first two or three weeks with every new classroom full of students going over procedures, rules, and why they are necessary.

If he or she doesn't do that, then time must be taken away from future assignments to explain what should have been made clear at the outset. The way Jones operates in a classroom environment is very smart and keeps the class on task. That is, he never turns his back on the class and he walks up and down the aisles rather than lecturing constantly from the front of the room. That's what he calls body language (Education World). So, getting back to the question, instruction should be stopped until quiet and orderliness is restored; doing what you said you would do means everything to adolescents, who can smell fear like a pit bull can smell fear, and the student that can detect weaknesses in a teacher's approach will always take advantage.

How in your face is this model?

I really don't think this model is "in your face" as much as that cliche represents. "In your face" normally implies a confrontational situation, where a teacher, for example, would be angry at a student for misbehaving and raise his or her voice near to the face of the disruptive student. For Jones, he is tight with disciple but reading over his strategies the second time, a reader can clearly see that he believes not just in discipline but in structure.

To paraphrase how a teacher using Jones' methods, he or she might use the following kind of language (which is not "in your face"): This is how I run my classroom; I am pleased to have a chance to work with you, but in order for you to get anything out of this class we have to respect each other. I do follow through with my rules, so you will find if I ask you to help the rest of the class by remaining in your seat and staying on task, and you fail to follow those instructions, you will find yourself on detention. it's very simple: learning requires cooperation, and we're here to learn, students.

How might a teacher's manner & tone impact the effectiveness of this model?

Jones makes a very important point when he says a teacher shouldn't raise his or her blood pressure by specializing in dirty looks. By showing the student a face that reflects impatience and anger, the teacher is showing the student that he has effectively gotten under the teacher's skin. Jones points out correctly that most kids have parents who make threats and set rules but don't follow through when those rules are broken. So they come to class thinking they can pull the same stunts in class, but they can't if the teacher stays calm, consistent, and never turns his or her back on the class for any reason. The calm, well-organized teacher that sticks to the rules that have been applied to the classroom dynamics, and doesn't get flustered easily, is going to be successful (Metu.edu).

What types of students might not respond to the Jones' approach? Why?

One kind of student that will always test the teacher, whether the teacher is using Jones' strategy or not, is the gang banger, or gang wannabe. That boy is out to show the gang he is part of that he can stand up to authority. The other kind of student who won't cooperate (until punished) is the kid from a broken home who has been dabbling in drugs and alcohol and has free reign at his home (a single parent home). No matter how reasonable and cool the teacher may be, these two types have nothing to lose because they have already been suspended several times and getting kicked out again might be good because they don't really want to be in school and they have a job at a local car wash that gives them enough money to buy drugs.

Do you agree with Jones' philosophy about group productivity? Why or why not?

I do agree that productivity can occur if the teacher is consistent and moves around the classroom constantly and presents a good role model for students to follow. When there is a disruption, hit the "relax button" and don't show that you are frustrated or about to blow up; the class will continue to be productive. If the class isn't fully under control, there will not be productivity because it is not possible to have students quietly working individually if big mouth over in the corner is blabbing with his buddy loud enough for everyone to hear. He has to be dealt with. "Do not expect students to take classroom structure more seriously than you do," Jones explains. That hits the nail on the head if a teacher truly wants class productivity (PBS).