Comparing Three Classroom Management Styles and Theories

Introduction

This paper compares three distinct approaches to classroom management: Wong's Pragmatic Classroom, Kagan, Kyle, and Scott's Win-Win Discipline, and Morrish's Real Discipline. Each model is evaluated on its core philosophy, practical strengths, and notable weaknesses.

Wong's Pragmatic Classroom

Harry and Rosemary Wong's theory of education holds that the clear implementation and definition of procedures allow for effective learning and classroom management. Highly codified sets of instructions and modes of behavior are clearly laid out for students and consistently adhered to by instructors, ensuring regularity and consistency. These structures become self-reinforcing and allow for the completion of educational plans, tasks, and goals in a predictable and scheduled fashion.

A major strength of this system is the degree of order it theoretically produces, as well as the ability it gives instructors and administrators to have a clear idea of what can and will be accomplished within a given timeframe. However, this system does not allow for a great deal of flexibility or adaptability, nor does it foster individual creativity or cater to differentiated learning styles. For these reasons, it is not especially appealing as a standalone approach.

Kagan, Kyle, and Scott's Win-Win Discipline

Rather than viewing discipline as something "done to" students, the Win-Win Discipline model treats disruptive behaviors and the mindset of students who exhibit them as natural and understandable — though not acceptable. Disruptions are used as teaching moments, with the instructor guiding the disruptive student and the classroom as a whole toward more productive ways to meet whatever underlying need the disruptive behavior reflects.

This system minimizes the overall negative impact of a disruptive scenario not by avoiding or deflecting the situation, but rather by meeting disruptions head-on in a positive manner, operating on the belief that behaviors can be modified through encouragement and explicit attention. A major weakness inherent to this approach, however, is that disruptive behaviors can still derail classroom tasks and instructor goals; even when the instructor remains in control and turns a disruption into a positive teaching moment, the originally intended task has been interrupted. Disruptive students also automatically receive greater attention in this schema, making it undesirable in most typical classroom situations. Further analysis of this approach can be found in positive behavior support literature.

Morrish's Real Discipline

In Ronald Morrish's Real Discipline model, dealing with disruptive incidents is a secondary function — preventing these incidents from occurring in the first place is the primary goal. Designing the learning environment and lesson plans in a manner that encourages the fulfillment of expectations, rather than requiring the enforcement of consequences, allows students to find their own non-disruptive path to learning, rather than having a behavioral framework imposed upon them.

Strengths of this system include much greater flexibility in terms of accommodating different learning styles and potential problems, the ability to allow for the simultaneous engagement in different tasks or the same task in different ways, and a generally calmer and less discipline-focused atmosphere — all of which are more conducive to learning. Greater effort is needed during the planning stages to ensure the system's success, and resource limitations can inhibit proper implementation. Nevertheless, this approach aligns well with principles of Universal Design for Learning, which similarly emphasizes proactive, flexible instructional design.

Conclusion

Overall, Morrish's Real Discipline is the most desirable system, as it allows for the greatest flexibility in terms of personal and individualized learning and development.