Clarifying Teachers' Beliefs

About Discipline
Carl D. Glickman and Roy T. Tamashiro

Using a simple instrument, teachers can

choose an approach to classroom discipline
compatible with their own values.

Student discipline is consistently a primary con

cern of teachers and citizens. 1 In fact, teachers' in
ability to manage students effectively is the main
source of dissatisfaction for two-thirds of today's
teachers. 2 Numerous books have been written to assist
teachers with discipline problems, and there are many
courses and workshops to choose from, ranging from
"behavior modification methods" to "reality therapy"
to "teacher effectiveness training." But the increasing
number of choices makes decisions more difficult,
especially for beginning teachers whose teacher prep
aration programs gave them little exposure to disci
pline strategies, and who have yet to develop their
own styles.
We have developed a way for teachers to clarify
their beliefs on discipline so they can select strategies
with which they are comfortable. Self-concept the
orists, including Lecky3, Kelley4, Snygg and Combs5
I
1 George Gallup, "Eleventh Annual Gallup Poll of the
Public's Altitudes Toward the Public Schools," Phi Delta Kap-
pan 60 (September 1977): 33-45.
2 "Who is the Classroom Teacher?" Today's Education
(Nov.-Dec. 1977): 11.
3 P. Lecky, Self-Consistency: A Theory of Personality
(Long Island, N.Y.: Island Press, 1945).
4 G. A. Kelley, The Psychology of Personal Construct*
(New York: Norton, 1955).
5 D. Snygg and A. W. Combs, Individual Behavior (New
York: Harper & Row, 1949).

MARCH 1980 459

 modate to others as others learn to accommodate to
Figure 1. Teacher-Student Control Continuum them. Thus, the solution to misbehavior is a recipro
Teacher Control________________________________ cal relationship between student and teacher (or class
Student Control
mates). One does not make one's own solution but
Low Teacher Control Equal Teacher Control High Teacher Control rather is confronted by the realities of living with
High Student Control Equal Student Control Low Student Control others and abiding by rules of behavior that are satis
factory to all parties. Both teacher and student share
I
Non-lnterventlonltt*
I
Jnteractlonallats
1
Interventlonltta
equal control over each other.
The Interventionists draw their rationale from
experimental psychologists who believe that human
action is a matter of external conditioning. Students
posit that individuals strive for consistency and unity learn to behave only as certain behaviors are rein
in their values and beliefs, and threats to this con forced, so a student's misbehavior is the result of
sistency produce feelings of distress. Epstein wrote: inadequate rewards or punishments. The teacher must
. . . that the individual, as he goes about the business set the standards and go about efficiently and con
of attempting to solve the problems of everyday living, sistently shaping the appropriate behavior. The way
proceeds in a manner similar to that of the scientist who students learn to behave is for a teacher to system
is attempting to solve more impersonal problems. Both atically teach those standards. The inner or recip
continuously make and test hypotheses and revise their rocal worlds of the student are not important. The
concepts. ... If experience were not so arranged, it would
be impossible to behave effectively in a complex world teacher exerts high control over the student.
with innumerable conflicting demands.6 The above descriptions are somewhat arbitrary
and oversimplified, but the classifications are consist
When these concepts are applied to beliefs on
ent with other models developed to explain teacher
discipline, we can infer that teachers hold hypotheses
behavior, educational ideologies, and psychologies.8
about discipline, and that they desire to behave
The essential factor in this classification is the degree
toward students in ways to validate or reject their
of control assumed by the teacher and student.
hypotheses. Because of the daily pressures of teach
Teachers may be able to identify some of their
ing, however, they may lose sight of their beliefs and
own beliefs using a general model such as the one
therefore lack standards by which to judge their own
outlined here, but still might not be able to identify
disciplinary actions. They need a way to identify their
the areas of confusion, or incongruity. The Beliefs
hypotheses and test the extent to which they func
on Discipline Inventory was constructed to help them
tion according to those hypotheses.
clarify their own beliefs.
Three Schools of Thought
The Inventory
Glickman and Wolfgang7 have identified three
The Beliefs on Discipline Inventory (Figure 2) is
schools of thought along a teacher-student control
a self-administered, self-scored instrument that can
continuum (Figure 1). The Non-Interventionists look
be used to make a general assessment of a teacher's
to such disparate psychologies as psychoanalysis and
beliefs on discipline according to the three schools
humanism for their beliefs about student behavior.
described above. There are three parts to the inven
They believe that misbehavior is the result of un
tory: prediction items, forced choice items, and self-
resolved inner conflicts. Individuals who are given the
scoring and interpretation.
opportunity and appropriate support will be able to
The prediction items ask the teacher which
bring to the conscious level their inner difficulties
school of discipline dominates his/her beliefs. Re
and will be able to solve their own misbehaviors. In
sponses to these items, which represent one's hypoth
other words, students are masters of their own des eses about discipline, are later compared with one's
tiny and have the inherent capability to solve their
own problems. Teachers should not impose their own 6 S. Epstein, "The Self-Concept Revisited: Or a Theory of
rules but should allow students to reason for them a Theory," American Psychologist 28 (1973): 404-416.
selves. According to this school of thought, the stu 7 C. Glickman and C. Wolfgang, "Conflict in the Class
dent is given high control and the teacher low. room: An Eclectic Model of Teacher-Child Interaction," Ele
The Interactionalists look to the works of social mentary School Guidance and Counseling (December 1978):
82-87.
and developmental psychologists to understand stu
8 A. Berlak and others, 'Teaching and Learning in English
dents' actions. They believe that students learn to
Primary Schools," School Review (1975): 215-243; L. Kohlberg
behave as a result of encountering the outside world and R. Mayer, "Development as the Aim of Education," Har
of objects and people. Students must learn to accom vard Educational Review 42 (1972): 449-496.
460 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Photo © Vaughn Sills, Cambridge, Massachusetts

actual beliefs as indicated by responses to the second the teacher to identify which predominates in his/her
part, the forced choice items. thinking.
Each forced choice item in part II pits a belief The scoring procedure includes comparing re
or technique from one school of thought against a sults of the forced choice with the predictions made
belief or technique from another school. The teacher in part I. Discrepancies between one's predictions and
selects the belief or technique closest to his/her own. one's actual score make explicit the inconsistencies
An assumption of the Inventory is that indi between one's hypotheses and one's actual beliefs.
viduals believe in and use techniques from all three
schools of thought, although usually one predomi Interpretation
nates. Thus, a score is derived for each school of
thought. The percentage point score represents the When a teacher has completed the Beliefs on
ratio of the number of times one school of thought Discipline Inventory, there are several things he/she
was chosen over either of the other two, compared to may do, depending on the outcome.
the number of times it might have been chosen. This Probably the most dramatic result that can occur
relative ranking of the three belief systems enables is a discrepancy between what one predicted in part I
MAKCH 1950 461
 Figure 2. Beliefs On Discipline I nventory
Pan I. Prediction 7. When a student does not Join In a group activity,
INSTRUCTIONS: Rank order the discipline models according to A. The teacher should explain the value of the activity to the
how you think you generally believe. Place 1 next to the model you student, and encourage the student to participate.
think most dominates your beliefs, 2 next to the second, and 3 next B. The teacher should attempt to identify the student's reasons
to the third. for not joining, and to create activities that meet the needs of
1.A. Model Rank the student.
Interventionist ____________ 8. During the first week of class, I will most likely:
Non-Interventionist ___________ A. Allow the students to interact freely and initiate any rule mak
Interactionalist ___________ ing.
Next, answer the following questions: B. Announce the classroom rules and inform students how the
rules will be fairly enforced.
1.B. In handling classroom discipline, how often do you think you
take an Interventionist position rather than either a Non-inter 9.A. Student's creativity and self-expression should be encouraged
ventionist or an Interactionalist position? and nurtured as much as possible.
1.B. Nearly 100% __ About 75% __ About 50% __ About 25% __ B. Limits on destructive behaviors have to be set without deny
of the time of the time of the time of the time ing students their sense of choice and decision.
Nearly 0% __ 10. If a student interrupts my lesson by talking to a neighbor, 1
of the time will most likely:
1.C. In handling classroom discipline, how often do you think you A. Move the child away from other students and continue the
take a Non-Interventionist position rather than either an Inter lesson; class time should not be wasted on account of one
ventionist or an Interactionalist position? student.
I.C. Nearly 100% About 75% __ About 50% __ About 25% __ B. Tell students about my annoyance and conduct a discussion
of the time of the time of the time of the time with students about how they feel when being interrupted.
Nearly 0% __ 11.A. A good educator is firm but fair in disciplining violators of
of the time school rules.
1.D. In handling classroom discipline, how often do you think you B. A good educator discusses several alternative disciplinary
take an Interactionalist position rather than either an Intervention actions with a student who violates a school rule.
ist or Non-Interventionist position? 12. When one of the more conscientious students does not com
1.0. Nearly 100% __ About 75% __ About 50% __ About 25% __ plete an assignment on time,
of the time of the time of the time of the time
A. I know the student has a legitimate reason, and that the stu
Nearly 0% dent on his/her own will turn in the assignment.
of the time B. I tell the student that she/he was expected to turn in the
assignment when it was due, and then with the student, we
Part II. Forced Choices will jointly decide on the next steps.
INSTRUCTIONS: For each question below, there are two state
ments, A and B . C hoose the statement that is closest to how you Part III. Scoring and lnterpretat : on
feel. You might not agree with ei'.her choice, but you must choose Step 1. Circle your responses on the following table and tally the
one. Circle either A or B, but not both. Please be sure to answer totals in each table:
all 12 items.
Table I Table II
1.A. Students are not always capable of making rational and moral
decisions. 2A 1A 4B 1B 2B 4A
3B 5A 6A 5B 3A 6B
B. Students' inner emotions and capacity for decision making
7A 8B 9A 8A 7B 9B
must always be considered legitimate end valid.
11A 10A 12A 10B 11B 12B
2. A. Generally, I assign students to specific areas or seats in the
classroom. Step 2. Multiply the totals from each table above by a factor of 8Vs.
B. Generally, my seating (or work area) assignments are open to 2.1 Total responses in Table I _____ X 8Vj = ____
negotiation.
2.2 Total responses in Table II ____ X 8% = ____
3. A. Even though students are not fully mature, teachers should 2.3 Total responses in Table III ____ X 8% = ____
give them responsibilities and choices.
B. Students should not be expected to be fully responsible for Step 3. Before Interpreting your results, check to see that the sum
their decisions because they are strongly influenced by teach of your responses in Table I. Table II, and Table III is 12.
ers, parents, friends, and TV. The product you obtained in Step 2.1 above is an ap
proximate percentage of how often you take an Intervention
4. When the noise level in the classroom bothers me, I will most ist approach to discipline rather than either a Non-Interven
likely: tionist or Interactionalist approach, as indicated by the forced
A. Discuss my discomfort with the students, and attempt to come choices format.
to a compromise with them about noise levels during activity Compare this value with your predicted percentage for
periods. Interventionist from part 1.B. of the Inventory.
The product you obtained in Step 2.2 above is an approx
B. Allow the activity to continue as long as the noise is not dis
imate percentage of how often you take a Non-Interventionist
turbing or upsetting any student. approach to discipline, rather than one of the other ap
5. During class, if a student breaks a classmate's portable 8- proaches. This percentage value can be compared to your
track tape player. I as the teacher will most likely: predicted percentage from part 1.C.
The product you obtained in Step 2.3 is an approximate
A. Scold both students, one for disrespecting others' property,
percentage of how often you take an Interactionalist approach
and the other for breaking a rule prohibiting personal radios
to discipline rather than one of the other approaches. This
and tape players in school.
percentage can be compared to your predicted percentage
B. Avoid interfering in something that the students (and possibly from part l.D.
their parents) need to resolve themselves. By comparing the three percentage values computed in
6. If students unanimously agree that a classroom rule is unjust Step 2 above (2.1, 2.2, and 2.3), you can assess which dis
cipline model predominates in your beliefs. If the percentage
and should be removed but I (the teacher) disagree with them,
then values are equal, or close to equal, you may be eclectic in
your approach.
A. The rule should probably be removed, and replaced by a rule Your percentage values for each of the three models
made by the students. (Step 2) could be compared with your predicted rank order
B. The students and I should jointly decide on a fair rule. of the discipline models (Part 1.A. of the Inventory).

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP 462

and the actual beliefs indicated by the score on part dents, the teacher's own immediate inclination, or
II. This may indicate that the individual does not some other undetermined criteria. These individuals
fully understand the three schools of discipline, but may want to reflect further to identify the basis by
more likely, his/her hypothesis does not accurately which they decide on discipline issues. Or they may
reflect his/her actual beliefs. Individuals who show have the more difficult task of using approaches from
this discrepancy may choose to reexamine the forced- all schools of thought coherently.
choice items to pinpoint some of their specific belief When teachers have analyzed their responses,
discrepancies. they can make an informed decision about which of
Reexamining one's responses can be a starting the popular theories on discipline will be most infor
point for reflecting on incongruities between beliefs mative and useful for them.
and actions. Some items in the inventory are belief Non-Interventionist: The following writers have
statements (items 1, 3, 9, 11) and others are specific in common a belief in students' ability to solve their
disciplinary actions or techniques (items 2, 4, 5, 6, own problems if given the proper support by the
7, 8, 10,12). In reviewing the items, one may discover teacher:
that one school of thought dominates on the items 1. Gordon* suggests that the teacher use active
involving beliefs while another school of thought listening, nondirective statements, door openers (and
dominates on items involving techniques. re-openers), "I" statements, and Method III problem
The pattern of responses in part II is also in solving found in Teacher Effectiveness Training.
structive. The most frequent pattern is for'one school
2. Harris10 offers a way to analyze verbal and
of thought to predominate. (For example, Interven
nonverbal transactions between teacher and student
tionist 67 percent; Non-Interventionist 17 percent;
in order to improve communication.
Interactionalist 17 percent). In this case, the individual
may wish to think and act more in accordance with 3. Raths,11 Simon, 12 and others suggest that the
the predominant school of thought and reduce the teacher learn how to conduct formal classes and in
role of the other two schools. This involves studying formal discussions about personal values. In books
and learning additional strategies and reasoning of such as Values Clarification and Values and Teaching
the school of thought that predominates one's beliefs. they suggest that as students explore and internalize
Another direction is for one to expand one's reper a personal code of behavior, misbehavior will de
toire of techniques on discipline by considering and crease.
possibly using techniques from the non-dominant The Interactionalists: The following authors be
schools of thought. This involves learning the beliefs lieve in a teacher actively limiting a student's behav
and strategies of those schools of thought and inte ior to choices within socially approved rules and
grating them with one's predominant beliefs. regulations. Solutions to misbehavior are dealt with
Individuals whose pattern of responses in part as a matter of reciprocal agreement between student
II is even (for example, Interventionist 33 percent; and teacher:
Non-Interventionist 33 percent; and Interactionalist
33 percent) may be eclectic in their beliefs on 1. Dreikurs13 has the teacher finding out through
discipline. That is, they may act on the basis of sirua- a series of questions what the misdirected goal of
tional cues, age or developmental stage of the stu- misbehavior is (attention, power, revenge, or help
lessness). When the goal has been identified, the
teacher is to use encouragement and logical con
sequences to help the student redirect his/her be
"Individuals who are given the opportunity havior.
and appropriate support will be able to bring
to the conscious level their inner difficulties 9 T. Gordon, Teacher Effectiveness Training (New York:
Peter H. Wyden, Publisher, 1974).
and will be able to solve their own misbe 10 T. A. Harris, I'm OK You're OK: A Practical Guide to
haviors." Transactional Analysis (New York: Harper and Row Publish
ers, 1969).
11 L. E. Raths, M. Harmin, and S. B. Simon, Values and
Teaching (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1966), p. 30.
12 S. B. Simon, L. W. Howe, and H. Kirschenbaum, Values
Clarification: A Handbook of Practical Strategies for Teachers
and Students (New York: Hart Publishing Co., Inc., 1972), pp.
58-75.
13 R. Dreikurs and P. Cassel, Discipline Without Tears
(New York: Hawthorne Books, Inc., 1972).
MARCH 1980 463
 2. Glasser14 provides techniques for confronting teacher would complete the Inventory according to
a student's misbehavior and pressing the student for how the observer had seen the teacher in action. A
a commitment to carry out a mutually agreed upon fruitful discussion could emerge between the observer
plan. He advocates the use of three levels of isolation and the teacher when their responses were compared.
("off to the castle") with a new plan re-emerging Principals and curriculum specialists could also
after each. He also tells how "classroom meetings" use the Inventory in connection with planning in-
can be used to encounter a disruptive student. service meetings. The forced-choice section could be
used as the basis for polling teachers to determine
The Interventionists: The following authors be which school of discipline predominated among them.
lieve that classroom management involves setting A workshop on discipline that approached the topic
clear standards of behavior and using appropriate in a manner consistent with the teachers' beliefs
reinforcers, positive and negative: would probably be accepted more warmly than an
1. Blackhan and Silberman, 15 Homme,16 Madsen arbitrarily selected approach.
and Madsen,17 and others provide the teacher with The Beliefs on Discipline Inventory is quickly
experimental tools of behavior modification. The administered and scored, and it has good face valid
teacher is told how to use the techniques of various ity. 20 Although designed primarily for assessment, it
reinforcers (primary, social, or token), saturation, ex also has instructional value. For these reasons, educa
tinction, contingency contracting, and isolation ("time tors are likely to find other ways to use it construc
out") to shape desired student behavior. tively. fiJ
2. Dobson and Engelmann18 are advocates of be
14 W. Glasser, Schools Without Failure (New York: Har
havior modification but they also recommend the re
per & Row, 1969).
strained use of punishment. They provide the teacher
15 G. Blackhan and A. Silberman, Modification of Child
with ways to set a firm tone when explaining ex and Adolescent Behavior, 2nd ed. (Belmont, California: Wads-
pected rules and regulations. Punishment (negative worth Publishing Co., Inc., 1975).
reinforcement) is used according to certain criteria. 16 H. L. Homme, How to Use Contingency Contracting in
the Classroom (Champaign, III.: Research Press, 1973).
Eclectic: Eclectics believe there is no one expla 17 C. H. Madsen and L. Madsen, Teaching Discipline: Be
nation for how students grow, learn, or behave. They havioral Principles Towards a Positive Approach (Boston:
may use the strong reinforcement tools of the Inter Allyn and Bacon, 1970).
ventionists with a student in one circumstance and 18 J. Dobson, Dare to Discipline (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyn-
the non-judgmental, empathetic tools of the Non- dale House Publishers, 1970); S. Engelmann, Preventing Failure
Interventionist in another. They must be knowledge in the Primary Grades ( New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969).
able about various approaches and know when to use 19 C. Wolfgang and C. Glickman, Solving Discipline Prob
lems: Alternative Strategies for Classroom Teachers (Boston,
which. Mass.: Allyn & Bacon, 1980).
An eclectic teacher should be acquainted with 20 The instrument has been field tested with 61 pre-service
the ideas of at least one author from each school of teachers and 63 in-service teachers. Responses to one option
thought (for example, Gordon, Glasser, and Dobson). (for example, A) for each item ranged from 29 percent to 71
In addition, he/she might refer to the writings of percent, which suggests good item discrimination. The items
Wolfgang and Glickman19 to learn how to assess a were also critiqued by teachers, curriculum specialists, and
college professors in education for theoretical consistency.
student's stage of social development in order to
apply eclectic discipline.

Uses For the Inventory

The Beliefs On Discipline Inventory is probably
most beneficial when it is used as a starting point,
rather than as a "one-shot" strategy. For example,
after a teacher has read a book on discipline or tried
some new strategies in the classroom, he/she might
retake the Inventory and compare results of the
second round with those of the first.
Another way to use the Inventory is for teachers Carl D. Glickman (left) is Associate Professor, De
to compare their beliefs with others' perceptions of partment of Curriculum and Supervision, University
their behavior. A teacher would first complete the of Georgia, Athens; Roy T. Tamashiro is Assistant
Inventory according to the directions. Then, an ob Professor, Faculty of Early and Middle Childhood
Education, Ohio State University, Columbus.
server the teacher's supervisor, principal, or another
464 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Copyright © 1980 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development. All rights reserved.