Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Classroom management

Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 43.1 2008

Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Classroom Management:

A Case Study of Three Elementary Teachers

Tracey Garrett

RIDER UNIVERSITY, LAWRENCEVILLE, NEW JERSEY

ABSTRACT

The major purpose of this case study was to document

the classroom management beliefs and practices of three

teachers reputed to implement student-centered instruction

and to examine the relationship between their instructional

and managerial approaches. More specically, do teachers

who use student-centered instruction also implement student-

centered management? Results indicate that, although all

three teachers used an eclectic approach, two teachers tend-

ed to be more student-centered while one was more teacher-

centered with respect to classroom management. All three

teachers’ approaches also reected the principles of “good

classroom management” derived from studies conducted in

the 1960’s and 1970’s in traditional transmission classrooms.

Results also indicate that the teachers did think about the re-

lationship between instruction and classroom management,

but not in terms of using student-centered management to

support their student-centered instruction. Rather, they

thought about what management strategies were necessary

to successfully implement a particular lesson.

INTRODUCTION

For years, people’s understanding of classroom man-

agement was rooted in behavioral theories of teaching and

learning. The primary emphasis for classroom management

in a behavioral model is the use of techniques that bring

students’ behavior under stimulus control (Brophy, 1999).

These behavioral approaches to classroom management are

consistent with a “traditional” or transmission approach to

instruction. Over the last decade, however, views on good

instruction have shifted. Educators are now encouraged to

implement an instructional approach based on constructiv-

ist principles of learning (Brophy, 1999; Dollard and Chris-

tensen, 1996).

In contrast to traditional instruction, this student-cen-

tered approach focuses on meaning making, inquiry and au-

thentic activity. The instructional goal in student–centered

classrooms, based on constructivist principles of learning,

is to create a learning environment where knowledge is co-

constructed by the teacher and students rather than transmit-

ted directly by the teacher. Brophy (1999) explains that in

these classrooms students are expected to “strive to make

sense of what they are learning by relating it to prior knowl-

edge and by discussing it with others” (p. 49). The class acts

as “a learning community that constructs shared understand-

ing” (Brophy, 1999, p. 49).

To complement this shift in instructional approach,

some school reformers and researchers propose a shift in

classroom management approach. For example, Rogers and

Freiberg (1999) suggest that such a shift requires teachers

to adopt a person-centered, rather than a teacher-centered,

orientation toward classroom management, which features

shared leadership, community building, and a balance be-

tween the needs of teachers and students. Brophy (2006)

argues that “a management system that orients students to-

ward passivity and compliance with rigid rules undercuts the

potential effects of an instructional system that is designed

to emphasize active learning, higher order thinking, and the

social construction of knowledge” (p. 40). Similarly, Mc-

Caslin and Good (1992, 1998) warn that efforts to promote

constructivist learning and teaching have “created an oxy-

moron: a curriculum that urges problem solving and critical

thinking and a management system that requires compliance

and narrow obedience” (1992, p. 12).

Despite the concerns of educators about a potential

mismatch between instruction and management, from a

theoretical point of view, it seems reasonable to expect that

teachers would actually strive to match their instructional

and managerial approaches. Teachers who are committed

to student-centered instruction, presumably base their in-

structional decisions on a basic set of assumptions about the

way children learn and what they need in the classroom. For

example, if such teachers believe that children need to be

active participants in the learning process, engage in critical

thinking and participate in the problem-solving process, it

seems logical to expect them to choose classroom manage-

ment strategies such as conict resolution and peer media-

tion that foster the same skills.

Unfortunately, there have been very few studies of the

management practices used by teachers implementing con-

structivist or student-centered instruction. This lack of em-

pirical data, argues Martin (2004), “has left educators with-

Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 43.1 2008

Student-Centered and Teacher- Centered Classroom Management

out clear direction and understandings of what knowledge

and practices teachers utilize in creating and managing so-

cially complex learning environments” (p. 406). The pres-

ent study was an effort to address this need. Specically, I

sought to document the classroom management beliefs and

practices of three teachers reputed to implement student-

centered instruction and to examine the relationship between

their instruction and managerial approaches.

Teacher-Centered and Student-Centered Classroom

Management

Classroom management is a multi-faceted concept

that includes the organization of the physical environment,

the establishment of rules and routines, the development of

effective relationships, and the prevention of and response

to misbehavior. Some researchers suggest that it is helpful

to view classroom management beliefs and practices on a

continuum from teacher-centered to student-centered. For

example, Willower (1975) found that educators vary along a

continuum of beliefs about the way children learn to behave

and conceptualized this as one’s pupil-control ideology. At

one end of the continuum is the custodial (teacher-centered)

educator and at the other end is the humanistic (student-cen-

tered) educator. The extremes in the continuum of beliefs

are described in the following way:

a) The educator with a custodial orientation is likely

to be highly controlling, employing punitive sanctions,

moralistic perceptions, highly impersonal relationships

with students, attitudes of general mistrust and a major

focus on the maintenance of order.

b) The educator with a more humanistic orientation

is likely to maintain a classroom climate in which ac-

tive interaction and communication, close personal

relationships with students, mutual respect, positive

attitudes, and exibility of rules, as well as student

self-discipline, self–determination and independence

are fostered (Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1967).

Custodialism and humanism are measured by the Pu-

pil Control Ideology form, comprised of 20 statements, each

followed by a Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ (ve

points) to ‘strongly disagree’ (one point). A high score signi-

es a custodial attitude toward pupil control and a low score

indicates a humanistic attitude toward control of pupils.

Similarly, Wolfgang (2001) identies three philosophi-

cal “faces” of discipline, which include relationship–listen-

ing, confronting–contracting and rules–consequences. These

three philosophical “faces” of discipline may be placed on

a power continuum from minimum (student-centered) to

maximum (teacher-centered) use of power by the teacher.

Finally, Rogers and Freiberg (1994) consider what class-

room management would look like in teacher-centered and

person-centered classrooms (see Table 1). It is important

TABLE 1

Discipline Comparison in Teacher–Centered and Person–Centered Classrooms

Teacher–Centered Person–Centered

Teacher is the sole leader Leadership is shared

Management is a form of oversight Management is a form of guidance

Teacher takes responsibility for all the paperwork and or-

ganizaon

Students are facilitators for the operaons of the class-

room

Discipline comes from the teacher Discipline comes from the self

A few students are the teacher’s helpers All students have the opportunity to become an integral

part of the management of the classroom

Teacher makes the rules and posts them for all students Rules are developed by the teacher and students in the

form of a constuon or compact

Consequences are xed for all students Consequences reect individual dierences

Rewards are mostly extrinsic Rewards are mostly intrinsic

Students are allowed limited responsibilies Students share in classroom responsibilies

Few members of the community enter the classroom Partnerships are formed with business and community

groups to enrich and broaden the learning opportunies

for students

Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. Adapted with permission.

Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 43.1 2008

Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Classroom Management

to note that although teacher-centered and student-centered

classroom management can be seen as opposite ends of a

continuum, it is highly unlikely that any teacher implements

a teacher-centered or student-centered approach to class-

room management in its purest form. Nonetheless, these

lenses are useful ways of examining the dominant orienta-

tion of a classroom.

In teacher-centered classrooms, control is of primary

importance and “authority is transmitted hierarchically”

(Dollard & Christensen, 1996, p. 3), meaning the teacher ex-

erts control over the students. Critics of teacher-centeredness

argue that in these classrooms, compliance is valued over

initiative and passive learners over active learners (Freiberg,

1999).

To help teachers maintain control over students, in-

structional methods that promote a focus on the teacher are

frequently used, such as lectures, guided discussions, dem-

onstrations and “cookbook” labs (Edwards, 2004). These

forms of instruction lend themselves to having the teacher

stand in the front of the classroom while all students work

on the same task. Similarly, the physical design of the class-

room often promotes a focus on the teacher and limits stu-

dent activity that disrupts that focus. In other words, rooms

are often organized so that desks face toward the primary

focal point, the teacher (Boostrom, 1991).

In addition, teachers exert their control through a

system of clearly dened rules, routines and punishments

that are mandated rather than developed with the students

(Freiberg, 1999). Generally, teachers identify the rules nec-

essary for an orderly classroom and time is set aside for the

teaching of these rules during the rst several days of school.

When students exhibit undesirable behavior, advocates of a

teacher-centered approach often rely on punishments, such

as reprimands, frowns, time outs and loss of special privi-

leges (Lovitt, 1990).

Finally, in teacher-centered classrooms, teachers may

rely on extrinsic motivation to inuence student behavior.

Here, completion of a task is seen as a prerequisite for ob-

taining something desirable (Chance, 1993) such as social

rewards (e.g. praise), activity rewards (e.g. free time, com-

puter time) and tangible rewards (e.g. candy and stickers).

In contrast, a constructivist teacher is interested pri-

marily in helping the child engage problems and issues,

search below the surface, try out various possible solutions

or explanations and nally construct his or her own mean-

ing (Ryan & Cooper, 2001). In these classrooms, teaching

methods or strategies include reective thinking, inquiry, ex-

ploratory discussions, role-playing, demonstrations, projects

and simulation games (Edwards, 2004).

What kinds of management strategies support the in-

structional strategies and goals of a student-centered class-

room? Since one of the primary goals is to empower stu-

dents and strengthen their sense of responsibility, proponents

of student-centered classroom management suggest relin-

quishing hierarchical power structures and sharing control,

which they claim will result in a more manageable class-

room (Nichols, 1992). One way teachers may share their

control with their students is to elicit student participation

when generating the classroom rules. Another suggestion

is to share responsibility by having students complete class-

room tasks such as taking attendance or lunch count, updat-

ing the calendar or caring for a class pet. Similarly, students

can be given autonomy to decide when to use the bathroom,

sharpen pencils and throw out garbage.

The development of interpersonal relationships is an

essential component of a student-centered approach, since

positive student-teacher relationships presumably lessen the

need for control and become the foundation for all interac-

tion in the classroom (Dollard & Christensen, 1996).

Supporters of student-centered management propose

that children “see their acceptable, caring behavior as vital

to the maintenance of the group because they have a vested

interest in the health of the group as a whole” (Bloom, Per-

lmutter & Burrell, 1999, p. 134). However, even in a child-

centered environment, behavior problems will arise. When

this happens, student-centered teachers encourage students to

take increased responsibility in regulating their own behav-

ior through conict resolution and peer mediation programs.

Emphasis is also placed on the development of students’

social skills through various strategies such as I-messages

(Gordon, 1974), classroom meetings (Bloom, Perlmutter &

Burrell, 1999), and community building activities.

Finally, advocates of a student-centered approach to

classroom management propose that teachers minimize the

use of extrinsic rewards because they may adversely affect

student motivation, create reliance on the teacher and en-

courage appropriate behavior for the sake of a reward rather

than for the good of the group (DeVries & Zan, 1994). In-

stead, teachers are encouraged to use strategies for enhancing

a student’s intrinsic motivation, including adapting activities

to students’ interests, calling attention to the instrumental

value of academic activities, incorporating game-like fea-

tures and providing opportunities to exercise autonomy and

make choices (Brophy and Good, 2003).

METHODOLOGY

Setting

The study was conducted in a suburban elementary

school (K–6) serving 615 students. The school is a science

and technology magnet school, which means the students re-

ceive extra instruction in these areas. The student body is di-

verse in terms of race and ethnicity (White, 26.9%; African

American, 45.3%; Hispanic, 13.0%; Asian, 14.7%; Ameri-

Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 43.1 2008

Student-Centered and Teacher- Centered Classroom Management

TABLE 2

Instruconal Connuum

Teacher-Centered

Lecture Teacher takes an acve role and presents informaon to the enre class while the students’

main role is to listen to the new informaon being provided

Recitaon The classroom interacon follows the specic paern of teacher iniates a queson, stu-

dent responds and teacher evaluates the response

Drill and Pracce The teacher provides a series of independent tasks to reinforce a concept

Demonstraon The teacher helps the child’s learning by showing him or her how to use materials and spe-

cial tools, or how to accomplish a parcular task

Discussion Conversaon designed to smulate students to respond divergently and at higher cognive

levels to what they have been learning.

Cooperave Group Small group work that features posive interdependence, individual accountability and col-

laboraon skills

Guided Discovery The teacher structures an experience or problem for students and provides a series of steps

for students to follow to discover the principle, rule or generalizaon

Contracts The teacher and student form a wrien agreement about what work will be completed and

when

Role Play Students act out real life dilemmas or decisions to solve problems

Projects An invesgaon is undertaken by a student or group of students to learn more about a

topic

Inquiry An instruconal strategy where the teaching begins with quesons and relies on them

heavily thereaer as ways to smulate student exploraon, discovery and crical thinking

about subject maer

Self–assessment The student has responsibility for evaluang his or her own work as a means of learning

Student-Centered

student-centered

Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. Adapted with permission.

can Indian, .001%), with nearly equal numbers of boys and

girls.

Teacher Participants

I used principal recommendation and self-report to

identify teacher participants. Both measures were based

on an instructional continuum adapted from Rogers and

Freiberg (1994), which lists various instructional strategies

ranging from teacher-centered to student-centered (see Table

2). Thus, for the purpose of this study, a student-centered

teacher was dened as a teacher who implements instruc-

tional strategies designed to foster active engagement and

experiential learning.

It is clear that this is a limited denition of student-

centered instruction. For example, McCombs and Whisler

(1997) discuss learner-centered education in terms of a “per-

spective that couples a focus on individual learners (their he-

redity, experiences, perspectives, backgrounds, talents, inter-

ests, capacities, and needs) with a focus on learning (the best

available knowledge about learning and how it occurs and

about teaching practices that are most effective in promoting

the highest levels of motivation, learning, and achievement

for all learners).” Nonetheless, given the current climate of

schools, with its emphasis on testing and outcomes, the more

limited denition seemed to be a realistic and reasonable

way of identifying teachers.

After explaining the purpose of the study to the

school’s principal, I gave her the instructional continuum

(see Table 2) and asked her to generate a list of teachers who

were known to implement instructional strategies clustered

toward the student-centered end of the instructional con-

tinuum. Next, teachers who had indicated a willingness to

Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 43.1 2008

Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Classroom Management

participate were each given the same instructional continu-

um and asked to rank each instructional strategy from most

reective to least reective of their teaching. Three teachers

whose names appeared on the principal’s list and who also

reported that they primarily used student-centered strategies

were identied and invited to participate. All agreed. The

three teachers selected included Bethany, Raquel and Mike.

Bethany, a white, twenty-nine year old female with seven

years of teaching experience has twenty-ve children in her

class. Mike, a white thirty-eight year old male, switched to

a teaching career after spending ve years in retail manage-

ment. He entered the teaching eld as an alternate route

teacher and has since completed his Masters degree in edu-

cation. Mike is in his twelfth year of teaching and has twen-

ty students. Raquel, a white, forty-eight year old female has

twenty-three years of teaching experience and has been a

third grade teacher at the selected school for eight years. She

also has teaching experience at a local corporate Kindergar-

ten and private preschool through rst grade center. She has

twenty-three students in her third grade classroom.

Data Collection

Initially, all teachers completed the Pupil Control Ide-

ology (see Appendix A). In addition, I conducted three in-

terviews with each teacher, one prior to observations, one

stimulus recall (during the observation period) and one after

all the observations were completed. The rst interview fo-

cused on general questions about the teacher’s instructional

and managerial approach; whereas, the second interview and

the stimulus recall interviews focused on critical incidents

that arose during the observations (see Appendix B and C).

All three interviews followed a semi-structured format and

were tape–recorded and transcribed. Finally, I also con-

ducted four observations in each class over an eight-week

period; each observation lasted approximately an hour and a

half. For each observation, I adopted the role of a non-par-

ticipant observer, recording in narrative form details of the

teacher’s instructional strategies and students’ responses, as

well as key areas of classroom management (e.g., physical

design, rules and routines, community building). Artifacts

(e.g., posters stating class rules) were also observed and re-

corded during the observations.

Data Analysis

The categories used to code the teachers’ instructional

practices were the strategies listed on the instructional con-

tinuum (see Table 2). The categories used to code man-

agement beliefs and practices were drawn from Weinstein,

Tomlinson–Clarke and Curran’s (2003) characterization of

classroom management. These categories included physical

design, rules/routines, community building/relationships,

motivation and discipline. Within each category, each strat-

egy was coded as either teacher-centered or student-centered.

This determination was based on the way the strategy was

generally described in the literature on classroom manage-

ment.

Although this dichotomous categorization certainly

oversimplies the complexities of classroom management,

some strategies can clearly be categorized as teacher-cen-

tered or student-centered. For example, teaching the skills

of conict resolution or peer mediation is undoubtedly stu-

dent-centered, whereas good behavior incentive charts and

teacher-generated rules are teacher-centered. On the other

hand, there are certain strategies that defy such categoriza-

tion (e.g. proximity, verbal commands, “the look”). During

the data analysis phase, I focused on strategies that I could

condently code as either teacher-centered or student-cen-

tered, a process that enabled me to account for the major-

ity of data collected and capture the dominant orientation of

each classroom.

As the data were coded and patterns emerged, these

patterns were critically challenged, and negative instances

or disconrming evidence were incorporated, if necessary

(Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Once the patterns were iden-

tied, they were described, and an explanation demonstrat-

ing the plausibility of the explanation was offered.

Since the study is a multiple case study, both within-

case and cross-case analyses were used. To ensure reliabil-

ity and validity, data from interviews, observations and ar-

tifacts were triangulated. Member checking was also used

after each individual case study was written and the teacher’s

comments were incorporated when necessary. I completed

all the coding, analysis, reliability and validity checks; how-

ever, on several occasions I met with other researchers to

share the data and the coding procedure. At those meetings,

any points of confusion were discussed and claried.

RESULTS

Bethany: First Grade

Bethany’s PCI score (37/100) was much closer to

the humanistic or student-centered end of the continuum

(20/100) than the custodial or teacher-centered end of the

continuum (100/100). Nonetheless, despite her PCI score

and her frequent use of student-centered instruction, I ob-

served Bethany using a wide variety of managerial strate-

gies.

Among strategies that can be characterized as student-

centered is Bethany’s way of involving students in the cre-

ation of the classroom rules. Using literature as a spring-

board, Bethany holds a class discussion about the importance

of rules and the class generates the rules together. In ad-

dition, students share responsibility for carrying out many

classroom routines (e.g. the weather graph and calendar),

Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 43.1 2008

Student-Centered and Teacher- Centered Classroom Management

and they have the freedom to move around the room and

complete many tasks on their own (e.g., sharpening pencils,

using the restroom). Bethany also chooses to arrange the

students’ desks in small groups to foster relationships among

students.

Bethany attempts to foster her students’ capacity for

self-regulation and their sense of personal responsibility by

encouraging them to solve their own conicts. This is illus-

trated in her approach to tattling, in which students can re-

quest her help only if there is a problem with one of the ve

B’s (bullying, blood, broken bones, bee stings or barf). In

order to provide her students with the skills to resolve their

own conicts, Bethany implements lessons on conict reso-

lution. During one interview, Bethany described a lesson on

the “conict escalator.” She explained: “In this lesson we

talk about when you are at the mall, you go up the escalator.

I explain that conicts can go up a conict escalator. We

talk about ways to keep conict from going up the escala-

tor.” Bethany reported that on many occasions she has heard

students say to one another, “You are going up the conict

escalator. You need to go back down.”

In addition, Bethany conducts character education les-

sons. For example, early in the school year, Bethany read

“The Wrinkled Heart” to the class. The story explains how

people are born with a large perfect heart and as they grow,

people say nice things to them, and it builds the heart up.

However, as people make negative comments to them, it

causes their hearts to wrinkle. As she explained this point,

she put wrinkles into the paper heart. Then she explained

that apologies help hearts to grow strong again, although the

wrinkles never go away. Bethany opened the paper heart up,

but the creases were still apparent. She explained that words

were powerful and could hurt and that she did not expect any

wrinkled hearts in their classroom.

With respect to discipline, Bethany was concerned with

helping students learn from their mistakes. Therefore, she

reported that she frequently used warnings and time outs,

so students have the opportunity to reect on their behavior

and make the necessary changes. Bethany was also careful

to consider the individual student before choosing a specic

disciplinary intervention to avoid any negative social impact

on the misbehaving student.

Finally, when Bethany designed lessons, she incorpo-

rated many student-centered strategies that enhanced stu-

dents’ intrinsic motivation. For example, Bethany provided

students with the opportunities to exercise autonomy and

make choices about what activities they wanted to do with-

in a certain center. Some of the centers included “read the

room,” where students used long pointers to locate words

and practiced reading them, the ABC center, where students

practiced building words using magnetic letters and the lis-

tening center, where students listened to a story on tape.

In addition to these student-centered approaches,

Bethany implemented managerial strategies that were more

reective of a teacher–centered orientation. For example,

she often used extrinsic forms of motivation to encourage

students to behave appropriately. One such incentive was

the “mystery walker”: When students lined up to leave

the room, Bethany selected one student, but didn’t tell the

class who it is. If the chosen individual walked correctly

in the hallway, he or she earned a piece of candy. Bethany

also used a tally system where groups of students competed

against one another to earn a prize for exhibiting appropriate

behavior.

Bethany also implemented strategies based on the

“well-established consensus principles” that emerged from

classroom management research conducted during the

1960s and 1970s (Brophy, 2006, p. 37). For example, her

classroom had clear expectations for behavior, as we can see

from the following excerpt. In this situation, students had

just come back from their daily special and were eager to

begin centers. Bethany waited until all the students were

settled and listening and then began a review of the rules for

center time.

Bethany: “Is center time free time?”

Students: “No.”

Bethany: “Are you allowed to wander around?”

Students: “No.”

Bethany: “Who can demonstrate the proper way to use

a pointer?” (One student is called up to demonstrate in

front of the class.)

Bethany continues to explain the rationale for the ex-

pected behaviors and to stress why they were important.

Bethany: “How many warnings do you get in center

time?”

Students: “One.”

Bethany: “Right, and that day you will not get any cen-

ter [time]. And it will be one week before you can use

that particular center again. OK, good. Now we all re-

member the rules.” (eld notes, 10/20/2004)

Bethany’s class also has well-learned routines or pro-

cedures for carrying out specic activities. For example,

one of the most important routines is the morning arrival

routine:

8:56 – As students arrive they stop just inside the door-

way and nd their clothespin on a chart hanging by the

door. They move the clothespin with their name on it

to the other side of the chart to indicate that they are

present for the day. After they move their clothespin,

Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 43.1 2008

Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Classroom Management

they move to the front of the room and read the ques-

tion of the day. Then, they nd their name on a pocket

chart next to the question of the day and place it in the

yes or no column accordingly. Next, they proceed to

their lockers and unpack. Then, they place their home-

work in the bin and start the ‘Do Now’ (eld notes,

10/07/04).

Another routine was the use of a timer during clean-up

or transition times. Bethany set a timer and after a few sec-

onds, the timer would beep. When students heard the beep,

they began to quickly clean up and get settled. The students

were so accustomed to this routine; they did not need verbal

directions.

Bethany also exhibited withitness and “overlapping,”

two key concepts emphasized by Kounin (1970). One ex-

ample of withitness is as follows:

9:17 – Bethany is seated at her desk collecting picture

money. As she calls one group up at a time to hand in

their money, she continually glances up. She sees that

E. has nished her Do Now, placed it in the bin and is

looking around the classroom (possibly unsure what to

do). As Bethany is still collecting picture money, she

says, “E., remember, next is reading a nonction book

in the corner.” E. nods and makes her way to the rug in

the reading corner. (eld notes, 10/07/04)

Bethany’s ability to overlap, or to do more than one

thing at a time, was apparent when she was demonstrating

how the students should set up their November calendars

and a student from another class appeared at the door. With-

out interrupting her demonstration, Bethany signaled for

him to come in, read and responded to the note, which again

prevented any down time and possible misbehavior.

Given Bethany’s use of an eclectic set of strategies, I

was curious to know if she ever thought about the relation-

ship between instruction and management, and, in particular,

if she was concerned with achieving a “match” between in-

struction and management. Her response made it clear that

she did not think in terms of a match, although she clearly

thought about the managerial challenges associated with dif-

ferent instructional formats. Specically, she asserted that

student-centered lessons were more difcult to manage than

teacher-centered lessons:

You have to think a lot more about management things

when you are student-centered with your instruction.

Like what happens if you are doing cooperative groups

and they are ghting? What happens if you have one

kid sitting there doing nothing? What happens if two

kids get pulled out for ESL? Then, how are you going

to merge the groups together? It’s unending, the things

you need to think about when you are doing student-

centered instruction. [In contrast, with teacher-centered

lessons,] there is less management because they are just

sitting there. What do you have to manage? Nothing.

What...pulling out the overhead…woo hoo… big man-

agement! So, yes there is denitely less management.

There is nothing to think about. They are just sitting

there and you tell them to pull out their next textbook.

Raquel: Third Grade

Raquel’s PCI score (45/100) indicates that, like Beth-

any, she is closer to the student-centered or humanistic end

of the continuum (20/100) than the custodial or teacher-cen-

tered end (100/100). I clearly saw this orientation in practice

during my observations, but I also observed her use of the

“consensus” strategies derived from research on effective

classroom management.

In terms of student-centered approaches, Raquel

worked toward the goal of empowering students and

strengthening their sense of responsibility by involving the

students in the creation of a code of discipline. Similarly,

the students shared in classroom responsibility through the

use of jobs that required them to complete several classroom

routines such as the calendar, attendance and lunch count.

The students also had the freedom to move about to throw

out garbage, sharpen pencils and use the bathroom.

Raquel also worked hard at building relationships with

her students. As she commented: “Connections with stu-

dents are very important to me. I make sure I have some

one–on–one time with everyone, even if it is only a little

comment about how they look that day. Just something so

they know that I am paying attention to them.” Raquel also

believes that the more students feel that you care about them,

“the more they want to please you and not disappoint you

and that affects classroom management.” In addition, she

arranges the students’ desks in small groups to foster the de-

velopment of relationships among students.

I frequently observed Raquel’s attempts to foster these

connections. For example, in the morning, Raquel made

sure she greeted every student as he or she arrived in the

classroom or made a quick comment to the child soon there-

after. Another example is illustrated in this excerpt:

9:04 – Raquel sits at her desk and collects and organiz-

es picture money. One student gives Raquel a card she

made for her. Raquel gives the student a hug and says

(in a sweet and sincere voice), “Oh how nice. This is

from your whole family. Look you even tried to make

a cursive ‘L’.” The student smiles and begins to walk

away. Raquel also says, “I’m going to hang it up.”

(eld notes, 10/06/04).

Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 43.1 2008

Student-Centered and Teacher- Centered Classroom Management

In another example, Raquel asked one girl, “How many

more days until the big wedding?” The girl had a big smile

and seemed thrilled that Raquel remembered.

Raquel also believed that she needed to devote time and

effort to build supportive and caring relationships among the

students in her class. At the beginning of the year, Raquel

used “ice breaker” and “getting to know you” activities so

she could begin to foster these relationships immediately.

She also arranged the students’ desks in small clusters to en-

courage interaction, collaboration, and peer assistance. In

addition, she implemented classroom meetings and a con-

ict resolution program to promote students’ social problem

solving skills and to empower students to deal with prob-

lems that arose.

There were many opportunities to observe the sup-

portive and caring relationships that existed among students.

For example, there were two times when a student dropped

a bucket of markers. In both situations, several students im-

mediately went to help the child who had dropped the ma-

terials, without being asked by Raquel or another student. I

also observed these supportive relationships during a writing

lesson. Students were required to ask a classmate to edit

their paper when they were done. Any student who asked

another student to edit his or her paper was told, “yes” or

“sure, I’ll do that.” I was able to overhear several editing

sessions. In two different situations, I heard students ask

specic personal questions about the writing, not just dis-

cuss grammar mistakes. The students appeared genuinely

interested in learning about their classmates.

With respect to motivation, Raquel made efforts to

capitalize on students’ intrinsic motivation to learn by build-

ing on students’ interests and showing how the information

being learned is relevant to their lives (Good & Brophy,

2003). For example, for a math lesson on estimating, Raquel

had prepared “shopping lists” with pictures of various items

that were relevant to third graders. There were small items

such as school supplies (backpacks, crayons and markers)

and bigger items like Nintendo and Spiderman memorabilia.

During the lesson, she emphasized the fact that estimating

would be used every time students went shopping, since they

need to know if they have enough money. The students’

enthusiastic response to the lesson indicated that these strat-

egies were successful.

In addition to using student-centered strategies, Raquel,

like Bethany, exhibited basic managerial skills such as with-

itness and overlapping (Kounin, 1970). Raquel’s withitness

is seen in this lesson.

11:20 – Raquel is working with one group, but as she

scans the room, she sees another group a few feet away

from her lying on the oor in the reading corner. She

leaves the group she is with and moves quickly over

to the group and says (in a strict, condent tone), “OK

show me that you are ready. I don’t want to see anyone

rolling around on the oor.” Raquel makes her way

back to the group she was originally working with. She

takes several glances back to the group on the carpet and

they appear to be on task. (eld notes, 11/01/2004)

Raquel’s skill at overlapping was demonstrated during

a science lesson. Raquel was in the middle of providing

directions to the entire class when one student returned from

the nurse’s ofce with a note explaining that she needed to

go home because she was sick. Raquel managed to continue

speaking to the class and simultaneously help the girl copy

the homework assignment and pack up to go home. Raquel’s

ability to overlap in this situation prevented any downtime

and thus time to misbehave.

In general, Raquel implements a student-centered ap-

proach to both instruction and classroom management; yet

she does not think explicitly in terms of trying to achieve

consistency between these two tasks of teaching. Indeed,

when I asked Raquel about this, she indicated that she does

not think about using student-centered managerial strategies

to support her instructional approach. As she put it: “I don’t

think about it that way. Each lesson is different.” She com-

mented further that “ultimately the management of a lesson

is what decides if you are going to have a successful lesson

or not, but the strategies used in each lesson are different.”

Mike: Fifth Grade

Mike’s PCI score was 50/100, which, although slightly

toward the student-centered end of the continuum, makes

him the least student-centered or humanistic of the three

teachers. Likewise, data from the interviews and observa-

tions reveal that Mike’s classroom management beliefs and

practices are generally reective of a teacher-centered ap-

proach.

Mike’s teacher-centered orientation can be seen in the

fact that the classroom rules are mandated by the teacher

rather than developed by the students. Mike also completes

many classroom routines (e.g. lunch count and attendance)

by himself, rather than sharing the responsibilities with the

students. Similarly, Mike chooses a “u–shaped” arrange-

ment for students’ desks because it promotes a focus on the

teacher. He also uses several forms of extrinsic motivation

such as activity rewards (center time) and social rewards

(praise and compliments) to reward and encourage appropri-

ate behavior. Mike deliberately avoids conict resolution

or peer mediation programs because he says, “they take too

much time away from academic learning,”

Some of the strategies that Mike uses at rst appear

to reect a student-centered orientation, but a closer exami-

Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 43.1 2008

Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Classroom Management

nation suggests a more teacher-centered perspective. For

example, Mike believes it is essential to develop strong re-

lationships with his students. He concentrates on getting to

know the students as people through writing samples such

as “My Proudest Moment” and “My Favorite Memory.” He

also shares personal stories about his career before he be-

came a teacher, his two children and his time in the military.

Although relationship-building is certainly a high priority in

a student-centered classroom, Mike’s reason for investing

effort in this area suggests a more teacher-centered orienta-

tion: “It makes students feel more connected to the teacher

and then it is harder for them to misbehave.”

Similarly, in an attempt to prevent misbehavior, Mike

frequently uses positive recognition. For example, after

Mike gives a series of directions, he often locates a student

who has quickly complied with those directions and offers

a positive comment such as “F., I like the way you put your

literature circle folder away and took out your math book”

or “I see J. is ready, thank you.” This strategy appeared to

serve as a motivation for other students to follow suit. Mike

explained that he had to be careful not to overuse this strat-

egy. He commented:

I have to gauge how many times I will have to make

a positive comment to get everyone back on track. If I

am going to have to say it to so many people that it is

going to take too long or not seem genuine, then I am

not going to use that strategy. Also if I have to repeat it

too many times, then students will pick up on why I am

doing it and it won’t work.

This strategy worked extremely well in terms of mo-

tivating students to follow Mike’s directions. I believe its

effectiveness was due to the high regard the students had

for their teacher; clearly, if Mike’s students didn’t want to

please their teacher, they would not be motivated to modify

their behavior. While the strategy of positive recognition

reinforced the positive relationships that existed in the class

and contributed to the positive learning environment, it also

appeared to be an example of deliberately using praise to

encourage compliance, rather than a genuine expression of

appreciation.

Like Bethany and Raquel, Mike exhibited strategies

that are generally accepted as good classroom management.

For example, he planned for variety and challenge in aca-

demic activities (Kounin, 1970) when he structured a writ-

ing lesson so that students could choose from a variety of

topics, work at their own pace and conference with a peer or

the teacher. He also displayed the capacity for overlapping.

During one reading lesson, when Mike was in the process

of giving directions to the class, the DARE (Drug Abuse

Resistance Education) police ofcer stopped by to resched-

ule their next meeting. Mike managed simultaneously to

provide directions to the class, call the ofcer over to his

desk and reschedule their next meeting. Mike also exhibited

withitness, as seen in this math lesson:

10:42 – Mike is working with a new student. As he is

talking to the new student, he looks up and scans the

room. Two girls seem to be preoccupied with some-

thing in their desks. Mike quickly walks over and

bends down and says something to them. The girls get

back to work and Mike makes his way back to the new

student. After a couple of seconds he looks at the girls

again, but they are working. (eld notes, 10/06/04)

Although Mike strives to implement a student-centered

instructional approach, he doesn’t feel the need to comple-

ment his instructional approach with student-centered man-

agement strategies. Actually, he expressed a very different

perspective when he offered the following comment: “Since

my ultimate goal is to use student-centered instruction-

al strategies, I need to be cognizant of how much time is

needed to effectively implement a student-centered lesson.”

Therefore, “I think any kind of teacher directed management

saves time and makes it easier for more student-centered ac-

tivities.”

DISCUSSION

All three teachers in this study emphasized student-

centered instruction, relying heavily on hands-on activities,

small group work, projects, and discussion to engage stu-

dents and encourage active participation. All three were also

able to create productive, positive learning environments

characterized by minimal misbehavior and supportive, re-

spectful relationships. Undoubtedly, their student-centered

instruction itself contributed to their positive learning envi-

ronments; students who were participating in challenging,

meaningful activities have little need or opportunity to be

off-task or disruptive. Bethany noted that there are more

managerial challenges with student-centered instructional

formats than with teacher-centered instruction, and Doyle

(2006) has made the same observation:

The amount of time teachers spend organizing and di-

recting students, interacting with individual students,

and dealing with inappropriate and disruptive behav-

ior is related to the type of activity and the physical

arrangements of the setting. Studies suggest that the

greater the amount of student choice and mobility

and the greater the complexity of the social scene, the

greater the need for overt monitoring and managing ac-

tions by teachers. (p. 102)

Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 43.1 2008

Student-Centered and Teacher- Centered Classroom Management

Nonetheless, the potential of such activities to motivate and

engage students suggested that one of the teachers’ prime

management tools was their instruction.

Of the three teachers, Bethany and Raquel appeared to

be the most student-centered with respect to management,

although neither thought in terms of trying to achieve a

“match” between instruction and management. Both teach-

ers had students create classroom rules, shared responsibil-

ity for carrying out routine classroom tasks, and provided

opportunities for choice and autonomy. In addition, Beth-

any conducted conict resolution and character education

lessons and gave students responsibility for resolving their

own conicts. Raquel worked hard to establish positive, re-

spectful relationships with and among students. Yet both

teachers also drew from a wide repertoire of management

strategies. At times, they used teacher-centered strategies

(e.g., Bethany’s “mystery walker”), and they enacted the

basic principles for good classroom management developed

from research conducted in the 1960s and 1970s—research

conducted in classrooms that emphasized transmission ap-

proaches to teaching (e.g., Emmer, Evertson, and Anderson,

1980). They had clear expectations for behavior and well-

established routines or procedures for specic classroom

tasks. Moreover, they exhibited the critical behaviors such

as withitness and overlapping identied by Kounin (1970).

These results support Brophy’s (2006) contention that the

basic principles for good classroom management apply

across instructional approaches:

Teachers seeking to establish learning communities in

their classrooms will still need the familiar manage-

ment strategies of articulating clear expectations, mod-

eling or providing instruction in desired procedures,

cueing students when these procedures are needed, and

applying sufcient pressure to compel changes in be-

havior when students have failed to respond to more

positive methods. However, the procedures taught to

students will need to include the full set that applies in

learning communities, not just the subset that applies in

transmission classes (p. 37).

Consistent with Brophy’s assertion, we see Bethany

teaching students the kind of behavior she expects from

them at center time. As Brophy notes, classrooms informed

by constructivist views of learning require students to learn

new roles (e.g., participants in collaborative group work, lis-

tening carefully to peers, giving feedback, etc.), and these

new roles must be taught to students along with those that

are found in more traditional classrooms.

Compared to Bethany and Raquel, Mike is far more

teacher-centered in his approach to management. It is im-

portant to emphasize, however, that this teacher-centered ap-

proach to management does not appear to promote the pas-

sivity and unthinking compliance that educational reformers

fear. Mike’s classroom atmosphere, like that of Bethany and

Raquel, is positive and productive, and students appear en-

thusiastic and happy.

As cited earlier, Mike arranges his students’ desks in a

“u-shape,” so that they can focus easily on the teacher. He

has developed his class rules by himself, and he carries out

many of the routine tasks of the classroom, rather than shar-

ing responsibility for them with his students. Interestingly,

rather than seeing this approach to management as subvert-

ing his student-centered instruction, Mike perceives his

managerial practices as supporting his instruction, since it

“saves time.”

The difference between Mike on one hand and Bethany

and Raquel on the other might be explained by a difference

in their thinking about the goals of classroom management.

Evertson and Weinstein (2006) contend that classroom man-

agement has two purposes—(1) the development of an or-

derly environment so that academic learning can take place

and (2) the promotion of students’ social-emotional learning.

It would appear that Bethany and Raquel agree with this two-

fold purpose of classroom management, while Mike focuses

on the rst goal alone. This results in a “mismatch” and

raises the following questions: Although Mike saves time, is

there a cost? Are Mike’s students at a disadvantage?

Certainly, one could argue that instruction and man-

agement are not separate entities and that teachers should

choose strategies that will support and reinforce one another.

However, it is also possible that the cost of using student-

centered management (loss of academic time) outweighs its

potential benets. Given the design of the present study, it

is impossible to determine if Raquel and Bethany’s students

are more equipped to self-regulate their behavior and solve

their own problems than Mike’s students. Additional studies

that include student data and outcome measures are clearly

needed in order to investigate the ramications of pairing

student-centered instruction with teacher-centered manage-

ment.

The fact that none of the three teachers in the present

study think in terms of trying to achieve a match between

instruction and management is also an intriguing nding

that deserves a closer look. Clearly, future research should

continue to examine the way that teachers think about man-

agement (especially in relationship to instruction) and ex-

plore whether they nd the managerial continuum helpful.

It would also seem benecial for pre-service and in-service

programs to discuss the relationship between instruction and

management and to frame both in terms of teacher-centered-

ness and student-centeredness.

Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 43.1 2008

Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Classroom Management

REFERENCES

Bartlett, A. (1994). Implications of whole language for classroom

management. Action in Teacher Education, 16, 65–74.

Baumann, J. F. (1992). Organizing and managing a whole

language classroom. Reading Research and Instruction,

31(3), 1–14.

Bloom, L., & Perlmutter, J., & Burrell, L. (1999). The general

educator: applying constructivism to inclusive

classrooms. Intervention in School & Clinic, 34 (3),

132–137.

Boostrom, R. (1991). The nature and function of classroom rules.

Curriculum and Inquiry, 21(2), 193–216.

Brophy, J. (2006). History of research. In Evertson and Weinstein

(Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management: Research,

Practice & Contemporary Issues. Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Brophy, J. (1999). Perspectives of classroom management:

Yesterday, today and tomorrow. In H. Freiberg (Ed.),

Beyond behaviorism: changing the classroom

management paradigm, 43–56. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Brophy, J. & Good, T. (2003). Looking in classrooms

(9th edtion.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Chance, P. (1993). The hidden treasures of extrinsic rewards

Education Digest, 58(8), 42–47.

DeVries, R., & B. Zan. (1994). Moral classroom, moral children:

Creating a constructivist atmosphere in early education.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Dollard, N., & Christensen, L., (1996). Constructive classroom

management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29(2),

1–24.

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In

M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on

Teaching. New York: Macmillan, (pp. 392–431).

Edwards, C. (2004). Classroom management and discipline (4th

Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., & Anderson, L. M. (1980).

Effective classroom management at the beginning of the

school year. The Elementary School Journal, 80(5),

219–231.

Evertson, C. & Weinstein, C. (2006). Classroom management as

a eld of inquiry. In Evertson and Weinstein (Eds.),

Handbook of Classroom Management: Research,

Practice & Contemporary Issues. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Freiberg, H. J. (Ed.). (1999). Beyond behaviorism: Changing the

classroom management paradigm. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th

edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gordon, T. (1974). Teacher effectiveness training. New York:

Peter H. Wyden.

Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in

classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Lovitt, T. (1990). Managing inappropriate behavior in the

classroom. Virginia: The Council for Exceptional

Children.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. Designing qualitative research

(1999). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Martin, S. D. (2004). Finding balance: Impact of classroom

management conceptions on developing teacher

practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 405-422.

McCaslin, M. & Good, T. L. (1992). Compliant cognition: The

misalliance of management and instructional goals in

current school reform. Educational Researcher, 21(3),

4-17.

McCaslin, M., & Good, T. L. (1998). Moving beyond

management as sheer compliance: Helping students

to develop goal coordination strategies. Educational

Horizons, Summer, 169–176.

Nichols, P. (1992). The curriculum of control: Twelve reasons for

it, some arguments against it. Beyond Behavior, 3,5–11.

Randolph, C. L., & Evertson, C. M. (1994). Images of

management for learner centered classrooms. Action in

Teacher Education, 16, 55–63.

Rogers, C., & Freiberg, J. (1994). Freedom to learn (3rd Ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Publishing.

Ryan, K., & Cooper, J. (2001). Those who can, teach. New York:

Houghton Mifin Company.

Weinstein, C. S., Tomlinson–Clarke, S., & Curran, M. (2003).

Culturally responsive classroom management:

Awareness into action. Theory Into Practice, Special

theme issue, Managing Classrooms in a Diverse Society.

Willower, D. (1975). Some comments on inquiries on schools

and pupil control. Teachers College Record, 77,

219–230.

Willower, D. J.; Eidell, T. L., & Hoy, W. K. (1967). The school

and pupil control ideology. Penn State Studies

Monographs No. 24. University Park: Pennsylvania

State University.

Wolfgang, C. H. (2001). Solving discipline and classroom

management problems: Methods and models for today’s

teachers. (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to

Tracey Garrett at Rider University, New Jersey. Email may

be sent to tgarrett@rider.edu

Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 43.1 2008

Student-Centered and Teacher- Centered Classroom Management

SA A U D SD

1. It is desirable to require pupils to sit in assigned seats during assemblies

2. Pupils are usually not capable of solving their problems through logical reasoning.

3. Directing sarcastic remarks toward a deant pupil is a good disciplinary technique

4.Beginning teachers are not likely to maintain strict enough control over their pupils

5.Teachers should consider revision of their teaching methods if these are criticized

by their pupils

6. The best principals give unquestioning support to teachers in disciplining pupils

7. Pupils should not be permitted to contradict the statements of a teacher in class

8. It is justiable to have pupils learn many facts about a subject even if they have no

immediate application

9. Too much pupil time is spent on guidance and activities and too little on academic preparation

10. Being friendly with pupils often leads them to become too familiar

11. It is more important for pupils to learn to obey rules than that they make their own decisions

12. Student governments are a good “safety valve” but should not have much inuence

on school policy

13. Pupils can be trusted to work together without supervision

14. If a pupil uses obscene or profane language in school, it must be considered a moral offense

15. If pupils are allowed to use the lavatory without getting permission, this privilege

will be abused

16. A few pupils are just young hoodlums and should be treated accordingly

17. It is often necessary to remind pupils that their status in school differs from that of teachers

18. A pupil who destroys school material or property should be severely punished

19. Pupils cannot perceive the difference between democracy and anarchy in the classroom

20. Pupils often misbehave in order to make the teacher look bad

Appendix A

Pupil Control Ideology

DIRECTIONS: FOLLOWING ARE TWENTY STATEMENTS ABOUT SCHOOLS, TEACHERS, AND PUPILS. PLEASE

INDICATE YOUR PERSONAL OPINION ABOUT EACH STATEMENT BY CIRCLING THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE

AT THE RIGHT OF THE STATEMENT.

S = Strongly Agree A = Agree U = Undecided D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree

Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 43.1 2008

Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Classroom Management

Appendix B

Interview Protocol #1

I. Rapport Building:

1. Tell me about your experiences as a teacher.

a. How long have you worked in your current position?

b. What are your current job responsibilities (Grade level and subjects)?

c. In today’s interview we will talk a little about instruction & classroom management. Does that sound

OK?

III. Instruction

1. As I look around your classroom, I am wondering how you decide on the physical arrangement? Student desks?

Teacher’s desk?

2. Tell me how you design your schedule.

3. Can you tell me about your reading lesson today? Math? Science? Are these typical lessons for you?

4. How do you manage preparation and clean up for activities?

5. I am wondering how you deal with transitions. For example how will you transition between reading and math

today?

IV. Relationships/Social Skills

1. How would you describe your classroom climate?

a) If community is mentioned, ask what she/he does to foster a sense of community. Do you do specic

community building activities?

b) If response is negative, ask what they are doing to try to improve it?

2. What role do you think relationships between students play in classroom management?

3. In addition to relationships between students, let’s talk about the relationship between a teacher and student.

How would you characterize your relationship with your students?

4. Again, what role, if any, do you feel that student/teacher relationships play in classroom management?

5. If a new student were coming to your class, how would your students describe you to that new student?

6. Do you use techniques like conict resolution, peer mediation or class meetings?

If yes, do you think these techniques teach social skills and build relationships between students and

student and teacher?

V. Discipline/Motivation

1.Tell me about the expectations that you have for classroom behavior?

a. How do you communicate those expectations to your students?

2. Do you have specic rules for your classroom? How are they established?

b. Are they teacher or student–generated? Why?

3. How do you respond when they don’t meet those expectations?

a. Do you have specic consequences?

4. How do you respond when they do meet those expectations? (extrinsic vs. intrinsic rewards?)

5. How do you most typically handle discipline problems in your classroom?

6. I like to give you some scenarios and ask you how you would respond:

a. During a science lesson, two students begin ghting over equipment for the experiment. How would

you handle the situation?

b. You ask your class to clear off their desk and get ready for the next activity. One student refuses to do

it. How would you handle the situation?

VII. Closing Questions:

1. What advice would you give to a new teacher about classroom management?

2. What three words would you use to describe your approach to classroom management?

Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 43.1 2008

Student-Centered and Teacher- Centered Classroom Management

Appendix C

Interview Protocol #2

Introduction:

Well, now that we have nished our initial interview, four observations and a stimulus recall interview, the last thing I would like to

do is a nal interview. I would like to ask you some more questions about your instructional and managerial approach. Does that

sound OK?

Instruction:

1. Throughout the observations, I observed a lesson that included various instructional techniques. For example, I saw you use (Insert

different techniques depending on which teacher I am interviewing. Example: direct instruction, demonstration, discussion,

cooperative learning and guided discovery). Can you explain to me when you are sitting down to do your lesson plans for the week,

how do you decide which instructional techniques to use?

2. (Share the instructional continuum used during interview #1) Well, if you look at this instructional continuum, it lists a variety of

instructional techniques. Can you pick some of the techniques and tell me the advantages and disadvantages of that particular tech

nique? (Make sure they comment on a few from each end. If not, point to one myself and ask about that one).

3. If you were asked to classify your instructional approach in some area of this continuum, where would you place yourself?

4. Potential Question: (If they place themselves toward the student–centered end of the continuum) Well, you just placed yourself

more toward the student–centered end of the continuum. What do you feel are some of the constraints that prevent you from using

more student–centered instructional techniques? What are some of the circumstances/things that facilitate your desire to use

student–centered techniques? (Prompts if needed because they don’t seem to understand the question – other faculty,

administration, particular classes, particular subjects)

Questions about management:

1. Throughout the observations, I saw you use a variety of classroom management techniques/strategies. For example, I saw you use

(Again, insert techniques depending on which teacher is being interviewed. For example – proximity, explicitly stating a child’s

name, the look, and conferencing out in the hallway). Can you explain to me how you decide which strategy to use in a particular

situation?

2. Similar to the instructional continuum I just shared with you, there are many people who conceptualize classroom management

along a teacher–centered vs. student–centered continuum. For example, the PCI inventory that I gave you after our rst interview

does this. More specically, a teacher’s score on the PCI reects the teacher’s classroom management beliefs from a student/

teacher–centered framework. (Draw and explain the continuum. Share their score). Do you think this score is an accurate

reection? Why or why not?

3. There appears to be a push to implement more student centered classroom management strategies. We already talked about your

feelings for conict resolution and classroom meetings, which are very student–centered, what do you think are the pros and cons of

student–centered management strategies like these? What about the pros and cons of more teacher–centered management

strategies?

4. What do you think might be the reasons some teachers don’t use student–centered classroom management strategies? Can you

think of anything that facilitates your use of student–centered management techniques? What about any things or circumstances

that prevent you from using student–centered techniques?

Questions about the relationship between the two approaches:

1. Well, we talked about your instructional approach and your classroom management approach. You seemed to articulate your beliefs

about both instruction and management and what strategies you nd effective and why. I am curious if you think about the

relationship between instruction and management and how they work together?

2. Do you think that can work if you are teacher–centered with your instruction and student–centered with your management?

3. Well, let’s say you are planning an activity in your classroom an instructional activity of some sort, do you think about management

that is going to accompany that activity?

4. Do you think management differs depending on where you are on the instructional continuum? For example, does your

management differ if you are doing a lecture vs. cooperative groups?

5. So, as you move toward the student–centered end of the instructional continuum, how might your management look different?

Teacher–centered end?