1

Week 6 Reflection: High Behavioral Expectation

Braden L. Anama

School and Education and Behavioral Sciences, Chaminade University of Honolulu

EDUC 632 Learning Environments

Dr. Brina Ganigan

November 14, 2022

Week 5 Reflection 2

Week 6 Reflection: High Behavioral Expectation

As teachers, our ideal classrooms would be filled with perfectly behaved students that

are perfectly engaged and motivated to learn. However, this is rarely the case. In reality, classes

usually have at least a few students that misbehave. This requires us to take time away from

our lessons to address said misbehavior. In this paper, we will discuss techniques to balance

high behavioral expectations and discipline, as well as the assertive discipline and logical

consequence approaches to discipline.

Part I: High Behavioral Expectations, Firm Calm Finesse, and Strong Voice

Maintaining high behavioral expectations in the classroom can be challenging for

teachers. On one hand teachers want to correct student misbehavior, but on the other hand

the time to correct misbehavior takes away from time allocated to lessons. One can balance the

two by utilizing a cycle of technique called the “100 Percent” cycle of technique (Lemov, 2015).

These techniques were identified by Lemov as he identified a characteristic of great teachers:

“great teachers ensure that they have 100 percent of students with them for teaching and

learning” (2015, p. 387). This cycle of techniques is a comprehensive approach to maintaining

high behavioral expectations and discipline as it consists of techniques to address the entire

cycle of misbehavior, including prevention, intervention, and consequences, as well as

techniques to maintain compliance of good behavior.

Of all the techniques outlined in the “100 percent” cycle of techniques, the “Firm Calm Finesse”

technique (Lemov, 2015, pp. 402-406) is the most vital in maintaining the balance of high

behavioral expectations and discipline because it is the technique to systematically reduce

Week 5 Reflection 3

misbehavior, which is the exact goal of high behavioral expectations and discipline. Briefly

summarized by Lemov, this technique is used to “take steps to get compliance without conflict

by establishing an environment of purpose and respect and by maintaining your own poise”

(2015, p. 403). Lemov further defines this technique with seven rules (2015, pp. 403-406):

1. Catch it [misbehavior] Early

2. Value Purpose over Power

3. Remember that Thank You is the Strongest Phrase

4. Use Universal Language”, “Show Your Bright Face

5. Deploy Your Confirmation Glance

6. Stay Steady at the Helm

Utilizing these seven rules, teachers can build an environment that reduces misbehavior by

addressing the causes of misbehavior. According to research by Linda Albert and Jane Nelsen,

students misbehave because they seek one or a combination of the following goals (Hardin,

2012, p. 83):

1. To seek attention

2. to gain power

3. to seek revenge for some perceived injustice

4. to avoid failure

Each of these four goals of student misbehavior is addressed by at least one of the seven rules

of the “Firm Calm Finesse” technique. Attention seeking is addressed by “Stay Calm at the

Helm” (Lemov, 2015, pp. 405-406) as maintaining composure lets students know they will not
Week 5 Reflection 4

get the reaction that they are seeking out of the teacher. Power and vengence seeking are

addressed by “Value Purpose over Power” (Lemov, 2015, p. 404) as application of this rule

devalues power while reminding students that we as teachers are there to help our students

succeed, not to make them suffer. Failure avoidance is addressed by “Use Universal Language”

(Lemov, 2015, p. 404) as verbiage that includes the student helps to promote a sense of

community, not exclusion. As the concern in the balance of high behavioral expectations and

discipline revolves around misbehavior and its prevention, the “Firm Calm Finesse” technique is

vital in maintaining the balance by reducing misbehavior at a systemic level, allowing teachers

to spend less time disciplining and more time teaching.

Another technique that helps great teachers to set behavioral expectations is the “Strong

Voice” technique (Lemov, 2015, pp. 412-416). Despite the name, this technique does not mean

that teachers should talk loudly. Rather, this technique focuses on how teachers talk. This

includes body language, how you speak, word choice, and when you should talk. Regarding

body language, according to Lemov, you should use a formal register, meaning that teachers

should use distinct body language and intonation depending on the situation (2015, pp. 413-

414). For example, you should square up and stand still when giving instructions to

communicate that your instructions are important (Lemov, 2015, p. 414). Regarding how you

speak, specifically when you want to gain control, you should speak quieter and softer, as

speaking louder and faster makes your anxiety visible (Lemov, 2015, p. 414). Regarding word

choice, use concise language to assert that you have a purpose in speaking and to prevent

unnecessary distractions (Lemov, 2015, p. 414). Regarding how you should speak, Lemov

identifies two key points: do not talk over and do not engage (Lemov, 2015, pp. 415-416). Do
Week 5 Reflection 5

not talk over students to demonstrate that your voice as the teacher should not compete for

attention while also letting students know that you value their voices and opinions (Lemov,

2015, p. 416). Do not engage other topics until you have resolved the current focus, as

“refusing to engage establishes a tone of focused accountability in your classroom” (Lemov,

2015, p. 416). As identified by Lemov, using a strong voice and talking loudly are very different.

Talking loudly may let you be heard, but speaking with a strong voice creates an environment

where students choose to listen to you.

After analyzing the “Firm Calm Finessse” Technique (Lemov, 2015, pp. 402-406) and the “Strong

Voice” Technique (Lemov, 2015, pp. 412-416), I agree with the values of both techniques and

would implement both techniques into my classroom management approach. Leveraging both

techniques, I would be able to maximize instruction time by reducing time spent disciplining

students and creating an environment where students want to listen and learn.

Part II: Assertive Discipline and Logical Consequence

Describe assertive discipline. How does it differ from traditional disciplinary approaches? What

benefits does this have for your classroom management and creating a positive learning

environment for students?

What does it mean to have logical consequences in place in your classroom? Why are logical

consequences beneficial to creating a positive learning environment? What is the difference

between logical consequences and punitive consequences?

When first developed, assertive discipline was a unique disciplinary approach compared

to its traditional counterparts as it was developed to solve the actual problems that teachers
Week 5 Reflection 6

faced (Hardin, 2012, p. 43). Assertive discipline involves developing a system of punishments

and rewards based around a set of classroom rules which are agreed upon by parents, students,

teacher, and administrators before instruction begins (Hardin, 2012). The assertive discipline

approach has three major benefits to classroom management and creating a positive learning

environment for students. First, this approach provides support from parents and

administration (Hardin, 2012, p. 54). As this approach requires approval from both parties

before instruction begins, teachers can be confident that they will receive support (Hardin,

2012, p. 54). Second, this approach is fair in terms of punishments for students that commit the

same offense. As punishments are already prescribed to offenses based on the discipline plan,

instructors cannot punish one student more severely for the same punishment. Third, this

method is simple and easy to implement for new teachers (Hardin, 2012, pp. 53-54). Teachers

utilizing this approach do not need to think much on how to reprimand misbehavior as they

simply need to follow the preapproved disciplinary plan. Overall, the assertive discipline

approach is a great approach for new teachers as it provides support from parents and

administration, helps maintain fairness, and is easy to utilize once established.

Opposing the systematic, teacher focused approach of assertive discipline, the logical

consequence approach is based on the assumption that all behavior has a purpose and

students’ motivation and goals need to be considered when developing a discipline plan

(Hardin, 2012, p. 81). The main benefit of this approach is that it promotes communication and

respect between the teacher and student as the teacher must observe the student to identify

their goals (Hardin, 2012, p. 92). In addition, it is suggested that “this approach promotes

student autonomy by allowing students to take responsibility for their actions and choices”
Week 5 Reflection 7

(Hardin, 2012, p. 92). Despite these benefits, there are several criticisms of the logical

consequence approach. First is the difficulty of the approach not just for new teachers, but for

experienced teachers as well, “because children often send false or mixed signals” (Hardin,

2012, p. 92). Second is the difficulty in tying a logical consequence to every motive for

misbehavior, as sometimes there may not be a feasible logical consequence (Hardin, 2012, p.

92). Overall, the logical consequence approach to discipline sound like a good idea in

developing students into responsible adults. However, the difficulty and complexity of this

approach prove to be a challenge that limits the use of this approach.

After analyzing the assertive discipline and logical consequence approaches to

discipline, I lean heavily toward the assertive discipline approach when considering my own

classroom management approach. This is due to the systematic and structured nature of the

approach. However, I believe that the logical consequence approach has its merits. As such, I

would include a clause in my assertive discipline plan that would allow me to utilize logical

consequence for students that require more attention.

Week 5 Reflection 8

References

Hardin, C. (2012). Effective classroom management: Models and strategies for today’s

classroom. (3rd edition) Boston: Pearson.

Lemov, D. (2015). Teach like a champion 2.0: 62 techniques that put students on the path to

college. (2nd Edition) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.