The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.

AUTHOR ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine students' preferences of discipline approaches. Ss were 368 male and 344 female students in grades 4, 5, and 6, selected from eight midwestern school districts. Ss were administered the Beliefs on Discipline Inventory for Children (BDIC), a modification of the Beliefs on Discipline Inventory described by Wolfgang and Glickman (1986), which measures teachers' preferences for three discipline approaches.
The twelve-item BDIC measures students' preferences for these same three approaches, and contains pairs of statements related to classroom discipline and the role of the teacher and the student where behavior and discipline are concerned. Using scoring procedures consistent with those developed for the original instrument, individual Ss preferences for these three discipline approaches are determined on the basis of which statements are chosen.
Results showed that regardless of grade, gender, or self-described levels of academic achievement, Ss indicated a clear preference for the Confronting-Contracting approach, which is grounded in social and developmental psychological theories, and only a modest preference for either the Relationship-Listening (grounded in humanistic and psychoanalytic thinking) or the Rule/Reward-Punishment approach (grounded in experimental behaviorist psychologies). A likely explanation for these findings is that the preferred approach emphasizes teacher-student interaction and joint decision-making.
Effective classroom management depends upon the cooperative efforts of teacher and student. Nevertheless, it is mostly the teacher, usually with little input from students, who determines which particular discipline approach will be utilized in the classroom. For the most part, educational researchers have paid little attention to the explanations for why teachers choose a particular discipline approach over another, and instead appear more interested in exploring which approaches work best with which types of students or behavior problems (Brophy and Putnam, 1978; Skiba, 1983; Grossman, 1995). Moreover, research in this area tends to be conducted from the teacher's, rather than the student's point-of-view (Elliot, 1986), and therefore does little to improve educators' understanding of what the latter believe about discipline, or what approaches they might prefer.
It seems reasonable to assume that the discipline approaches teachers implement are based to some extent upon their beliefs about child development. That is, what students can and should be expected to do (or not do) on the basis of their age and physical/psychological development. And also what the best methods are for helping students meet those expectations. Consistent with this view is the work of Wolfgang and Glickman (1986) who propose that teachers' decisions about classroom discipline typically are compatible with specific theories about child development and behavior. They describe three common approaches to discipline which they consider reflections of three differing psychological interpretations of child development. They also describe an inventory (Beliefs on Discipline Inventory) designed to identify individual teachers' preferences for one or another of these three approaches: a. Rules/Reward-Punishment, rooted in experimental behaviorist psychologies, b. Relationship-Listening, derived from humanistic and psychoanalytic thought, and c. Confronting-Contracting, which encompasses social and developmental theory (p. 13-20).
The purposes of this study were two-fold. First, to determine which of these three discipline approaches are preferred by selected grade 4, 5, and 6 students. And secondly, to determine if any relationships exist between those preferences and students' gender, academic achievement, and grade level.

METHOD
Subjects. A total of 712 students (368 males and 344 females) were sampled from eight school districts in rural communities, small towns, and suburban areas in north central Indiana. Of these, 197 Ss were enrolled in the fourth grade, 206 in the fifth grade, and 309 in the sixth grade. Ss were also further divided into two categories, based upon self-reported academic achievement (i.e., report card grades): a) high achievers (those whose grades were half B's or above), of which there were 409 Ss, and b) low achievers (those whose grades were half B's or below), of which there were 303.
Instrument. A twelve-item questionnaire, the Beliefs on Discipline Inventory for Children (BDIC) was developed and administered to all Ss (see Appendix). The purpose of the BDIC is to assess students' preferences for particular discipline approaches, and is a modification of the Beliefs on Discipline Inventory, which measures teachers' preferences for particular discipline approaches (Wolfgang and Glickman, 1986).
Modification of the original instrument was completed by ten elementary level teachers, enrolled in a graduate course taught by the first author. Working in two groups of five, teachers in each group rewrote half of the items on the original inventory. Both groups then exchanged their rewritten items with the other group, and items were reviewed and further changed if necessary to ensure that the original meaning was intact. Disagreements were resolved through group discussion, until total consensus was reached.
Although meaning was unchanged, each item was rewritten to reflect a student's rather than a teacher's perspective. For example, one item that appears on the original inventory (Wolfgang and Glickman, 1986, p.11) is:
05If students unanimously agree that a classroom rule is unjust and should be removed, but I, the teacher, disagree with them, then: A. The rule should probably be removed and replaced by a rule made by the students. B. The students and I should jointly decide on a fair rule.
For the BDIC, this item was rewritten to read:
05If the whole class agrees that a classroom rule is not fair and should be removed, but the teacher disagrees, then: A. The rule should probably be changed to a rule made by the class. B. The class and the teacher should decide on a fair rule.
Test-retest reliability was estimated by administering the BDIC to a different group of fifty sixth grade students twice, over a fourteen week interval. The coefficients of stability for the scales of Rules/Rewards-Punishment, Relationship-Listening, and Confronting-Contracting were .67, .59, and .64 respectively, all significant at the .01 level.
Procedures. Each of the twelve items on the BDIC presented two choices, as in the example above, and students were directed to select whichever choice came closest to how they felt about the situation described. Teachers who administered the questionnaire in their classrooms were advised to read through the items with students first, and then to let students go back through the inventory on their own, marking their answers at that time. Students indicated their own level of academic achievement by checking the appropriate category on the test form. Inventories were completed and returned to researchers during a one-month period in the spring of 1993.
Inventories were scored according to the key provided by the authors of the original instrument (Wolfgang and Glickman, 1986, p. 12). Both the original and the modified instruments are comprised of twenty-four statements (twelve stems, two choices each), with each of the three discipline approaches noted earlier represented by eight statements. Those eight statements are paired with four statements representing each of the other two approaches. One point is assigned to a particular approach whenever a statement representing that approach is selected. Each subject obtains a score of twelve points, which is the total of three subscores, ranging from zero to eight, representing points assigned to each of the three discipline approaches. The higher the number of points assigned to a particular approach, the more than approach is preferred.
Chi square analyses were performed for students' preferences of the three discipline approaches, and were also performed to determine if relationships existed between their preferred approach and gender, academic achievement, or grade level. Analyses of variance were then performed to compare mean scores of discipline approaches with respect to gender, academic achievement, and grade level.

RESULTS
Table 1 shows, by grade and gender, the number of Ss who preferred each of the three discipline approaches. For example, of the 108 male fourth graders sampled, twenty-two (or 20%) preferred the Rules/Reward-Punishment approach, sixteen (15%) preferred the Relationship-Listening approach, sixty-seven (62%) preferred the Confronting-Contracting approach, and three (3%) showed no preference.
Chi square analyses showed that as a group, significantly more students preferred the Confronting-Contracting approach (59%), followed by the Relationship-Listening approach (19%), and the Rules/Reward-Punishment approach (17%); (X = 470.93; df=3; p<.01). Only five percent of students showed no preferences for any particular approach.
Analyses also revealed that Ss preferences for particular approaches were related to academic achievement (X= 11.25; df=3; p<.02). Proportionately, more high achievers than low achievers preferred the Confronting-Contracting approach, while more low achievers than high achievers preferred the Rules/Reward-Punishment approach. No differences (on the basis of achievement) were found among Ss whose preference was for the Relationship-Listening approach.
Significant differences were also found in preferences among children of different grade level (X = 12.90; df=6, p< .05). Proportionately, more fourth graders preferred the Rules/Reward-Punishment approach, than did fifth and sixth graders. Also, fewer fourth graders showed no preference for any approach, than did fifth and sixth graders.
Chi square analyses showed no significant differences between the preferences of male and female Ss.
Shown in Table 2 are mean scores and standard deviations for each of the three discipline approaches, displayed according to grade, achievement, and gender. Analyses of variance revealed that on the basis of scores obtained for each discipline approach, no significant differences exist between males and females, between high and low achievers, nor among fourth, fifth, and sixth graders. However, mean scores were higher for the Confronting-Contracting approach obtained by the twelve subgroups (4.77 to 5.36), followed by the Relationship-Listening approach (3.55 to 3.98), and the Rules/Reward-Punishment approach (3.03 to 3.59) Relative size of mean scores are, of course, consistent with student preferences of discipline approach.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The most salient of these results is that, despite some statistically significant differences among subgroups, a majority of Ss preferred the Confronting-Contracting approach to discipline, regardless of grade level, gender, or academic achievement. This approach is grounded in the assumption that interrelationships between individuals and their environment are the keys to understanding behavior, and considers it the role of the teacher to interact continually so they can together arrive at solutions to behavior problems. Ss preference for this approach seems easily explained by examining inventory items associated with it, which clearly suggest emphases on student participation and joint decision-making. Most students at these age and grade levels would likely consider attractive an approach that granted them the voice in decisions that directly affect them, as is reflected in (for example) statements 3A, 7B, and 9B, which relate to student choice.
Comparatively low percentages of Ss indicated a preference for either the Rules/Reward-Punishment or the Relationship-Listening approaches. This is particularly interesting where the former is concerned, in that this is generally considered an approach not only widely advocated but also quite commonly depended upon by classroom teachers (Grossman, 1995). This approach is grounded in the assumption that external stimulation is a primary force in behavior. In this view, the teacher controls the learning environment through direct commands and positive and negative reinforcement. Ss limited preference for this approach might easily be explained by its teacher-centeredness, and also its reliance upon punishment as one tool for manipulating behavior. It might also be the case that their familiarity with and recognition of this approach led Ss to choose statements that appeared to represent alternatives to practices they were accustomed to experiencing. For example, inventory statements related to classroom seating and interrupting the teacher (8B and 10B respectively) describe rather typical and expected teacher responses to common classroom situations.
Less easily explained is Ss modest enthusiasm for the Relationship-Listening approach, which is grounded in the beliefs that inner feelings and outward behavior are directly linked, and that teachers should attempt to maintain a classroom environment in which students feel comfortable expressing their thoughts and emotions. This is arguably the most student-centered and humanistic of the three approaches, and would seem to have strong appeal to students. It may be the case, though, that inventory statements associated with this approach were objectively viewed by Ss as simply and unrealistically too generous and tolerant (statements 4B, 5B and 12A, for example), perhaps in part because it eliminates comfortable boundaries for flexibly monitoring their actions.
Beliefs about child development and behavior, classroom discipline, and the nature of teacher-student relationships and interactions can be greatly influenced by culture and circumstance. Thus, generalizations about the preferences of students at other age levels and in other geographic and educational contexts should be made with care. Nevertheless, for two reasons, the findings of this study seem potentially relevant and encouraging to educators throughout the country. First, because it appears possible to identify student preferences for discipline approaches through rather simple methods, such as this inventory. And secondly, because a better understanding of those preferences would undoubtedly be a good starting point for helping improve teaching practice through more effective classroom management techniques.
Added material
Dr. Lian Hwang Chiu, Professor, Division of Education, Indiana University, Kokomo. Michael Tulley, Division of Education, Indiana University, Kokomo.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Lian Hwang Chiu, Professor, Division of Education, PO Box 9003, Indiana University: Kokomo, Kokomo, Indiana 46904-9003.
Table 1 Number and Percentage, by Grade and Gender, of Students Preferring Discipline Approach

Grade    Gender         Discipline Approach
                   I           II          III         IV        Total
   4       M       22 (20%  )    16 (15%  )    67 (62%  )     3 (3%  )    108
   4       F       24 (27%  )    16 (18%  )    47 (53%  )     2 (2%  )     89
   5       M       16 (14%  )    27 (24%  )    65 (57%  )     6 (5%  )    114
   5       F        9 (10%  )    18 (20%  )    59 (64%  )     6 (7%  )     92
   6       M       21 (14%  )    34 (23%  )    80 (55%  )    11 (8%  )    146
   6       F       29 (18%  )    24 (15%  )   102 (63%  )     8 (5%  )    163
Total              121         135         420          36        712
                   (17%  )       (19%  )       (59%  )        (5%  )

I= Rules/Reward - Punishment
II= Relationship - Listening approach
III= Confronting - Contracting approach
IV= no preferred approach
Table 2 Mean Score and Standard Deviations by Preferred Approach, Grade, Achievement, and Gender

                         4                   5                    6
                 Hi Ach    Low Ach    Hi Ach    Low Ach    Hi Ach    Low Ach
                               (Rules/Reward-Punishment Approach)
Male       N         64         44        63         83         62       52
           M       3.20       3.59      3.13       3.13      3.06      3.15
           SD      1.48       1.44      1.30       1.38      1.32      1.45
Female     N         59         30        61         31       100        63
           M       3.54       3.53      3.03       3.19      3.20      3.29
           SD      1.58       1.52      1.41       1.47      1.46      1.60
                               (Relationship-Listening Approach)
Male       N         64         44        63         83        62        52
           M       3.58       3.57      3.98       3.86      3.90      3.92
           SD      1.13       1.40      1.30       1.21      1.42      1.36
Female     N         59         30        61         31       100        63
           M       3.59       3.70      3.61       3.55      3.59      3.68
           SD      1.18       1.35      1.44       1.58      1.30      1.32
                               (Confronting-Contracting Approach)
Male       N         64         44        63         83        62        52
           M       5.22       4.84      4.89       5.02      5.03      4.98
           SD      1.18       1.46       .99       1.32      1.03      1.23
Female     N         59         30        61         31       100        63
           M       4.86       4.77      5.36       5.26      5.21      5.03
           SD      1.14       1.45      1.22       1.08      1.12      1.34

REFERENCES
Brophy, J.E. and Putnam, J.C. (1978) Classroom Management in the Elementary Grades. ERIC ED 167 537.
Elliot, Stephen, N. (1986) "Children's Ratings of the Acceptability of Classroom Interventions for Misbehavior: Findings and Methodological Considerations. Journal of School Psychology, 24, 23-35.
Grossman, H. (1995) Classroom Behavior Management in a Diverse Society (2nd Edition). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.
Skiba, R.J. (1983) Classroom Behavior Management: A Review of the Literature. ERIC ED 236 839.
Wolfgang, C.H. and Glickman, C.D. (1986) Solving Discipline Problems. Strategies for Classroom Teachers (Second Edition). New York: Allyn and Bacon.

APPENDIX

BELIEFS ON DISCIPLINE INVENTORY FOR CHILDREN
Grade level: __________ Gender: M_____ F_____
My report card grades are:
03___ mostly A's ___ mostly C's ___ about half A's and B's ___ about half C's and D's ___ mostly B's ___ mostly D's ___ about half B's and C's ___ mostly below D
Instructions: Select either A or B. You may not completely agree with either choice, but choose the one that is closer to how you feel.
1. When I make a decision:
A. I try to think on my own and do the right thing, but sometimes I don't make the best decisions.
B. I want my ideas and feelings treated as worthy and valuable.
2. When selecting a seat:
A. Generally, I believe that the teacher should assign seats in the class.
B. Generally, I believe I should have some choice as to where I sit.
3. Teachers need to realize that:
A. No matter what my home life and school situations are, I should be given the opportunity to choose and make my own decisions.
B. No matter how much teachers help me in school, I am still influenced by my family, neighborhood, peers, and television.
4. When classrooms get noisy, I wish the teacher would:
A. Talk with the class and agree upon a workable noise level during activity periods.
B. Allow the activity to continue as long as the noise doesn't bother anyone.
5. If I break a classmate's tape player that was brought to school, the teacher should:
A. Scold me for not respecting another person's property and scold the person whose tape player got broken for bringing it to school.
B. Not interfere in our problem and let us solve it by ourselves (or with our parent's help).
6. If the whole class agrees that a classroom rule is not fair and should be removed, but the teacher disagrees, then:
A. The rule should probably be changed to a rule made by the class.
B. The class and the teacher should decide on a fair rule.
7. If I do not join in a group activity:
A. I would like the teacher to explain why I should join the group.
B. I would like the teacher to ask my reasons for not joining the group and give me other activities based upon my reasons.
8. During the first week of class I would like the teacher to:
A. Let me sit by my friends and help in making rules.
B. Make the classroom rules and tell me what will happen if I don't follow the rules.
9. I would like the teacher to:
A. Encourage me to be creative and express myself.
B. Let me do what I want, as long as I don't hurt or bother anyone else.
10. If I interrupt my teacher by talking to a neighbor:
A. I should be moved away from others so that I don't waste any more class time.
B. I would like the teacher to tell me when I become disruptive, and remind me of how it would make me feel if someone interrupted me.
11. A good teacher:
A. Is firm but fair at enforcing rules.
B. Discusses with me the different types of consequences that are appropriate to the rule I broke.
12. When one of the "better" students does not complete an assignment on time, the teacher should:
A. Assume the student has a good reason for not turning it in and allow them extra time to complete it.
B. Tell the "better" student the assignment is late, and together decide what conse quences should follow.

WBN: 9724402313003