THE ROLE OF BRAIN DOMINANCE IN THE
MAINTENANCE OF lEARNER DISCIPLINE
Rache M. Rutherford
Hons. B.A.
Dissertation submitted for the degree Master of Education at the
North-West University at the Potchefstroom Campus
Supervisor: Prof J.P. Rossouw
Assistant-supervisor: Mrs A. Kitching
2006
Potchefstroom
-- - - -
Acknowledgements
Writing a dissertation while continuing with a full-time training schedule, was a
great challenge. This was only made possible with the support of several people.
My sincere gratitude therefore goes to my supervisor, prof. J.P. Rossouw, who
guided, supported and encouraged me on this journey of discovery. He was
always readily available, giving advice generously and promptly. I would like to
thank him for his guidance, his detailed comments and suggestions and the
relaxed working relationship he fostered. I am also very grateful towards mrs.
Ansie Kitching, my assistant-supervisor for her very insightful input, her
encouragement and friendly assistance.
This research would not have been possible without the schools who allowed me
to conduct interviews with educators and learners. I thank them for their
willingness to partake in the research and for the friendly reception I received.
My thanks also go out to my brother, dr. Kobus Neethling, who introduced me to
his alma mater and convinced me to complete my dissertation at the
Potchefstroom campus of the North-West University. This proved to be sound
advise.
Writing a dissertation can be an isolating experience and would not be possible
without the support of those closest to you. My sincere gratitude therefore goes
to my husband, Paul, for his patience and for smoothly taking over the running of
the household. To my son Ryan, thank you for remaining my inspiration in most
areas of my life.
iii
Abstract
The role of brain dominance in the maintenance of learner discipline
Recent research in especially Education Law has shown that maintaining
discipline in South African schools constitutes a problem for many educators.
Research over the last few decades has also indicated a strong link between
brain dominance and behaviour. The aim of this research was to establish to
what extent the brain dominance of learners and educators influence their
attitude towards and perceptions of the implementation of schools' codes of
conduct and their resulting behaviour in class. Educators' response to indiscipline
was studied against the backdrop of the Constitution, and more specifically the
Bill of Rights, as well as other legislation pertaining to learner discipline.
The findings revealed a strong link between brain dominance and the behaviour
and attitudes of learners and. educators regarding school discipline. It is
therefore suggested that the code of conduct should be developed with input
from learners and educators from all four quadrants of the brain. Where possible,
a measure of flexibility should be included in these documents in the form of
incentives for good behaviour and by using discretion when implementing the
code of conduct. The insight o~ educators and learners into the implications of
brain dominance was also found to be crucial.
(Key concepts: Education Law, the Bill of Rights, school discipline, code of
conduct, brain dominance, brain preference)
Die rol van breindominansie in die handhawing van leerderdissipline
Onlangse navorsing in veral die vakgebied Onderwysreg het getoon dat die
handhawing van leerderdissipline in Suid-Afrikaanse skole vir baie opvoeders 'n
probleem is. Navorsing oor die afgelope paar dekades het ook 'n sterk verband
aangedui tussen gedrag en breindominansie. Die doel van hierdie navorsing was
om vas te stel in watter mate die breindominansie van leerders en opvoeders
hulle houding tot en persepsies van die implementering van die gedragskodes
be"invloed en ook hulle gevolglike gedrag in die klaskamer. Die reaksie van
- - -
IV
opvoeders teenoor wangedrag is ondersoek teen die agtergrond van die
Grondwet, meer spesifiek die Handves v.anMenseregte, asook ander wetgewing
wat op leerdergedrag betrekking het.
Die bevindings het aangetoon dat daar 'n sterk verband bestaan tussen die
breindominansie en gedrag en houding van leerders en opvoeders met
betrekking tot skooldissipline. Daar word gevolglik aanbeveel dat die
gedragskode ontwikkel word in samewerking met leerders en opvoeders wat al
vier die kwadrante van die brein verteenwoordig. Waar moontlik, behoort 'n mate
van buigsaamheid deel te vorm van die dokumente in die vorm van aansporings
vir goeie gedrag en in die implementering van die gedragskode. Daar is ook
bevind dat die insig van opvoeders en leerders in die implikasies van
breindominansie, van kritieke belang is.
(Sleutelbegrippe: Onderwysreg, die Handves van Menseregte, skooldissipline,
gedragskode, breindominansie, breinvoorkeur)
1.
1.5
1.6
1.7
2.
2.1
v
Content
Introduction, problem statement, objectives and research
methodology.. . . . . ... . . . ... . . . ... . .. .. . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 1
1.1 Literature overview... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...'" ... ... ... ... .,. ... ... ...... ... ... ... 1
1.2 Problem statement 5
1.3 Research aims and objectives 5
1.4 Research methodology 6
1.4.1 Data sources for literature overview .............................. 6
1.4.2 Empirical investigation 6
1.4.2.1 Pre-qualitative testing and profiling 6
1.4.2.2 Data collection 6
1.4.2.3 Procedure of selection of participants... ...... ...... ... ... 7
1.4.2.4 Procedure after selection of participants... 8
1.4.2.5 Procedure after collection of data 8
1.4.2.6 Ethical strategies... ... 9
Concept clarification... ... ... '" ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 9
Chapter division 10
Contribution of the study... ... '" ... ... ,.... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... 11
Discipline in schools: an education law perspective 12
Introduction... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... 12
2.1.1 Definingdiscipline............,.. ... .,...................... ... 12
2.1.2 The needfor discipline ... 13
2.1.3 Dealing with ind iscipline.. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. 14
Education law determinants for learner discipline 15
2.2.1 The Constitution 15
2.2.1.1 Supreme authority... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... '" 15
2.2.1.2 The Bill of Rights... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... 16
2.2.2 National Education Policy act 27 of 1996 18
2.2.3 The South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 18
2.2.4 The code of conduct 19
2.2.5 Refocusing the role of the learner 20
The need for discipline ... ... ... ... 22
2.3.1 Needs of society... ... ... ... '" ...... '" ... ... ... ... .., ... ... ...... '" 22
2.3.2 Working in groups 22
2.3.3 Safety... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... '" ... '" ... '" ... ... ... 23
Causes of indiscipline... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... '" ... ... ... 24
2.4.1 The genetic factoL.. ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... '" ... ...... ... 24
2.4.2 Child-rearing practices and family related factors 24
2.4.3 Society... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... 25
2.4.4 Conditions in the classroom 26
2.4.4.1 Learning difficulties 26
2.4.4.2 Adjustment to school 27
2.2
2.3
2.4
- - - -
2.8
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3.
3.4
-- - -- -
--
VI
Content (continued)
2.4.4.3
2.4.4.4
2.4.4.5
2.5
Vague class and school rules... 27
Ignoringthe interests and needs of individuals 27
Large numbers, absent teachers and
outcomes-based education... ... ..~... ... ... ... ... ... 28
2.4.4.6 Age and sex 28
2.4.4.7 The ideal learner 29
2.4.4.8 Labelling...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 29
2.4.4.9 Lack of fairness 30
2.4.4.10 Communication 31
Types of indiscipline...... ... ... '" ... ... ... '" ... ... .,. ... ... ... ... ... ... '" ... ... 32
2.5.1 Serious misbehaviour ... ... '" ... ... 32
2.5.2 Less serious misbehaviour 33
2.5.3 Other categories of misbehaviour 34
Preventive discipline... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... '" ... ... ... ... '" ... ... ... '" ... ... 35
2.6.1 Contracts... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 36
2.6.1.1 Written policies and codes of conduct... ... ... .36
2.6.1.2 Contingency contracting ..37
2.6.2 The competent teacher 37
2.6.3 Disciplinedschool culture 38
2.6.4 The role of the principal 39
2.6.5 Classroom management 39
2.6.6 Organisational development ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 40
2.6.7 Increasing parent involvement ... ... ... 40
2.6.8 Security measures 41
2.6.9 Aesthetic environment 41
Remedial discipline ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... '" ... '" 42
2.7.1 Punishment... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 42
2.7.1.1 A general view... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 42
2.7.1.2 Types of punishment 42
2.7.2 Counselling 46
2.7.3 Training programmes ... ... ... '" ... 46
Summary... ... ... ... ... ... ... '" ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 47
Brain dominance and learner discipline at school 50
Introduction... .. . ... ... ... .. . .. . .. . .. ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .. . .. .. 50
Brain Hemisphere research ... ... 50
Brain quadrant research... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... '" ... '" 52
Brain dominance and education ... 54
3.4.1 Teaching and learning brain profiles 54
3.4.1.1 Whole brain teaching 54
3.4.1.2 Whole brain learning 55
3.4.2 The unique learner 59
3.4.3 Brain based education 60
3.4.4 Left and right brain in education 61
2.6
2.7
3.6
4.
4.1
4.2
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.
5.1
5.2
5.3
-- -- -
VB
3.5
Content (continued)
Brain dominance and school discipline 62
3.5.1 The learner: thinking preferences and class discipline 63
3.5.2 The educator: thinking preferences and class discipline 65
3.5.3 The emotional climate and brain dominance 67
Summary 70
The research process.... ... I" ... I" I' ... 72
Introduction 72
Quantitative or qualitative research... ... ... ... ... ... '" ...... ... ... ... ... 72
4.2.1 The distinction... ... ... ... ... ... ... 73
Qua Iitative resea rch . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . 74
4.3.1 Defining qualitative research ... 74
4.3.2 The researcher as instrument 75
4.3.2.1 Defining the role of the researcher 75
4.3.2.2 The researcher of this study 75
The research paradigm... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... 76
4.4.1 Theoretical paradigms ...... 77
4.4.2 The research paradigm of this study 77
Research strategies 78
4.5.1 Strategies of inquiry 78
4.5.2 The research strategy of this study 81
Research methodology... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... .,. ... ...... 81
4.6.1 Methods of data collection ... ... .,. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 82
4.6.2 Methods of data collection during this study 84
4.6.2.1 The identification of participants 84
4.6.2.2 The Neethling Brain profiles 86
4.6.2.3 Questionnaires 86
4.6.2.4 Interviews 86
4.6.2.5 Observation 87
4.6.3 Methods of data analysis 88
4.6.4 Methods of data analysis during this study 89
Trustworthiness of the research 91
The limitations of this study... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... '" ... ... ... 92
Summary...... ... .., ... ...... ... 93
Findings of empirical research 94
Introduction.. . . .. .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . ... .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . ... ... ... ... .. . .. . ... .. . .. . ... 94
The four quadrant summary 95
Data Analysis... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... '" ... ... ... 97
5.3.1 Observations during focus group sessions 97
5.3.2 Attitudes and perceptions of learners 98
5.3.2.1 Punishment... 98
5.3.2.2 Rules ... ... ...... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 100
5.3.2.3 The behaviour of other learners ... ...... 102
5.3.2.4 Maintaining discipline 103
5.3.2.5 General views on discipline 104
5.3.2.6 Matrix of learner responses 105
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
-- ------
-- --
--
Vlll
Content (continued)
5.3.3 Observations during educator interviews 106
5.3.4 Attitudes and perceptions of educators 108
5.3.4.1 Code of conduct and school rules 108
5.3.4.2 Corporal punishment 109
5.3.4.3 The role of the educator in the classroom 109
5.3.4.4 Learner behaviour 110
5.3.4.5 Maintaining discipline 112
5.3.4.6 Matrix of educator responses 112
5.3.5 The Codes of conduct of participating schools 114
5.3.5.1 The education law determinants ...114
5.3.5.2 Contributors to the Code of Conduct... ... '" 115
5.3.5.3 The content of the codes of conduct... ... 116
5.4 Summary....................................'" ................................. 118
5.4.1 Learners... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ...... ...... ... ...... ... ... ... ... 118
5.4.2 Educators............ ................................................ 122
5.4.3 The Code of conduct ... 123
6. Final recommendations ............... ... 125
6.1 Introduction...... ............................................................ 125
6.2 Summary of research findings 125
6.2.1 An education law perspective on school discipline 125
6.2.2 Braindominanceandlearnerdisciplineat schooL ... '" 126
6.2.3 Qualitative research... ... ... ... ... ...... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 126
6.2.3.1 Learners 127
6.2.3.2 Educators ... ... ...... '" ...... ...... ... '" ... ... ... ... ... 127
6.2.3.3 The Code of Conduct 127
6.3 Recommendations................................. ..................... 128
6.3.1 Legal determinants and discipline style 128
6.3.2 Legislation and the brain dominance of learners 130
6.3.3 Learner discipline and educator brain dominance 133
6.3.4 Brain dominance and attitudes regarding discipline 134
6.4 Recommendations for further research 137
Addendum A: The Neethling Brain Instrument...... ......... ... ... '" ...... ...... 139
Addendum B: The interview schedules 147
Addendum C: The open-ended questionnaire 150
Addendum 0: An example of a letter of permission to conduct this
research... ... ... ... ... ... '" ... ...... ... ... ... ... ...... ... 150
Addendum E: Participating schools ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 151
Bibliography ... ... ... . .. ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... .. .. 152
1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction, problem statement, objectives and
research methodology
1.1 LITERATUREOVERVIEW
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (SA, 1996a) as the supreme
authority of the land, ensures that everybody's rights are protected. The Bill of
Rights (chapter 2 of the Constitution) places a strong emphasis on values such
as equality, human dignity and freedom. It is clear that these values have a direct
bearing on discipline in schools. The role of educators are crucial in protecting
these rights of the learners in their care. The Bill of Rights (SA, 1996a) states
pertinently (section 28 (2)): "a child's best interests are of paramount importance
in every matter concerning the child". Add to this section 3.1 of the South
African Council for Educators Code of Conduct, (RSA, 2000): "an educator
acknowledges the uniqueness, individuality, and specific needs of each learner,
guiding and encouraging each to realise his potentialities" and "uses appropriate
language and behaviour in his interaction with learners." The question remains:
do educators make the link between equality, dignity, uniqueness, specific needs
and a child's best interest on the one hand, and on the other hand their own style
of disciplining, determining their behaviour towards learners, which may be
ignoring these rights as far as certain learners are concerned? Behaviour,
according to whole brain researchers (Herrmann, 2002; Neethling 2004a), can be
directly linked to brain dominance in most circumstances. The educator who
does not understand the functioning of the whole brain will tend to favour those
learners who are "more like me" and may tend to judge "different" behaviour to
be "misbehaviour" in others (Docking, 1987:62).
--
--- -
2
When the Elton Commission (Department of Education and Science and the
Welsh Office, 1989:67-72) finds wide consensus that discipline is improved when
the educator knows his learners as individuals, this would strongly imply the
understanding of the learners' brain dominance as well (Parrish, 2003). Other
points of the report that support this, are that the curriculum should offer
stimulating and "suitably differentiated programmes" with the emphasis on "the
needs and interests of individual pupils" (Wolhuter & Oosthuizen, 2003a:3).
For many, the very rights which have to protect, have become over-emphasised,
resulting in a lack of self-discipline and therefore in the erosion of discipline in
schools (De Klerk & Rens, 2003:355; Rossouw, 2003:424). The recurring theme
associated with this phenomenon is a lack of respect (for one another, educators,
property, etc.) (De Klerk & Rens, 2003:359). There are widespread cries for
action and advice on how to restore respect and discipline in our schools. Many
of the answers, educators have to start grasping, lie with them. Respect
flourishes where people (learners) are treated as worthwhile individuals and
where their differences are acknowledged and respected.
When searching for answers to why students misbehave, more and more
opinions are emerging on the behaviour of the educators and the education
system as causes of indiscipline. It would be a simplification to link all the
examples of educator behaviour quoted to brain dominance, but it is a link that
needs further investigation. Docking (1987:7) states that indiscipline is often the
reaction of learners being bored and frustrated with a system that offers them
little and Jankowski (2002) believes that the different thinking styles of students
need to be taken into account if schools want to see changes regarding
discipline. One cause of learner misconduct according to Rossouw (2003:426) is
bad relations with specific educators caused by the personality or approach of
the educator. Van der Walt (2003:338) cites Humalda (1995:73) who gives
acknowledgement to the fact that it is impossible to see all people "op een
noemer".
3
It is clear from several reports after the banning of corporal punishment at
schools in South Africa (Msomi, 2000) that many educators were at a loss as to
how to find new ways of disciplining learners. Understanding brain preferences,
and therefore knowing learners as individuals, may just open up new areas to
finding these new ways (Mentz, Wolhuter & Steyn, 2003:399).
Research regarding the specific functions of the two brain hemispheres started in
1961, and later developed to investigations and experiments related to the
preferences for either the left or the right brain thinking processes. This brain
research has specific relevance for this study regarding some legal aspects of
the interaction between learners and educators in disciplinary situations.
The findings show that some people are more analytical, logical and factual,
while others are more orderly and conservative. People with right brain
dominance might be either emotional, interpersonal, expressive or holistic,
flexible and conceptual. These differences in personality may have an impact on
the interpersonal relationships in the educational setting, seeing that the
behaviour as well as the expectations from others' reactions may differ and even
clash.
Herrmann (Herrmann, 2002) and Neethling (Neethling & Rutherford, 2001:123)
agree that when learning activities are in alignment with the learner's brain
preferences, the chances of successful learning is improved. This, according to
their research, holds true for the learning environment and teaching style of the
educator. Many authors refer to the frustration of learners whose brain
dominance is not aligned to that of the educator and remark that certain areas of
the brain are being neglected in education. Howard Gardner (Rossman, 2003)
sums it up in these words: "We are not all the same; we do not all have the same
kind of minds ... and education works more effectively if these differences are
taken into account." More importantly is the impact of these differences on
behaviour in class. Fadely and Hosler (1983:63) state that varying hemispheric
- -
4
styles will produce differences in behaviour and personality. This, according to
some researchers, could very well be the missing link towards restoring discipline
in the classroom. The Elton Report (Department of Education and Science and
the Welsh Office, 1989:13) also points out the link between content and delivery
of the curriculum and the motivation and behaviour of pupils.
The Guidelines for the consideration of governing bodies in adopting a code of
conduct for learners (Department of Education Notice 776 of 1998) reaffirms the
democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom which the school has
to protect, promote and fulfil. Protecting these rights by ensuring that "no person
may unfairly discriminate against a learner" could once again point towards
taking the individuality of learners into account. Different brain preferences of
learners and how these link to behaviour and attitudes towards disciplinary
measures, may have to be taken into consideration when developing a code of
conduct for learners. Governing bodies may have to take cognisance of the
possible necessity for incorporating differences of learners' varying brain
preferences in the process of drafting codes of conduct for schools.
The importance of brain dominance in teaching styles, lesson content and
discipline has not been researched in depth in South Africa. According to
Neethling (2004c), those schools that are applying the whole brain in their
teaching, are returning positive feed-back. Unfortunately the extent of this
application in South Africa is limited to a few schools, and the connection
between brain preferences and discipline, has apparently not been made. None
of the sources on discipline studied by the researcher has shown any indication
of such research.
5
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The following problems have been identified and will warrant careful research:
1. Do educators fully comprehend and apply the relevant principles from the
Constitution and other education law determinants in their style of
discipline?
2 (a.) What are the implications of differences in the brain dominance of learners
for the drafting and implementation of legislation pertaining to learner
discipline?
2 (b.) What are the implications of differences in the brain dominance of
educators for their approach to learner discipline in the classroom and
their implementation of schools' codes of conduct?
3. What is the influence of the brain dominance of respectively learners and
educators on learners' attitudes towards and perceptions of the
implementation of schools' codes of conduct and their resulting behaviour
in class?
1.3 RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the study is to determine
· whether educators fully comprehend and apply the relevant principles
from the Constitution and other education law determinants in their style of
discipline;
· the implications of differences in the brain dominance of learners for the
drafting and implementation of legislation pertaining to learner discipline;
· the implications of differences in the brain dominance of educators for
their approach to learner discipline in the classroom and their
implementation of schools' codes of conduct;
· the influence of the brain dominance of respectively learners and
educators on learners' attitudes towards and perceptions of the
implementation of schools' codes of conduct and their resulting behaviour
in class.
6
1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The data sources which will be utilised and the empirical investigation which will
be conducted, will be outlined in the following paragraphs.
1.4.1 Data sources for literature overview
Literaturewill be obtained by utilising primaryas well as secondaryliterature'
sources. These will be analysed in the literature overview, and will include books,
articles, legislation, Internet data and interviews related to brain dominance and
education, more specifically related to discipline in schools. Key words for data
search would include: brain dominance, whole brain thinking, 4-hemispheric
functioning, school discipline, code of conduct, educational law, behavioural
problems.
1.4.2 Empirical investigation
The brain profiling of the candidates, the data collection and analysis, the
selectionof the participantsandthe ethicalstrategieswill be discussedhere.
1.4.2.1 Pre-qualitative testing and profiling
To ensure that the focus groups and individuals that will become involved in the
interview process are grouped according to their brain preferences, the Neethling
Brain Instrument (NBI™) will be used to profile educators and learners.
1.4.2.2 Data collection
Data will be gathered by means of interviews with educators and learners, either
individually or in focus groups. Participants will be identified according to their
brain preferences in order to select whole brain groups, in other words groups
which represent all quadrants of the brain. This will be purposive sampling and
participants who fit the criteria, will be selected. Black as well as white
participants will be selected in order to ensure that the findings will be applicable
to different racial groups. A semi-structured interview schedule will be developed.
7
By conducting the interviews, the researcher herself will become a measurement
instrument. An interview will be conducted with a legal authority regarding the
findings and recommendations of the study. The Codes of Conduct of the
participating schools and 4 other schools selected randomly will be studied in
terms of the issues relevant to this study.
1.4.2.3
Procedure of selection of participants
. Schools located in at least three provinces will be identified as part of the
research: 4 high schools, 3 primary schools (grade 7) and 1 preparatory
school (grades 1 to 3). The participants will be selected through purposive
sampling. In other words, they will not be selected at random, but
because of who they are (educators and learners) and what they know
(the school environment, disciplinary practices and the codes of conduct
for example). They will also be selected because of their brain profiles in
order to select a group with a variation of brain preferences. The specific
schools selected will be in most part a convenience sampling and the
researcher will select schools where a contact person with some
knowledge or insight into brain profiling has been identified. No other
specific criteria will apply.
· In the majority of schools 20 staff members will be profiled, after which 4 -
7 will become the participants in the research. As mentioned previously
they will be selected according to their brain profiles in order to select a
group with different brain preferences. In total 30 - 40 will act as
participants.
· Similarly, 6-8 learners per school will also be the participants in the
research (in total 45 - 50). Focus groups of 6-8 learners per school will be
selected according to their brain profiles in order to select a group with
different brain preferences.
· As part of the triangulation process, 8 of the participating educators will be
selected for cross-examination interviews. The educators will be selected
- --
8
according to their brain profiles in order to form a group with different brain
preferences.
· A legal authority will be identified in order to test the legal implications of
the findings and recommendations during an interview.
1.4.2.4
Procedure after selection of participants
· Interviews will be conducted separately with each of the selected
educators. A semi-structured interview schedule will be used consisting of
10 to 12 questions regarding their attitude towards and experience of
different learners and their behaviour, which transgressions they punish
more, or which frustrates them more often and their attitude towards the
Code of Conduct. The researcher will make notes of the observations
made during these interviews. The interviews will be recorded.
· Next the groups of learners will be interviewed as focus groups. To
prevent peer pressure as far as questions regarding discipline is
concerned, an open-ended questionnaire will also be used to ascertain
the misbehaviour they are most guilty of, their perceptions regarding
discipline in general, certain types of disciplinary methods and fairness in
discipline. These questions will be designed to indicate the probable link
between these responses and their brain preferences. The researcher will
also make notes of observations during these interviews.
1.4.2.5 Procedure after collection of data
· Interviews with educators and the focus groups will be transcribed. The
data will be analysed and described by comparing the brain profiles of
respectively learners and educators with their responses regarding
discipline. In this phase the responses will be directly linked to their own
brain profiles. A deduction will be made as to the findings.
· Interviews with the 8 selected educators will be conducted as part of the
triangulation process. The interview schedule will include the findings and
recommendations of the study.
9
· An interview will be conducted with a legal authority to test the legal
implications of the findings and recommendations.
1.4.2.6
Ethical strategies
Permission for profiling and interviews with educators and learners will be
obtained from principals of the identified schools during an interview. The
researcher will be guided by principals regarding permission from educators and
learners.
Permission to publish names of schools in the research findings will be obtained
from school principals.
Permissions will be obtained from education departments for research in the
selected schools.
1.5 CONCEPT CLARIFICATION
· BrainDominance: dominant thinking preferences unique to an individual
· Brain Preferences: thinking preferences unique to an individual which are
associated with the four quadrants of the brain
· Brain Profile: the brain as measured by the Neethling Brain Instrument
· Whole brain teaching: teaching designed and aimed at all four quadrant
groups
· Whole brain learning: the preferred learning styles of the four different
quadrant groups
· Brain based education: reform in education in the USA taking brain
research into account which lead to learners actively engaging in learning
and in guiding their own instruction
10
· Preventivediscipline: disciplinarymethodsto deterdisciplinaryproblems
· Remedial discipline: punishment or other corrective measures used to
remediate misbehaviour
1.6 CHAPTER DIVISION
Chapter 1
The role of brain dominance in the maintenance of learner discipline
The problem statement and aims of the research. The description of the research
methods and a clarification of the concepts and terms.
Chapter 2
Discipline in schools: an education law perspective
This chapter will include an analysis of the Constitution, general legislation and
other education law determinants that impact on discipline in schools, e.g. the
"Guidelines for the consideration for governing bodies in adopting a code of
conduct for learners" This analysis will include definitions of discipline, the need
for discipline, the causes of indiscipline, preventive methods, punitive methods
and other related discussions.
Chapter 3
Brain dominance and learner behaviour management at school.
This chapter will include a brief analysis of the early and current research on the
brain hemispheres, research on the four quadrant model of the brain
(emphasising the findings of Herrmann and Neethling) and the impact of brain
dominance on discipline style. This chapter will focus mainly on the relevant
education law perspective, by a description of the implications of differences in
brain dominance for schools, educators, learners and legislators.
11
Chapter 4
The research process
This chapter will include an analysis and description of those qualitative study
methods that will be utilised to determine the influence of the brain dominance of
respectively learners and educators on learners' attitudes towards and
perceptions of the implementation of schools' codes of conduct and their
resulting behaviour in class. The analysis will be followed by an explanation of
the empirical investigation and data analysis.
Chapter 5
Findings of empirical research
A report on the findings of the research and the conclusion regarding the
possible link between brain dominance and school discipline.
Chapter 6
Final recommendations
This chapter includes the recommendations regarding the implications of brain
dominance for school discipline, and suggestions for further research.
1.7 CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY
This study should contribute to a deeper understanding of educators as to their
own disciplinary styles and to the possibilities of discretion regarding learner
discipline. Taking the brain dominance of learners into account when developing
and implementing a code of conduct may impact favourably on the development
of learner behaviour.
12
CHAPTER 2
Discipline in schools: an education law perspective
2.1 INTRODUCTION
In the following paragraphs discipline will be defined and the need for discipline
and how to deal with indiscipline will be introduced.
2.1.1 Defining discipline
In the past, discipline in school was not a difficult term to define. It was simple:
students had to respect their educators, the school and class rules. Any
transgression, bad behaviour or disruptions were dealt with decisively, often
severely.
A more formal definition according to The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
(1995), is that discipline is mental and moral training and that it refers to a system
of rules for conduct. On the other hand it is defined as punishment and to "bring
under control". The first definition refers to prevention and the latter to
remediation. Jones (1979:26) describes discipline as "the business of enforcing
simple classroom rules that facilitate learning and minimize disruption".
Discipline is therefore the rules that prevent bad behaviour and also the action of
enforcing these rules in order to facilitate learning. Mabeba and Prinsloo
(2000:34) describe discipline problems as "disruptive behaviour that significantly
affects fundamental rights to feel safe, to be treated with respect and to learn."
13
2.1.2 The need for discipline
As to the need for discipline, most authors (Gottfredson, 1989 and Moles, 1989
for example) agree with Gaustad (1992) that the main goals of discipline are to
ensure the safety of learners and staff and to create an environment conducive to
learning.
Also, society has always demanded discipline for the child's own good and for
the creation of a disciplined community. It is certainly also impossible to teach
effectively without good discipline in the classroom. Even in modern times when
a more psychological approach to the upbringing and education of children has
gained ground, it seems that the call for discipline in schools has not diminished.
The Annual Gallup Poll of the Public of America's Attitudes to the Public Schools,
has identified "lack of discipline" as the most serious problem facing the nation's
educational system during most of the Poll's twenty-two years of existence
(Cotton, 2001). Gottfredson and others (as quoted by Gaustad, 1992) calculate
that in 6 schools in Charleston students lost 7932 instructional days to in-school
and out-of-school suspensions in one year. There are nearly two million
suspensions per year. In that country, between 1997 and 1999, an epidemic of
violence in schools has shocked the world. The following statistics reveal a
sombre picture (Jankowski, 2002):
. 2 dead, 7 wounded in Pearl, Mississippi (October 1997)
. 3 dead, 5 wounded in West Paducah, Kentucky (December 1997)
. 5 dead, 11 wounded in Jonesboro, Arkansas (March 1998)
. 2 dead, 22 wounded in Springfield, Oregon (May 1998)
. 15 dead, 25 wounded in Littleton, Colorado (April 1999).
Shocking as these statistics may be, such a bleak picture is not completely alien
to South Africa. In the report on The Commission on the Challenges facing Public
Education (Nedlac Summit, 1999), Leboho Loate, Nedlac community convenor,
raised the issue of the vulnerability of learners and educators in schools which
were subjected to vandalism, drug dealing, rape and violence. In his debate in
14
the National Assembly on his budget vote (Anon., 2002a) Education Minister
Kader Asmal criticised poor discipline of some students. He admonished those
who had "damaged property, burnt buildings and looted from the poor". Asmal
continued to call upon all role players to embark on a debate on discipline and
accountability in education. The abysmal matric pass rate over the last decade in
many South African schools has been a reflection of ill-discipline and despair in
many classrooms (Pretorius, 2002). Pretorius quotes the national and provincial
education departments as identifying the main reason that schools fail miserably
academically, as lack of discipline of daily routine and criminal activity
interrupting classes. This certainly seems to be the case, judging by the
numerous success stories portraying the other side of the coin which have been
shared in the popular press over the last few years. Those schools, it seems,
that have taken drastic measures regarding discipline and school safety in the
last few years in South Africa, have also improved their academic results. In a
speech by Asmal (2001) he quotes a 52,9% improvement in matric results at a
school because of the help by the community with discipline.
2.1.3 Dealing with indiscipline
The general opinions on the need for discipline in schools have certainly not
changed, but the shift has been towards redefining the role of discipline in
education, the application of disciplinary measures, the styles of punishment and
its long-term effects and flexibility within the code of conduct. In this regard many
authors (as cited by Cotton, 2001) and Rossouw (2003:426) identified
components like the commitment of staff, a warm school climate, the supportive
role of educators, programmes to clarify rules and close ties with the community
as critical in discipline practices. Jankowski (2002) believes that the narrow
perception of discipline in the past has to change and that emotional intelligence
and different thinking styles of students need to be taken into account if the world
wants to see changes in schools. Docking (1987:7) states that indiscipline is
often the reaction of learners being bored and frustrated with a system that offers
them little. Other more recent research has shown that when learners find the
15
curricula irrelevant or have less success, they are more prone to violence
(Oosthuizen, 2005:5). It seems apparent from information from different sources
analysed in the literature overview, that a better understanding of learners would
assist the situation. This approach should be seriously considered.
Understanding learners' backgrounds, needs, problems and certainly learning
and general preferences would go a long way towards solving many problems
with indiscipline.
2.2 EDUCATION LAW DETERMINANTS FOR LEARNER DISCIPLINE
To establish how the law stands on discipline in schools, it is necessary to
investigate the different sources of South African Law and how some of these
laws apply to education and discipline in particular.
2.2.1 The Constitution
In the paragraphs that follow some relevant provisions of the Constitution as
supreme authority will be discussed. Special reference will be made to those
sections in the Bill of Rights that have a direct bearing on education.
2.2.1.1
Supreme authority
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) took effect on
4 February 1997. It is considered the supreme law of the land and all other law or
Acts have to be consistent with section 2 of the Constitution (SA, 1996a). The
Constitution is interpreted and protected by the Constitutional Court which is
more powerful than the president and cabinet and ensures that everybody's
human rights are protected. This of course was not the case under the previous
constitutional system. The new constitution presented the challenge of writing a
new Schools Act and other legislation for education that would incorporate these
principles of democracy and of human rights.
-- -- --
16
2.2.1.2 The Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights is Chapter 2 of the Constitution (SA, 1996a). This Bill places a
strong emphasis on values such as equality, human dignity and freedom. Many
sections of the Bill have a direct or indirect bearing on school discipline. Some of
these relevant sections are the following:
· Section 9 deals with the right to equality and guards against unfair
discrimination which could very well manifest itself in discriminatory
disciplinary behaviour of the educator against certain students.
· Section 10 calls for the dignity of all to be respected and protected. This
right would impact directly on the behaviour of educators when
reprimanding students (derogatory language, hurtful insults, sarcasm and
humiliating labels for example) or the manner of punishment (undignified
tasks, humiliating forms of punishment, corporal punishment for example).
· In Section 12 the right to freedom and security of the person is described.
This includes no form of violence or torture or to be treated or punished in
a cruel, inhuman or degrading way. The forms of punishment mentioned in
the point above, would all be contrary to this right.
· Section 14 deals with the right to privacy and includes the right of
everyone not to have their persons and property searched or possessions
seized. Educators who search students or their lockers/suitcases for
drugs, stolen property or weapons would have to weigh up this
fundamental right against the rights of others. The weighing up is not
against the possible limitation, but against the other person's right(s) in
certain circumstances (where for example the safety of others have to be
protected). Whether the security of the group weighs more than the
privacy of the individual, is a thorny issue that confronts educators.
· When section 15 describes the freedom of religion, belief and opinion, it
poses a challenge for the educator and his relationship towards the
learner. This section can be read to imply that the learner has the right to
disagree with the educator's point of view, has the freedom to voice the
disagreement without being seen as misbehaving.
17
· This same argument can arise when studying section 16 which indicates
that everyone has the right to freedom of expression which includes the
"freedom to receive or impart information or ideas" (SA, 1996a). The
educator may therefore be infringing on this right when a student's ideas
or opinions are disregarded, ridiculed or punished. As will be explained in
chapter 3, the issue of brain dominance is often at the heart of
disagreements between educator and student, especially when it comes
to different perceptions regarding the same situation.
· The rights of children are specifically addressed in s.28 and summarised
in s.28(2) as "A child's best interests are of paramount importance in every
matter concerning the child." Educators will therefore have to ask the
question whether their actions regarding the child's behaviour are in the
child's best interest. Issues like expulsion, corporal punishment, insults or
degrading punishment measures have to be addressed.
· Section 29 on Education offers everyone the right to education. This right
has a bearing on the punishment by suspension when pupils are
suspended in school or out of school. This would also pose the question
whether expulsions are legal, as the right to education is often
permanently terminated in these cases.
Another challenge facing educators, is that there are no absolute criteria to follow
when dealing with the Bill of Rights and certain rights and values can be in
opposition in some situations ("privacy" vs. "security" when searching students;
"equality" vs. "freedom" when using the freedom to voice opinions which may
discriminate against others). Educators therefore need to understand not only the
rights, but also the limitations to fundamental rights under certain circumstances.
Section 24 of the SA Constitution (SA, 1996a) states that everyone shall have
the right to an environment which is not harmful to their health or well-being.
Learners can therefore demand, under the supreme authority of the land, that the
school environment is safe from crime, violence, abuse and any other acts which
18
could be described as harmful to their well-being. This speaks to, on the one
hand, maintaining a disciplined culture which would eliminate this type of
behaviour, and on the other hand to the type of punishment educators are
allowed to mete out. De Waal, Currie and Erasmus (2000:375) refer to the
burden of upholding the right to a healthy environment which it placed on
individuals as much as it is placed on the state (or in this case more specifically
the school). In other words, the desired balance is between the right of the
learner to a safe environment and the learner's responsibility to partake in
creating this safe environment with disciplined behaviour.
2.2.2 National Education Policy Act 27 of 1996
As stated in the preamble to this act (SA,1996c), is was necessary to adopt
legislation to facilitate the democratic transformation of the national system of
education into one which serves the needs and interests of all people of South
Africa. Section 4 of this act states that every person will be "protected against
unfair discrimination" and will be granted the "freedom of expression". It states
further that this education system will "contribute to the full personal development
of each student" and that it will recognise "the aptitudes, abilities, interests, prior
knowledge and experience of students". This act goes to the heart of the link
between school discipline and the unique learner as it manifests itself in brain
dominance as discussed in chapter 3. The question which will have to be
addressed is whether an education system which does not take into account the
brain dominance and preferences of its learners can truly "contribute to the full
personal development of each student".
2.2.3 The South African Schools Act 84 of 1996
The new Constitution meant rewriting the law pertaining to education to
incorporate all the principles adopted in the Bill of Rights. In the paragraphs that
follow, the development, purpose and contents of the SASA are briefly
discussed.
19
The purpose of the act is to provide for a uniform system for the organisation,
governance and funding of schools. Because of the history of racial inequality
and segregation that formed part of the previous education system, a new act
which would be in line with the new found democracy in South Africa was
necessary. As stated in the preamble to the act, the new system for schools
would have to redress past injustices, provide an education of progressively high
quality for all learners and form the foundation for the development of all the
people of South Africa (SA, 1996b). The new education system would have to
combat intolerance and discrimination, contribute to the eradication of poverty
and advance all cultures and languages. A fundamental element of the new act
would be the upholding of the rights of all learners, parents and educators, but
also their responsibility for the organisation, governance and funding of schools
in partnership with the State.
The Schools Act also calls upon the governing body to adopt a code of conduct.
2.2.4 The Code of Conduct
The code of conduct, as determined in s. 8(2) of the SASA, should be aimed at
"establishing a disciplined and purposeful school environment" and also one
which contains provisions "of due process safeguarding the interests of the
learner" in disciplinary proceedings (SA,1996b). The guidelines for this code of
conduct (Department of Education Notice 776 of 1998) contains in section 4
certain principles and values regarding the rights of learners. Section 4.1
determines that those rights, as spelt out in the Bill of Rights should be protected,
promoted and fulfilled by the school. Democracy, non-discrimination, dignity and
freedom of expression, to name a few, are rights that should be firmly entrenched
in the code of conduct of the school. In other words, schools need discipline to
ensure that effective learning can take place, that the interests and rights of
learners (and others) are protected and fairness is ensured.
Of specific importance to this study is the stipulation (s. 4.1) that all learners have
the right to, among others, participate in decision-making about matters affecting
them at the school and the right to have their views heard about these matters.
----
..::...-- -
20
The individual learner, his/her thoughts on or attitude towards disciplinary
matters, should therefore be heard and by implication be taken into account. The
role of brain dominance in these attitudes and perceptions is a crucial one. In
addition s. 4.2 emphasises the right of each learner not to be unfairly
discriminated against. A code of conduct in which only the views of certain
individuals are always considered, may be in danger of being discriminatory.
The freedom of expression as stipulated in s. 5 could further strengthen the
necessity for a code of conduct which is more representative of all learners at a
school.
As stated in chapter 2 of the SASA (SA, 1996b), the Code of Conduct, as a
standard of moral behaviour, must be a document which involves input from not
only the governing body, staff and parents, but learners as well. This touches on
an important issue regarding the law and discipline, namely the role of the
learner.
2.2.5 Refocusing the role of the learner
The learner could easily be seen by educators only as the one who needs to
obey the list of school and classroom rules, who will receive punishment for the
transgression of any of these rules and who, through his negative behaviour, is
responsible for discord and for the breakdown of the "disciplined and purposeful
school environment". A fresh eye would reveal that the protection of the learner
in the school environment is a crucial element of the Code of Conduct. Security is
seen as a priority of education law by many (Oosthuizen, 1998:65; Oosthuizen,
2005:92). The role of the educator as protector of the learner (against physical
and mental abuse, unfairness, disrespect, etc.) needs special attention against
the backdrop of basic human rights. The educator will also have to acknowledge
the role of the learner as co-creator of the rules that govern discipline in the
school.
21
To gain perspective regarding this issue, a few points from the Guidelines for a
Code of conduct (SA, 1998) are emphasised here:
. The learner as co-creator of disciplinary rules
The code of Conduct does not only provide for learners to conform to the
rules, but also to be involved in the formulation of school and classroom rules
(5.1(b». According to Van Dyk (as cited by Roos, 2003:511) this fosters
responsibility as opposed to blind obedience.
Learners should take part in decision-making matters and have the right to
have their views heard (4.1).
. Protection of the learner within the disciplinary rules
The main focus of the Code of Conduct should be positive discipline and
should not be punitive and punishment oriented but facilitate constructive
learning (1.4).
The Code of Conduct should be directed towards mutual respect, tolerance
and reconciliation (2.3).
Punishment must suit the offence (3.5) .
The victimisation of the one by the other (this warning is directed to both
parties) is unacceptable (5.6).
Learners should be protected from abuse by adults (7.2).
The philosophy of a disciplinary system is not based on fear or assault, but
on human dignity and respect (4.4.3).
As stated earlier, the Code of Conduct, as a standard of moral behaviour, must
be a document which involves input from learners as well. These learners are
individuals with different brain preferences (Neethling & Rutherford, 2001:79)
and would therefore have different attitudes towards and perceptions of
disciplinary matters. Brain dominance may therefore have to be considered as
one of the determinants of Education Law as it pertains to school discipline.
--- - - -
22
The need for discipline in schools is an important aspect that will be discussed in
the following section.
2.3 THE NEED FOR DISCIPLINE
The need for discipline will be discussed in the following paragraphs. The needs
within society, when working in groups and the need for safety will be addressed.
2.3.1 Needs of society
As mentioned in the introduction, society demands disciplined citizens. Learners
have to grasp that rules and authority are logically required by human co-
operation (Wilson and Cowell, 1990: 15). These authors expand on this opinion
by stating that discipline is a sub-heading of the larger principle of discipline or
authority. If learners do not learn to deal with this, it would be difficult to later
deal with the less structured context of discipline in the world at large. This is
sound logic. Laying the foundation at school for a disciplined lifestyle, for the
acceptance of authority and the need for rules should be part and parcel of the
task of education. Durkheim (1973:148) states it succinctly: "Discipline is not a
simple device for securing superficial peace in the classroom, it is the morality of
the classroom as a small society."
2.3.2 Working in groups
It is a logical assumption that any group activity needs discipline to achieve
effective outcomes. Whether a group or team is building something, is playing a
game or sport or is touring together, there is a need for rules and discipline. The
class is by definition a group working and learning together to achieve a specific
educational goal. As is true for other groups and group activities, the class needs
discipline and preset rules in order to be effective. It is for instance impossible to
teach when pupils are fighting, screaming, drunk or sick (Wilson & Cowell,
1990:33). As with other groups the individual belongs to, the learner has to enter
23
into and abide by a contract with the school regarding acceptable behaviour in
this particular institution. By the same token, when the learner does not agree
with these preset rules of the contract, or breaks the contract, (as would be the
case with the sports team or the company which employs him), he or she would
forfeit the right to be part of this institution. This then also implies the duty of the
school to clearly communicate these rules, to "train" members in the rules and to
test the understanding of these rules on a regular basis.
2.3.3 Safety
Although most examples of misconduct of learners do not involve violent or
criminal behaviour, these incidents do occur. The rest of the class has to be
protected against such acts. Not only learners, of course, but educators are often
the targets during these incidents and where class control problems are
increasing, so is stress amongst teachers. Kloska and Ramasut (1985:19) found
that "pupils' indiscipline" ranked third out of eleven sources of stress presented to
64 teachers in one city in England. Judging by the many negative reactions by
educators on learner misconduct during a study of 104 schools in South Africa
(Rossouw, 2003:413-435), this seems to be the case in South Africa as well.
It appears as if serious indiscipline is a global problem and countries like
Australia, Britain and the United States of America are having their fair share of
problems (Mentz, Wolhuter & Steyn, 2003:392). The Elton Commission in the
USA has found that one in six secondary school educators and one in ten
primary school educators saw problems with discipline in their schools as serious
(Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office, 1989: 62). Fields
(2000), however, states that the Gallup as well as the Langdon polls found a far
larger percentage of educators, as well as the community, who indicated that
learner discipline is a serious problem. Violence in South African schools is
certainly great cause for concern. Several studies have borne this out (De Klerk
& Rens, 2003:354). Maree (as cited by Rossouw, 2003:416) described some
South African schools as resembling "war zones". Building electrified fences,
24
having security personnel on duty and scanning for weapons are measures that
have become a necessity in hot spots in the country. This should however not be
the measures sought to bring about a lasting and positive change in crime-ridden
and undisciplined schools. Discipline and especially self-discipline should
become a culture within all schools and educators should be equipped to foster
this.
Another important element regarding the maintenance of school discipline, is the
causes of indiscipline.
2.4 CAUSES OF INDISCIPLINE
The genetic factor, child-rearing practices
society and conditions in the class room
discussed in this section.
and other family related factors,
as causes of indiscipline will be
2.4.1 The genetic factor
There are some who believe that antisocial behaviour is genetically determined
(Oosthuizen, Wolhuter & Du Toit, 2003:464). The behaviour, it is believed, is not
necessarily directly inherited, but some children are born more susceptible to
stress which might precipitate deviant behaviour. This approach needs careful
analysis, because accepting a "deviant gene" would be condemning certain
students to life-long misbehaviour and place an immovable limitation on the
positive possibilities of the correct education and nurturing by parents, teachers
and the community. As Sternberg and Grogorenko (quoted by Oosthuizen,
Wolhuter & Du Toit, 2003:464) rightly state, it would be one of the worst mistakes
made by educators to believe they cannot make a difference.
2.4.2 Child-rearing practices and family related factors
A study that supports the influence of child-rearing practices on indiscipline is a
Cambridge longitudinal study that showed that delinquents differ from non-
25
delinquents in having experienced cold, harsh parents (West, 1982:129). More
recent studies, according to Chaloner (2003), director of the Center for Early
Intervention in the USA, has shown that 83 percent of children with impaired
caregiver-child attachment have significant problems with behaviour. There is a
glut of literature on self-image on the market. A few general opinions that seem
to be widely accepted are that parents who criticise mistakes or the physical
appearance of the child constantly, or belittle the child by comparing him/her with
a 'superior' sibling or other child, are damaging the child's self-esteem. This
manifests itself in many ways: in addictions, violent behaviour and general
indiscipline. Children born to families in the lower socio-economic strata are
generally more exposed to family stress and may therefore tend to misbehave
more often (Bear, 1998). The Elton Commission also indicates that neglect by
parents is often the cause of serious behavioural problems in school (Department
of Education and Science and the Welsh Office, 1989:134). Respondents in a
study on discipline in South African schools, reported "a total or partial lack of
discipline maintained by parents at home" as one of the major reasons for
misbehaviour in schools (Rossouw, 2003:426). De Wet (2003b:90) found a large
percentage of respondents rated poverty, unemployment and the disintegration
of family life as important causes for learner violence in her research on violence
in Eastern Cape schools in South Africa.
The pivotal role of parents in influencing positive discipline, remains their
example. Their respect for authority (in general and in school) will surely enhance
these attitudes in their children. As stated by Wolhuter & Steyn (2003:530)
parents playa crucial role in shaping the attitudes that produce good behaviour
in schools.
2.4.3 Society
According to Middleton and Walsh (1995:77) the demise of modernism and the
absence of alternative life-views have left a gap for many dispirited young people
who often act out their hopelessness in violent ways. As mentioned before, the
26
incidence of misbehaviour among children from the lower socio-economic strata,
is higher than among children from middle-class and upper-class families.
Principals in lower socio-economic areas reported in a study on indiscipline in
South African schools (Rossouw, 2003:426) that unstable homes caused by
amongst others poverty and HIV/Aids, have had an "enormously destabilising
effect" on school discipline.
Another cause of misbehaviour and problems with discipline could be caused by
the violence, racism and other antisocial behaviour as portrayed continuously by
the media (McHenry, 2000). The Elton Commission also raises concerns about
the effects of television and video programmes on children's behaviour
(Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office, 1989:16).
Then there are those that see the general degeneration of society as a major
factor. The combination of learners' poor discipline and violence on the one hand
and the unmotivatedness and criminal behaviour of some educators on the other
hand, is a sign of the disintegration of values and of a "sick society" (De Wet,
2003a).
2.4.4 Conditions in the classroom
Blaming indiscipline in the classroom purely on conditions outside the classroom,
would be unrealistic. There are numerous causes of indiscipline in the classroom
which range from vague classroom rules to certain behaviours by educators. In
the paragraphs that follow, the most important causes that were identified in the
literature are discussed.
2.4.4.1
Learning difficulties
In most classes, the culture is geared to the academically strong and those with
learning difficulties often vent their frustration by misconduct. Assessment
procedures continuously confront weaker learners with their own failure and a
sense of not belonging. Researchers have found that a sense of belonging is
27
connected with the learner's expectations of success and interest in schools work
(Oosthuizen (ed.), 2005). The challenge presented to the educator would
therefore be to create opportunities for success for all learners and to use
positive encouragement instead of criticism. Roberts (2003), director of Peak
Learning Systems is of the opinion that most teachers evaluate student learning
prematurely, which results in fear and poor performance.
2.4.4.2
Adjustment to school
Some children experience high stress levels when first leaving their mothers to
go to school and tend to "act out". The highly active child will naturally have an
adjustment to make coming into an environment where he has to sit still for
several hours. Many of these children are constantly fidgeting, raising their hand,
getting up, touching other students and knocking over things (Gibson, 2002).
This is not a one-off adjustment. Entering high school for the first time can be a
very stressful experience for many. Students have to cope with different
educators, different styles of teaching and different expectations. A solution could
be if longer attention to orienting students to classroom procedures, was part of
school orientation. Educators are mostly uninformed regarding the reasons for
misconduct under these circumstances and special training and counselling
would go a long way in addressing this problem.
2.4.4.3
Vague class and school rules
Rules should be preset, clear, repeated often and enforced in a consistent and
unambiguous way (Gottfredson, 1989:87; Wolhuter & Steyn, 2003:528). It is
often suggested that rules be displayed in classrooms and around the school to
remind everyone what they are (Munn & Mellor, 2000; Wolhuter & Steyn,
2003:532).
2.4.4.4
Ignoring the interests and needs of individuals
The Elton Report points out the link between the content and method of delivery
of the school curriculum and the motivation and behaviour of pupils (as cited by
Wolhuter & Steyn, 2003:529). This could be the "missing link" towards restoring
- - - -- - - - - --
- -- -
28
discipline in the classroom. The educator should know his learners as individuals,
their interests and personalities (Mentz, Wolhuter & Steyn, 2003:399). If the
needs and interests of individuals are met as far as differentiated study
programmes, assessment systems, subject choices and teaching styles are
concerned, disruptive behaviour could become a rare occurrence. On the other
hand it will persist while students constantly feel frustrated by classroom
practices that ignore their individuality. This insight could bring the breakthrough
that more and stricter laws and sanctions can not accomplish.
2.4.4.5
Large numbers, absent teachers and Outcomes-based education
Research on the causes of learner misconduct in South African schools
(Rossouw, 2003:425) cited these issues as some of the causes. Educators have
difficulty controlling large groups of pupils, they are absent from class for
numerous reasons and some pupils misuse the less formal atmosphere during
group sessions which is an element of the OBE system.
2.4.4.6
Age and sex
The correlation between age and problems with discipline has been noted by
numerous researchers (Mentz, Wolhuter & Steyn, 2003:398). Older pupils are
generally more guilty of misconduct than those in lower grades. Several
researchers (e.g. Brophy 1986:185) have noted that with older students the best
results are obtained through continuously reminding them about the rules. They
generally regard punishment for misbehaviour as fair, provided that the
punishment fits the "crime". Smaller children tend to regard all punishment as
unfair.
The gender issue also needs attention when trying to find solutions for
indiscipline. Most cultures will accept certain behaviour from boys outside the
classroom ("boys will be boys"), but the same behaviour in the classroom will be
unacceptable. This could put boys at a disadvantagewhen acceptable behaviour
outside the classroom is not tolerated under the stricter code of conduct in the
29
classroom (for example boisterous behaviour). In addition, according to Michael
Gurian in his book Boys and Girls Learn Differently (Anon., 2003c) more boys are
diagnosed with reading disabilities, with learning and behavioural disorders ADD
and ADHD and are referred to special education more often. Newberger (Anon.,
2003c), is of the opinion that boys' rambunctiousness or their "turning off" when
bored, is often seen as ADD or a learning disability when often it is purely
because they are male. Educators (often females) will miss the reasons behind
such behaviour and punish boys for misbehaving more often.
2.4.4.7 The "ideal learner"
A fair amount of research suggests that teachers possess a picture of the ideal
learner and would react more favourably towards learners who conform to this
image. Docking (1987) cites researchers who concluded that educators get on
best with learners who are helpful, neat, happy, physically attractive, socially
mature and unlikely to be daydreaming. Some educators or schools also divide
learners into A streamers (whose good behaviour is reinforced consistently) at
the one end of the spectrum or D streamers at the other end who, because of
their low academic ability, build deepening attitudes of hostility because of
feelings of inferiority. Traditionally educators tend to favour students who are
amongst others left-brain dominant, right handed, have strong linguistic and
logical-mathematical intelligences, are quiet and academically on grade level (not
too far ahead or behind) (Bluestein, 2001). Some educators may also identify
strongly with those students who share their interests (Docking, 1987: 62) but
reject those who don't. Those learners who are "most like me" could very well
receive the best teaching, kindest remarks and most attention. Those students
who are therefore seen by a particular educator as guilty of the most misconduct,
could therefore purely be those that do not fit into the educator's picture of the
ideal student.
--
-- --
30
2.4.4.8
Labelling
The theory of labelling and its effects was developed by Howard Becker (1963).
He was of the opinion that labels become self-fulfilling prophecy, because the
labelled person takes on the characteristics attributed to him. A child labelled as
a "problem child" or constantly being called stupid, thick or slow in class, could
therefore behave according to these expectations. Learners with low self-esteem
will embrace these negative labels and accept them as completely true and will
accept blame for bad outcomes (Granquist, 1994). Labels are not always as
overt as these examples either. Docking (1987:68) quotes studies by Eggleton
who found that some teachers will label covertly by the way they evaluate
learners' comments, by the kind of learning opportunities they are given, by
ignoring them or generally denying them status. The negative effect of labelling is
now widely accepted. It is therefore very troubling that labelling is still very much
alive and well in many classrooms. Expressions like "you are very disobedient",
"why do I always have to talk to you", "you never listen", "when will you ever stop
daydreaming, talking, being lazy" are as commonplace as chalk and blackboards
in many classrooms.
2.4.4.9 Lack of fairness
In the classroom where an educator does not consistently enforce rules, learners
may rebel against this unfairness and often lose respect for the educator. There
should also be clear distinction between categories of offences, where minor
infractions are treated with more flexibility and non-negotiable consequences are
set for serious offences (Gaustad, 1992). The behaviour of the educator also
plays an important part in controlling groups of learners and they should be role
models for their students (Mentz, Wolhuter & Steyn, 2003:399). When educators
are themselves the perpetrators of crime, are ill-disciplined and not committed
(De Klerk & Rens, 2003:367), expecting their students to behave in appropriate
ways, would be seen by most learners as grossly unfair.
31
A child entering a classroom with low self-esteem must certainly be at a
disadvantage. Educators who are not sensitive to the differences in the
psychological make-up of their students, can do great damage with remarks,
treatment and general behaviour which could be experienced far more severely
by these "damaged" individuals. This once again brings under the spotlight the
importance of educators knowing their learners in order to treat each individual
fairly.
2.4.4.10 Communication
. Verbal communication
Much of the resentment of learners towards educators and their subsequent
indiscipline, stem from how educators use the spoken word. The educator is
conscious of his superior knowledge in the class room, and may sometimes try to
display this superiority by using bombastic language and words and expressions
and questions that are difficult to understand. They often use this to establish
their dominant position and as an example of their power over the learners
(Docking, 1987:84). Sarcasm is another "power tool" used by many educators.
Even when they are only trying to give direction, it may be perceived by the
learner as rejection because of remarks like 'stop daydreaming', 'stop wasting
time' instead of just directing learners to start with the work they have been
given. On the other hand research has shown that social rewards such as
smiling, praising and complimenting are very effective in increasing good
behaviour. Many schools have formal praise and rewards systems in place which
try to shift the emphasis from punishing bad behaviour to recognising good
behaviour (Munn & Mellor, 2000).
. Non-verbal communication
Much has been written in recent years about body language and some
specialists in this field have quite a following world-wide. The entertainment value
of reading others' body language aside, it is important for educators to be aware
of the significance of their body language and non-verbal cues in the classroom.
Posture, gestures, eye-contact or not, all have their effect on how the learner
-- --
32
perceives the educator's mood, his regard for the class or individual or how
helpful and approachable he is. Neill (1986) has demonstrated how certain non-
verbal behaviours of educators can convey boredom, frustration, can be
perceived as threatening or unhelpful to learners.
2.5 TYPESOF INDISCIPLINE
Various studies on misbehaviour divide indiscipline in schools into two major
categories, viz. serious and relatively minor. Others report on three or four
categories. Some of these categories will be discussed here.
2.5.1 Serious misbehaviour
According to Wenglinsky (1999) serious misbehaviour is rare in the USA
according to a study from the National Center for Education Statistics. These
include serious crimes like rape, robbery, fights with weapons and Jess serious
but more common crimes like vandalism, theft and weaponless fights. Although
both serious and less serious problems are increasing, violent victimisation
increased by only about 1% from 1989 to 1995 while non-serious offences rose
by 17% from 1991 to 1997 (Wenglinsky, 1999).
Other studies have also included violence, drug
misbehaviour, but also considered truancy,
insubordination as serious and behaviour which
use and dealing as serious
intimidation, cheating and
often leads to suspensions
(Harvard Education Letter as cited by Cotton, 2001). Violence, for example, in
the form of physical attacks, do take place, but researchers seem to agree that
this behaviour is quite rare. The Elton Report (Department of Education and
Science and the Welsh Office, 1989:60) quotes the Inner London Educational
Authority figures for the 1987-1988 school year which show that 187 educators
reported injury due to attacks on them by learners. Although a serious offence,
this number constitutes less than 1% of all educators. The fact that educators in
the UK are currentlyreceivinga dangerallowancebecauseof regularattackson .
them, according to Dereck Jackson, educational psychologist (Rademeyer,
33
2004), may be an indication of escalating violence. Fields (2000) states that only
2% of the respondents (educators) of the Langdon-poll in the United States of
America indicated that physical attacks on them, their colleagues or learners
have taken place at their schools. Although the shooting incidents in schools in
the United States of America have been publicised widely, criminal behaviour
seems less rife than generally perceived in schools in that country. Wolhuter and
Steyn (2003:525) report that in a survey of public schools in the United States of
America during the 1996-1997 school year, 43% of the schools reported that they
had experienced no incident of crime during this period, 37% reported one to five
incidents and 20% that they had had six or more incidents of criminal behaviour.
Rossouw (2003:424) cites constant absenteeism, vandalism, theft, smoking
dagga, bullying, examination dishonesty, assault, exposure to pornography,
gambling, verbal assault on educators and blatant insolence as examples of
serious misconduct that many educators in South African schools have to
contend with.
The H. Hardcastle School Volunteer Guide (2004) also divides negative
behaviour into two categories, viz minor and major violations. According to this
guide, major violations include such behaviours as teacher defiance, fighting,
chronic disruptive behaviour, vandalism, bullying, theft, racial or sexual
comments, alcohol or drug use, smoking and leaving the school premises without
permission.
It seems clear that forms of serious misconduct do exist in schools, but that most
misbehaviour could be termed less serious.
2.5.2 Less serious misbehaviour
Fields for example (2000) asked 30 educators in Queensland to analyse and
rank problems with learner behaviour in rank-order of importance and
seriousness. The need for continual and persistent supervision was placed first,
- - - -
34
then the refusal to listen to directives and to carry out assignments, followed by
fiddling with items, the fact they had to be prodded to commence assignments,
talking out of turn, whispering, laughing and giggling, attention that easily gets
distracted and their need for attention.
Wenglinsky (1999) categorises absenteeism, tardiness, cheating on tests and
homework, incivility and a host of other petty offences as less serious
transgressions. Disobedience, tardiness, noisiness, homework not done and
refusal to keep quiet were classified as less serious by educators in South
African schools (Rossouw, 2003:424). The H. Hardcastle School Volunteer
Guide (2004) describes minor violations as forgetting homework, unexcused
absences, not prepared, spitting, inappropriate clothing, littering, writing on
desks, name-calling and running in hallways.
The Burke Report of 1994 (Fields, 2000) indicated amongst others verbal
disruption, physical distractions and unwelcome teasing as forms of
misbehaviour in the northern suburbs of Brisbane. In the United Kingdom
(Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office, 1989:61) educators
cited learners talking out of turn, hindering others, making unnecessary noise
and calculated idleness as the most commonly reported forms of misbehaviour.
One in four of the respondents reported that they have to deal with a lack of
concern for others, unruliness while waiting and running in corridors on a daily
basis.
Other forms of misbehaviour that may be described as less serious (Anon.,
2002b) include sulking, being moody, talking incessantly, whining, daydreaming
and being a tattletale.
2.5.3 Other categories of misbehaviour
In her research, Hopkins (2001) reported four categories of misbehaviour, viz.
opposition to authority, disrespect, disturbance to the class and peers and
35
altercation. A report on classroom observations on discipline practices (Anon.,
2004) also include four categories described as noise, out of place, physical
contact and off task. The "noise" category would include any verbalisation or
sound created by a child that seems designed to disrupt or avoid lessons. These
may be vocal or non-vocal sounds. The "Out of place" category includes any
movement beyond the defined boundaries and is not an absolute behaviour but
defined by the expectations at the time of the event. "Physical contact" or
destruction includes any contact with another person or person's property which
is unacceptable. Lastly the category "Off task" includes any movement off a
prescribed activity which does not fall into one of the three previously defined
categories and would include behaviours like looking around, staring into space
and doodling.
From the literature available on the subject, it certainly appears that educators
are more often worn down by the less serious, but constant and annoying
examples of misbehaviour.
2.6 PREVENTIVE DISCIPLINE
Kounin (1970) published results of studies from kindergarten to university levels
which focused on findings from an observational study of 80 elementary
classrooms. A major finding was that effective and ineffective classroom
managers did not differ greatly in their methods for dealing with disruption, but
that effective managers were those that were skilled at preventing disruptions
occurring in the first place. Cotton (2001) cites numerous research findings
conducted during the past twenty years which have underscored Kounin's
findings. The old adage that prevention is better than cure, seems to hold true for
discipline in the classroom as well. Methods to deter disciplinary problems fall
into different categories and those which have been identified in the literature are
discussed below.
---
- -- -- --------
36
2.6.1 Contracts
Written policies and codes of conduct, as well as contingency contracting are
discussed here.
2.6.1.1 Written policies and codes of conduct
These documents are critical for all schools and should be developed with input
from everyone who will be affected by them. Educators, other staff members,
students, parents and community representatives can all assist to formulate such
a policy (Roos, 2003:513). Where students can participate in developing these
policies, a sense of ownership is created as well as a feeling of belonging which
in itself promotes good discipline. These rules have to be clear and
unambiguous and should be communicated to staff, students and parents
regularly by means of newsletters, assemblies and handbooks (Gaustad, 1992).
In terms of section 8 of the South African Schools Act (SA, 1996b) such a
contract (the code of conduct) has to be adopted by the governing body of a
school after consultation with learners, educators and parents. This code of
conduct that adheres to the necessary legal stipulations has to be seen as a
valid legal document and should therefore be signed and adhered to by learners.
Visser (1999:147) defines a code of conduct as a document providing legal basis
for the identification and elimination of those forms of conduct that threaten the
learning process. In a survey by Mabeba and Prinsloo (2000:34) it was confirmed
that, as a preventive disciplinary measure, the code of conduct would be far more
acceptable if learners and parents play a role in the process as well. Their
research in 24 South African schools showed shared decision-making to be far
more acceptable than the one-sided approach of educators as the only rule-
makers. The lack of discipline in many schools may have much to do with this
lack of involvement of students in the creation of rules. As Roos (2003:486)
rightly states, the school rules will in practice not be redrafted each year, but
learners should' be given the opportunity to reconsider the rules and submit
proposals for amendments.
37
2.6.1.2
Contingency contracting
These contracts are drawn up and accepted by both parties (school and student)
and specify the punishment or consequences students will face if they disobey
any of the school rules. While the code of conduct serves as a preventive
measure, the contingency contracting focuses on the possible punishment for
transgressions. Several researchers have found such contracts to have a
positive effect on behaviour (Cotton 2001; Oosthuizen, Wolhuter & Du Toit,
2003:470). Wilson and Cowell (1990:43) warn against the lack of clarity of such
contracts. Another prerequisite for the success is the sincere acceptance of
these contracts by the parties concerned. It is human nature to "buy into" a
situation, contract or change if you had a say in the creation thereof in the first
place. Signing these contracts (as is the procedure in many South African
schools) should enhance the commitment of learners to obey the rules and to
submit themselves to the pre-set forms of punishment.
2.6.2 The competent teacher
The quality of teaching, knowledge of the subject matter and lively and effective
presentation will most certainly have a positive effect on discipline in the
classroom.
The Elton Commission (Department of Education and Science and the Welsh
Office, 1989:67-72) concurred and so do numerous researchers (as cited by
Cotton, 2001). But knowing the subject is only part of the educator's required
competence. Knowing the learners as individuals, their personalities and
interests are crucial elements of the management skills of the competent
educator (Wolhuter & Steyn, 2003:527). Duke (1989:47) calls upon schools to
balance the emphasis on formal procedure with the concern for students as
individuals: "This concern manifests itself in a variety of ways, including efforts to
involve students in school decision-making, school goals that recognize multiple
forms of student achievement, and de-emphasis on homogeneous grouping."
-- --
- -- -- -
- ----
38
A strong link between brain preferences or dominance and learning and teaching
styles seem to be widely accepted (Herrmann, 2002; Neethling & Rutherford,
2001:79; Parrish, 2003) which would imply that the competent educator is also
one who understands brain dominance and applies this knowledge in the
classroom.
2.6.3 Disciplined school culture
Committed staff would be a critical element in creating a disciplined school
culture. Committed staff could be described as educators who consistently strive
to establish and maintain the appropriate behaviour of students because they
understand that it is an essential preconditions of learning. Numerous
researchers (as cited by Cotton, 2001) have stated that well-disciplined schools
tend to be those in which there is a school wide emphasis on the importance of
learning and an intolerance for behaviour which inhibits learning. These
researchers have also concluded that well-disciplined schools regularly
communicate high expectations for appropriate behaviour to their students. They
also conclude that students should, however, not only know exactly what is
expected of them, but these expectations should be communicated in a warm
and encouraging way (Cotton, 2001).
Recommendations by the Elton Commission (Department of Education and
Science and the Welsh Office, 1989:120, 122) include that lessons should allow
time for movement between lessons to guard against "late lessons" which are
associated with lower standards of behaviour and bottlenecks in corridors or
stairs where pushing and shoving can take place which may in some cases
escalate to more serious misbehaviour, should be avoided.
In a study undertaken on learner discipline in South African public schools
(Rossouw, 2003:428), respondents suggested that the daily school programme
or activities should be effectively structured and a strict class routine should be
adhered to, especially in the lower primary classes.
39
2.6.4 The role of the principal
Gottfredson (1989) concluded that stable and supportive administrative
leadership was the most important factor determining whether a discipline
programme was effective. The principals of well-disciplined students (Cotton,
2001) are usually highly visible and involve themselves in an informal way in the
everyday activities of the school. They would delegate responsibility of handling
routine classroom discipline problems to educators and handle only serious
infractions. They are liked and respected, they greet staff and students and they
communicate caring for students as well as a willingness to impose punishment if
necessary (NAESP, 1983). The Elton Commission also states the headmaster's
management style as a crucial factor in encouraging a sense of collective
responsibility among staff, and the sense of commitment to the school among
learners and their parents (Department of Education and Science and the Welsh
Office, 1989:13-14,119).
Asmal (Anon., 2002c), the then Minister of Education, delivered a speech at a
South African Principals Association meeting in which he emphasised the
overwhelming evidence which exists that effective school leadership is the most
common denominator in effective schools. He also called on principals who had
probably been trained in a more authoritarian management style, to embrace the
values of the Constitution. According to Asmal, South Africa is looking for true
leadership in schools, viz a special blend of effective management and
inspirational vision. This vision, he said, had to be shared with staff, parents and
learners in order to become the foundation on which a successful educational
enterprise can be built.
2.6.5 Classroom management
As mentioned before, Kounin's research (1970) and subsequent research have
found that effective classroom managers were those that were more skilled at
preventing disruptions from occurring. These. researchers identified certain
behaviours which reduced the likelihood of classroom disruption. They include
- - - - - -
- ---
40
the educator communicating to the class that he/she is aware of what is going on
in the class at all time, attending to different events simultaneously, without being
totally diverted by another activity, smooth and brisk paced lessons, keeping all
students alerted to the task at hand and stimulating seatwork activities. These
behaviours also include sharing the responsibility for classroom management
with the students, providing opportunities to experience academic and social
success to marginal students, using humour to hold student interest and to
reduce classroom tensions and removing distracting materials that encourage
inattention or disruption (Mentz, Wolhuter & Steyn, 2003:399).
2.6.6 Organisational development
Several research projects have been conducted in which instructional and
discipline programmes were restructured which resulted in improved behaviour
(Gottfredson, 1989). These projects included the establishment of school teams
to carry out improvement projects, input from all role-players (including students)
to review discipline policy, school pride campaigns and counselling services. A
"buddy system" where learners are paired off to take responsibility for each other
or where senior learners take responsibility for younger learners with behavioural
problems, have also proven to be a successful programme (Rossouw,
2003:428).
2.6.7 Increasing parent involvement
It has been found (Wolhuter & Steyn, 2003:530; Gottfredson, 1989) that
increasing parent involvement is a critical element in improving discipline in
troubled schools. This has been proven in more than 80 schools on the Cape
Flats in South Africa. These schools which were previously classified as high-risk
schools, saw dramatic changes as a result of learner and parental participation in
school activities (Oosthuizen, 2005:7). The "us" and "them" culture in certain
communities between parents and school can only have a negative effect on
discipline. Where parents and educators form a united front to combat
indiscipline and encourage effective learning, a win-win situation is created. The
41
Elton Commission also cite several studies which indicate a positive correlation
between parental involvement in school activities and the disciplined behaviour of
their children at school (Department of Education and Science and the Welsh
Office, 1989:124-127).
2.6.8 Security measures
Oosthuizen, Wolhuter and Du Toit (2003:466) cite an empirical study by De Wet
that revealed 73,35% of the learner sample in the study reported that they did
not feel safe at school entrances, 69,44% in school cloakrooms and 79,86% on
the school premises. These authors quote a survey on violence in schools in the
United States of America and call for some of the preventive measures in place
there (for example guards, metal detectors, restricted access) to be applied in
South African schools. Section 24 of the SA constitution (SA, 1996a) states
categorically that a learner has the right to an environment that is not harmful to
his well being. In order to assure a safe environment for learners which would at
the same time curb learner misconduct, a positive, preventative approach is
suggested by Oosthuizen (2005:13). This approach would include measures like
a buddy system, principals' personal contact with learners, a sense of pride in the
school, a focus on the future, an advertised code of conduct which is revised
yearly and the involvement of the school community.
2.6.9 Aesthetic environment
The Elton Commission (Department of Education and Science and the Welsh
Office, 1989: 13) found evidence that learners who were provided with a pleasant
environment, respected it and where they contributed to it, treated it as their own.
This had a positive effect on behaviour. Well decorated and clean classrooms
and corridors and the absence of litter and graffiti are some of the suggestions to
create such an environment.
42
2.7 REMEDIAL DISCIPLINE
Even at the best schools, preventive discipline will sometimes fail. Learners who
break classroom and school rules have to be dealt with in some way. How this is
done, would largely depend on the severity of the transgression. The following
measures are well documented in the literature on school discipline.
2.7.1 Punishment
A general view on punishment and types of punishment will be discussed in this
section.
2.7.1.1 A general view
Mabeba and Prinsloo (2000) found in their research that learners, educators and
parents all supported the principle of punishment as corrective measure against
misbehaviour. Punishment can be an effective method to curb and remediate
misbehaviour (Cotton & Savard, 1982). According to Docking (1987:122) the
punishment should focus on inherent reasonableness of the rule and not on the
power of the punisher. He further states that the punishment should be enforced
in such a manner that it is clear that it is the behaviour that is unacceptable, not
the person. If this general rule is not adhered to, the student experiences
punishment as rejection. Although punishment should not be too light, it should
be delivered with support. Punishment which is excessive and delivered without
support can produce negative attitudes. Public punishment and corporal
punishment are both harsh and usually have more negative than positive results
(Doyle, 1989).
2.7.1.2
Types of punishment
. Deprivation
Punishment could include depriving students of privileges, mobility or the
company of friends. This is a style of punishment widely used by parents and can
have positive results in the school environment if the severity and length of such
punishment match the transgression.
43
. In-schoolsuspensions
Some research has shown that in-school suspension programmes can improve
discipline. However, these programmes should include guidance, support and
the teaching of new behavioural skills (Cotton, 2001). Other research findings
have stated success which range from "negligible" to "effective" with the most
effective (according to learners) those suspensions linked to counselling
(Blomberg, 2004).
. Out-ot-school suspensions
These suspensions are the most invasive and severe disciplinary measures
explicitly authorised in South Africa (SA, 1996b). The governing body may
suspend a learner for a maximum of one week or can recommend that a learner
be expelled. These measures are only available if a learner is found guilty of
serious misconduct and after a fair hearing (Roos, 2003:494). Blomberg (2004)
cites research by Costenbader and Markson (1997) who examined the
responses of 252 students who had been suspended during their school career.
Sixty nine percent of those surveyed felt that suspension was of little use and
more than half reported a feeling of anger instead of remorse.
. Detention
This form of punishment is a way of causing the learner discomfort by taking
away his/her free time (Oosthuizen, Wolhuter & Du Toit, 2003:473). These
authors cite different forms of detention as lunch-break detention, detention while
parents "baby-sit" their children, the removal of privileges like sport, matric
farewell or permission to wear "civilian clothes", Sometimes learners are
expected to perform menial duties during detention. As time is precious to most
people, this may very well be a form of punishment that could have the desired
result.
. Corporal punishment
Many studies have been done on the effectiveness of corporal punishment and it
seems that the majority of researchers (Maree, 1999:56, 59; Doyle, 1989) have
- --
44
found that the results of corporal punishment are unpredictable. Even if it inhibits
the misbehaviour, it does not foster appropriate behaviour. It usually has a
negative effect on relationships and often creates resentment and hostility and
has been associated with dropping out of school and vandalism. In adolescence
is has been found to be a major cause of negative behaviour.
In South Africa corporal punishment has become a heated subject. Section 10 of
the Schools Act of 1996 made the administration of corporal punishment a
criminal offence in South African schools. The Act states that "(1) No person
may administer corporal punishment at a school to a learner. (2) Any person who
contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a
sentence which could be imposed for assault." In an article in Businessday
(Mabuza, 2000) education researcher Salim Vally was quoted as saying that
corporal punishment is a quick-fix solution of fear and pain and should be
replaced by instilling self-discipline.
As reported by Msomi (2000) many educators in South Africa have found it
difficult to find alternatives for this traditional punishment method. This prompted
Asmal, Minister of Education, to launch a guide on alternatives to corporal
punishment (Pretorius, 2002). The publication, Alternatives to Corporal
Punishment: The Learning Experience was launched by Asmal in an attempt to
change attitudes towards corporal punishment and to give guidelines on how to
deal with different offences (Anon, 2000a).The guidelines suggest five levels of
conduct and how to deal with each of these. These levels are:
. Level one offences which include misconduct in the classroom such as
late-coming, bunking and not finishing homework. Class teachers are
encouraged to deal with these transgressions themselves by using verbal
warnings, community service, demerits, extra work and detention.
. Level two offences include breaking school rules, e.g. smoking, swearing,
disrupting lessons and vandalism. The head of department in the school
should handle these. The actions suggested are similar to those of level
45
one, but should include a talk with the learner and parents, written
warnings and duties like cleaning and gardening.
. Level three include more serious offences like injuring somebody,
gambling, discriminatory actions or language (racist, sexist I sexual) and
cheating during examinations. The suggested actions include written
warnings, possible suspension and community service.
. Level four are very serious offences and include threats to others with a
dangerous weapon, sexual abuse and selling drugs. Joint action by the
principal, school governing body and education department may include
referral of the learner to an outside agency. Where such behaviour is seen
to infringe on the rights of other learners, or the conduct endangers the
safety of others, it may warrant suspension (SA, 1998:11(a)). According to
Yell (1990) this type of punishment is not acceptable, as it violates a
learner's right to education.
. Level five offences involve those actions that break the law and include
murder, robbery and rape. A joint action by the principal, school governing
body and education department can be taken to expel or transfer the
learner and allow for criminal prosecution.
These guidelines were received with mixed reaction from educators (Pretorius,
2002). Educators approached by Pretorius to comment on these guidelines,
agreed with the actions that can be taken, but felt that public schools raised
problems with suspension and expulsion. Some were of the opinion that the
benefit of corporal punishment was that it had an immediate affect. Some voiced
the opinion that the alternatives provided by the minister did not provide enough
practical examples.
Although corporal punishment is no longer allowed in South African schools, the
Guidelines (SA, 1998:10) provides some disciplinary measures that may legally
be imposed by educators. These include verbal warning or written reprimand,
additional school work, tasks in support of an offended person, compensation
-- -
46
that is affordable, replacement of damaged property, suspension from certain
school activities and restraint (if learners pose a threat). According to Roos
(2003:496) a number of other disciplinary measures may also conform to the
legal requirements, depending on the manner in which they are implemented.
These include telephone calls, meetings or discussions with parents, time out for
disruptive learners, limitation of classroom privileges, reassignment of seats,
seizure of a prohibited items, limitation of social contact with other learners or a
system of merits and demerits.
The Constitutional Court has repeatedly held that human dignity is the core
value against which any actions or infringements of rights will be measured
(Roos, 2003:494). With this in mind, corporal punishment in South Africa should
be seen as an outdated form of correcting bad behaviour.
2.7.2 Counselling
A widely held assumption is that learners lack insight into their own negative
behaviour and counselling therefore would have positive consequences.
Behavioural dysfunctions (Oosthuizen, Wolhuter & Du Toit, 2003:465)
necessitate professional intervention. Disciplinary problems have to be
addressed and dealt with by educators and professionals in the regular and
special-education classroom, which would presume the training of educators in
the diagnosing and treating of these problems. Because the emphasis is on
correction of behaviour, on the understanding of why the misbehaviour occurred
and on future guidance, this is a far more acceptable option than many other
forms of remedial discipline where the emphasis falls merely on punishing the
transgressor.
2.7.3 Training programmes
Special training programmes for misbehaving students can include self-
awareness training, the clarification of values, co-operation and the development
of helping skills (Cotton, 2001). Peer tutoring has also been found to lower the
47
incidence of misbehaviour in classrooms (Greenwood, Carta & Hall, 1988;
Rossouw, 2003:428).
There are also quite a number of "packaged programmes" which have been
developed and which are marketed as bringing about a reduction in misconduct
in schools. These include William Glasser's Reality Therapy, Teacher
Effectiveness Training (TET), Transactional Analysis (TA), Lee Canter's
Assertive Discipline and several others (Cotton, 2001). Research on these
programmes are not plentiful or conclusive and it appears as if those schools that
have effective discipline practices, do not use these packaged programmes, but
have developed their own or modified commercially available programmes to suit
their unique situation (Wayson et aI., 1984:421).
2.8 SUMMARY
The need for discipline in schools is not reputed in the literature. What is coming
under the spotlight are the causes of indiscipline and ways to deal with
indiscipline. Apart from causes such as child-rearing practices and the role of
society, indiscipline is seen more often as the reaction of learners being bored
and frustrated with a system that offers them little. The Elton Report for example
points out the link between the content and method of delivery of the school
curriculum and the motivation and behaviour of pupils. More and more voices in
the literature are calling for educators to know their learners as individuals, their
interests and personalities in order to decrease problems with indiscipline. Some
authors are of the opinion that those learners who are most like their educators
could very well receive the best teaching, kindest remarks and most attention.
Students who are therefore seen by a particular educator as guilty of the most
misconduct, could therefore purely be those that do not fit into the educator's
picture of the ideal student.
48
Several legal documents which have a direct or indirect bearing on school
discipline, strengthen the argument for educators to see their learners not only as
individuals, but individuals with certain rights which have to be protected. The Bill
of Rights for example places a strong emphasis on values such as equality,
human dignity and freedom. The guidelines for the code of conduct (Department
of Education Notice 776 of 1998) determines in section 4.1 that those rights, as
spelt out in the Bill of Rights should be protected, promoted and fulfilled by the
school. The code of conduct, as determined in s. 8(2) of the SASA, should be
aimed at "establishing a disciplined and purposeful school environment" and also
one which contains provisions "of due process safeguarding the interests of the
learner" in disciplinary proceedings (SA,1996b).
Because of the reaction to the increase in child abuse and the lack of a human-
rights culture in the apartheid era, many educators in South Africa feel that the
resulting overemphasis on human rights, especially children's rights, has had a
negative effect on discipline in schools (Rossouw, 2003:413). Many are
convinced they have lost control, their authority has been diminished and
learners are generally less respectful. As more and more educators make this
perception their reality, the situation seems to gain a firmer foundation until it
could be solidly cemented as "the situation" in South African education today.
It is also clear from the literature that, although serious misconduct does exist in
some schools, it is the less serious offences that are more prevalent in
classrooms today. In the quest to break the back of a new problem thinking
trend regarding this type of indiscipline, a new and creative mode of solution
thinking will have to be found. While studying the literature, the researcher has
come to the conclusion that the solution to indiscipline in the classroom could be
found in the understanding of the learner as an individual, in understanding the
differences between educator and learner and how these differences impact on
teaching and learning styles, lesson content, environment and also the
understanding of their effect on behaviour and more specifically on discipline.
49
How the code of conduct, as a document which should safeguard the interests of
all learners, could be designed to reflect these differences, is an area which the
researcher considers worth exploring.
When educators find the balance between the need for discipline to ensure that
effective learning can take place on the one hand, while protecting the rights of
learners on the other, the need for stricter laws, more control and fewer rights
could very well fall away.
--- -- -
50
CHAPTER 3
Brain dominance and learner discipline at school
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Over the last few decades major discoveries in neuroscience and cognitive
psychology have brought new insights into the way humans think and learn.
Scientists seem to agree on the significance of many of these findings, but not
always on their applicability in general or to education. It would not be possible,
within the scope of this study, to give voice to all the arguments and debates.
Reference will be made to specific researchers and their findings regarding the
two brain hemispheres, the four quadrant model and its impact on education.
3.2 BRAIN HEMISPHERE RESEARCH
The human brain is divided into several regions each with its own function. The
physical brain is made up of three major parts: the cerebrum, the cerebellum and
the brain stem (Brewer, 1996:44). The cerebrum, the largest of these parts, is
divided into two hemispheres. The hemispheres are linked by a bundle of nerve
fibres, the corpus callosum.
In 1861 French surgeon Paul Broca published the case of his patient Tan
(named after the only sound he could make), who had a superficial lesion in the
left frontal lobe and had suffered severe speech loss. Broca was the first to
present anatomical proof for the localisation of a particular brain function
(Enersen, 2003). By 1864 he had become completely convinced that the left
hemisphere controlled speech after finding lesions on the left side of the brain
during post-mortems of several patients who had suffered aphasia. The concept
"cerebral dominance" began to emerge within 10 years of Broca's initial findings.
During a study in 1930 of 200 patients with brain damage, the findings showed
51
that damage to the left hemisphere resulted in poor verbal ability and that right
hemisphere damage resulted in poor non-verbal ability, tasks involving spatial
ability and distance relationship (Springer & Deutch, 1989:15).
Myers and Sperry started to experiment on animals about a decade later (Sperry,
1961:1749). Their research convinced them that the two hemispheres of the
brain can be trained independently. Because of the success of Sperry's animal
research, Vogel and Bogen, during an operation in 1961, undertook the complete
sectioning of the anterior commissure and corpus callosum of the patient W.J. in
an attempt to alleviate his acute epilepsy (Bogen & Vogel, 1962). Gazzaniga,
who did his graduate work in Sperry's laboratory, carried out the psychological
tests on these early patients (Pietsch, 2002). The main challenge which arose
was to test which activities and processes were associated with the two
separated hemispheres. Gazzaniga (Gazzaniga, 1998) concluded that
researchers were left without a doubt that the left brain is dominant for language
and speech and that the right brain excels at visual-motor tasks. When Sperry
received a Nobel Prize in 1981 for his split brain work, he summed up his belief
in the complexity of the brain and the need for education to take individual
differences into account as follows:
The more we learn, the more we recognize the unique complexity of any
one individual intellect, the stronger the conclusion becomes that the
individuality inherent in our brain networks makes that of fingerprints or
facial features gross and simple by comparison. The need for
educational tests and policy measures to identify, accommodate, and
serve the differentially specialized forms of individual intellectual potential
becomes increasingly evident (Parrish, 2003).
Brain research had revealed the individuality of the brain and researchers
like Sperry were starting to call on education to take note of these findings.
These early breakthroughs in brain research encouraged others to probe
52
hemispheric differences and their impact on behaviour and the implications
for education.
3.3 BRAINQUADRANT RESEARCH
Because the understanding of the two hemispheres did not provide all the
answers regarding man's thinking and thinking preferences, a new era of brain
research began. During his research, Herrmann's interest (Herrmann, 2002) was
sparked by the triune model introduced by American neurologist Paul Maclean.
Maclean believes that our brain is in fact three brains, each brain corresponding
with a different stage of evolution (Scaruffi, 2000), viz the "reptilian" brain, the
"mammalian" brain and the neocortex (or cerebral layer). Herrmann's first
attempts to measure brain dominance were based on EEG measurements of
brain waves, but he later developed a pencil and paper instrument to gather his
data. This led to the development of the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument.
This model combines Sperry's left-right brain theory and Paul Maclean's triune
model to produce his quadrant model of the brain. Herrmann (leonard, 2002)
distinguishes the four quadrants as follows:
Figure 1
Neethling's study (Torrance, 1994) of the unique human being and brain
preferences had its origin in his interest in and search for the true meaning of
creative behaviour. After studying creative behaviour under Torrance, Neethling
pursued this area of study, but simultaneously sought the connection between
THE FOUR QUADRANTS QUADRANT LABELS
. left Cerebral (upper left)
. Theorists
. left Limbic(lower left) . Organisers
. Right Limbic(lowerright)
. Humanitarians
. Right Cerebral (upper right).
. Innovators
53
creativity, thinking styles and brain dominance. After the split-brain research of
Sperry and others, it was widely accepted that the right hemisphere deals with
imagination, spatial awareness, day dreaming and dimension while the left
hemisphere deals with logic, words, numbers, analysis, etc. (Neethling &
Rutherford, 2001 :69, 70). His research of creative behaviour convinced Neethling
that creativity can be developed and that an understanding of brain preferences
can assist in this development. Thus building on the work of Herrmann and
Torrance, Neethling (Neethling, 2003b) determined that both the left and right
brain processes could be divided into two definitive categories, dividing the brain
into four quadrants. (See Addendum A 2 for the quadrant summary which sums
up the processes associated with each of the four quadrants of the brain.)
According to Herrmann, Neethling and other whole brain students, most people
show thinking preferences associated with one or more of the four quadrants of
the brain (Mifflin, 2003). These preferences, it is claimed, consequently affect
behaviour in most areas of one's life. It would therefore affect relationships,
career choices, parenting style, the way people communicate, do business,
learn and teach (Neethling & Rutherford, 2001 :79).
The Neethling Brain Profiling Instrument is the measuring tool that will be used to
measure the brain dominance of educators and learners during this research.
Further information on the instrument and its validity is included in the
Addendum A (4). In order to illustrate the link suggested between brain
preferences and behaviour further, an example of a Neethling Brain Profile report
is also included in Addendum A (3). This measuring instrument is not culturally
biased and participants of all race groups are regularly profiled to ascertain their
brain dominance.
- -- --------
- - -- --- - -
54
3.4 BRAIN DOMINANCE AND EDUCATION
Using the general brain profile as a point of departure (see Addendum A 3)
Neethling has developed several other instruments, of which the teaching and
learning profiling instruments will be discussed here.
3.4.1 Teaching and learning brain profiles
A strong link between brain preferences or dominance and learning and teaching
styles seem to be widely accepted (Herrmann, 2002; Neethling & Rutherford,
2001:79; Parrish, 2003). Using the four quadrant model as example, Neethling
(2003a) explains the teaching and learning styles of individuals as follows:
3.4.1.1 Whole brain teaching
The L1 educator (L1 = top left quadrant) usually prefers a formal lesson and the
use of a text book or other teaching material. Summaries will be used and
encouraged. Logical argument and opportunity to analyse content are usually
elements of the lesson. Instructions are given in a precise manner. This educator
tends to do research regarding the content and will encourage this in students.
The content will be factually, technically and mathematically correct. This can be
an authoritative educator who likes to be in control of the situation at all times.
He/she can tend to be too critical and would not allow emotions to cloud the
issue. This educator will use gestures and facial expressions sparingly.
The L2 educator (L2 = bottom left quadrant) usually prefers a formal lesson and
the use of a text book or other teaching material. The lesson content is usually
well-planned and presented in a sequential order. Putting content into practice is
very important to this educator and therefore repetition and reinforcement are
strong elements of the teaching style. Lesson objectives are normally explained
clearly. This is an educator who would ensure that the syllabus is completed and
done so within the time allocated. Thoroughness is very important and untidy and
55
incomplete work not tolerated. This educator could resist new teaching methods
and could tend to be inflexible regarding change within the system.
The R2 educator (R2 = bottom right quadrant) is usually sensitive to the needs of
the learners and will treat them as individuals rather than a group. Group work is
encouraged and movement and play normally form part of the lesson. This
educator uses body language, gestures and facial expression readily to enhance
the lesson. He/she tends to move amongst the learners and encouragement,
touch and non-verbal communication is quite natural. Showing emotion as part of
the teaching comes natural and is accepted in the learners. Music often plays a
part in the learning process, as well as role play and stories.
The R1 educator (R1 = top right quadrant) usually gives an holistic view of the
lesson and prefers to make the link with other subjects and how it slots into 'the
real world'. This educator will encourage spontaneous participation and create
opportunities to experiment. Visual aids will form an important part of the lesson.
Lessons could be unstructured, deciding on, for example, different content on the
spur of the moment. Opportunities to speculate, to strategise and discover are
often created. A fun element is often part of the lesson. Administrative duties,
deadlines and thoroughness can sometimes be lacking.
3.4.1.2 Whole brain learning
The L1 learner prefers to be taught in a formal way, using a text book or notes.
This learner places strong emphasis on correct facts and exact information.
Information is accepted when well researched and proven. This learner enjoys
doing research and being given the opportunity to analyse and investigate
information. Precise and clear instructions are important. Opportunities to argue
and prove points and to play leadership roles should be created for learners with
strong preferences for the processes of the L1 quadrant.
- - -
56
The L2 learner prefers to be taught in a formal way. using a text book or notes.
This learner also prefers a chronological and well planned lesson and an
unstructured approach could cause insecurity and frustration. Opportunities to
repeat content and to practice skills are essential to these learners. The aims of
the lesson should be clear and when following a set programme or procedure,
the learning experience is enhanced. Helping teacher doing little tasks and
running errands, are appreciated by these learners.
R2 learner prefers group work and room for movement. When given the
opportunity to communicate experiences or share opinions. the learning
experience is enhanced. This is a learner who likes to tell stories and listen to
stories which can be related to lesson content. Educators should create
opportunities for this learner to express emotion and share experiences and
feelings. Acting as teacher sometimes and using music as part of the learning
environment, enhances the learning experience.
R1 learner prefers an holistic overview of the lesson content and would often not
'buy into' the lesson if he/she does not understand the larger significance of the
content. Less structured approaches and spontaneous participation are
appreciated. Visual aids and fun concepts are important to hold the attention of
these learners. Opportunities should be created to link information being shared
with past, present and future events. Experimenting with new information and
opportunities for 'doing their own thing' can greatly enhance the learning
experience for these learners. Projects should be challenging and out of the
ordinary.
When studying the explanations of the different teaching and learning styles, it
appears as if the challenges for the educator are firstly to acknowledge the
existence of a diverse and whole brain group of learners in most (if not all)
classrooms and secondly the acceptance of the need for whole brain teaching.
Whole brain teaching would then imply a varied approach in order to
57
accommodate the uniqueness of learners. A varied approach by educators would
subsequently imply an insight into the different types of brain dominant learners,
the willingness and ability to accommodate all the learners when designing
lesson content, lesson plans, tests and projects and when designing a teaching
environment (Neethling & Rutherford, 2004:80). If this is ignored, teaching
becomes an unfair practice favouring only certain dominance groups, causing
frustration for many learners and often resulting in inappropriate behaviour.
This could probably be demonstrated best by using a case study to show how
different brain preferences can manifest itself in the classroom. This case study
forms part of an activity for trainees during workshops of the Neethling Brain
Instruments (Neethling, 2004b).
The educator in this case has a left dominant profile with strong preferences in
the L1 (85) and the L2 (90) quadrants, a low score in the R2 quadrant (60) and
an average score in the R1 quadrant (65). The learner on the other hand has
strong preferences in the R1 (83) and in the R2 (88) quadrants, average
preferences in the L1 quadrant (67) and low preferences in the L2 quadrant (62).
A possible scenario would be when homework is presented for which the
educator has supplied strict instructions, procedures for a step by step
presentation, specific answers to be underlined and two separate workbooks for
specific sections of the homework. Because of strong preferences for control and
authority, this educator would be a strong disciplinarian. He would display a "no
nonsense" attitude, would demand learners to "tow the line" at all times and
would not be sympathetic to most excuses. He would also be adamant about
following the correct procedure, about following a step by step approach and
would insist on all the details being in place. In this particular scenario, the
learner with strong preferences in the R1 quadrant (for flexibility and an holistic
approach) and low preferences in the L2 quadrant (for detail, procedure and a
step by step approach), would most probably leave out a few steps expected by
---
-- -
-- -
58
the educator ("as long as the answer is correct"), would question the necessity
for using two books if one could work just as well and underlining a sentence in
stead of a particular word would not be seen as a major mistake. Because of
these "mistakes", this particular learner would be experienced by the educator as
extremely lax, as not trying, as a day dreamer and one who should be constantly
watched. The educator would probably see this effort as another example of
somebody not willing to try, an undisciplined learner and someone with little
potential for success. The learner on the other hand would experience this
educator as extremely intolerant, as "picking on me" at all times, even as a tyrant
and the whole learning experience would be tainted by feelings of inadequacy
and of always being in trouble. The learner, because of strong preferences in the
R2 quadrant, would probably make an emotional plea for leniency in this case
and insist that these rules are unfair and probably unnecessary. This educator
with low R2 preferences would be uncomfortable with emotional "outbursts",
could in the long run revert to sarcasm and belittlement, severe punishments and
even abuse because of the inability to understand and tolerate somebody so
different from his idea of the ideal student. This scenario would replay itself in
different guises in a classroom where this educator and learner have to interact.
The learner could become completely disillusioned with the educator and the
system which do not satisfy any of his expectations (no fun, no flexibility, no
spontaneous participation, no encouragement to use own initiative, no sense of
caring or opportunities to communicate and interact) and could adopt an attitude
of not caring, of "why try if nothing is ever good enough", He may start "acting
out" and causing disruptions in the classroom. Because of his strong R2
preferences, this learner would also crave personal attention, a caring attitude
and the opportunity to share some personal experiences. This educator would
probably never satisfy these expectations, would therefore instil a feeling of
rejection, even inferiority in the learner which would encourage him to find other
(inappropriate) ways to express himself.
59
If educators and learners alike should understand the concept of whole brain
education, a greater tolerance would be developed. Educators who could adapt
their teaching style, their attitude and their reaction to learner behaviour to
accommodate all learners, irrespective of their brain dominance, could find
inappropriate behaviour diminishing in their classrooms. Learners who have been
educated on the meaning of whole brain education, would become more tolerant
of other learners and of educators, because of the important insight this
knowledge brings, viz. others may be different from me, but that does not
necessarily make them wrong. This understanding could bring about the
acceptance of differences and the uniqueness of learners in a system which has
mostly stood for conformity.
3.4.2 The unique learner
As most scientists began to agree on localized areas of the brain which carry out
specific functions, there has also been confirmation that everyone is an individual
and that "everyone's brain is a bit different" (Rossman, 2002). Gazzaniga, one of
the pioneers of the split-brain theory, put it quite simply that "all brains are not
organized the same way" (Gabriel, 2000). Research on paralysed stroke victims
(Rossman, 2002) showed how in time the patient could programme a computer,
move a cursor and generate musical tones by activating motor neurons through
thinking about movement. These researchers have discovered the flexibility of
the human mind, and that each person solves problems in a unique way,
suggesting that these are discoveries that could help teachers see the world as a
unique learner does. The uniqueness of each learner's brain is generally based
on heredity and experience (Anon., 2003a). Gardner (1999:33,34) urged
educators to know their learners as individuals, to know their minds, needs, gifts
and talents and to move towards individually configured education. What Sperry
emphasised in his speech in 1981 (as quoted above under 3.2), has been
reiterated in many forms and by many researchers and educators, since learners
are individuals with unique brains, learning styles and preferences. Education
systems should take cognisance of this. Towards the end of the last century,
- - - --
60
educators in the United States of America started to heed the call for change and
an education system that would take individuality into account, as well as brain
research.
3.4.3 Brain based education
During the 1990's government and numerous other agencies in the USA raised
public awareness about advances in brain research. This lead to the now well-
known "brain-based education" which lead the way to reforms in education in
that country.
The principles of brain-based education are based on neuroscientific research
about how the human brain learns and at its core are enriched environments and
novel experiences to promote learning, multi-modal learning which implies
learning the same concepts through different methods, and the proposition that
most efficient learning occurs when students are in an optimal attentionai,
motivational and emotional state (Solomon & Hendren, 2003). Brain-based
educators support progressive education reforms and decry the "factory model"
in which experts create knowledge, teachers disseminate it and students are
graded on how much they can absorb and retain (Bruer, 1999). Brain-based
education encourages students to be actively engaged in learning and in guiding
their own instruction. Supporters of this approach agree that mental health of
learners plays an important role in learning and in general behaviour in class
(Solomon & Hendren, 2003). This is a crucial issue when examining the link
between brain dominance and learning, which will be addressed in more detail
under point 3.5.
3.4.4 Left and right brain in education
The so-called factory model of education as mentioned above has its origin in the
focus of education for many decades on a narrow segment of the brain, located
in the left hemisphere (Kerry, 2002 ). In education, the distinction was often
between the "clever" and dominant left and the artistic right brain. It has often
61
been suggested that left-brain dominant people are most successful in most of
the current educational systems which rely heavily on words and numbers (the 3
R's). School examinations are mostly designed to test left brain activity and
encourage conformity in thought (Anon., 2003b).
Left brain thinkers find it easy to sift and sort information in an organised fashion
while right brain thinkers prefer to absorb information in chunks. This is one
reason why right brain dominated learners are often poor spellers as they tend to
rely more on intuition and the "chunk" (in this case the word) than on actually
studying the order in which the letters in a word occur.
Left brain dominated learners generally "do better" at school as they are more
likely to respond to formal learning, are often content to study by themselves and
have greater concentration. Right brain dominated learners on the other hand are
less likely to perform academically as they are more responsive in informal
settings and prefer to study with company (Anon, 2003b).
The uniqueness of each brain and personality, it is argued, should be
acknowledged in education and, in stead of an educational system that caters
mainly for the needs of left-brain dominant individuals, flexibility and the needs of
all learners should be recognised (Kerry, 2002). The right brain, which excels in
visual, spatial, perceptual and intuitive information, processes information quickly
and in a nonlinear way, seeking spatial relationships and flourishes when dealing
with ambiguity and paradox. These preferences, which are often of a non-verbal
nature, are greatly neglected in most educational systems. Sperry remarked in
1973: "Our educational system, as well as science in general, tends to neglect
the nonverbal form of intellect. What it comes down to is that modern society
discriminates against the right hemisphere" (Gabriel, 2000). Being either right
brain or left brain dominant is certainly not right or wrong, although this is a truth
that education has apparently not grasped yet. According to Dixon (1997) the
teaching profession seems to be dominated by left brain thinkers, as right-
62
brained people tend to shy away from the teaching profession because of
negative experiences as students. Those who do pursue this career, often
become disillusioned with the rigidity, paperwork and politics associated with
education. A system which is mainly left brain dominant, designed by mainly left
brain dominant educators, can have (and have certainly had in the past) negative
consequences for a large proportion of students. One "deficit" of left-brained
thinkers can be that they have difficulty seeing things from another's perspective
and would find it difficult to comprehend that others could have a different way of
processing the world (Dixon, 1997). The result is that left-brained, linear
intelligence is rewarded more often.
At a conference at the University of Georgia in 2000, speakers urged educators
to apply whole brain learning in their classrooms. Whole brain learning was
described as a process when the physiology of the brain, the experiences of the
learner, the learning environment and the individual learner are taken into
account (Smith, 2000).
In a system which, it seems, favours left-brain dominant learners, which largely
ignores the uniqueness of learners when it comes to curriculum development,
teaching style and lesson content, the question which remains to be answered is:
how is this discrepancy affecting discipline in the classroom?
3.5 BRAIN DOMINANCE AND SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
It seems apparent from information from different sources analysed in the
literature overview, that behaviour is influenced by the individual's thinking
preferences. That would then hold true for the behaviour of both educator and
learner when the issue of discipline arises. A closer investigation of these
different preferences and the consequent behaviour of educator and learner is
conducted here.
63
3.5.1 The learner: thinking preferences and class discipline
An opinion which is expressed regularly in the context of education, is that
students only truly learn material and content when it is meaningful to them
(Anon., 2003a). A curriculum and lesson content designed without taking into
account the different preferences of individual learners, are unlikely to be
meaningful to all learners. A lack of interest can result in a lack of concentration
and a resulting boredom and bad behaviour. Research has shown that when
learners find the curricula irrelevant or have less success, they are more prone to
violence (Oosthuizen, 2005:5). Researchers have also found that when teaching
methods and techniques are in line with what learners prefer, they are more
attentive and would spend more time on school work (Lewis & Lovegrove,
1987:173). Furthermore, when learner preferences are satisfied, a more
productive class atmosphere is created (Wolhuter & Oosthuizen, 2003b:438-
439). As mentioned before, some critics are adamant that left-brain dominant
learners are most successful in current educational systems and that those that
are excluded from proper stimulation in the classroom, become dull and lifeless
or revert to inappropriate behaviour (Kerry, 2002). According to Torrance, this is
especially true of creatively gifted learners who find school boring and
purposeless. They feel frustrated, hemmed in and limited (Torrance, 1980).
When many of these children enter adolescence they have become vulnerable to
several negative experiences. They have learnt to manipulate others, they tend
to experiment with drugs and other sensory stimulants and become rebellious
against authority because over time so many of their needs have not been
satisfied (Fadely & Hosler, 1983:138).
Some researchers are of the opinion that educators set students up for behaviour
disorders because educational practices defy brain development and learner
differences (Anon., 2003a). According to Wesson, educational consultant of
neuroscience in the USA, many students have stronger social preferences and
work better in more unstructured environments, but in school they are told not to
talk and are set up in rows and in a static environment. Not being able to talk and
64
to express what they feel, many students revert to physical or even violent
interactions (Anon., 2003a). Many students prefer movement, which in turn
advances their memory. Restak (as cited by Rossman, 2002) points out that too
much of education is passive and linked to traditional academics. He shows how
learning is closely related to motor activities as seen in middle schools where it is
found that many youngsters memorise better when kept on their feet, moving
around. It is usually the right brain dominant learner that is constantly
reprimanded for "not sitting still", who irritates the educator with fidgeting and is
punished for this "bad behaviour". In a whole brain classroom opportunities for
movement and physical activities would solve this so-called disciplinary problem.
Many right-brain dominant learners prefer an holistic approach. They search for
the unity of everything they are taught, for an understanding of how different
subjects, contents and material fit together and into the greater context of life.
Most education, on the other hand, draws artificial boundaries and
compartmentalises content (Rossmann, 2002). The frustration of these learners
who never seem to understand the significance of material and how it relates to
the world or their own life, often evolves into inappropriate behaviour. For many
learners (often R1 dominant), learning is enhanced by challenge and
opportunities to take risks. However, in most classrooms a system of rote
learning and an environment of threat still exist which can have a negative effect
on behaviour (Caine & Caine, 1997). Most education systems place a great
emphasis on purely academic achievement and other (often right brain) skills are
not encouraged, developed or praised, especially by more left brain educators.
These learners never feel capable and never have a sense of belonging
(Oosthuizen, 2005:9) which eventually may lead to irresponsible behaviour.
Fadely and Hosler (1983) describe these right brain dominant children as
"naturalistic". They describe them as preoccupied, impulsive and daydreamers
who display behaviour which seems to go against good behavioural standards as
seen by most educators. Their case studies have shown that educators label
children as chaotic and hyperactive (the right brain dominant) or as compulsive
65
and rigid (the left brain dominant) instead of providing experiences in which both
types can learn to be more complete in their general behaviour.
3.5.2 The educator: thinking preferences and class discipline
When Dixon (1997) takes an historical look at education in America (which he
describes as a system in crisis), the similarities with South Africa cannot be
ignored. The system, he explains was founded with the goal of creating a society
of dutiful, obedient soldiers, based on the German model. The latter model had
as its goal to produce meek, compliant children. This system, he continues,
produced the meek, compliant adults who were so desperate for leadership that
they embraced the fanaticism of Adolf Hitler. In the USA, this system has been
cemented through the Christian Right movement which emphasises physical
punishment, the breaking of the child's will and obedience to authority for fear
that the child should not be allowed too much independent thought or control will
be lost (Oosthuizen, Wolhuter & Du Toit, 2003:463). While not all American (and
certainly not all South African) schools and educators are left-brained, many in
the system still value above all else compliance, order and sameness. It is well
documented that many great achievers through history were not well adjusted
students and were seen to have serious disciplinary problems. Einstein who was
described as a daydreamer and was told that his questions destroyed class
discipline, was encouraged to leave the system as he would be "better off' out of
school. Another achiever in later life was Thomas Edison, probably the most
productive inventor, who was beaten repeatedly at school because of his
insistence on asking questions and was removed from school by his mother after
only three months of formal education (Anon., 2002b). In hindsight, it becomes
clear that these learners who were more experimental, holistic and unstructured
in their thinking (right brain dominant) did not fit the picture of the obedient and
compliant learner that the educator expected.
It is therefore important to consider that the learner is not the only role-player in
the classroom with specific brain preferences. The educator brings a teaching
------
---
66
style, preferred mode of communication and expectations to the classroom which
create the atmosphere and set the scene for the teaching and learning that will
take place there (as stated in 3.4.1.1). One of the greatest expectations of the
educator is to have the full attention of each learner (Charles, 2004). This
expectation is often not met when learners are engaging in inappropriate
behaviour in class. Unfortunately the reasons for this misbehaviour are regularly
not understood and therefore punished, but no long-term solution found. The
reason for such misbehaviour is often because of the expectations of learners
that are not met. These expectations include being engaged in worthwhile
learning activities and to be motivated to learn, which would assume teaching
strategies congruent with student learning styles and brain preferences (Charles,
2004).
Educators who place control above all else, will resist flexibility in the class and
would not allow a fun and a relaxed environment from time to time. These
educators would also tend to resist group activities and discussions for fear of
unruliness or of losing control. Those educators who have strong preferences for
routine, would be hard pressed to vary their presentation and lesson content to
suit different students. Some educators may not see the need for self-expression
and for unplanned participation by learners or for the "personal touch" by means
of, for example, personal greetings and attention because of their own
preferences for control, routine, reserve or authority. Glasser (as cited by Van
Tassell, 1999) states that the goal in classrooms should be that the students
want to learn more and feel good about what they do in the classroom. This can
be achieved when students are treated with dignity and respect (Charles, 2004),
which in turn implies the acceptance of differences and the creation of the whole
brain classroom. To neglect this and by implication exclude certain learners from
the best education for their brain dominance, can create an emotionally
damaging classroom climate for some.
67
3.5.3 The emotional climate and brain dominance
The importance of an appropriate emotional climate for facilitating sound
education is often cited in literature on education (Caine & Caine, 1997). The
emotional impact of any lesson or life experience will reverberate long after the
specific event that triggers it. Emotion therefore plays an important role in
memory encoding and retrieval and emotionally meaningful information tends to
be learned and remembered better (Solomon & Hendren, 2003). On the other
hand depression, anxiety and stress can have a very negative impact on
learning. In fact, CAT scans show that children process information through their
emotions first, then information goes through the neocortex, or rational part of the
brain. Wesson (Anon., 2003a) agrees that information that is the most emotional
is what students remember best. On the other hand, fear can bring learning to a
halt.
In many classrooms harshness and complete control are imposed upon learners
in order to ensure discipline. Learners react differently towards this kind of
environment by either not showing emotion at all and by becoming dull, lifeless
and apathetic, or by anger and cruelty (Kerry, 2002). Anger grows out of
frustration and aggression out of powerlessness (Smith, 1992). One way of
dealing with anger in the classroom is to provide comfort and assurance and to
tell the learner that everyone experiences anger (Anon., 2000b). The educators
should be able to share his own experiences of anger and how he dealt with this
in a positive way. The strong left brain educator who may not see any benefit in
allowing learners to show or voice their emotions, are constantly giving the
message that feelings are inappropriate and should be denied. Educators should
understand that when children's right to have angry feelings is accepted, it does
not mean accepting aggressive behaviours (Smith, 1992). Over time, the student
will adapt to the rejection and pain and unconsciously lose touch with his
emotions, will deny certain emotions and will also inhibit himself from
experiencing heightened degrees of happiness (Kerry, 2002). The by-product of
---- - ---- ----
68
this process is self-directed anger which results in depression or outwardly
directed anger which results in cruelty, scapegoating and violence.
The more the educator denies the individuality of learners and endeavours to
control the class by fear, the less learning takes place and often results in exactly
the bad behaviour this is supposed to avoid. Fear and stress release the
hormone cortisol in the body which is shown to be toxic to the hippocampus, a
part of the brain associated with long-term memory (Solomon & Hendren, 2003).
Studies also show that stress and constant fear, can circumvent the brain's
normal circuits and therefore that physical and emotional well-being are closely
linked to the ability to think and to learn effectively (Anon.,2000b). Behaviour is
also effected by such stressful conditions, as the brain "downshifts", becomes
less flexible and reverts to primitive attitudes and procedures (Caine & Caine,
1997). Because of the surge of adrenaline to the brain, the learner will go into the
flight or fight mode and often behave inappropriately (Anon., 2003a). The fact
that the right hemisphere is more directly associated with the expression and
perception of emotions than the left, also has implications in the classroom. Right
brain dominant learners would therefore show emotions more readily and react
more strongly to the emotions of educators. This could be experienced as a
negative trait by many educators, even punished as inappropriate behaviour. It
has been shown through experiments (Restak, 2000: 127) that the right
hemisphere is better than the left at detecting subtle emotional nuances, such as
mood-associated variations in speech and emotions shown by facial
expressions. This would mean that the right brain dominant learner would be
more sensitive to the educator's mood, would be more affected by this and could
be seen as touchy, sensitive and as over reacting.
The traditional approach to discipline through control, often fear and threats,
seem to be at the very heart of incessant misbehaviour. It shatters the security of
some students (especially those who are L2 dominant), it causes emotional
outbursts in some (probably the R2 dominants), it makes some learners defiant
69
(the R1 dominant thinkers most probably) and turns some rational L1 dominant
learners into angry, even violent students. Therefore, even the highly verbal child
(left brain) who would generally cope well in the traditional classroom, who has
been overly disciplined, is very self-conscious and constricted in his behaviour,
can start to over-control responses. This child often becomes neurotic, fearful of
being hurt and constantly seeks acceptance. The result is that little effective
learning occurs (Fadely & Hosler, 1983:160). The solution would be a classroom
environment that promotes positive attitudes among students and teachers about
their work and encouraging students to be aware of their feelings and how the
emotional climate affects their learning (Caine & Caine, 1990). It seems as if
conflict resolutions programmes have had noteworthy success in South African
as well as schools abroad (Oosthuizen, 2005:7). Similar programmes on whole
brain teaching, learning, relationships and general behaviour, could very well be
the answer to stress and emotional upheaval in classrooms because of the lack
of understanding of differences.
In 2000 at a conference at the University of Georgia educators were called upon
to embrace whole brain teaching and learning. The essence of the discussions
was voiced by Smith, public service associate of the University of Georgia, viz
"not everyone learns alike" (Smith, 2000). She expanded by describing whole
brain learning as taking into account the physiology of the brain, the experiences
of the learner, the learning environment and the individual learner. Mengert,
professor emeritus of the University of North Carolina-Greensboro, who works
with schools to help create brain-compatible classrooms, maintains that this can
be done through removing tension and stress, by recognising individual
performance, experience and interest and recognising that learning and emotion
are connected. (Smith, 2000).
The literature abound with calls for a more individualistic approach to education,
but more frequently, the link between the preferences of learners and class
discipline is emerging (Wolhuter & Oosthuizen, 2003b:439; Van der Walt,
2003:338; Anon.,2003a).
- - -
70
3.6 SUMMARY
After research on the first split-brain patients in the 1960's, Sperry urged
educators to heed the need for educational tests and policy measures to identify,
accommodate, and serve the differentially specialized forms of individual
intellectual potential. After decades of brain research, a strong link between brain
preferences or dominance and learning and teaching styles has become widely
accepted. Most scientists agree that localized areas of the brain carry out specific
functions and that everyone is an individual and each brain unique. The
uniqueness of each brain and personality, it is argued, should be acknowledged
in education.
Brain dominance researchers contend that left brain dominated learners
generally "do better" at school as they are more likely to respond to formal
learning while right brain dominated learners on the other hand are less likely to
perform academically as they are more responsive in informal settings. It is also
the right brain dominant learner who is usually reprimanded and punished for
misbehaviour such as fidgeting, talking, forgetting things and untidiness. As
education systems are usually designed to be structured and disciplined (left
brained), many right brain dominant learners never feel they belong and start
acting out as a result of frustration.
While studying the literature, the researcher came to the conclusion that if
educators and learners alike should understand the differences in brain
dominance and the concept of whole brain education, a greater tolerance would
be developed. This would imply that educators who could adapt their teaching
style, their attitude and their reaction to learner behaviour to accommodate all
learners, irrespective of their brain dominance, could very well find inappropriate
behaviour diminishing in their classrooms.
71
As mentioned in chapter 2, the Bill of Rights emphasises that "A child's best
interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child." After
studying the literature on brain dominance, the researcher has also reached the
conclusion that a system where individuality and more specifically brain
uniqueness is ignored, where all learners do not have the freedom to receive or
impart information, may be seen as discriminatory and not in the best interest of
all children. It appears as if taking into account the brain dominance of learners
and educators, may be a solution to create a positive, emotionally healthy and
whole brain environment where the individual feels respected, where self-esteem
will grow and as far as discipline is concerned, a win-win situation could be
created.
- --
72
CHAPTER 4
The research process
4.1 INTRODUCTION
At the start of this study the following problems were identified as those
warranting careful research:
1. Do educators fully comprehend and apply Constitutional principles such
as the best interest of the child, equality, dignity and the right 'to education,
as well as other related legislative provisions in their style of discipline?
2. Should the differences in brain dominance of learners be taken into
account in legislation pertaining to the development of the code of
conduct?
3. How does brain dominance of educators influence their approach to
learner discipline in the classroom?
4. What is the influence of the brain dominance of learners on their attitude
towards the school's code of conduct and their resulting behaviour in
class?
These problems were addressed through the qualitative research methodology.
In this chapter this methodology will be discussed, as well as the research
process which was followed to answer these questions. This will include the
researcher as instrument, the research paradigm, strategies, methodology and
analysis of the data, as well as the trustworthiness of the research.
4.2 QUANTITATIVE OR QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Before addressing the research methodology of this study, the distinction
between quantitative and qualitative research will be discussed.
73
4.2.1 A distinction
According to Henning (2004:3) the focus in a quantitative study will be on control
of all the components in the actions and representations of the participants (the
variables) and participants are usually not free to express data which cannot be
captured by predetermined instruments. She continues that in a qualitative study
on the other hand, the variables are not controlled and the capture of the natural
development of action and representation is exactly the aim of the researcher.
Mays and Pope, (as cited in Anon., 1997) explain quantitative research as a
study that begins with an idea which then, through measurement, generates data
and by deduction allows a conclusion to be drawn. Qualitative research,
according to these authors, begins with an intention to explore a particular area,
then collects data through observations and interviews and generates ideas from
these data largely through inductive reasoning. Charles (1995) simply describes
quantitative research as dealing with scores where as qualitative research deals
with words and statements. Labuschagne (2003) makes the distinction that
quantitative research is mainly concerned with the degree in which phenomena
possess certain properties, states and characters and the similarities, differences
and causal relations which exist within and between these. Qualitative research
on the other hand is mainly concerned with the properties, the state and the
character, in other words the nature of phenomena. Ratcliff (2003) adapts a
comparison from Cook and Reichardt and lists a number of differences. Quoting
the description of quantitative research first, some of these differences are for
example positivistic vs. phenomenological, particularistic vs. holistic, attempt to
control variables vs. relative lack of control, verification oriented vs. discovery
oriented and confirmatory vs. explanatory. Creswell (1998 in Anon., 2003e)
presents five sets of philosophical assumptions which can be used to distinguish
between the two types of research, viz. ontological (the objective or subjective
nature of reality), epistemological (the relationship between the researcher and
the knowledge studied), methodological (the design of the research), axiological
-- -----
74
(the role of values) and rhetorical (the style and language of reporting the
findings).
There are also some voices in the literature that emphasise the similarities rather
than the differences between these two types of research methodologies. Becker
(2002) states that both kinds of research try to see how society works, to
describe social reality and to answer specific questions about instances of social
reality. The distinction, he states, lies in the fact that some researchers are
interested in a very general description in the form of laws about whole classes of
phenomena, while others are more interested in understanding specific cases
and how general statements worked out in a particular case. Barrett and Ahmed
(2000) analysed data on the research methods used by presenters at the
Midwest Research to Practice Conference in education and found a strong shift
from quantitative to qualitative and combined methodologies.
In this study a qualitative research design was applied and therefore a more in-
depth theoretical discussion regarding this method will be conducted here.
4.3 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
In the following paragraphs several definitions and explanations of qualitative
research will be discussed.
4.3.1 Defining qualitative research
Henning (2004:5) defines qualitative research as an inquiry in which the qualities,
characteristics or properties of a phenomenon are examined for better
understanding and explanation. Denzin and Lincoln (2000:3) state that qualitative
researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or
to interpret phenomena in terms of the meaning people bring to them. It is also
described as a research design that reveals a target audience's range of
behaviour and the perceptions that drive it with reference to specific topics or
75
issues (Anon., 1997). According to Merriam (1998:5) qualitative research refers
to "an umbrella concept covering several forms of inquiry that help us understand
and explain the meaning of social phenomena with as little disruption of the
natural setting as possible".
An important aspect of qualitative research is the role of the researcher.
4.3.2 The researcher as instrument
The definition of the role of the researcher and the researcher of this study will be
addressed in the following section.
4.3.2.1 Defining the role of the researcher
In qualitative research the researcher becomes an instrument of data collection.
The art of successful qualitative data collection depends on the balance between
participation and neutrality of the researcher (Rossouw, 1994: 179). Patton
(1990:55) refers to this as an "empathic neutrality". Hoepfl (1997) refers to the
researcher as the vehicle through which data will be collected and interpreted.
Denzin and Lincoln (2000:5) agree and compare the qualitative researcher to a
quilter who stitches, edits and puts slices of reality together.
Because the voice of the researcher forms an integral part of qualitative
research, it therefore seems appropriate to inviduate the researcher of this study.
4.3.2.2 The researcher of this study
Ellis and Bochner's (in Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:740 ) description of a reflexive
ethnography best describes the "personal experience narratives" approach of the
researcher of this study. Lincoln and Guba (in Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:183) refer
to reflexivity as the conscious experiencing of the self as both enquirer and
participant, as teacher and learner within the research process. To clarify this
research approach, a short background of the researcher seems apposite.
76
After teaching and lecturing for about a decade, I became interested and then
wholly involved in the identification and development of creative behaviour in
children as well as adults. The measurement of brain preferences and the
development of a whole brain approach to creativity, has become a passion and
a life's work. I have co-authored several books on the subject and am constantly
in search of new insights and applications regarding this field. Books on
parenting, relationships and lifestyle were the result of a keen pursuit to find
solutions to problems resulting from human behaviour. I have retained a strong
relationship with and affinity for education in South Africa and have over the last
few years experienced a strong desire to find a solution to the problem of
discipline in South African schools today. I have undertaken this study in the faith
that with a better understanding of one another, this is an obtainable goal. I have
also attempted it with the open-minded attitude that my personal experience in
this field could enhance my insight into whether brain preferences affect attitudes
towards discipline, without compromising neutrality and the openness to discover
and to learn.
Although this study has several tangent points with educational psychology, what
seemed to me the greater challenge was to conduct a study which would
investigate whether disciplinary practices in schools entrench the rights of all
children, or whether, by their very nature of 'equal treatment for all'. these
practices are in violation of what the law implies is in a child's best interest.
Whether the codes of conduct of schools protect the rights of all children and
whether learners are really co-creators of these codes, were other areas of
interest which I sought to explore.
4.4 THE RESEARCH PARADIGM
The theory surrounding research paradigms and the research paradigm of this
study will be examined in the following paragraphs.
77
4.4.1 Theoretical paradigms
Guba (1990:17) terms the researcher's epistemological, ontological and
methodological premises a paradigm or interpretive framework or "basic set of
beliefs that guides action". Denzin and Lincoln (2000:19) distinguish four major
perspectives, viz. positivist and postpositivist, constructivist-interpretive, critical
and feminist-poststructural.
The positivists and postpositivist paradigms work from within a realist and critical
realist ontology and objective epistemologies and rely upon experimental, quasi-
experimental, survey and rigorously defined qualitative methodologies (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2000:21). The constructivist-interpretive paradigm is explained by these
authors as assuming a relativist ontology (there are multiple realities), a
subjectivist epistemology (knower and participant co-create understandings) and
a naturalistic (in the natural world) set of methodological procedures. They
continue that findings are usually presented in terms of the criteria of grounded
theory or pattern theories.
In the feminist-poststructural paradigms it is assumed that the real world makes a
material difference in terms of race, class and gender (Denzin & Lincoln,
2000:21). The critical paradigm includes the Marxist and emancipatory models.
4.4.2 The research paradigm of this study
Denzin and Lincoln (2000:19) maintain that all research is interpretive and is
guided by a set of beliefs and feelings about the world and how it should be
understood and studied. This is certainly true of this study. The paradigm of this
study is in most part constructivist-interpretive. The researcher of this study
combined her beliefs about the nature of human beings who differ in behaviour
because of specific brain preferences (ontology), about the relationship between
the researcher and the participants who are both creating insights and
understanding during the process of interviewing and discussions on school
78
discipline (epistemology) and about gaining knowledge through procedures in the
naturalistic setting of the school (methodology).
The next stage of the research process is working with a specific strategy of
inquiry. The researcher moves to this next stage "paradigm and personal history
in hand, focused on a concrete empirical problem to examine" (Denzin & Lincoln,
2000:21).
4.5 RESEARCH STRATEGIES
This phase of the research begins with a research design which Denzin and
Lincoln (2000:22) describe as a flexible set of guidelines that connect theoretical
paradigms first to strategies of inquiry and then to methods for collecting
empirical material. They continue that strategies of inquiry put paradigms of
interpretation into motion. These strategies include the case study, ethnography,
phenomenological and ethnomethodological techniques, grounded theory,
biographical, outoethnographic, historical, action and clinical methods. The
researcher made an in-depth study of all these strategies in order to select the
strategies which were considered to be most applicable to this study. For this
reason some of the alternatives that were not selected, are also discussed here
as certain tangent points can be distinguished.
4.5.1 Strategies of inquiry
Of the above-mentioned strategies, case studies, ethnography,
phenomenological and ethnomethodological techniques, grounded theory,
biographical and outoethnographic methods will be discussed here.
· Case studies
Yin (2002) refers to a case study as an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the
boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident. Henning
on the other hand describes a case study as a format for design which is
79
characterised by the focus on a phenomenon that has identifiable boundaries.
Merriam (1998:18-19) agrees with Henning and states that case studies are
distinguished from other types of qualitative research in that they are intensive
descriptions and analyses of a single unit or bounded system. She continues that
this "bounded system" can be an individual, a program, event, group, intervention
or community.
· Ethnography
According to Merriam (2002:9) ethnography is not so much defined by how data
are collected but rather "by the lens through which they are interpreted". Creswell
(1998 as cited in Anon., 2003e) elaborates on this view and refers to
ethnography when researchers observe behaviour by immersing themselves in
the daily life of the community or by conducting interviews with community
leaders. They then interpret the observations to discover patterns of behaviour
and the factors that underlie them. An ethnographic field collection is described
(Anon., 2003d) as a unique created work brought together through the intentions
and activities of the collector and may include sound recordings, drawings,
photographs and correspondence.
· Phenomenological and ethnomethodological studies
A phenomenological study focuses on the essence or structure of an experience
(Merriam, 2002:7) and inner experiences are compared and analysed to identify
the essences of the phenomenon being studied. It is described as a qualitative
method that attempts to understand participants' perspectives and views of social
realities (Foster & Perkins, 2004). These authors also cite the researcher's self
reflections or experiences relevant to the phenomenon as a data source.
Ethnomethodology was founded by the American sociologist Harold Garfinkel in
the early 1960's (Poore, 2000) and refers to the study of the ways in which
people make sense of their social world. Alvesson and Skoldberg (2000:38-39)
state that ethnomethodologists study the everyday knowledge, how it emerges
and is shaped. The task of the ethnomethodologist, according to these authors,
is to elicit actions in the everyday world which are steered by underlying
expectations and implicit rules. According to Poore (2000) a favoured technique
- -
--
80
among ethnomethodologists is to temporarily disrupt the world which people take
for granted and see how they react.
· Grounded theory
Merriam (2002:7) refers to grounded theory as having as its goal the
development of a theory through inductive approaches and the theory is
"grounded" in the data. Myers (2004) also describes grounded theory as a
research method that seeks to develop theory, but elaborates that it is grounded
in data systematically gathered and analysed. He further suggests that this
method differs from other methods because it implies a continuous interplay
between data collection and analysis. This opinion is shared by Charmaz in
Denzin and Lincoln (2000:510) when she states that strategies of grounded
theory include simultaneous collection and analysis of data, a two-step data
coding process, comparative methods, memo writing and theoretical sampling to
refine ideas. She further concludes that although the initial research questions
may be concrete and descriptive, the researcher can develop deeper analytic
questions by studying her data. This interplay between the researcher and the
data is also recognised by Guba and Lincoln (in Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:510)
who state that constructionist grounded theory recognises the mutual creation of
knowledge by the viewer and the viewed and aims towards interpretive
understanding of the subjects' meanings.
· Biographical and autoethnographical methods
These methods are applied by a researcher who is a "native", an "insider" who
has an intimate familiarity with the group being studied (Ellis & Bochner in Denzin
& Lincoln, 2000:739). A new form of biography and autoethnography or life
history is the 'testimonio' (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:374) which is a first-person
(usually political) text told by a narrator of various struggles for survival. These
works are intended to produce and record social change. The author of the
'testimonio' is not a researcher, but someone who allows previously silenced
persons to be heard.
4.5.2 The research strategy of this study 
The basic research strategy of this study is phenomenology. The researcher 
attempted to understand the participants' perspectives on discipline from the 
perspective of the theory regarding brain preferences. A characteristic of 
phenomenological research and of this study, is that data sources include 
accounts of the phenomena as obtained from literature, the participants' oral and 
written descriptions of their experiences of the phenomenon and the researcher's 
self reflections and experiences relevant to the phenomenon (in this instance of 
school discipline and brain preferences). In phenomenology (as cited by Foster & 
Perkins, 2004)' as applied in this study, the transcripts from participant interviews 
and self-reflections are used to identify common themes in the descriptions of 
experiences by participants. Furthermore the transcripts are used to identify 
statements that relate to the topic, to group statements into "meaning units" (here 
more specifically as they relate to brain preferences), to seek divergent 
perspectives and to construct a composite. The research report of this study 
follows the phenomenological research design as it presents research problems, 
describes methods of data collection and analysis, draws conclusions about the 
phenomenon (discipline and its link to brain dominance), relates the findings to 
the existing body of theory and research done on school discipline and brain 
dominance and discusses the practical implications of the findings. 
The qualitative researcher has various methods for collecting empirical data. 
Some of these methods will be discussed in the following paragraphs. 
1 4.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 
The research methodology includes the methods of collection and analysis of 
research data. 
4.6.1 Methods of data collection 
lnterviews 
lnterviews may be informal (conversational) interviews, semi-structured 
interviews or standardised (open-ended) interviews. During the informal 
interview, which Henning (2004:4) refers to as discursively oriented interviews, 
the speech or communication in itself yields information. It is therefore not only 
what participants say and do that is important, but also what they omit, how they 
say and do that become important information. 
During the semi-structured interview, the researcher has an interview guide or 
schedule with a list of questions or general topics to explore during each 
interview (Hoepfl, 1997). The schedule is prepared to ensure that the same basic 
information is obtained from each participant, but there are no predetermined 
responses and the interviewer may probe and explore within the inquiry areas. 
In contrast the structured interview (Fontana & Frey in Denzin & Lincoln, 
2000:637) asks all participants the same series of pre-established questions with 
a limited set of response categories with little room for variation. 
Focus groups 
Interviews can also be conducted in focus group sessions. This has been a 
popular method of data collection in the domain of marketing to test the 
perception of clients of certain products (Rossouw, 1994:117). This method has 
however become more widely used in education research as well. In a focus 
group the participants are encouraged to make contributions to the discussion 
beyond simply answering the questions posed by the researcher (Ratcliff, 2003). 
Participants are allowed to bring up related issues and the group interaction is 
explicitly used to generate data (Greenhalgh & Taylor, 2000). Fontana and Frey 
(in Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:639) see this technique as straddling the line between 
formal and informal interviewing and is often used when the purpose of the 
interview is exploratory. 
83
· Observations
Data is collected through observation of participants in the context of a natural
scene. The data would consist of detailed descriptions of participants' behaviours
and human interactions (Labuschagne, 2003). Denzin (1997:19) urges
researchers to be aware of class, race, gender and ethnicity and how these
factors shape the process of the inquiry during observations. Patton (1990) is of
the opinion that observation can lead to a deeper understanding than interviews
alone as it may enable the researcher to see things that participants themselves'
are not aware of or are unwilling to discuss.
· Questionnaires I Interview schedules
While questionnaires for quantitative research are designed to elicit systematic,
standardised and succinct responses, the questionnaire (also called an interview
schedule) used for qualitative research elicits responses which are open-ended,
not systematic and longer (Labuschagne, 2003). This is because questionnaires
for qualitative research are designed to provide a forum for explanations,
meanings and new ideas.
· Documents, records and artefacts
Documents for qualitative research may include official records, letters,
newspaper accounts, diaries, reports or other published data in the literature
(Hoepfl, 1997). Hansen (1995) analysed journal entries and memos written by
participants in addition to interviews in his research. Hodder (in Denzin & Lincoln,
2000:703) states that many areas of experience are hidden from language and
that the study of material culture is thus of importance for qualitative researchers.
Henning (2004:99) is of the opinion that the collection of documents and other
artefacts is often neglected in qualitative research. The task of the researcher
would be to see the connection between artefacts (in a household, for example)
and the research questions.
· Autoethnography
Autoethnography has been mentioned as a research strategy, but deserves
mention as a method of collecting data. The autoethnography is an
autobiographical genre of writing and research usually written in the first-person
- --- - -
and include short stories, poetry, fiction, novels, photographic essays, personal 
essays, journals and prose (Ellis & Bochner in Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:739). 
4.6.2 Methods of data collection during this study 
In qualitative research, a variety of methods and sources for data collection, 
referred to by some as triangulation (Henning, 2004:103), is advised. The 
methods used during this research to collect data were the semi-structured 
interview, focus group sessions, open-ended questionnaires and observation of 
the participants during interviews and focus group sessions. In addition the 
Neethling Brain Instrument (NBI~~) was used in order to profile the brain 
preferences of the participants. The Codes of Conduct of the schools taking part 
in the research were also used as documents for data collection and studied by 
the researcher to establish whether a link existed between these documents and 
the behaviour of different brain dominant groups. 
An important element of data collection is of course the participants from whom 
much of the data emanate. As in most qualitative research studies, the 
participants were selected through purposive sampling. In other words, they 
were not selected at random but because of who they are (educators and 
learners) and what they know (the school environment, disciplinary practices and 
the codes of conduct for example). They were also selected because of their 
brain profiles in order to select a group with a variation of brain preferences. The 
specific schools and the number of participants identified at each school were in 
most part a convenient sample. They were convenient because the researcher 
had identified a contact person as each of the schools who had some knowledge 
or insight into brain profiling. 
4.6.2.1 The identification of participants 
In order to include a more diverse group of participants, schools in three 
provinces were identified as participating schools. These schools are located in 
cities, large towns as well as rural areas. They range from a preparatory school 
85
to primary and high schools. The schools that took part in the study are
A high school in Pinetown, Kwazulu Natal (larger town)
A high school in Potchefstroom, North-West Province (larger town)
A primary school in Pretoria, Gauteng (city)
A convent school, primary and high school, in Pretoria, Gauteng (city)
A high school in rural Western Cape
A primary school in Durbanville, Western Cape (larger town)
A primary school in rural Western Cape
A preparatory school in Durbanville, Western Cape (larger town).
In the participating schools, 10 - 20 educators were profiled according to the
Neethling Brain Instrument. A group of 4-7 educators from each school was
selected from this group according to their brain profiles in order to interview
educators with a variety of brain preferences. In total 40 educators were
interviewed. After completion of the data analysis, 8 of these educators were
interviewed again for the purpose of cross-examination of the findings and
suggestions. The interview schedule (included in Addendum B 3) covered
questions on the findings and suggestions as set out in chapter 5.
Similarly the learners were profiled and then selected according to their brain
profiles in order to select a focus group consisting of participants with a variety of
brain preferences. In the primary schools only learners from grade 7 were
selected. In total 53 learners, which included 26 high school and 27 primary
school learners, were interviewed in these focus groups. In the preparatory
school interviews were only conducted with the educators and not with learners.
Because the Neethling Brain Profile Instrument is designed for learners from the
age of 11, the researcher decided to include only learners from grade 7 and
higher. On the other hand the researcher included educators from a preparatory
school (grades 1 to 3) in order to ascertain whether their views regarding
discipline would be markedly different from educators of higher grades.
- -- -
4.6.2.2 The Neethling Brain Profiles 
Participants completed the Neethling Brain Profile questionnaires, which were 
then processed by the researcher using the Neethling Brain Instrument software 
programme. Lists of the names and quadrant scores of the participants were 
developed. 
4.6.2.3 Questionnaires 
Before the start of the interviews, the learner focus groups were given short 
open-ended questionnaires to complete. Their responses were not shared with 
the rest of the group. In cases where learners may have been influenced in their 
answers by peer pressure during interviews, these questionnaires offered 
additional and informative data. 
4.6.2.4 l nterviews 
lnterviews were conducted with learners as well as educators. These interviews 
and the procedure followed during these interviews will be discussed here. 
lnterviews with learners 
Focus group sessions with learners were conducted in groups of 6-10 learners. 
A list of 12 questions was used to guide the session, but participants were given 
freedom to express their views on related issues. The interview schedule which 
was used during these interviews, is included in Addendum B 2. These 
interviews were audio taped and the researcher made additional notes. The 
interviews were conducted at the various schools. 
lnterviews with educators 
Individual interviews were conducted with educators. A semi-structured interview 
schedule consisting of 16 questions was used during the interviews with 
educators (see Addendum B 1). This schedule ensured that all the relevant 
issues were covered with all the participants. The questions were used only as a 
guide and participants were allowed to discuss issues they felt were important. 
These interviews were audio taped and the researcher made additional notes. 
87
. The procedure during interviews
During the individual and group session interviews, the following procedure was
followed:
1. The researcher introduces herself.
2. The researcher explains the research study and the role of the
participants.
3. The confidentiality of the interviews is stressed and that names of
participants will not be made public.
4. Permission is obtained to make a tape recording.
5. Participants are informed of the possible duration of the interview.
6. The interview proceeds using the interview schedule to guide the
interview.
. Interview with a legal authority
The legal implications of the findings and recommendations of the study will be
discussed with a legal authority during an interview at the conclusion of the
study. This interview is part of the triangulation process.
· Triangulation interviews
An interview schedule will be used to interview 8 of the participating educators
again to ascertain their views on the findings and recommendations of the study.
4.6.2.5
Observation
Adler and Adler (1994 as cited in Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:673) characterised
observation as "the fundamental base of all research" in the social and
behavioural sciences. According to Agrosino and Mays de Perez (in Denzin &
Lincoln, 2000:673) studies based on direct interviews also employ observational
techniques to note body language and gestures that might lend meaning to the
words of the participants. During this study the body language, gestures, general
appearance, the dress code as compared to school rules and positioning of the
body (chair) relative to others in the group were all observed and noted and
recorded as part of the data. Some learners were more willing to share
--
-- -- ---
information and generally talked more than others. These observations are 
discussed fully in chapter 5. 
4.6.3 Methods of data analysis 
After the collection of empirical materials, the qualitative "writer-as-interpreter" 
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:23) has to make sense of the findings, formulate initial 
and finally a public text. Data can be analysed through content analysis, global 
analysis, grounded theory analysis, discourse, narrative and conversation 
analysis and computer-aided data analysis. Although not all of these methods 
were used in this study, a short discussion of several alternatives seems 
appropriate. 
Content analysis 
Qualitative analysis of data involves the non-numerical organisation of data in 
order to discover patterns, themes, forms and qualities (Labuschagne, 2003). 
Content analysis would involve qualitative coding and categorising which means 
that the data is divided into small units of meaning which are named and grouped 
together in categories (Merriam, 1998). If the data is not interrogated, however, 
but simply becomes a report on facts, independent of intentions or 
circumstances, it leads to no more than a "thin description" (Holliday, 2001:79). 
= Global analysis 
Flick (1 998:196) states that in global analysis the "aim is to obtain an overview of 
the thematic range of the text". Henning (2004:109) suggests that this analysis 
method is not just a preparation for coding, but an integrated view of the data in 
which themes are identified because of a holistic reading and accompanying 
notes. 
Grounded theory analysis 
Grounded theory has already been discussed as a research strategy (see 4.5.1), 
but warrants a paragraph as a method of analysis. According to Charmaz 
(2002:675) the grounded theory analyst uses flexible strategies to convert 
89
concrete realities to conceptual understandings of them. Through this process
theories emerge which are grounded in the research reality.
· Discourse analysis
Discourse analysis is described by Myers (2004) as a form of semiotics.
Semiotics is primarily concerned with the meaning of signs and symbols in
language. Essentially words or signs in language would be assigned to primary
conceptual categories which represent important aspects of the theory to be
tested. The importance of an idea is revealed in the frequency with which it
appears in the text. He further suggests that discourse analysis focuses on
"language games", explained as a well-defined unit of interaction consisting of a
sequence of phrases, metaphor and allegory which all play an important part.
· Narrative and conversation analysis
In narrative analysis the researcher applies characteristics of the narrative used
by the participant to try to find a pattern of language action that may be
significant (Cottle, 2002). Conversation analysis is a method whereby each
segment of talk is labelled with a code that captures an aspect of opening or
closing an interacting of turn taking, overlap, pause, forms of address, turn
allocation and ways of extending talk sequences (Psathas, 1995).
· Computer-aided qualitative data analysis
Several computer software programmes exist today to assist the qualitative
researcher. Weitzman (2000:805) notes an important fact regarding these
programmes, viz. they can help to analyse data but cannot do the analysis for the
researcher. According to Henning (2004:137) their real strength lies in ordering,
structuring, retrieving and visualising tasks.
In qualitative research the sorting, explanation and verification of data are
processes which occur simultaneously as the researcher works through the data
(Rossouw, 1994:178).
4.6.4 Methods of data analysis during this study
The interviews with educators and the learner focus groups were transcribed.
The interview questions were designed to generate certain themes regarding
discipline. Other themes emerged from these interviews and were noted by the 
researcher. The researcher used a code system whereby remarks by participants 
were categorised according to both the deductively and inductively generated 
themes. The responses were constantly compared to the brain profiles of the 
participants and any pattern or recurring insights recorded. The responses of the 
learners on the short semi-structured questionnaire were similarly noted under 
each of the themes and compared with the brain profiles of the participants. The 
responses of the learners were displayed in a matrix in order to more clearly 
analyse the results and to note recurring themes and responses. The 
observations by the researcher regarding body language, gestures and general 
appearance of participants were noted and compared to their brain profiles. The 
interpretive findings by the researcher of the attitudes, perceptions and ideas 
regarding school discipline and how these relate to the respective brain 
preferences of the participants, will be addressed in chapter 5. The codes of 
conduct of the participating schools were studied and analysed. This was done to 
ascertain whether these codes entrench the rights like democracy, non- 
discrimination, dignity and freedom of expression as outlined in the guidelines for 
these codes of conduct (Department of Education Notice 776 of 1998). 
Furthermore, the researcher sought to determine whether these codes of 
conduct were non-discriminatory regarding brain dominance and if not, whether 
not taking the different brain preferences of learners into account, could 
constitute a violation of this and other rights. 
As mentioned earlier, the researcher worked within a constructivist-interpretive 
paradigm to anaiyse the data and to reach a conclusion regarding this research 
project. This paradigm or framework included the interpretation of the responses 
of participants, the way in which they interpreted questions, the words (for 
example emotional or not) they used, how much they were willing to reveal, their 
body language and gestures, their reactions towards the comments of others and 
how these elements reflected on their brain profiles. This was done through the 
constant comparative method. The codes of conduct of the participating schools 
91
were also analysed to establish whether an alignment with a specific brain
dominance was indicated in the document.
4.7 THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE RESEARCH
In quantitative research the trustworthiness of research includes internal and
external validity, reliability and generalizability (Anon., 2003e). Lincoln and Guba
(as cited in Seale, 2002) have identified guidelines for the trustworthiness of
qualitative research. They conclude that credibility can be established by
amongst others prolonged observation in the field, persistent observation, the
collection of sufficient data and triangulation. They continue that the confirmability
of findings is based on the researcher's critical self-reflection.
As far as this study is concerned, the researcher has measured the
trustworthiness of the research against the guidelines mentioned above. The
amount of data collected was found to be sufficient as analysis of the data
progressed. Although a wide variety of schools were used, it soon became clear
that patterns were emerging regarding the responses of participants and that
these were repeated as more and more responses were collected and analysed.
At this point in the research, described in the literature as the saturation of data,
the researcher found the data to be sufficient. The process of triangulation was
also involved in the search for corroboration. Denzin (1978) has identified several
types of triangulation. One type, the convergence of multiple data sources, was
used here. Learners as well as educators participated, the Neethling Brain Profile
was a data source and the codes of conduct of the participating schools were
used as a text source. Denzin also describes methodological triangulation, which
involves the convergence of data from multiple data sources. In this study data
were collected through individual interviews, focus group sessions, short
questionnaires, observations and documents in the form of the codes of conduct.
A third triangulation procedure is investigator triangulation and related to this,
researcher-participant corroboration or cross-examination. In this study a
selection of the most prominent findings were presented to 8 of the 40 educators 
who took part in the study for cross-examination and comment on the findings 
and suggestions. An interview schedule was used during these interviews. The 
data collected during the second interviews were analysed and will be reported 
on in chapter 5. 
Lincoln and Guba (1984:110) refer to the "generalizability" of a study as "an 
appealing concept" but continue that the existence of local conditions "makes it 
impossible to generalize". According to Strauss and Corbin (1990:17) 
generalization is not the aim of qualitative research. They maintain that the 
quantitative researcher seeks prediction and generalisation of findings, while the 
qualitative researcher seeks illumination, understanding and extrapolation to 
similar situations. The transferability of the findings of any qualitative study 
would therefore depend upon the degree of similarity between the original 
situation and the situation to which it is transferred (Lincoln & Guba, 1985:124). 
The researcher of this study has sought to follow the advice of Seale (2002: 97- 
11 0) in providing sufficient information to enable readers to judge the applicability 
of findings to other settings. 
4.8 THE LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY 
Although the researcher selected schools in different provinces, secondary and 
primary and one preparatory school, a private school and schools in both cities, 
towns and rural areas, white as well as black learners, this selection may still not 
be a complete representation of the attitudes and perceptions of educators and 
learners regarding discipline. As mentioned above, the limitations of qualitative 
studies regarding generalisation should also be taken into account. 
It has also become clear that brain preferences are not absolute and that people 
may behave "out of character" in certain circumstances. While the responses of 
the different brain dominant groups became predictive in many instances, some 
93
responses were unexpected and did not appear fully in line with the brain
dominance of the participant.
While looking for a possible solution to the present negative perception of
discipline at schools, finding the link between brain. dominance and learner
discipline may be an important one, but it would be an oversimplification to
assume it is the only link.
4.9 SUMMARY
During this study the qualitative research methodology was applied. The
research paradigm was in most part constructivist-interpretive and the research
strategy was phenomenology. The methods of data collection included
interviews, observation and open-ended questionnaires. A triangulations process
was applied in order to test the attitudes and opinions of educators regarding the
findings and recommendations as well as the legal implications of these findings
and recommendations.
The interviews and focus group sessions created opportunities for active
participation, for interaction, for the researcher to probe, to observe verbal as well
as' non-verbal communication and to gain insights during this data collection
stage of the study. Myers (2004) states that the motivation for doing qualitative
research comes from the observation that the one thing which distinguishes
humans from the natural world, is the ability to talk. This is exactly what
motivated the researcher to apply this research method. For this particular study
in which brain preferences and the link to behaviour and attitudes were crucial
elements, the qualitative method in which the "human element" is paramount,
was a natural choice.
--- --- --
CHAPTER 5 
Findings of empirical research 
INTRODUCTION 
In the previous chapter the research proc 
ess of this study was discussed. In this 
chapter the analysis of the attitudes and perceptions of the participants regarding 
school and class discipline is expounded. The interviews with individuals and 
focus groups, the open-ended questionnaires and the brain profiles of the 
participants and also the observations made by the researcher during the 
interviews were used as sources for this analysis. 
The interview schedule offers the basic structure of this discussion, but because 
of the semi-structured nature of these interviews, participants were free to voice 
their opinions and feelings on the subject of school discipline. The interview 
questions were designed to generate certain themes regarding discipline and 
other themes and subthemes emerged from these interviews and were noted by 
the researcher. The themes will be discussed separately during the analysis. 
Eight educators were interviewed again as part of a triangulation procedure to 
offer them the opportunity to comment on some of the findings and 
recommendations. Their comments will also form part of the data analysis. 
The Codes of Conduct of the participating schools will also be analysed and 
discussed in terms of those issues which have a bearing on this study. An 
interview with a legal authority on the legal implications of the findings and 
recommendations will be included in chapter 6. 
The responses of the participants were analysed by comparing them to their 
brain preferences as measured by the Neethling Brain Instrument. 
95
A short summary of the four quadrants of the brain, as indicated on this
instrument, will follow in the following paragraph.
5.2 THE FOUR QUADRANT SUMMARY
The following are key words that summarise the preferences of each of the four
quadrants of the brain.
The L1 (top left) quadrant
The L2 (bottom left) quadrant
The R1 (top right) quadrant
Focused approach Logic Important to do it right
Rational
Objective/realistic
Concrete
Factual reasoning Measuring
No nonsense approach
Mathematical Performance-driven
Accuracy
Critical (of others/self)
Goal oriented
Analysing (digging deeper)
Precision
Diagnostic
Factual memon
Essence Financial
Planning
Tradition
Practical application
Procedures
Organisation
Routine
Rules and regulations Promptness
Discipline
Structure
Step-by-step approach
Orthodox
Dedication Task-driven
Following guidelines
Details
Tidiness
Operational Safety-conscious
Result-driven
Dependable Chronological
Search for alternatives Risk
Synthesis
Idea-intuition
Comfortable with chaos Artistic
Diversity Integration
Doing many things at once Change Big picture
Association
Looking for alternatives Fantasy Strategy Speculation
Experimenting Surprise
Restless
Investigating
Unstructured Flexible Curious Unorthodox
The R2 (bottom right) quadrant 
[ Feeling orientated I Interaction I Empathy I Body language 
I I 1 
I I 
Music (emotional experience) 1 Sensitivity / Touch / Communication 
Co-operation seeking I Ambiance I Playful 
I I I 
I I 
Teamlgroup orientated 
I Participative 1 Expressive 1 Supportive 
Listening focus 
Atmosphere of caring 
I Enthusiasm / Passion People-intuition 
Score categories of the NBP are the following: very high, high, average, low or 
I I I 
very low scores. It is also important to note that candidates can have high scores 
People-environment 1 Social liaison I 
for more than one quadrant in which case the preferences of each of the 
I 
dominant quadrants may have an affect on the other. For example a strong L1 
candidate would normally not have strong preferences for emotional and 
empathic processes (R2). On the other hand, if the R2 is the second dominant 
quadrant of this candidate, helshe may be comfortable with some of these kind of 
processes and may not behave in what could be seen as a typically L1 way in all 
circumstances. 
It became clear during the analysis of the data, that some of the remarks made 
by both learners and educators during interviews, could be seen as not in 
alignment with their brain preferences. Some of these examples included strong 
L1 educators who showed strong insight into reasons for emotional behaviour by 
learners and who did not seem to insist on the teacher as the authority figure in 
class. L1 thinkers normally have strong preferences for control and authority and 
are not usually emotion-sensitive. These responses came mainly from more 
experienced educators which could indicate a willingness to apply lessons learnt 
in this regard in the past. A few strong R? learners (who were expected to be 
more critical of the rules) seemed in agreement with strong discipline. These 
examples confirmed that brain profiles are not labels which are absolute, but that 
the human psyche is unique and can be unpredictable. Although some remarks 
97
from participants could therefore be termed "out of character" for their particular
brain profile, there was generally a very strong link between the responses and
the brain preferences of the participants.
During the discussion of the data analysis, the researcher will refer to the
quadrant summary tables and use a few key words as reference.
5.3 DATA ANALYSIS
The perceptions and attitudes towards discipline of respectively learners and
educators will be analysed and reported on separately in the following
paragraphs.
5.3.1 Observations during learner contact
The researcher took notes during focus group sessions with learners to
document observations which seemed relevant to the study. These observations
were later compared to the brain profiles of the learners to determine whether
any deductions could be made regarding these observations. In each group the
'talkers' were identified. These were the learners who were comfortable sharing
their views, who did not need prompting to participate and often added
explanations and personal stories to elaborate on their responses. Some of
these elaborations were long and emotional. These participants were, without
exception, later identified as strong R2 thinkers. Their preferences for interaction
and sharing ideas were obvious from their behaviour. Some of the notes which
were added by the researcher about these participants, included "use of
gestures", "touching friend", "sitting close to friend", "emotional words" and
"sociable".
The learners that were described in the notes as "well dressed" or "neat", were
later identified as both left and right brain dominant learners. On the other hand,
what did seem significant, was that the few who were described in notes as "not
-- -
--- -- -
very neat1' and "seemed dishevelled" were all R1 dominant. The participant who 
was observed wearing a ring at school, was also R1 dominant. These thinkers 
are often unconventional and not comfortable with strict rules and boundaries. 
Other observations that proved to be significant, included those regarding 
learners who were obviously more reserved, who seemed to want to make a 
good impression and talked less than the rest of the group. These were mostly 
left brain dominant learners. One such note the researcher repeated a few times, 
viz. "seems careful when answering" described only left brain dominant learners. 
A general observation was that participants in the rural schools were on the 
whole more reserved and polite. 
5.3.2 Attitudes and perceptions of learners 
The data collected during focus group interviews and from the short 
questionnaires, were analysed in order to determine the attitudes and 
perceptions of learners. Learners were assured of the confidentiality of the 
interviews and that their names would not be linked to their remarks during 
interviews. They spoke openly about discipline in general, about what they 
experienced as fair or unfair punishment, what they disliked regarding the 
behaviour of other learners and educators and offered opinions on how 
misbehaviour should be dealt with. As was mentioned in the introduction, certain 
themes and subthemes emer~ed which will be discussed here. 
5.3.2.1 Punishment 
The subthemes discussed here are misbehaviour that is most regularly punished 
and punishment that has the worse effect on learners. 
Misbehaviour most regularly punished 
When asked which misbehaviour they were punished for most regularly, the most 
common response from learners was talking in class. Although this was a 
general response, most of these responses were made by those with strong R2 
preferences (for interaction, expression and sharing). The learners who made 
remarks like "I get punished for many things", ".. for not doing homework" and 
99
who mentioned unruly behaviour like throwing things around and shouting out
were with one exception the strong R1 learners (who have preferences for
unstructured thinking, flexibility and experimentation). Some learners, when
asked what they were punished for most, replied that they do not really get
punished, or were unable to think of anything specific and therefore implied to the
researcher these were "well-behaved" learners. These learners were, with a few
exceptions, those with strong left brain preferences (for discipline, rational
thinking, structure and task-driven). When a learner at one school mentioned that
he got into trouble regularly for forgetting to do homework, a strong left brain
learner remarked, "That's why we have diaries." In the questionnaire completed
by the eight educators as part of the triangulation process, the finding that left
brain learners seemed more likely to obey school rules, was generally accepted
by most of the educators.
. Punishment which has the worst effect
The question during the interview on what punishment made them feel the worst,
was designed to elicit emotional responses from some learners. Not only did the
responses of learners reveal much about their brain preferences, but also the
words and phrases used by some and how much they were willing to reveal.
Only the strong R2 learners (with preferences for expressing feeling for example)
used phrases like "what really hurts", "human dignity", "being misjudged",
"embarrassed in front of everyone" and R2 dominant learners were also the
participants who embellished their remarks by telling several stories of such
incidents, including their own experiences and those of others. These learners
were also the participants who used the word "unfair" the most and mentioned
most often how bad they felt about the reaction of other learners when they
misbehaved (laughing, making fun of them, being spoken about afterwards).
One R2 dominant learner repeated several times during the interview that being
moved away from her friend for bad behaviour was the worst punishment for her.
Learners from all the quadrants mentioned that having their parents informed or
called to school for bad behaviour would be one of the worst punishments, but it
was mainly the R2 dominant learners who also mentioned this as a means of 
punishment which would probably have a positive affect for future behaviour. 
These feeling and people oriented learners seemed to have the insight that when 
those you care about are informed of bad behaviour, it may help to ensure better 
behaviour in the future. The left brain dominant learners had far less to say 
during these discussions on punishment and even when prompted to respond, 
had to often think hard to come up with a response. Again this appeared to be 
because these learners were generally better behaved and did not receive 
punishment often. 
5.3.2.2 Rules 
The subthemes discussed here include those rules that were seen as 
unnecessary or unfair, rules learners would like to see changed, the motives for 
the criticism of rules and whether the opinions on rules differed in different 
schools. 
Unnecessarylunfair rules 
When asked about the code of conduct and whether they regarded certain rules 
as unnecessary or whether they would like to see certain rules added, a number 
of participants remarked about their school's rules regarding hair and clothing 
specifically and some talked about other less serious offences they saw as 
unnecessary or unfair. The responses can be grouped into different categories, 
viz. those who were adamant about many of these rules that were unnecessary 
or too strict, those who took a more personal stance and those who did not think 
any of the rules should be changed. Mainly R1 and R2 dominant learners took a 
strong stance against certain rules. The difference between the suggestions of 
R2 dominant learners and others, were the use of emotional words and the 
emphasis on fairness. Rules regarding the use of hair gel, the length of hair, the 
colouring of hair and certain clothing items which were compulsory were 
remarked on in all the schools. Most learners, left and right brain dominant, 
remarked on "minor" rules like the rule regarding the colour of hair ties which 
should be more lenient. In the written questionnaire the question about unfair 
101
rules was restated to include unfair punishment. Both left and right brain
dominant learners saw punishing all for the transgression of one or a few as
unfair.
. Changing rules
Regarding the change of rules, it became clear during the interview sessions,
that most learners were in favour of changing some of the rules. Those that were
adamant about changing rules to allow the colouring and gel of hair, even to be
allowed to wear make-up and ordinary clothes were mostly learners with strong
R1 preferences (for flexibility, being unconventional and experimental).
Although some left brain learners would support the criticism of some rules,
hardly any of these learners suggested changes themselves. In the short
questionnaire, the majority of learners who answered the question, "What school
rule do you consider unnecessary" with "none", were the left brain dominant
learners. Some of the criticisms that were considered by the researcher as out of
the ordinary, included "we are not allowed to draw on each other", "we should be
allowed choose whether we want to write cursive or to print" and "we should be
allowed to wear ordinary clothes". These remarks were made exclusively by R1
dominant learners.
. Motives for criticism
It became clear after several interviews, that the motives of certain learners for
criticising certain school rules differed from the rest of the group. These learners
saw themselves as being deprived of certain "rights" and talked about unfair rules
and that "teachers do not care about us". These learners tested high in the R2
quadrant, showing preferences for amongst others caring, sensitivity and
sharing. They remarked about not being allowed to drink water or to eat in class,
about being "judged" by educators because of their dress and about the
unfairness of not being allowed to talk to certain teachers and to explain their
behaviour. Although they received some support from learners stronger in other
quadrants, it was the R2 learners who often emotionally stated their case and
spoke about unfair and uncaring treatment by educators and that educators
would eat and drink in class but not allow the learners to do the same.
--- - --- --
-- -- -- - --- -
102
. Opinions in different schools
Generally the criticism of school and class rules was stronger in the urban than in
the rural schools. This was obvious during focus group sessions as well as from
the short questionnaire. The issues remarked on in rural schools were relatively
minor in nature than those discussed in the urban schools. This supported the
general opinion held by learners as well as educators in both urban and rural
schools that discipline was worse in urban than in rural schools. There was no
marked difference between primary and high schools, although this could be due
to the fact that only grade 7 learners were interviewed at primary schools.
5.3.2.3 The behaviour of other learners
Participants were generally very forthcoming about what irritated them about the
behaviour of other learners. They were asked this question in the interviews and
also in the short questionnaire. The learners who mentioned disrespect or gave a
description of disrespectful behaviour (for example "they are intentionally
disobedient" or "swearing") were mostly R2 dominant learners (with preferences
for sensitivity and being supportive). The few that mentioned others being "no
fun" or boring because they told the same jokes or stories over and over, were all
R1 dominant learners (with preferences for alternatives and diversity). Remarks
like "no co-operation", "they don't care about others", "those that make you feel
bad" and "those that are full of themselves" came mostly from R2 dominant
learners, again showing their preferences for sensitivity and an environment of
caring. Those who mentioned others talking making it difficult for them to
concentrate, were mostly strong L2 learners. These learners are usually
conscientious and dedicated. The few right brain dominant learners who also
referred to others talking when they wanted to listen to the teacher as irritating,
all had average to strong preferences in the left brain quadrants as well. The
word "bossy" was used by two learners who were both strong L1 thinkers, to
describe what they disliked in others. As L1 thinkers often like to be in control,
control by others may not sit well with these learners.
103
5.3.2.4 Maintaining discipline
The subthemes regarding the maintenance of discipline that will be discussed
here, are the code of conduct, class rules and corporal punishment.
. Code of conduct and class rules
In the schools which took part in this research, different systems and procedures
are in place for dealing with misbehaviour, but all include some form of merit and
demerit system. In most of the schools, learners did not seem to have much
insight into the code of conduct and had little general comment in this regard.
They understood the school's particular disciplinary system and how it affected
them. As mentioned in paragraph 5.3.2.2 they commented mostly on hair and
clothing rules and strong criticism came mostly from right brain dominant
learners. In some of the schools a warning system is in place. whereby each
warning is recorded and punishments occur after a set number of warnings.
During the interviews, this system elicited criticism from a number of learners,
with R2 learners taking a strong stance on the unfairness of some of these
warnings, because they did not always, according to them, have an opportunity
to explain themselves. It may therefore be argued that the problem is not
necessarily in the formulation of the code of conduct, but rather in the
implementation thereof. R2 learners are especially sensitive of unfair educators
not abiding by the rules of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem
principle. Only a few learners admitted to not knowing the school rules at all and
these were all R1 dominant learners. Most participants did not know whether
learners were involved in the development of a code of conduct and none of
those taking part in the research had been involved in such a process. In one of
the participating high schools the participants commented that a representative
from each class had input in the code of conduct but were not absolutely certain
about the extent of their participation in the process.
. Corporal punishment
When asked to remark on discipline in general during interview sessions, many
learners were of the opinion that discipline is worse than it used to be. One of the
reasons some learners gave for this was the abolishment of corporal
--
104
punishment. This was not a theme included in the interview schedule, but
emerged several times. When asked directly, learners with left as well as right
brain dominant quadrants expressed uncertainty about whether it should be
brought back as a mode of punishment. None of the learners included in this
study had any experience of corporal punishment as a legal form of punishment
in schools. A few learners responded that it should be reinstated because the
only way some learners would learn is "if they feel". These responses were made
by L1 and L2 learners. A few remarked that they are against corporal punishment
as learners should not be hurt. Most of these learners were R2 dominant. In
many cases it was clear that the opinions of parents regarding corporal
punishment were repeated by the learners.
5.3.2.5 General views on discipline
During interviews, most learners expressed the opinion that discipline is worse
than it used to be. They blamed younger learners that were behaving in ways
that they would not have done, they blamed parents who were not strict enough
and allowed children "to get away with more" and the abolishment of corporal
punishment. Learners who criticised educators for the increase in misbehaviour
were mainly right brain dominant learners and R2 thinkers more than any of the
other quadrant groups. Some of these criticisms included remarks like "they
don't allow us to explain", "we are punished even if we put up our hand to ask
something", "we receive warnings unnecessarily" (referring to warnings which
form part of a demerit system) and "we are called barbarians when that is what
they are", Criticism of educators were more prevalent in urban than in rural
schools. There appeared to be no difference between primary and high school
learners regarding their criticism of educators. As mentioned before, this could be
due to the fact that only grade 7 learners were interviewed at primary schools.
The following matrix gives an indication of the responses made most regularly by
learners during interview sessions and in the short questionnaire regarding the
different themes.
105
5.3.2.6
Matrix of learner responses
A summary of learner responses made most regularly during interviews and in
the questionnaires, is represented in the following matrix. Some of these
responses have already been referred to in the previous sections.
PUNISHMENT L1 L2
R1 R2
Mostregularly Notreally Notreally Formanythings;not
Talking;eatinginclass
punished punished doinghomework;
throwingthings
around;messup;
shoutout
Worsteffect
None;nounfair
None
Office;parents Notallowedtoexplain;all
punishment punishedforone;
punishedinfrontof
wholeschool;unfair-
ness;detentionduring
breakandnotallowedto
eat;negativecomments
byteacher;teachers
don'tcare;embarrassed;
misjudged;parents(hurts
most);insulted;children
laugh
RULES L1 L2 R1 R2
Unnecessaryl
None;notone;
None;good; Gel;talkinginrows; Drinkoreatinclass;
unfair
norules;well
noproblems writinglonghandor judged;notallowedto
addressed;a
not;wearingschool explain;norights;
reasonforall shoes
teachersdon'tcare;
schoolrules
movedawayfromfriend
Change
None None
Hairrules;colourof
Eatinginclass;not
hairties;ordinary
allowedtositnextto
clothes;tuckinginof friend;toystoschool;talk
shirt;make-up;length whileworking;
ofhair(boys)
Behaviourof
Talkingwhen Talkingand Nofun;boring;tell Swearing;intentionally
otherlearners
teacherbusy
can't
samejokes,stories disobedient;don'tcare;
withimportant
concentrate; fullofthemselves;no
things;bossy;
badbehaviour
respect;makinafun;
106
In the following paragraphs, the attitudes and opinions of educators towards
discipline will be analysed.
5.3.3 Observations during educator interviews
The researcher took notes during the individual interviews with educators of
observations which appeared to be relevant to the study. Several educators were
noted as 'talkers', in other words those who spoke without prompting, spoke at
length at times relating personal experiences and those of their learners. These
were found during analysis of the data to be mostly R2 dominant educators. One
educator who spoke at length, and often lost his train of thought did not have
badbehaviour; lookingforattention;
won'tlisten;
hurtful;childish;dirty
can'thear
language;talkingabout
others;makeyoufeel
badaboutyourself;no
co-operation
MAINTAINING L1 L2 R1 R2
DISCIPLINE
Codeof
Noproblemwith
Allrules
Unnecessaryrules; Warningsunfair;
conduct rules
necessary;
toostrict;don'tknow
unnecessaryrules;no
shouldhave rules
opportunitytoexplain;if
stricterrules learnernotallowedtoeat
onback-chat etc.teachershouldnot
be;teacherssayweare
barbarians- thatishow
theyact
CORPORAL Goodforthemto
Goodtofeelit;
Maybe Maybe;couldbeworse
PUNISHMENT
feelit;onlyway good- they
theylisten willlearn;yes,
bringitback;
someaskfor
hidings
GENERAL Worsethan Worsethan Worse
Worse;childrenarerude;
VIEWSON
before;clothes before;they don'tcare;norespect
DISCIPLINE
betterinpast getawaywith
things;they
takechances
107
strong R2 preferences. He appeared to contradict himself when supporting the
strict control and discipline of the past on the one hand and on the other hand
supporting the notion that educators should change their attitude towards
discipline. In this case his struggling to reach the point of his discussion and the
apparent contradiction in attitude could be explained by the fact that he had
strong scores in the L1 as well as the R1 quadrants.
An observation that was made several times was 'a very caring attitude when
talking about learners and displays a softness'. These notes also described R2
dominant educators. Another observation that was repeated a few times referred
to educators who portrayed a caring attitude, but researcher also added notes
that indicated a possible paradox regarding this observation. These notes
included comments like 'also a supporter of corporal punishment', 'strong on
control' and 'control and a traditional approach to education seem to dominate
caring attitude at times'. When these observations were compared to their brain
profiles, it was found that these educators had strong R2 preferences but also
had strong preferences in one or both of the left brain quadrants. A general
observation that was documented after the interviews with educators at a
preparatory school (grades one to three) was that, although all these educators
appeared to have strong caring attitudes, most of them also appeared very
strong on control, emphasised quietness in class, the importance of controlling
the behaviour of learners, even supporting corporal punishment as the best
measure to punish these young learners. These educators were all found to be
R2 as well as L2 dominant. Other observations of a possible 'paradox' in the
comments and attitudes of some educators, were later, during data analysis,
linked to the brain profiles of the participants and more specifically to the
combinations of the dominant quadrants. Some of these educators had strong L1
as well as R1 preferences (for control and authority as well as flexibility) and
others had similar scores in all their quadrants which indicates a balance
between the preferences represented by each of the quadrants.
-- - --- - - -- - - ---
108
5.3.4 Attitudes and perceptions of educators
Data collected during the interviews were analysed in order to determine the
attitudes and perceptions of educators. Educators were, as in the case of
learners, also assured of the confidentiality of the interviews and that their names
would not be linked to their responses. Teachers aired their views about
discipline in general and about specific areas which they perceived as
problematic. The themes and subthemes which were part of the design of the
interview schedule and those which emerged during the interviews will be
discussed here.
5.3.4.1 Code of conduct and school rules
During the individual interviews, most educators expressed their satisfaction with
the code of conduct of their respective schools. Those that called for stricter rules
on issues like clothing and hair for example were all left brain dominant and in
contrast those who admitted that they thought some of the rules regarding these
issues mentioned, could be less strict, were, with a few exceptions, right brain
dominant participants. The latter made remarks like "these rules are not relevant
anymore", "I don't have an issue with these things" (Afr.: "het nie 'n saak
daarmee nie") and "I am always trying to change unnecessary rules". Another
criticism which was voiced a few times concerned the process of dealing with
misbehaviour which was either too laborious and long (mostly R1 participants) or
was not followed through (L2 participants, who have strong preferences for
procedure and are result-driven).
Another response which was repeated a few times concerned the participation of
parents in the code of conduct. These varied from 'the code of conduct should
state that parents should believe educators regarding their children's' behaviour'
(from a L1 dominant educator), 'parents can sometimes overreact (Afr. 'hulle kan
erg wees') when their children break the rules' (from a R1 dominant educator),
'parents are not involved enough and don't support us enough', 'I am looking for
co-operation from parents' (from R2 dominant educators).
109
5.3.4.2 Corporal punishment
Many of the educators interviewed were in favour of corporal punishment
regaining legal status as a mode of punishing misbehaving learners. Their views
varied from those who were adamant that it was the only solution, to others who
hesitantly remarked that maybe there was a place for it, but then controlled and
only administered by the principal. When comparing their responses to their brain
profiles, the following pattern emerged: Those who admitted using corporal
punishment in the past (and some individuals who admitted that they still do) and
swore by the success of this method of punishment were predominantly L1 or L2
dominant educators. This is probably because of their strong preferences for
control, authority and disciplined behaviour. Remarks from these educators were
for example, "I feel certain boys need it and certain girls should be rapped", "I
never had problems when I could hit (Afr. "foeter") them", "I am a great supporter
of corporal punishment" and "it was the only way children listened". These type
of remarks were made by male as well as female educators. A similar pattern of
responses regarding corporal punishment emerged amongst educators of lower
grade learners (grades 1 to 3). Few educators were completely against this form
of punishment, but those who did express strongly that they did not want to see it
return, were all R2 dominant educators. Their reasons were amongst others that
it is "bad for children emotionally", "not a good thing for children", "it makes them
aggressive" and "discipline should be preventative". Some of the right brain
dominant educators (R1 and R2) who did support corporal punishment cited the
disciplinary process in schools today with its amount of paperwork, the length of
time it takes and the negative self image of learners it cultivates, as a worse
choice.
5.3.4.3
The role of the educator in the classroom
Most educators accepted the fact that the role of the teacher had changed from
purely the authority figure in the classroom and that learners should also have a
say. Most (left and right brain dominant educators) spoke about a balance that
should be created. A few strong left brain dominant educators were adamant,
-- - - - - - - - - ---
110
though, that the educator still had the authority and could say "because I say so",
They made remarks like "the old days were wonderful", "that is how it should be"
and "I can't handle it when they overstep". In contrast the few who made a point
of stressing that authority as previously implemented in the classroom does not
work any more, were mainly right brain dominant educators and mostly R1
dominant. A few of the latter spoke about being uncomfortable with strict
authority. R1 dominant thinkers are rarely comfortable with strict authority, control
and a lack of flexibility.
5.3.4.4 Learner behaviour
The issues regarding learner behaviour that will be discussed here are emotional
or sensitive learners, challenging learners and untidy work and bad handwriting.
. Emotional/sensitive learners
Educators were asked how they handle emotional learners in class. It was the
researcher's impression that most educators saw this as a question that needed
a "favourable" answer, in other words they needed to express that they could
handle this behaviour in a positive way. What did emerge from the responses
was the remark that "we are not all the same" which were repeated by several
educators when explaining why they felt emotional learners should be handled in
a sensitive way. These remarks came from right brain dominant and mainly R2
dominant educators. Only R2 dominant educators said that they often cry along
or hug learners who are upset. Male educators most often said that they would
ignore this behaviour at first or that they would refer them to someone else to talk
to. The general perception of the researcher was that educators would not
handle emotional learners in an insensitive manner.
. Challenging learners
When asked how they handle learners who challenge and question them in
class, the interpretation of the question by educators was revealing. Some
educators immediately interpreted the "challenging" learner as negative and went
on to explain how they would handle this misbehaviour. They remarked that they
demanded proof of being wrong when challenged by a learner, that they found
111
this behaviour difficult, that they punished defiant behaviour and still believe in
saying "because I say so". These remarks were made by L1 dominant educators
mostly (who have preferences for authority, a no nonsense approach and focus),
by L2 dominant educators or by those who had low scores in the R1 quadrant (in
other words with low preferences for flexibility, unstructured environments and
unorthodox behaviour). This attitude was not only apparent when interviewing
educators of senior grades but even those of grades one to three. Other
educators, however, interpreted the question in a more positive light and
remarked that they liked challenging learners, going so far as to say they were
"mad about it" and that these challenging learners were often the bright students.
These remarks were made mainly by educators with strong R1 preferences (for
alternatives, speculation and investigation).
. Untidy work and bad handwriting
It was clear to the researcher that educators were for the most part, well informed
about possible medical or other reasons for untidy work or bad handwriting. In
most cases they implied that these reasons would first be investigated before any
steps would be taken against learners. Several left and right brain dominant
educators indicated that neat work is important. What became clear from the
remarks of educators, was that many of the right brain dominant educators
expressed concern for learners who wrote untidily on the one hand, and on the
other hand made excuses for such writing. Remarks varied from more caring
remarks like, "people differ; I have empathy", "bad handwriting can adversely
affect their essay marks" and "I give them exercises to help them improve" to
remarks like "some things you can't change", "I struggle with it myself' and "I
don't write too wonderful myself'.
Generally educators of lower grades in both rural and urban primary schools,
were more strict about neatness than high school educators. Two left brain
primary school educators remarked that they have to be strict as this would
reflect on them when learners went to high school.
--
112
5.3.4.5 Maintaining discipline
Nearly all educators thought that discipline had worsened during the last number
of years. The vast majority blamed this on the parents who, according to
educators, are not involved with their children enough, who allow them too much
and who do not support educators when children need to be punished for
misbehaviour. Some blamed the OBE system and one strong left brain educator
said she "absolutely refuses to do group work" as learners have to be absolutely
quiet (Afr.: "tjoepstil") in her class. Educators in the schools in rural areas which
took part in this research, felt the discipline in their schools was much better than
in urban areas. Educators in the urban schools agreed with this sentiment.
Only two educators thought discipline had improved because of the more open
and caring way indiscipline could be dealt with at present. They were both strong
right brain thinkers.
5.3.4.6 Matrix of educator responses
The following matrix is an exposition of the responses made by educators most
often during interviews. Some of these responses have already been referred to
in the previous sections.
Code of L1 L2 R1 R2
conduct
Strictonhair,
Notfollowing
Codeofconductis
Moreopentoday-
clothes- createsa
throughon nevercomplete;
learnerscantalkto
disciplinedculture; procedures;our
somerulesare
you;explaining
likeorder codeofconduct
irrelevant;don't
betterthannegative
good;department
haveissuewith
record;longprocess
isagainstus;like this;alwaystrying badforselfimageof
thestrict
tochangerules;
learner;successlies
procedure;a good
laborious
incaring;bestif
system;I usethe procedures;hate parentsinvolved;
systemstrictly; paperwork;process successthrough
rulesaregood
iswasteoftime;not interaction;positive
toobotheredabout
affirmation;I allow
smallthings;not talkingoncetheyare
verystrictabout working;buddy
clothesetc.
systemworks
113
Corporal
Canwork;I ama Canbegood Maybe;sometimes Onlywithimpartial
punishment greatsupporter;
person;no- more
someneed positiveresultswith
direction;still place
praise;cannotdo it
for it; boysneedit,
at all; farbetter
girlsshouldbe
without;no,just
rapped;no
makesthem
problemswhenI
aggressive;long
couldhit processis too
neaative
Role of
BecauseI sayso Olddays
I havepersonally A softerapproach-
educator
still useful;I wonderful;don't changedsome
reasonsfor
demandrespect; likefamiliarity;I
rules;atmosphere
behaviourcomeout;
unfortunatelyno recordeverything;
shouldbemore
they perkupwhenI
completeauthority; needmoreprecise
relaxed;bothhave sit oncarpetwith
I amoften instructions
rightto talk;not
them
authoritarian comfortablewith
authority;strict
authoritycan'twork
Learner
behaviour
Emotionall
Notverygood;
Letthemtakea Wearenotall the
Try to help;we are
sensitive
ignorecompletely; walk;tryto stay
same;weare all unique;each
don'tlikeit;firmif I calm;removechild unique
child anindividual;
thinkit is a formof fromclass needto know
manipulation
reasons;tryto
understand;talkto
them;needa hug
and to be listened
to; I amemotional
too; haveempathy;
enjoythissideof
teaching;
understandingis
mostimportant
Challenging FirstproveI am Struggleto manage Theyhavemore
Handlethemwith
wrong;I knowI am
them;dislikewhen confidence; care;am
right;feel I haveto routineis disrupted;
creativelearners;
comfortable;praise
bein control
certainthingsnot likethis;theywant
thema lot
negotiable;strict;
to knowmore;to
can'thandleit; find findout;don't
it difficult
pretendyouknow
everything;
understandit:they
wantto arguea
point;likethemin
myclass;thebright
learners;loveit-
keepsme onmy
toes;usehumour
114
The codes of conduct of the schools involved in the research were also
considered as a source for this analysis.
5.3.5 The codes of conduct of the participating schools
The codes of conduct of the participating schools and 4 other schools selected at
random were studied and analysed in terms of those issues which have
relevance to this study. The education law determinants, the participants involved
in the drawing up of these codes and the content of the codes will be discussed
here.
5.3.5.1 The education law determinants
According to chapter 2 of the South African Schools Act (SA, 1996b) the code of
conduct, as determined in s. 8(2) of this act, should be aimed at "establishing a
disciplined and purposeful school environment" and also one which contains
provisions "of due process safeguarding the interests of the learner" in
disciplinary proceedings (SA,1996b). Section 4 of the guidelines for this code of
conduct (Department of Education Notice 776 of 1998) spells out the rights such
as democracy, non-discrimination, dignity and freedom of expression, to name a
Untidy/bad Theyloseout;can Verystrict;havea
Teachthemnew
Strugglewith it
handwriting beverystrict maniaaboutit; I
strategies;wantto myself;feelsorryfor
liketidywork; breakthe pattern; them;it is subjective
maybetoostrict ignoreit inolder
learners;struggle
withit myself;not
an issue;8Slongas
I canread
Maintaining
Worse;OBEand Worse;hardwork Worse;weshould
Worse;moreopen
discipline groupworkthe to maintain;it will
allowthemto
systemcangrow
problem;good becomeworse; spreadtheirwings; confidence;better-
educatorsleaving parentsnotstrict
mustbea better cantalkandbe
profession;it will enough system;startat caring;nosupport
becomeworse;
home
fromparents;like
don'ttakenoticeof
thewayyoucan
threats;parents walka pathwiththe
don'tdiscipline learner;no respect
fromparents
115
few, which should be firmly entrenched in the code of conduct of each school. In
half of the codes of conduct studied, some reference was made to the education
law determinants or to the rights of learners. Only two of the documents studied
quoted the laws which had a direct bearing on the code of conduct and on
human rights. Most of the documents studied, stated the aim of these codes as
an introduction, others proceeded directly to the rules and punishments as
applied in the specific school. Generally these aims highlighted respect, social
values, pride and loyalty, responsibility, discipline and sharing. Only two codes of
conduct studied referred to the relevant legislation when explaining the
procedures in place when dealing with certain types of transgressions and the
right of learners to appeal against disciplinary decisions was mentioned in only
two of the documents. This seems a serious omission when taking into account
the SASA s. 8(5) which states that CIAcode of conduct must contain provisions of
due process safeguarding the interests of the learner and any other party
involved in disciplinary proceedings".
5.3.5.2
Contributors to the Code of Conduct
As stated in chapter 2 of the SASA the Code of Conduct, as a standard of moral
behaviour, must be a document which involves input from not only the governing
body, staff and parents, but learners as well. In all the schools that took part in
this research, not one learner how participated had ever been involved in the
drawing up of a code of conduct and hardly any knew who were. In some of the
schools the educators informed the researcher that neither learners nor parents
were involved, except for the input of the governing body which was seen as the
parents' voice. In a minority of the schools the SRC had some involvement, but
then only in matters such as uniforms. None of the codes of conduct studied
stated who the participants of the document were. This seemed a significant
hiatus in these documents when the SASA in s.8(1) states categorically that
schools "must adopt a code of conduct for the learners after consultation with the
learners, parents and educators of the school". In section 4 of the guidelines for
the codes of conduct (Department of Education Notice 776 of 1998) it is
-- - - -
--- - - --
116
stipulated that all learners have the right to, among others, participate in
decision-making about matters affecting them at the school and the right to have
their views heard about these matters. As mentioned before, several learners,
especially R2 dominant thinkers, felt they had no say regarding certain rules, felt
ignored and blamed educators for not giving them the opportunity to voice their
opinion. Many learners, especially R1 learners, thought certain rules regarding
hair, clothes and other minor issues were too strict and out-dated. Some, mostly
R1 educators, agreed with this sentiment. As stated by Roos (2003: 511), when
learners are involved in the formulation of school and classroom rules,
responsibility is fostered instead of blind obedience. A code of conduct in which
only the views of certain individuals (in most cases only certain educators) are
always considered, may be in danger of being discriminatory. As this research
has revealed, learners have different attitudes towards discipline and even
though they may differ radically from traditional views, they still need to be heard,
their views taken into account or at least addressed in order to make learners
feel that they are allowed to have opinions in the first place. This may bring the
"buy in" into the code of conduct that is absent from most schools today. The
participation of learners in composing the code of conduct was stated as a
recommendation in the triangulation questionnaire and elicited only positive
responses from left as well as right brain dominant educators. A general
conclusion the researcher made regarding the codes of conduct, was that the
voices of the learners were mainly silent in these documents.
5.3.5.3 The content of the codes of conduct
In most cases, the codes of conduct studied are comprehensive documents.
They list detailed rules and in some cases the disciplinary steps and procedures
for different categories of misbehaviour. Most of the codes of conduct include
sections on clothes, punctuality, property, neatness (of self and school), serious
misconduct (such as drugs, weapons, theft), disciplinary procedures and other
general class and school rules. The rules are stated in a very precise and
detailed manner. For example, most of the documents spell out the time of
117
different bells, the exact behaviour after each bell, (for example "no exuberance",
"absolute silence"), they include long and descriptive lists of what is not allowed,
elaborating on many issues. The rules regarding hair are generally very inflexible
and include rules like "hair must be its natural colour; it may not be dyed or
peroxided; no plaits, strings, bangles and dreadlocks allowed", "unusual hair
styles, perms and colouring not permitted", "the fringe may not touch the
eyebrows" and "only blue hair accessories may be worn". The content and style
of these documents could generally be described as left brain dominant. They
are inflexible, detailed, critical and authoritarian. A measure of flexibility,
encouragement to achieve the goals of the code, awards and incentives which
would be representative of a right brain dominant style, are in most part absent
from these documents.
It may be argued that flexibility and encouragement are not part and parcel of
such documents which have to set hard and fast rules and should leave no room
for argument or doubt. The fact that two of the documents studied incorporated
categories of commendation for good behaviour and that the Code of Conduct of
one of the participating schools contain excellent examples of flexibility,
contradict such an unyielding attitude towards the style of such documents. It is
interesting to note that the school found to have a flexible Code of Conduct, is a
rural high school. Examples of this flexible approach to rules are "hair
accessories may be dark blue, white, silver or brown", "if hair is permed, it has to
be combed out neatly and fastened", "Africa plaits are allowed if they are
fastened in one ponytail", "hair may not be coloured in an unnatural way", "newly
coloured hair may not be more than one shade lighter or darker than the natural
hair colour" and "belly rings may not be visible and must be removed or covered
when taking part in physical activities". At this particular school the researcher
conducted interviews with the principal as well as 7 other educators at the
school. One educator also took part in the follow-up cross-examination interview.
It was obvious that all educators saw discipline at their school as generally
excellent. Although most educators and learners participating in this research
study were of the opinion that discipline was better at rural than at urban schools,
- ------- -----
118
it was clear that this flexible approach to rules had more of a positive effect than
a negative one. The merit system of one of the schools which was incorporated
in their Code of Conduct involves a pride card (Afr. "spogkaart") earned by
learners who consistently behave well that enables them to buy at discount at
certain businesses in their town. This was another rural school where the
general opinion of educators was that the discipline at their school was excellent.
On the other hand, the fact that most educators in the participating schools
remarked on the deterioration of discipline in schools today, must imply that
having a well-documented code of conduct and one which spells out the rules
and procedures for dealing with misconduct in detail is not enough.
Taking into account the responses of learners as well as educators regarding
school discipline in general, the codes of conduct of the schools and the attitudes
of participants to these codes of conduct, the following conclusion was reached.
5.4 SUMMARY
The participants for this research were chosen mainly on the ground of their
varied brain profiles. This was essential in determining whether specific brain
preferences would influence attitudes towards and perceptions of discipline.
5.4.1 Learners
It appeared that the more unruly learners and those that had most criticism for
certain school rules, were strong right brain dominant learners. They are less
comfortable with strict rules, they are more unstructured, take risks more readily
and are less likely to conform. Traditional school rules and inflexible school
environments are less likely to suit them. They were also the most challenging,
not accepting everything they are told. The conclusions regarding challenging
learners, attitudes towards rules regarding hair and clothes, the R2 dominant
learners, learners with left and right brain dominant quadrants and some general
remarks will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
119
. Challenging learners
The finding that right brain dominant learners were generally more challenging
than other learners were included in the interview schedule for cross-
examination. All educators (left and right brain dominant) who responded to this
questionnaire, agreed with these findings. The attitudes of educators towards
these learners were revealing. They were mostly seen as difficult and this
behaviour as misbehaviour by left brain dominant educators, while a number of
right brain dominant educators saw this as a positive, as a sign of "cleverness"
and even as something they enjoyed very much. The researcher saw this as an
example of how positive educator attitudes towards these learners could lead to
tolerance and better behaviour.
A few points regarding the Bill of Rights (SA, 1996a) discussed in chapter 2,
need closer attention here. Section 15 of the Bill describes the freedom of
opinion and section 16 states that everyone has the right to freedom of
expression which includes the "freedom to receive or impart information or
ideas". It is the impression of the researcher that because of differing brain
preferences, some educators are infringing on these rights of learners, because
of a "say as I say and do as I do" attitude. Learners expressing an opinion and
imparting ideas are in other words seen as disrespectful by these educators. The
researcher is by no means advocating disrespect and that learners have a right
to say what they like at all times. Good manners, respect and values should
always be paramount and in all communication the human dignity of others
should be respected and protected, as stated in s. 10 of the Constitution (SA,
1996). But when a learner's ideas and opinions are constantly disregarded,
ridiculed and punished because they do not agree with the educator's point of
view, the learner's right to freedom of opinion may be in danger of being violated.
This situation is exacerbated when educators are willing to entertain opinions of
learners who agree with their own. Section 9 of the Bill of Rights is also called
into question when these situations could be seen as examples of unfair
discrimination. In the National Education Policy Act 27 of 1996 s. 4(i) it is stated
--------- - --
120
that the national education policy shall be directed towards encouraging
independent and critical thought. It seems that in many instances the
"independent and critical" thoughts of learners are seen as misbehaviour and
punished in stead of encouraged.
. Attitudes towards rules regarding clothes and hair
The right brain dominant learners also had the most negative remarks about
rules regarding clothes and hair. Some left brain dominant learners agreed, but
seldom took the initiative to criticise these rules. This seemed to strengthen the
conclusion that these learners are more comfortable and accepting of traditional
rules and more likely to abide by these rules. These were also the learners who
rarely mentioned being punished for any of these type of transgressions.
. R2 dominant learners
The strong R2 learners appeared to be mostly in trouble for talking. Many of
them were very critical of educators who did not seem to care or who did not
treat them fairly. They often spoke of being hurt, embarrassed and not given the
opportunity to explain themselves. Section 10 of the Bill of Rights calls for the
dignity of all to be respected and protected. If educators deal with these students
by using hurtful insults, sarcasm and humiliating labels, this could be seen as an
infringement on this right.
. Learners with left and right brain dominant quadrants
As was mentioned in 5.2, it is possible to have more than one dominant
quadrant. What was also clear, was that participants who had a strong right brain
quadrant as well as a strong left brain quadrant, were far less likely to criticise
rules and modes of punishment. These left brain preferences (for discipline and
structure possibly) seemed to balance many of the right brain preferences when
it came to discipline.
. General conclusions
Their perception that the rules and the school environment are too inflexible,
appeared to be the major problems for right brain dominant learners. They
generally expressed criticism towards educators who did not listen to their side or
did not allow them to state their case. Educators "who did not care" about them,
121
was a sentiment stated several times. Some seemed truly hurt about what they
perceived to be disinterest or lack of understanding of educators. It was obvious
that these right brain dominant learners were generally those that got into trouble
most regularly for misbehaving. It is the researcher's deduction that this is as
much a result of the learners' brain dominance as the educators' lack of insight
into the reasons for some of the behaviour of these right brain dominant learners.
The National Education Policy act 27 of 1996 states that the new education
system will "contribute to the full personal development of each student" and that
it will recognise "the aptitudes, abilities, interests, prior knowledge and
experience of students". A system where these brain preferences are not taken
into account can not fully contribute to the personal development of its learners.
Left brain dominant learners were generally far more acceptable of rules and
processes in place in their schools. They often agreed with other learners on
minor issues (colour of hair ties or not being allowed to play ball in the
quadrangle for example), but seldom brought these up themselves. They also
appeared to be the more well-behaved learners who did not get into trouble
often. The more structured environment and set rules and procedures in place in
schools, seem to suit these learners better than their right brain dominant peers.
This was one of the findings included in the interview schedule of the 8 educators
selected for cross-examination. A comment by one educator (strongly right brain
dominant) that upbringing and therefore values and good manners would play an
important role here, was a valid remark. In other words, a poor upbringing would
most probably affect the behaviour of even strong left brain dominant learners in
a negative way. Another comment regarding this finding stated that left brain
dominant learners do react well to discipline on the understanding that it is
applied in a structured and consistent manner. Misbehaviour by other learners
was also met with disapproval mostly by left brain dominant learners.
- - -
122
5.4.2 Educators
Educators were mostly in agreement that discipline is worsening in schools
today. They most often blamed parents and the abolishment of corporal
punishment. What became apparent to the researcher was that it was mostly
right brain dominant educators who remarked that "we are not all the same" and
that they had empathy with emotional learners, with those that did not write very
neatly or did not mind or even enjoyed those learners that challenged the status
quo. On the other hand many did not tolerate such behaviour or expressed no
flexibility when dealing with it. It was clear that many educators, mostly left brain
dominant, preferred the traditional role of the educator as authority figure and
that they longed for the days when stricter punishment measures were in place.
As mentioned in the introduction, some responses were surprising considering
the brain preferences of the specific participants, and seemed "out of character".
On the other hand the varied attitudes of educators towards disciplinary issues
were proven to be closely linked to their brain preferences, and their brain
dominance therefore has a strong influence on their approach to learner
behaviour in their classrooms.
The impact that these differences in attitude of educators have on the application
of Constitutional principles such as the best interest of the child, equality and
dignity, need to be addressed. The research showed that educators had less
tolerance for learners who were "not like them" as far as brain dominance was
concerned. This is a phenomenon that is not uncommon in interpersonal
relationships. People generally have less tolerance for those that act differently,
have different views, are more or less emotional or enthusiastic than themselves
in a specific situation. When some educators indicated that they "ignored"
learners who became emotional, that they "struggled to handle" challenging
learners or called learners "barbarians" (as one R2 learner emotionally remarked)
when they talk in class, these Constitutional issues come under fire. This lack of
tolerance of those that are different from the self, or at the least a more positive
attitude towards those that are similar, was not found exclusively amongst left
123
brain dominant educators during this study. Some of the remarks by right brain
dominant educators which were indicative of this attitude when discussing their
appreciation for challenging learners, included "I like to think wider and find it.
difficult if others don't" (referring to left brain dominant learners), "I see them as
the brighter children", "I like a challenge", "I like this in people" and" I find them
stimulating".
5.4.3 The Code of Conduct
The main conclusion derived from this research regarding the codes of conduct
of schools, is that learner input should become a reality and not just theory as
provided for in the SASA. Some measures should be in place in order to ensure
that schools adopt a Code of Conduct only "after consultation with the learners,
parents and educators of the school" (SASA s. 8(1». Many learners (mostly right
brain dominant) complained that they do not have a voice, that educators do not
listen to them. This could very well be at the core of why there is little buy in from
some learners into the code of conduct. When learners feel they have no say or
input into the code of conduct, they may also feel less inclined to abide by the
rules as stated in this document.
Another issue voiced by some educators as well as learners, was the negative
style of many codes of conduct. In other words, what is not allowed is stressed,
but hardly any encouragement, awards or incentives are included in these
documents. Although some schools have a merit/demerit system for good or bad
behaviour in place, this is not entrenched in the codes of conduct. In this regard,
making sure that learners with left as well as learners with right brain preferences
give input may ensure that the elements mentioned above (which are associated
mainly with right brain preferences) are also included in the codes of conduct.
The codes of conduct studied were, as mentioned before, inflexible, detailed and
authoritative and could therefore be described as left brain dominant documents.
As shown in the example quoted in 5.3.5.3 this is not necessarily a prerequisite
for these documents. Without causing confusion or uncertainty, a measureof
-- ---
--- --
124
flexibility, of give and take and of insight into different brain preferences could be
incorporated into a school's Code of Conduct.
In chapter 6 final recommendations are made regarding the findings and
conclusions of this study.
125
CHAPTER 6
Final Recommendations
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to summarise the findings of the research study, to
make recommendations regarding the implications of brain dominance for school
discipline and to make suggestions for further research. An interview with a legal
authority regarding the findings and recommendations of the study will also be
discussed here. This interview formed part of the triangulation process and was
conducted after the formulation of the findings of the study in order to test the
legal implications of the findings and suggestions.
Before making final recommendations, a summary of the research findings will
be presented in the following paragraphs.
6.2 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS
In chapter 5 a comprehensive discussion of the qualitative research findings and
conclusions were expounded. In the following paragraphs a concise summary of
these qualitative findings and conclusions will be presented as well as a
summary of the general research findings of this study.
6.2.1 An education law perspective on school discipline
Many educators are convinced they have lost control and that their authority in
the classroom has been diminished. The negative perception of educators
regarding school discipline at present seems to be the result, on the one hand of
a perceived diminishing of respect by learners and on the other hand a
diminishing of their control over learners. The overemphasis on the rights of
learners are considered a major reason for indiscipline. Educators are obligated
-- - - - - - -- - --
-- -
126
to consider the implications of several legal documents which have a direct or
indirect bearing on school discipline. The Bill of Rights for example places a
strong emphasis on values such as equality, human dignity and freedom. The
guidelines for the code of conduct (Department of Education Notice 776 of 1998)
determines in section 4.1 that those rights, as spelt out in the Bill of Rights should
be protected, promoted and fulfilled by the school.
The challenge for educators in South Africa today is therefore to find the balance
between safeguarding the rights of their learners on the one hand and
maintaining discipline on the other. Considering the differences (more specifically
regarding brain dominance) between learners may be one answer to this
problem and may diminish the need for stricter laws or fewer rights.
6.2.2 Brain dominance and learner discipline at school
The crux of the problem with discipline in South African schools today may very
well be that educators have failed to understand the essence of the child-centred
approach to education. Many have allowed this to work against them and have
blamed indiscipline in schools on the fact that children have too many rights.
Taking into account the brain dominance of learners and educators may be a
solution to create a positive, emotionally healthy and whole brain environment
where different types of thinkers are accommodated. When taking section 28 part
(2) of the Bill of Rights into consideration, this approach may be essential in the
classroom in order to establish an environment where CIAchild's best interests
are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child."
6.2.3 Qualitative research
A brief summary of the qualitative findings of this study will follow in the next
paragraphs. The research paradigm was in most part constructivist-interpretive
and the research strategy was phenomenology. The methods of data collection
included interviews, observation and open-ended questionnaires.
127
6.2.3.1 Learners
It appeared that the more unruly learners and those that had most criticism for
certain school rules, were strong right brain dominant learners. The traditional
school rules and inflexible school environments are less likely to suit them, but
are more suitable to left brain dominant learners who prefer structure and can be
comfortable with authority. Right brain dominant learners are those generally
punished more often for transgressions.
R2 dominant learners criticised educators the most for not allowing them to
explain their behaviour and were generally more verbal than the other quadrant
groups, expressing their emotions regarding unfairness of rules and treatment
most often.
Right brain dominant learners, especially R1 dominant thinkers, complained most
often about rules regarding hair and clothes.
6.2.3.2 Educators
Most educators were of the opinion that discipline is worsening in schools at
present. It was mostly the left brain dominant educators who expressed
preferences for the educator as authority figure and who longed for the days
when stricter punishment (for example corporal punishment) could still be
administered. It was mostly left brain dominant educators who indicated that they
found it difficult to manage challenging learners. On the other hand it was mostly
right brain dominant educators who found these learners interesting, even
preferring them to those who "cannot think wider" (as one educator expressed
this attitude during the cross-examination interview).
Some right brain dominant educators felt that some rules were too strict or out-
dated. Both right and left brain dominant educators generally showed less
tolerance for those learners that were not like them.
6.2.3.3 The Code of Conduct
The codes of conduct studied can be described as left brain dominant
documents. They are authoritative, inflexible and detailed. They lack the flexibility
--
128
that would appeal to more right brain dominant learners and most do not include
any form of encouragement or incentives that would lend a more right brain
character to these documents.
Although stated in chapter 2 of the SASA that the Code of Conduct should
involve the input from learners as well, this was not the case in most of the
schools involved in this study. The conclusion made by the researcher was that
the voices of the learners were mainly silent in these documents.
Taking these findings and conclusions into consideration, several
recommendations are made in the following paragraphs. The recommendations
will be formulated to address the problems identified in chapter 1 as those
warranting research, viz.
· whether educators comprehend and apply Constitutional principles and other
related legislation in their style of discipline,
· whether brain dominance of learners should be taken into account in
legislation pertaining to the development of the code of conduct,
· how brain dominance of educators influence their approach to learner
discipline in the classroom and
· how the brain dominance of learners affect their attitude towards the school's
code of conduct and their resulting behaviour in class.
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
One aspect of the study focused on the possible insight of educators into
Constitutional principles and legislation when dealing with indiscipline. The
following are recommendations in this regard.
6.3.1 Legal determinants and discipline style
In chapter 1 the following problem was identified, viz "Do educators fully
comprehend and apply the relevant principles from the Constitution and other
education law determinants in their style of discipline?"
129
As mentioned in chapter 5 some educators may be in violation of several
principles from the Constitution and of provisions in other legislation pertaining to
education. These include section 9 of the Bill of Rights when they discriminate
against certain learners that are not like them and section 16 of the Bill when
they are infringing on the "freedom to receive or impart information or ideas"
when not allowing learners to challenge or question information. Furthermore
section 4(i) of the National Education Policy Act 27 of 1996 may be violated when
they discourage independent and critical thought in stead of encouraging it. In
chapter 2 of this study (2.2.1.2) many sections of the Bill of Rights were quoted
which have a direct or indirect bearing on school discipline. These rights are
summarised in s.28(2) as "A child's best interests are of paramount importance in
every matter concerning the child."
It is therefore recommended that educators are fully informed of the principles of
the Constitution and other relevant legislation and their relevance to styles of
discipline. Educators need to comprehend the full impact of the National
Education Policy Act 27 of 1996 when it states that the new education system will
"contribute to the full personal development of each student" and that it will
recognise "the aptitudes, abilities, interests, prior knowledge and experience of
students". Education law determinants therefore acknowledge the fact that
learners are unique individuals. Educators should follow suit and be made fully
aware of the differences between learners and should take the different brain
profiles of learners into account when judging behaviour and applying disciplinary
measures. As discussed in chapter 3 (3.4.2) many researchers are convinced of
the uniqueness of each learner's brain. Brain profiling is one tool at the disposal
of educators to gain insight into this uniqueness of each learner. This insight
could enable them to educate and to discipline in the spirit of all legislation
pertaining to education which embraces the principle of lithe best interest of the
child".
130
6.3.2 Legislation and the brain dominance of learners
A second problem that was identified in chapter 1 is "What are the implications of
differences in the brain dominance of learners for the drafting and
implementation of legislation pertaining to learner discipline?"
The code of conduct as a legal document would normally not take differences
into account and this very fact would be seen to support the notion of non-
discrimination. As this research has shown though, a sector of the school
(usually the left brain dominant learner and educator) accepts the document, the
rules and processes. Another sector (usually the right brain dominant learner and
some right brain dominant educators) questions some of the rules and the
implementation of the code of conduct. It may therefore be said that such a
document could be seen as discriminatory as it favours the thinking preferences
of only certain individuals.
As demonstrated in chapter 5, it is possible to include a measure of flexibility in
these documents and in the process develop a document that is more suitable to
all the different brain dominant groups. It is therefore recommended that schools
be encouraged to investigate the possibilities of balancing rigid and unbending
rules with those where an element of flexibility exists. The contrast between
these two types of rules was clearly demonstrated in the codes of conduct of the
schools studied. "No jewellery may be worn. Tongue, nose or belly rings are
strictly forbidden" was included in one of the codes while another school stated
that "belly rings may not be visible and should be removed or covered during
physical activities". The hair rules of most schools were unbending and forbade
any colouring of hair while one school permitted colouring of hair on the
understanding that the colour was one only one shade lighter or darker than the
natural hair colour. Similar differences occurred with regard to hair accessories,
hair styles, the use of cell phones and whether shoes were compulsory in
summer.
131
It was also found that most of the codes of conduct did not include any form of
encouragement or incentives for good behaviour. The researcher saw this as a
major hiatus in these documents. Such incentives should gain the approval of all
learners, but would especially appeal to right brain learners (notably R2
dominant) who thrive on acknowledgement and on "feeling good" about
situations.
There are certainly areas of the content of these codes where differences cannot
be taken into account and where flexibility would be impossible in the drafting of
the document. Examples of these rules would be those regarding punctuality,
serious transgressions such as drugs and weapons and certain clothes rules. On
the other hand it should be quite possible to take differences into account in the
implementation of many of these rules. This would call upon educators and
principals to use their discretion and to differentiate without discrimination. The
researcher sought answers to the legal implications of this discretion during an
interview with a legal authority.
In an interview with Willem Esterhuizen (2005), an attorney, the researcher
posed the question of whether discretion regarding the implementation of the
code of conduct would be legal. His opinion was that the rules as noted in the
document were legally binding and non-negotiable. He used the example of late-
comers and explained that you can only be either late or not late. Once you
arrive at school after a certain time, you have broken the rule. But, as with most
legislation, the discretion lies within the consequences of the transgression and
the punishment decided upon. Courts of law, according to Esterhuizen, take
mitigating circumstances into account which would influence the resulting
punishment. Many factors are taken into account before judgment is passed.
Brain dominance, which has a strong influence on the behaviour of learners,
could, in his opinion, be such a factor which should be considered. If it is
consistently ignored, it could be discriminatory and not in the best interest of the
child. The suggestion that brain preferences should be taken into account when
--- ---
- -
-- -
132
implementing the code of conduct was included in the interview schedule
conducted with eight of the educators as part of the triangulation phase of the
research. All eight thought it was a viable suggestion. Some additional
comments included that educators should still be consistent even when taking
differences into account and that they should be in possession of each learner's
brain profile to be able to deal with each in the most effective way. This attitude
of educators was encouraging.
Examples of how the brain dominance of learners can be taken into account
when implementing the Code of Conduct, are more verbal warnings, incentives
or counselling in stead of punishment for forgetting a book, for late arrivals or
daydreaming in class (which would be transgressions committed more regularly
by right brain dominant learners).
As was mentioned earlier, learners in most of the schools studied did not have
any input in the codes of conduct of their schools. As mentioned in chapter 2 of
this study (2.2.4) all learners have the right to participate in decision-making
about matters affecting them at the school and the right to have their views heard
about these matters. To ensure that the code of conduct reflects the input of all
learners, it is recommended that learners from the whole brain (in other words
learners representing all the quadrants of the brain) are involved in drawing up
this document. The research showed a strong desire by especially right brain
dominant learners to be heard and not to be ignored. Being involved in the
process of drawing up the code of conduct of their school, may go a long way to
making them feel an important part of the system and ensure buy in regarding
the rules. As stated in chapter 2 (2.2.5) of this study, research on school
discipline has shown that participation in the drafting of rules fosters
responsibility, as opposed to blind obedience.
It has been stated that left as well as right brain dominant learners (and
educators) should be involved in this process in order to gain a balance between
133
on the one hand the non-negotiable rules and processes and on the other hand
the rules where flexibility can apply and the incentives and modes of
encouragement that should form part of these documents. Selecting
representatives from all four quadrants of the brain to be involved in the process
of developing these documents, could achieve effective results. This
recommendation was also included in the triangulation interview schedule and
was once again met with the approval of the participating educators.
Recommendations regarding legislation and brain dominance can be
summarised as follows:
. The Code of Conduct should be developed with input from learners and
educators from all four quadrants of the brain.
. The Code of Conduct, as a legal document over which different role-players
connected with the school have some influence, should take into account the
different brain preferences of learners.
. This could be done by introducing a measure of flexibility where possible, by
including incentives for good behaviour and by using discretion when
implementing the code of conduct.
6.3.3 Learner discipline and educator brain dominance
A further problem stated in chapter 1 was "What are the implications of
differences in the brain dominance of educators for their approach to learner
discipline in the classroom and their implementation of schools' codes of
conduct".
According to this study, it appears to be mainly right brain dominant learners who
are struggling with certain elements of the code of conduct and class rules.
Educators, especially those that are left brain dominant, generally do not have
insight into why these learners act differently or appear to be disobedient. Should
educators understand their own brain dominance and how this affects their
behaviour and their attitude towards discipline and the behaviour of learners,
---
- -- - - ------ - --
--
134
deeper understanding and a greater tolerance could very well be the result. As
demonstrated in chapter 3 (3.4.1.1) the brain dominance of educators and
therefore their behaviour and attitude towards the behaviour of learners can be
vastly dissimilar. It is therefore recommended that educators gain insight into
their own brain dominance and how this impacts on their disciplinary style.
Learners should also understand the implications of differences in brain
dominance. Knowing and applying this knowledge would also ensure that certain
learners are not prejudiced by the attitude of educators towards matters of
discipline. This knowledge would be crucial with regards to their attitude towards
and how they deal with certain types of behaviour, for example challenging
learners, emotional learners, learners who insist on stating their case and more
talkative learners. The recommendation that educators should know their
learners' brain profiles and apply this knowledge with regard to discipline was
met with approval by left as well as right brain dominant educators during the
cross-examination interviews.
6.3.4 Brain dominance and attitudes regarding discipline
The last problem identified in chapter 1 as warranting careful research was
"What is the influence of the brain dominance of respectively learners and
educators on learners' attitudes towards and perceptions of the implementation
of schools' codes of conduct and their resulting behaviour in class?"
This problem has been dealt with in part in the previous sections. What is
important to note is that this study has shown that many of the problems
regarding discipline arise from the lack of understanding of different brain
preferences and the resulting intolerance and unnecessary conflict between
many educators and learners. Educators as well as learners could be more
tolerant of other learners and educators when understanding the effect of their
own brain preferences on their behaviour, on their attitude towards certain rules
and on other role players in school. Armed with this knowledge educators would
be aware that positive and caring encouragement would go a long way to
135
satisfying especially the R2 dominant learners. These learners mentioned
numerous times that educators do not care about them which appeared to be an
important reason why many of them start acting out. Educators with an insight
into the influence of brain dominance on behaviour, will also be aware that R2
dominant individuals react positively to verbal and non-verbal cues of
encouragement. They are sensitive to body language and facial expressions.
Educators would also be able to use their understanding that L1 dominant
learners have strong preferences to perform well and L2 learners have strong
preferences to see an end-result, to encourage them in different ways.
Furthermore, understanding these differences would equip educators to deal
more effectively with challenging learners (mostly R1) and not encourage
indiscipline by ignoring, insulting or belittling learners who have a questioning
nature. The same could be said for learners who are more prone to react in
emotional ways (usually R2), those that are less likely to experiment with new
methods and could resist trying (usually L2) and those learners who can be
obstinate when it comes to knowing the right answer and could try to control
others (often L1).
One insight that the researcher has gained from this research study on brain
dominance and discipline is that education psychology and education law need
to join hands in order to make effective breakthroughs in this regard. This
became especially clear when the researcher formulated recommendations on
how educators could minimise indiscipline in the classroom when armed with the
knowledge of brain dominance. A possible solution that came to mind, was that
educators who understood their learners well as far as brain dominance is
concerned, would expect certain behaviour from learners and could therefore
pre-empt possible undisciplined behaviour. Examples of how this could be done
are the following.
· Instead of consistently giving learners tasks that take a long time to
complete, a variety of activities are given in class to prevent boredom
--- - ---
--
- -
136
(especially by R1 learners), without causing chaos and a lack of structure
(in order to accommodate the left brain dominant learners).
. When learners are working in groups, an educator would allow a certain
amount of talking (for R2 learners to "get it out of their system"), ensuring
that feedback of the results of the discussions are given (so that left brain
dominant learners feel they are working towards a result).
. An educator would regularly create opportunities for role-play and for
acting as teacher instead of only asking questions to test knowledge
(preferred by especially right brain dominant learners).
. To accommodate challenging and questioning learners, opportunities for
debate, for constructive arguments and for comments on the work
discussed should be created on a regular basis.
Another recommendation concerns principals who are important role-players in
the implementation of the Code of Conduct. Principals would have to be aware of
why certain learners are always in trouble and whether it is the result of a conflict
between the brain dominance of the learner and that of the educator. Before a
course of punishment is followed, it would be more effective to interview both
parties, explaining how these differences can result in conflict and how the
understanding of the brain dominance of others can lead to tolerance and
therefore to respect and to greater discipline. A learner with very strong R1
preferences and an educator with very strong L1 preferences for example could
very well have a very strained relationship. A case study in this regard was
discussed in chapter 3 (3.4.1.2). A well informed principal would be able to
identify the differences in brain dominance as a main cause of the problem and
through counselling create a better understanding between the two parties.
Although it appeared as if discipline was generally better (or that educators had
more control) in primary schools than in secondary schools, it was clear in
especially the primary schools in cities that indiscipline was a cause of great
concern. As the brain profiles of learners as young as 11 years of age can be
plotted, this approach could be effective for especially grades six and seven.
137
These are the groups that primary school educators complained about the most
regarding indiscipline.
The recommendation that a greater tolerance can be established in the
classroom which could result in better discipline if educators and learners know
each other's brain profile, was included for comment in the cross-examination
interview schedule. One participant remarked that since she has become aware
of these differences, she has changed her attitude (Afr. "is ek anders ingestel
teenoor") towards her learners and has experienced a positive affect. The
recommended activities to pre-empt indiscipline in class as mentioned above,
was also seen in a positive light by these educators. One right brain dominant
educator added that educators would have to be taught more strategies to
enable them to do this and another that it should be seen to that certain
individuals do not "get lost" in the class environment but that a whole-brain
environment should be created. A left brain dominant educator who also agreed
that these pre-emptive activities could work, remarked that educators should still
maintain discipline (Afr. "hulle moet nie agteroor sit nie"). These comments are
very encouraging and show an openness on the part of educators to try a new
approach to the problem of indiscipline.
6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Because of the results of this research which showed a very strong link between
brain dominance and attitudes and perceptions regarding discipline, further
research into how a whole brain approach can be encouraged and implemented
in schools in order to improve discipline and ensure non-discrimination in the
treatment of and attitude towards all learners, is recommended.
Although several possible research themes have been mentioned in the study,
the following are further suggestions for research:
--
--
138
. What are the implications of brain dominance of educators, learners and
law makers on existing and future legislation pertaining to learner
behaviour?
. What are the implications of differences in the brain dominance of learners
when establishing a safe learning environment?
. What are the implications of differences between the brain dominance of
educators and learners as it pertains to the in loco parentis role of the
educator?
"Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the
human mind".
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
139
ADDENDA
ADDENDUM A. THE NEETHLING BRAIN INSTRUMENT
1. General information
For this research the Neethling Brain Preference Profile (referred to henceforth
as the NBPP) has been used as the assessment instrument to determine the
brain dominance of the respondents. The NBPP was developed after extensive
international research since 1980 on lefUright brain functions. Neethling
(Neethling, 2003b) under the research guidance of Torrance, first developed the
NBPP and then a number of other whole brain instruments.
The NBPP identifies the thinking preferences of the individual. This instrument is
a descriptive, objective analysis of the individual's thinking choices, with no
profile being better or worse than another. It is therefore non-judgemental, giving
a description of an individual's thought preferences and making
recommendations based on those. The profile indicates the dominant preference
areas, as well as the average and low preference quadrants. The total score of
every profile is 300 and an individual's profile is evaluated in categories and not
according to exact scores. These categories are as follows:
95+ Very high preference
80-94 High preference
65-79 Average preference
50-64 Low preference
-50 Very low preference
2. The quadrant summary
The following is a summary of the key thinking processes associated with each of
the four quadrants:
- - -
---
140
Top left Quadrant(L1)
Focused approach
Essence
Precision
Accuracy
Factual reasoning
Logic
Objective/realistic
Diagnostic
Analysing (digging deeper)
No nonsense approach
Concrete
Mathematical
Financial
Performance-driven
Measuring
Important to do it right
Critical (of others/self)
Rational
Factual memory
Goal oriented
Bottom left Quadrant(L2)
Planning
Practical application
Organisation
Promptness
Discipline
Dedication
Step-by-step approach
Details
Operational
Tidiness
Dependable
Tradition
Procedures
Routine
Rules and regulations
Structure
Orthodox
Following guidelines
Task-driven
Result-driven
Safety-conscious
Chronological
141
Search for alternatives
Idea-intuition
Synthesis
Risk
Experimenting
Comfortable with chaos
Fantasy
Association
Flexible
Change
Artistic
Looking for alternatives
Big picture
Strategy
Integration
Restless
Diversity
Unstructured
Surprise
Curious
Doing many things at once
Speculation
Experimentation
Investigating
Bottom riqht (R2)
Feeling orientated
Social liaison
Interaction
Co-operation seeking
Body language
Passion
Listening focus
Sensitivity
Participative
Expressive
Team/group orientated
Empathy
People-environment
People-intuition
Atmosphere of caring
Touch
Communication
Ambiance
Playful
Supportive
Enthusiasm
Music (emotional experience)
142
3. Example of a NBPreport
The following is an example of the computer print-out of a NBPP report. The
consultant could make further deductions and recommendations.
The candidate's quadrant scores are as follows:
R1 = 114
R2 = 81
L1 = 58
L2 = 47
Quadrant: R1 - 114 = Very hiQhpreference
Candidate shows a very strong preference for holistic, conceptual, original,
spatial and metaphoric thinking processes.
Candidate prefers working in an environment that is free from routine, where she
is able to strategise and act independently. She is constantly looking for
alternatives and is likely to challenge the status quo, eager to experiment with
new ideas and concepts. Being big-picture oriented, candidate prefers not to get
caught up in detail and repetitive tasks, which she sees as boring and senseless.
She likes diversity and flexibility, and enjoys doing more than one thing at a time.
She will often function comfortably in an environment which others might
describe as chaotic. Candidate will often fantasise, is risk-prone and restless,
and prefers a frequently changing environment that brings constant challenges
and surprise. She often takes the initiative and prefers becoming actively
involved. She is constantly looking for hidden possibilities and is quite future
oriented. Candidate may be able to put ideas and information together to come
up with something new.
143
Quadrant: R2 - 8L= Hiqh Preference
Candidate's brain profile shows a strong preference for people orientation.
She also has a high preference for processes such as co-operation, diplomacy
and communication. She enjoys frequent contact with others, enthusiastically
sharing ideas and concepts. Her communication style will tend to be informal and
friendly, making use of body language, stories and imagery.
Candidate will be comfortable communication, advising, showing empathy,
assisting and liaising.
Quadrant: L1 - 58 = Low Qreference
It is unlikely that candidate will enjoy activities that call for objective analysis,
precision and logical diagnosis on an ongoing basis. She will most probably not
be comfortable in an environment that requires factual memorisation,
quantification and objectivity in decision-making.
Quadrant: L2 - 47 - Very low preference
Candidate is likely to avoid activities that call for ongoing step-by-step planning
and implementation. She will most probably be uncomfortable in an environment
that requires attention to detail, working strictly within set procedures and
implementing controls and regulations. In order for her to stay passionate about
her job, such environments should be avoided as far as possible.
Neethling (2003a) makes it clear that the Neethling Brain Instrument does not
measure skills or abilities necessary to execute the preferences indicated.
Somebody may therefore have strong preferences for planning and organisation,
but have not had the opportunity to develop these skills. On the other hand
somebody may have excellent skills to be a banker for example, but because the
- -
144
preferences for these processes and activities are low, it may be difficult to
maintain passion for such a career.
4. Validity and reliability of the Neethling Brain Instrument
As the NBPP is critical in the assessment of subjects and their thinking
preferences, a brief overview of the validity study seems appropriate. The study
was undertaken by dr. Liezel Korf, registered research psychologist and
psychometrist during 2003 and will be updated at regular intervals (Neethling,
2003a). The ipsative nature of the NBPP (the fact that all scores add up to the
same total) makes it unsuitable for some traditional measures of reliability and
validity, such as internal consistency measures of the total scale or exploratory
factor analysis. However, the following analyses can be done to investigate the
psychometric integrity of the scale.
· Test-retest reliability of the subscales.
· Criterion related validity: if the scale correlates in the theoretically
expected directions with proven measures of similar attributes.
· Internal consistency of the four subscales (Le. the 4-point ordinal scale is
treated as a small continuous scale in order to calculate item-total
correlations and Alpha coefficients.) This cannot be done for the whole
scale, since there is not variance in the total score.
· Discriminant validity: if the scale discriminated between groups it is
theoretically and intuitively expected to discriminate between, this serves
as support for the construct validity of the scale.
The results of this analyses are described in the following paragraphs.
4.1 Test-retest reliability
The reliability coefficients for the scales were as follows:
L1 0,851
L2 0,840
R1 0,867
145
R2 0,918
These are well within acceptable limits for this type of measure.
4.2 Criterion-related validity
Theoretically, the scores of the NBPP (referred to here as NBI, the registered
trade name of the Neethling instruments) and the MBTI are expected to correlate
in the following ways:
The theoretical expectations were all fulfilled in the predicted directions and with
statistically significant correlations.
4.3 Internal consistency
The majority of options showed clear positive correlations within an acceptable
range (.0,20) with the scale total with which it is associated. The values (L1:
0,6812; L2: 0,7459; R1: 0,8209; R2: 0,7734) are within acceptable limits,
especially given the small range of the scale from which they were computed.
4.4 Discriminability
4.4.1 Gender
Significant differences were found between males and females on all four scales.
The differences seem to support the traditional and somewhat stereotypical
brain profile of males and females respectively. Males score significantly higher
.,;Ji...
MBTI Scales
NBI E I
S N T
F J p
L1 Slightly Slightly
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
negative positive
L2
--- ---
Strong Strong
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
R2
-- --- ---
---
Strong Strong Slightly Slightly
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
R1 Slightly Slightly Negative
Positive
-- ---
Negative
Positive
positive negative
--
146
on L1 and R1, which are the quadrants associated with more conceptual,
analytical and strategic thinking. Females scored higher on the more perceptual
quadrants, namely R2 and L2, representing more meticulous attention to detail
and a greater emotional sensitivity.
4.4.2 Occupation
Respondents indicated their occupation with varying degrees of accuracy of
description.
Occupational categories were merged on the basis of similarity in the core skills it
involves as well as in accordance with theoretical expectations of occupations
which would require similar thinking styles. The seven groupings considered
were administrative/control; analytical/scientific; human contact;
management/strategic; art/writing; marketing; practical.
The results showed that the theoretical and intuitive expectations one might have
about the occupational categories were supported.
In conclusion, the researcher found that the results presented seem to give fairly
strong support for both the validity and reliability of the NBI.
147
ADDENDUM B:
THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULES
Educators and learners were interviewed using an open-ended interview
schedule. These schedules are provided here.
1. The interview schedule used for educators
1. Which transgression irritates you most?
2. Which type of behaviour of learners causes you most frustration?
3. What style of punishment do you find most comfortable?
4. Do you know the Code of Conduct?
5. Which element of the Code of Conduct! school rules would you most like
to change?
6. Which rule would you like to add to the school rules?
7. Which school rules do you think should be abolished?
8. What is your opinion regarding the educator as the authoritative person in
the class?
9. What is your opinion on punishment for untidy work and bad handwriting?
10.Do you punish learners for books, homework etc. which is forgotten?
11.How do you handle learners who show emotion regarding lesson content
or other aspects in class?
12.How do you handle learners who always seem to want to do things
differently/ question the status quo/challenge?
13.Do you agree that learners and parents should be involved in drawing up
school rules?
14.What is your opinion on corporal punishment?
15.What is your general view on discipline in schools today?
16.What saying do you subscribe to:
~ Save the rod and spoil the child
~ A kind word goes a long way
~ Children should be seen and not heard
~ It takes all kinds to make the world
-- --
--
148
2. The interview schedule used for learners
Learners were interviewed in focus groups using the following interview
schedule.
1. What do you get punished for most in class?
2. What type of punishment do you dislike most?
3. If you could choose, what type of punishment would you prefer?
4. If you could, which school/class rule would you like to change most?
5. Which teacher's style of punishment do you like best and why?
6. Which school/class rule would you like to add to the list?
7. What do you consider unfair punishment/ discipline?
8. What behaviour of other learners do you dislike most?
9. What punishment/discipline do you think works best and why?
1D.lf you were a teacher, how would you make sure your pupils behaved?
11.What element of punishment in class makes you feel worst?
12.What do you think of discipline in schools today?
13.Which of the following punishments would you prefer:
)0>-Writing out a few pages
)0>-Going to detention
)0>-Cleaning up the school grounds
)0>- Deliveringa speech/Performingin front of the class
3. The triangulation interview schedule
THE ROLE OF BRAIN DOMINANCE IN THE MAINTANANCE OF CLASS
DISCIPLINE
What are your comments on the foliowinQfindinQsof this study?:
1. Learners with left brain dominant preferences are more likely to obey
school and class rules.
2. R2 dominant learners are the most critical of educators and many feel
educators do not care about them and do not listen to them.
3. Many right brain dominant learners (R1 especially) feel certain rules
(regarding clothes, hair etc.) are unnecessary or too strict.
149
4. Learners and educators generally thought discipline is worse than it was in
the past.
What are your comments on the followinQ recommendations of this study?:
5. If educator and learners know their own and each other's brain profile, a
greater tolerance will be established in the classroom.
6. When an educator knows the different brain dominance in the classroom,
he/she can pre-empt indiscipline by a variety of activities (R1), role play, act as
teacher (R1, R2), group work where they are allowed to talk.
7. Learners should have an input into the development of the code of
conduct and air their views (a greater buy-in as a result)
8. Educators and learners (probably representatives from each of the brain
dominant groups) should regularly discuss the code of conduct, examples of
indiscipline and how to deal with these in a whole brain way
9. The implementation of the code of conduct should take brain differences
into account (in other words how to deal with indiscipline)
10. It should be investigated how existing legislation can be adapted to
include differences regarding brain preferences and therefore behaviour.
11 Principals should be informed about differences between educator &
learner regarding brain preferences and use this knowledge when dealing with
indiscipline (indiscipline may be the result of differing perceptions and
preferences).
150
ADDENDUM C: THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE
Learners were given the following short questionnaire to fill in.
Answer the followin~ Questions honestly and express your personal
opinion:
1. What behaviour of other learners irritate you the most?
2. If you were teacher, which punishment would you hand out most?
3. What school rule(s) do you consider unnecessary?
4. What would you describe as unfair punishment at school?
ADDENDUM D: AN EXAMPLE OF A LETTER OF PERMISSION TO
CONDUCT THIS RESEARCH
Mrs Rache Rutherford
32 Berghshoop
DURBANVILLE
7550
Dear MrsR. Rutherford
RESEARCH PROPOSAL: THE ROLE OF BRAIN DOMINANCE IN SCHOOL DISCIPLINE.
Your application to conduct the above-mentioned research in schools in the Western Cape has
been approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Principals, educators and learners are under no obligation to assist you in your
investigation.
2. Principals, educators, learners and schools should not be identifiable in any way from the
results of the investigation.
3. You make all the arrangements concerning your investigation.
4. Educators' programmes are not to be interrupted.
5. The Study is to be conducted from 23rdFebruary 2005 to 31stMay 2005.
6. No research can be conducted during the fourth term as schools are preparing and
finalizing syllabi for examinations (October to December 2005).
7. Should you wish to extend the period of your survey, please contact Dr R. Cornelissen at
the contact numbers above quoting the reference number.
8. A photocopy of this letter is submitted to the Principal where the intended research is to
be conducted.
9. Your research will be limited to the following schools: Durbanville Preparatory,
Porterville High, Worcester Primary and Eversdal Primary.
10. A brief summary of the content, findings and recommendations is provided to the
Director: Education Research.
11. The Department receives a copy of the completed report/dissertation/thesis addressed
to:
151
The Director: Education Research
Western Cape Education Department
Private Bag X9114
CAPE TOWN
8000
We wish you success in your research.
Kind regards.
Signed: Ronald S. Cornelissen
for: HEAD: EDUCATION
DATE: 23rd February 2005
ADDENDUM E: PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS
The researcher would like to thank the following schools for their participation in
this research:
Werda Hoerskool
Porterville Hoerskool
Ferdinand Postma Hoerskool
Menlo Park Laerskool"
Loreto Convent School
Eversdal Primary School
Worcester-Noord Laerskool
Durbanville Preparatory School
- -
--
152
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALVESSON, M.S. & KOLDBERG, K. 2000. Reflexive methodology: new
vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.
ANON. 1997. What is qualitative research? [Web:] http://www.qrca.org/
whatis_QR.asp [Date of access: 2 November 2004].
ANON. 2000a. Minister Asmallaunches alternatives to corporal punishment.
[Web:] http://education.pwv.gov.za/Media/Statements_2000/0ctober2000/
CorporaLPunishment2.htm [Date of access: 8 December 2004].
ANON. 2000b. Dealing with children's anger. [Web:] http:/www.earlychildhood
behavioralhealth.com/Articies/AngerHelp.htm [Date of access: 11 January
2005].
ANON. 2002a. Asmal criticises poor discipline of students. Dispatch Online:
June 7. [Web:] http://www.dispatch.co.za/2002/617/southafrica/ASMAlhtm [Date
of access: 10 April 2004].
ANON. 2002b. Misbehaviors at school. [Web:] http://disciplinehelp.com [Date
of access: 4 April 2004].
ANON. 2002c. South African Principals Association National Conference
dinner-address. [Web:] http://education.pwv.gov.za/Media/speeches_2002/
august02/sapa.htm [Date of access: 8 December 2004].
ANON. 2003a. Brain research sheds new light on student learning. teaching
strategies and disabilities. [Web:] www.cec.sped.org/bk/cectodayl?module=
displaystory&storyJd=750&format=htm [Date of access: 28 May 2004].
153
ANON. 2003b. Left brain, right brain. [Web:] http://www.indiaparenting.com/
raisingchild/datalraisingchildo60.shtml [Date of access: 28 May 2004].
ANON. 2003c. Gender differences impact learning and post-school success.
[Web:] www.cec.sped.org/bklcectodayl?module=displaystory&story-
id=749&format=html [Date of access: 28 May 2004].
ANON. 2003d. What is an ethnographic field collection? [Web:] http://www.loc.
gov/folklife/ethno.html [Date of access: 5 March 2005].
ANON. 2003e. Qualitative research. [Web:] http://cete.org/acve/docs/
pfile05.htm [Date of access: May 2005].
ANON. 2004. Fas500 - ROOSA supplemental materials: sample observation
codes for classroom observations of discipline practices. [Web:] http://www.
public.asu.edu/-atmwr/fas500/documents/EXAMPLEOBSERVATIONFORM.pdf
[Date of access: 2 November 2004].
ASMAL, K. 2001. Speech by Kader Asmal at Groblersdal in August 2001.
[Web:] http://education.pwv.gov.za/Media/Speeches_2001/August01/
Groblersdal.htm [Date of access: 10 April 2004].
BARRETT, A.J. & AHMED, A.K. 2000. Midwest adult education research
methodologies. [Web:] http://labweb.education.wisc.edu/mr2p2000/MR2P_
Proceedings2000.pdf [Date of access: 10April 2004].
BEAR, G.G. 1998. School discipline in the United States: prevention, correction
and long term social development. School psychology review, 27(1):14-19. [In
EBSCOHost : Academic Search Elite, Full display: http://www.sa.ebsco.Com]
[Date of access: 11 January 2005].
-- -
154
BECKER, H.S. 1963. Outsiders: studies in the sociology of deviance. New
York: Collier-Macmillan.
BECKER, H.S. 2002. The epistemology of qualitative research. [Web:] http://
www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/hbecker/qa.html[Date of access: 11 January 2005].
BLOMBERG, N. 2004. Effective discipline for misbehavior in school vs. out of
school suspension. [Web:] http://www.publications.villanova.edu/Concept/2004/
Effective_Discipline.htm [Date of access: 2 November 2004].
BLUESTEIN, J. 2001. The "ideal" student. [Web:] http://www.janebluestein.
com/handouts/ideal.html [Date of access: 12 January 2005].
BOGEN, J.E. & VOGEL, P.J. 1962 Cerebral commissurotomy in man. Bulletin
of the Los Angeles Neurological Society, 27(4):169-172, December 1962.
BREWER, S. 1996. Body facts. London: Dorling Kindersley.
BROPHY, J. 1986. Classroom management techniques. Education and urban
society 18(2):182-194.
BRUER, J.T. 1999. In search of brain-based education. [Web:] http://www.
pdkintl.org/kbru9905.htm [Date of access: 2 November 2004].
CAINE, R.N. & CAINE, G. 1990. Understandinga brain based approach to
learning and teaching. [Web:] http://www.sed/.org/scimath/compass/
vo3no2/1.htm [Date of access: 2 November 2004].
CAINE, R.N. & CAINE, G. 1997. Mindlbrain learning principles. [Web:]
http://www.newhorizons.org/neuro/caine.htm [Date of access: 4 November
2004].
155
CHALONER, B. 2003. Brain research sheds new light on student learning,
teaching strategies and disabilities. [Web:] www.cec.sped.org/bklcectodayl?
module=displaystory&story-id=750&format=html [Date of access: 28 May 2004].
CHARLES, C.M. 1995. Introduction to educational research. New York:
Longman.
CHARLES, C.M. 2004. Building classroom discipline. [Web:] http://www.
orangeusd.kI2.ca.us/yorba/discipline_research.htm [Date of access: 28 May
2004].
CHARMAZ, K. 2002. Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. (In
Gubrium, J.F. & Hostein, J.A., eds. Handbook of interview research: context
and method. London: Sage. p.675-694.)
CONSTITUTION see SOUTH AFRICA. 1996.
COTTLE, T.J. 2002. On narratives and the sense of self. Qualitative inquiry,
8(5):535-549).
COTTON, K. & SAVARD, W.G. 1982. Student discipline and motivation:
research synthesis. Portland: Northwest regional Educational Laboratory.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 224 170.)
COTTON, K. 2001. School wide and classroom discipline. [Web:]
http://www.nwrel.org/scpol/sirs/5/cu9.html[Date of access: 3 April 2004].
DE KLERK, J. & RENS, J. 2003. The role of values in school discipline.
Koers, 68(4):353-371.
--
----
156
DENZIN, N.K. 1978. Strategies of multiple triangulation. (In Denzin, N., ed.
The research act in sociology: a theoretical introduction to sociological method.
New York: McGraw-HilI. p.297-313.)
DENZIN, N.K. 1997. Interpretive ethnography: ethnographic practices for the
21s1century. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
DENZIN, N.K. & LINCOLN, Y.S., eds. 2000. Handbook of qualitative research.
2d ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
DE WAAL, J., CURRIE, I. & ERASMUS, G. 2000. The Bill of Rights
handbook. Kenwyn: Juta.
DE WET, C. 2003a. "n Media-analise oor misdaad in die Suid-Afrikaanse
onderwys. South African journal of education, 23(1):36-44.
DE WET, C. 2003b. Eastern Cape educator's perceptions of the causes and
the scope of school violence. Acta criminological, 16(3):89-106.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE AND THE WELSH
OFFICE (UNITED KINGDOM). 1989. Discipline in schools: Report of the
Committee of Inquiry chaired by Lord Elton. London: HMSO.
DIXON, J.P. 1997. The collision between left-brained schools and right-brained
kids. [Web:] http://user/cybrzn .com/-kenyonckladd/books/excerptright -brained.
htm [Date of access: 2 November 2004].
DOCKING, J.W. 1987. Control and discipline in schools. London: Harper &
Row.
157
DOYLE, W. 1989. Classroom management techniques. (In Moles, O.C., ed.
Strategies to reduce student misbehaviour. Washington, D.C. : Office of
Educational research and improvement.) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
NO.ED311 608:31-62.)
DUKE, D.L. 1989. School organization, leadership and student behavior. (In
Moles, O.C., ed. Strategies to reduce student misbehaviour. Washington, D.C. :
Office of Educational research and improvement.) (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 311 608.)
DURKHEIM, E. 1973. Moral education. New York: Free Press.
ENERSEN, 0.0. 2003. Who named it? [Web:] http://www.Whonamedit.com/
[Date of access: 4 November 2004].
ESTERHUIZEN, W. 2005. Verbal communication to researcher. 9 April 2005.
Kempton Park.
FADELY, J. & HO~LER, V.N. 1983. Case studies in left and right hemispheric
functioning. Springfield: Thomas.
FIELDS, B.A. 2000. School discipline: is there a crisis in our schools?
Australian journal of social issues, 35(1):73-87. [In EBSCOHost : Academic
Search Elite, Full display: http://www.sa.ebsco.com] [Date of access: 11
January 2005].
FLICK, U. 1998. An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.
FOSTER, E. & PERKINS, L. 2004. Methodology mini-lesson edit 7320. [Web:]
http://www.arches.uga.edu/-efoster3/phenomenology.htm [Date of access: 11
January 2005].
--
158
GABRIEL,G. 2000. Left brain right brain: the mind in two. [Web:]
http://www.brainconnection.com/topicsl?main=fa.lmind-two [Date of access:
4 November 2004].
GARDNER, H. 1999. Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
GAUSTAD, J. 1992. School discipline. Clearinghouse on Educational
Management. College of Education, University of Oregon. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED350727.)
GAZZANIGA, M.S. 1998. The split brain revisited. Scientific American:34-39,
July.
GIBSON, E. 2002. School adjustment. [Web:] http://childparenting.about.
com/os/childdevelopmentla/temperament.htm [Date of access: 11 January
2005].
GOTTFREDSON,D.G. 1989. Developing effective organizations to reduce
school disorder. Washington, D.C. : Office of educational research and
improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED311698).
GRANQUIST, L. 1994. More on DARE. [Web:] http://www.lamontg@u.
washington.edu [Date of access: 12 January 2005].
GREENHALGH, T. & TAYLOR, R. 2000. How to read a paper. [Web:] http://
bmj.bmjjournals.com/archive/7110/711Oed.htm [Date of access: 11 January
2005].
GREENWOOD, C.R., CARTA, J.J. & HALL, R.V. 1988. The use of peer
tutoring strategies in classroom management and educational instruction.
School psychology review, 17(2):258-275.
159
GUBA, E.G. 1990. The alternative paradigm dialog. (In Guba, E.G., ed. The
paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, Calif. : Sage. p. 17-30.)
H. HARDCASTLE SCHOOL. 2004. Volunteer guide. [Web:] http://hhs.tfsd.dk.
ca/volunteer.html [Date of access: 2 November 2004].
HANSEN, R.E. 1995. Teacher socialization in technological education. Journal
of technology education, 6(2):34-45.
HENNING, E. 2004. Finding your way in qualitative research. Pretoria: Van
Schaik Publishers.
HERRMANN, N. 2002. Herrmann International. [Web:] http://www.hbdi-uk.com
[Date of access: 11 September 2004].
HOEPFl, M.C. 1997. Choosing qualitative research: a primer for technology
education researchers. [Web:] http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v9n1/
hoepfl.html [Date of access: 21 February 2005].
HOLLIDAY, A 2001. Doing and writing up qualitative research. london: Sage.
HOPKINS, AW. 2001. Evaluation of outcomes of a single-sex educational
program at an elementary school. [Web:] http://schlar.lib.vt.edu/theses/
available/etd-12142001-1539401 [Date of access: 2 November 2004].
JANKOWSKI, K.A 2002. Community building: a positive approach to discipline
in schools. [Web:] http://clerccenter.galiaudet.edu/Products/Sharing-ldeas/
community/discipline.html [Date of access: 5 April 2004].
JONES, F.H. 1979. The gentle art of classroom discipline. National elementary
principal, 58: 26-322.
--
160
JOUBERT, R. & PRINSLOO, S. 2001. Education law: a practical guide for
authors. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
KERRY, S. 2002. Education for the whole brain. [Web:] http://www.education-
reform.netlbrain.htm [Date of access: 2 November 2004].
KLOSKA, A. & RAMASUT, A. 1985. Teacher stress. Maladjustment and
therapeutic education, 3(6):19-26.
KOUNIN, E. 1970. Discipline and group management in classrooms. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
LABUSCHAGNE,A. 2003. Qualitative research: airy fairy or fundamental?
[Web:] http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-1I1abuschagne.html[Date of access:
22 February 2005].
LEONARD, S. 2002. Whole brain teaching and learning. [Web:] http://www.
leonardconsulting.com/whole%20Brain%1OLearning?htm. [Date of access:
11 September 2004].
LEWIS, R. & LOVEGROVE, J.E. 1987. The teacher as disciplinarian. How do
students feel? Australian journal of education, 32(2):173-186.
LINCOLN, Y.S. & GUBA, L.H. 1984. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, Calif. :
Sage.
MABEBA, M.Z. & PRINSLOO, E. 2000. Perceptions of discipline and ensuing
problems in secondary education. South Africanjournal of education, 20(1):34-
41.
--- -~ ~. -. -..---
161
MABUZA, E. 2000. South Africa court to decide whether schools should spare
rod. [Web:] www.corpun.com [Date of access: 4 April 2004].
MAREE, K. 1999. Spoil the rod, spare the child: some views on corporal
punishment in South Africa. Actacriminologica, 12(2):56-64.
McHENRY, I. 2000. Conflict in schools. Fertile ground for moral growth. Phi
Delta Kappan, 82(3):223-227.
MENTZ P.J., WOLHUTER, C.C. & STEYN, S.C. 2003. 'n Perspektief op die
voorkoms van dissiplineprobleme in Afrikaanse skole. Koers,68(4):391-412.
MERRIAM, S.B. 1998. Qualitative research and cases studies applications in
education. San Francisco, Calif. : Jossey-Bass.
MERRIAM, S.B. 2002. Introductionto qualitative research. (In Merriam, S.B.,
ed. Qualitative research in practice: examples for discussion and analysis. San
Francisco, Calif. : Jossey-Bass. p. 9).
MIDDLETON, R.J. & WALSH, B.J. 1995. Truth is stranger than it used to be.
Downer's Grove: InterVarsity.
MIFFLIN, H. 2003. Thinking styles and learning styles. [Web:] http://college.
hmco.com [Date of access: 16 September 2004].
MOLES, O.C. 1989. Strategies to reduce student misbehavior. Washington,
D.C. : Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED311608.)
MSOMI, S. 2000. KZN school continues use of cane. [Web:] www.corpun.com
[Date of access: 4 April 2004].
162
MUNN, P. & MELLOR, A. 2000. Information on praise and reward systems.
[Web:] http://www.antibullying.net/praisereward.htm [Date of access: 12
January 2005].
MYERS, M.D. 2004. Qualitative research in information systems. [Web:]
http://www.qual.auckland.ac.nzl[Date of access: 5 March 2005].
NAESP see NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRINCIPALS (NAESP).
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
(NAESP). 1983. Developing a discipline code in your school. Here's how, 2(3),
Dec. (4 p.).
NEDLAC SUMMIT. 1999. Commission on the challenges facing public
education. [Web:] www.nedlac..org.za/summit/1999/commissions/
the_wto_and_trade_htm_.whk [Date of access: 5 April 2004].
NEETHLlNG, K. 2003a. Personal instruments. [Web:] http://www.
solutionsfinding.com/ [Date of access: 14 September 2004].
NEETHLlNG, K. 2003b. Background information. [Web:] http://www
.kobusneethling.coml [Date of access: 3 April 2004].
NEETHLlNG, K. 2004a. NBI research report. [Web:] http://www.
solutionsfinding.com [Date of access: 27 March 2004].
NEETHLlNG, K. 2004b. Practitioner training manual. Halfway House:
Solutionsfinding.
163
NEETHLlNG,K. 2004c. Verbal communication to researcher. 15 March 2004.
Pretoria.
NEETHLlNG, K. & RUTHERFORD,R. 2001. Am I clever or am I stupid.
Vanderbijlpark : Carpe Diem Books.
NEETHLlNG, K. & RUTHERFORD, R. 2004. Very smart parents. Halfway
House: Solutionsfinding.
NEILL, R. ST J. 1986. Children's reported responses to teachers' non-verbal
signals: a pilot study. Journal of education for teaching, 12:53-63.
OOSTHUIZEN, LJ. 1998. Aspects of educational law. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
OOSTHUIZEN, LJ., ed. 2005. Safe schools. Pretoria: SORB.
OOSTHUIZEN, LJ., WOLHUTER, C.C. & DU TOIT, P. 2003. Preventive or
punitive disciplinary measures in South African schools: which should be
favoured? Koers, 68(4):457-479.
OXFORD ADVANCED LEARNER'S DICTIONARY. 1995. London: Oxford
University Press.
PARRISH, M. 2003. Roger Wolcott Sperry. [Web:] http.!/www.Brain
Connection.com.! [Date of access: 28 May 2004].
PATTON, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nded.
Newbury Park, Calif. : Sage.
PIETSCH, P. 2002. Splitting the human brain. [Web:] www.indiana.edu/
pietsch/split-brain.html/ [Date of access: 28 May 2004].
---
164
POORE, S. 2000. Ethno methodology: an introduction. [Web:] http://www.
hewett.norfolk.sch.uklcurriclsoclethno/intro.htm[Dateofaccess: 5 March2005].
PRETORIUS, C. 2002. Chalk and cheese. [Web:] http://wwwsuntimes.co.za/
2000/12/31/insightlinol.htm [Date of access: 10 April2004].
PSATHAS, G. 1995. Conversation analysis: the study of talk-in-interaction.
London: Sage. (Qualitative research methods series, 35.)
RADEMEYER,A. 2004. Effektieweonnie gee net 10 van 30 min klas. Die
Bee/d.'?, September 7.
RATCLIFF,D. 2003. Qualitative vs. quantitative research. [Web:] http://www.
vanguard. ed u/uploaded Files/faculty/dratcliff/qualresources/qualquant.pdf [Date
of access: 22 March 2005].
RESTAK,R. 2000. Mysteries of the mind. Washington, D.C. : National
Geographic.
ROBERTS, S. 2003. Brain research sheds new lighton student learning,
teaching strategies and disabilities. [Web:] www.cec.sped.org/bklcectoday/
?module=displaystory&story-id=750&format=html[Date of access: 28 May
2004].
ROOS, R. 2003. Legal requirements for school rules and disciplinarysanctions.
Koers, 68(4):481-520.
ROSSMAN,G. 2002. Developingthe whole brain. [Web:] http://ecolecon.
missouri,edu/globalresearch/chapters/3-05.html[Dateof access: 20 September
2004].
-- .......---......
165
ROSSMAN, G.P. 2003. The future of higher (lifelong) education. [Web:] http://
ecolecon.missourLedu/globalresearch/chapter/5.html [Date of access: 25 March
2004].
ROSSOUW, J.P. 1994. Die rol van die skoolhoof in die staatsondersteunde
(model C-) skool in die RSA. Potchefstroom: Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir
CHO. (Proefskrif - OEd.)
ROSSOUW, J.P. 2003. Learner discipline in South African public schools: a
qualitative study. Koers, 68(4):413-435.
SA see SOUTH AFRICA
SCARUFFI, P. 2000. Paul MacLean: the triune brain in evolution. Plenum
Press. [Web:] http://www.thymos.com/maclean.htm/[Date of access: 28 May
2004].
SEALE, C. 2002. Quality issues in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative social work,
1(1):97-110.
SMITH, C.A. 1992. Handling aggression in children. [Web:] http:/www.early
childhoodbehavioralhealth.com/Articies/HandleAggress.htm [Date of access:
11 January 2005].
SMITH, J. 2000. Whole brain learning and its application in the classroom.
[Web:] http://www.gactr.uga.edu/gcq/gcqfalloo/mind_matters.htm/[Date of
access: 2 November 2004].
SOLOMON, M. & HENDREN, R.L. 2003. Critical look at brain-based
education. [Web:] http://www.naesp.org/ContentLoad.do?contentld=1086 [Date
of access: 2 November 2004].
--- ---
166
SOUTH AFRICA. 1996a. The constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act
108 of 1996. Pretoria: Government Printers.
SOUTH AFRICA. 1996b. South African Schools Act, Act 84 of 1996. Pretoria:
Government Printer.
SOUTH AFRICA. 1996c. National Education Policy, Act 27 of 1996. [Web:]
http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/acts/1996/a27-96.htm
SOUTH AFRICA. 1998. Guidelines for the consideration of Governing Bodies
in accepting a code of conduct for learners. Government Gazette, Notice 776 /
1998 on 15 May 1998. Pretoria: Government Printer.
SOUTH AFRICA. 2000. South African Council for Educators, Act 31 of 2000.
Pretoria : Government Printers.
SPERRY, R.W. 1961. Cerebral organisation and behavior. Science, 133:1749-
1757.
SPRINGER, S.P. & DEUTSCH, G. 1989. Left brain, right brain. New York:
Freeman.
STRAUSS, A. & CORBIN, J. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded
theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, Calif. : Sage.
TORRANCE, E.P. 1980. Interview with E. Paul Torrance, educator and
psychologist. http://www.nfgcc.org/45.htm [Date of access: 16 September
2004].
167
TORRANCE, E.P. 1994. Creativityjust wanting to know. Clubview: Benedic
Books.
VAN DER WALT,J.L. 2003. "nBeginselgrondslag virgesag, vryheid, orde en
dissipline in die onderwysopset van die vroeg-21ste eeu. Koers, 68(4):331-352.
VANTASSELL, G. 1999. Classroom management. [Web:] http://www.brains.
org/classroom_management.htm (Date of access: 2 November 2004].
VISSER, P.J. 1999. Some ideas on legal aspects of a code of conduct for
learners in public schools. De Jure, 32(1):146-152.
WAYSON,W.W. & LASLEY,T.J. 1984. Climates for excellence: schools that
foster self-discipline. Ph{Delta Kappan, 65(6):419-421.
WEITZMAN,E.A. et al. 2000. Software and qualitative research. (In Denzin,
N.K.&Lincoln,Y.S. Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage. p. 803-
820.)
WENGLINSKY,H. 1999. Testimony to the early childhood, youth and families
subcommittee on education and workforce, US House of Representatives.
[Web:] http://edworkforce.house. gov/hearings/106th/ecyf/schdisc.3999/
wenglinsky.htm (Date of access: 28 May2004].
WEST, D.J. 1982. Delinquency: its roots, careers and prospects. London:
Heinemann.
WILSON,J. & COWELL,B. 1990. Children and discipline. London: Cassell.
WOLHUTER,C.C. & OOSTHUIZEN,I.J., eds. 2003a. Handlingdiscipline in
school. Potchefstroom: Azarel Publishers.
----
168
WOLHUTER, C.C. & OOSTHUIZEN, LJ. 2003b. In Leerderperspektief op
dissipline: 'n kwalitatiewe ontleding. Koers, 68(4):439.
WOLHUTER, C.C. & STEYN, S.C. 2003. Learner discipline at school: a
comparative educational perspective. Koers, 68(4):521-538.
YELL, M.L. 1990. The use of corporal punishment, suspension, expulsion and
time-out with behaviourally disordered students in public schools: legal
considerations. Behavioral disorders, 15(2):100-109.
YIN, R.K. 2002. Case study research, design and methods. 3rded. Newbury
Park: Sage.