Classroom Management Models Assignment
Four models. Sixteen template cells. One 250–350 word reflection. Each cell in Part 1 has a specific question behind it — and if you don’t know what each model actually stands for, the template stays empty. Here’s how to approach every section without guessing.
The template looks deceptively simple. Four models, four rows each, fill in the cells. But every cell is asking a different analytical question — and the same model will produce very different answers depending on which row you’re filling. Students who treat all four cells as “general information about the model” miss the point of the template entirely. The concepts cell, the student expectations cell, the classroom organization cell, and the teacher roles cell are not asking for the same information restated four different ways.
What This Guide Covers
What the Template Is Actually Asking
This assignment is the groundwork for the “Philosophy and Classroom Model” section of your classroom management plan. That context matters. You’re not just filling in a comparison chart — you’re building the research foundation that will justify the model you eventually claim as your own in Part 2. How you write Part 1 directly affects how convincing Part 2 will be.
Research Three Prescribed Models — Then Choose One That Matches Your Philosophy
The three required models aren’t random. Harry Wong, Win-Win Discipline, and Fred Jones represent very different philosophical orientations to classroom management — procedural mastery, needs-based response, and nonverbal prevention respectively. The assignment wants you to genuinely understand those differences before you make the Part 2 claim about which one aligns with your philosophy. If every row in your template sounds the same across all four models, the research didn’t land.
What “research the models” means practically: Each model has primary or secondary scholarly sources — books, journal articles, empirical studies. Wong wrote The First Days of School. Jones developed his model through classroom observation research. Kagan, Kyle, and Scott published the Win-Win Discipline curriculum with detailed theory. You don’t need to read the full primary texts, but you need enough from credible academic sources to write accurate, model-specific content for each cell. Relying only on general teaching websites will produce surface-level answers that reviewers spot immediately.Understanding the Four Cell Types Before You Write
The template has the same four rows for every model. Read what each one is actually asking before you start writing. They are not synonyms for each other.
The most common template error: writing “This model focuses on creating a positive classroom environment” in the Concepts cell. That’s generic. Every model on this list aims to create a positive classroom environment — that’s why they’re all on the list. The Concepts cell needs the specific theory that distinguishes this model from the others. What does Harry Wong believe about why classrooms fail? What does Win-Win Discipline say about the cause of misbehavior? That’s concepts — not outcomes.
Harry Wong’s Effective Classroom
Wong’s model is procedural at its core. The central claim is that most classroom disruption doesn’t come from defiant students — it comes from students who don’t know what they’re supposed to be doing. The solution is explicit procedure instruction, not reactive discipline.
Procedures Are the Product — That Idea Drives Every Cell
The word “procedure” appears constantly in Wong’s work for a reason. A procedure is a specific sequence of steps for handling a recurring classroom situation — entering the room, turning in work, getting materials, asking for help. Not rules. Procedures. That distinction is central and it should appear in your Concepts cell explicitly.
Concepts cell direction: Focus on the procedures-versus-rules distinction, the idea that the first days of school determine the rest of the year, and Wong’s argument that teacher effectiveness is the single biggest factor in student achievement. The model separates procedures (what to do) from discipline (what happens when rules are broken) — most models conflate these, Wong doesn’t.Student expectations cell direction: Students in a Wong classroom are expected to know and execute specific procedures without being reminded. They’re expected to follow posted routines, self-manage within the structured system, and understand what the signal for each activity means. The expectation isn’t compliance through fear — it’s competence through practice.
Classroom organization cell direction: Seating arranged to facilitate smooth transitions. Every procedure visually posted. Materials stored in consistent, accessible locations. Traffic patterns thought out in advance. A signal system (bell, clap pattern, visual cue) displayed. The physical room is set up so procedures can actually happen without confusion.
Teacher roles cell direction: The teacher explicitly teaches procedures — models them, has students practice them, re-teaches when they break down. The teacher uses a calm, professional demeanor rather than emotional reactions. Ongoing role: monitor procedure adherence, acknowledge success, reteach as needed. Not punishing procedure failures — treating them as gaps in learning.
Key Ideas to Include in the Wong Cells
- First days of school — set the tone, teach procedures before content
- Procedures vs. rules — procedures are how-tos; rules are behavior standards
- Teacher effectiveness — Wong’s research connects teacher skill (not student demographics) to outcomes
- Consistency — procedures only work if enforced consistently every time
- Positive expectations — assuming students want to succeed when given clear structure
What to Avoid Writing in the Wong Cells
- Generic statements about positive environment that don’t mention procedures
- Confusing Wong’s model with a discipline model — it’s a management model; Wong draws that line clearly
- Describing student expectations in terms of behavior rules rather than procedural competence
- Describing the teacher role as “enforcing rules” — Wong’s framing is “teaching procedures”
Kagan, Kyle, and Scott’s Win-Win Discipline
This model goes a layer deeper than behavior. The premise is that students misbehave because of an unmet need — not because they’re bad or oppositional by default. The teacher’s job is to identify what need is driving the behavior and respond to that, not just suppress the behavior on the surface.
Attention-Seeking, Avoiding Failure, Wanting Control, Expressing Anger
Win-Win Discipline categorizes disruptive behavior into four “positions” — the underlying motivational state behind the misbehavior. Each position has different triggers and requires a different teacher response. This framework is the conceptual heart of the model. Your Concepts cell needs these positions named and briefly described, because they’re what separates Win-Win from every other model on this list.
Concepts cell direction: Explain the four positions. Describe the “win-win” principle — students win when their underlying needs are addressed; teachers win when learning can happen; the community wins when the classroom functions well. Note that the model emphasizes long-term responsible behavior development, not just short-term compliance.Student expectations cell direction: Students are expected to develop self-awareness about their own behavior patterns over time. The model builds toward student responsibility — students eventually learn to identify their own position and choose different behavior. Short-term, students are expected to respond to teacher interventions; long-term, to internalize self-regulation.
Classroom organization cell direction: The physical space should support collaborative structures (Kagan is also known for cooperative learning, so group seating arrangements fit naturally). Calming corners or quiet spaces support students who need to regulate before re-engaging. Visual charts displaying class agreements and collaborative norms rather than punitive rule lists.
Teacher roles cell direction: The teacher diagnoses behavior position in the moment — reading why a student is acting out, not just what they’re doing. The teacher chooses interventions matched to the position. Builds relationships proactively so students feel seen. Uses collaborative problem-solving over time to address recurring patterns.
Spencer Kagan is also widely known for cooperative learning structures (think pair-share, numbered heads). Win-Win Discipline is a separate framework from cooperative learning, though they’re philosophically compatible. In your template cells, keep the focus on Win-Win Discipline specifically. You can note the cooperative learning connection in the Classroom Organization cell (group seating supports collaborative work), but the Concepts cell should focus on the four positions and the win-win principle — not cooperative learning structures.
Fred Jones Positive Classroom Discipline
Jones’ contribution is grounded in observation research. He spent years watching effective and ineffective teachers in real classrooms and documented specifically what the effective ones did differently. The answer was largely nonverbal and preventative — effective teachers were managing the room continuously through presence and proximity, not reacting to problems after they escalated.
Classroom Structure + Limit Setting + Say, See, Do Teaching
Jones organized his model around three interlocking components. Get clear on all three before you fill in the cells — they map onto different parts of the template in different ways.
Classroom Structure: Room arrangement that allows the teacher to move to any student quickly without disrupting other students. The “interior loop” — a path that enables the teacher to circulate through every part of the room smoothly. Jones identified that many teachers trap themselves at the front or at their desk, which creates passive management. Proximity is the tool; the room has to make proximity possible. This is your primary content for the Classroom Organization cell.Limit Setting: Jones’ nonverbal sequence for stopping low-level disruption without verbal confrontation. The sequence moves from making eye contact, to turning your body, to moving toward the student, to standing near them — all before saying a word. The goal is stopping behavior while keeping instructional momentum. This is central to the Concepts cell and the Teacher Roles cell.
Say, See, Do Teaching: Jones’ instructional approach that keeps students engaged through high participation and frequent, short practice cycles. Students who are genuinely engaged misbehave less. The prevention of boredom is a management strategy. This supports the Student Expectations cell — students are expected to participate actively in rapid cycles of instruction and practice.
| Cell | Key Jones Concept to Anchor It | What NOT to Write |
|---|---|---|
| Concepts | Nonverbal limit setting; teacher proximity as the primary management tool; body language over verbal reaction | Generic “positive reinforcement” — Jones is specifically nonverbal prevention, not reward systems |
| Student Expectations | Students respond to nonverbal cues; active participation in Say-See-Do cycles; self-monitoring during structured work | Describing students as passive recipients of teacher correction |
| Classroom Organization | Interior loop seating arrangement; teacher mobility throughout room; no furniture blocking circulation | Generic “desks arranged in groups” without the mobility rationale |
| Teacher Roles | Continuous room patrol; nonverbal intervention sequence before verbal; using proximity rather than voice to correct | Describing reactive verbal correction — that contradicts Jones’ core finding |
Choosing and Approaching the Fourth Model
The assignment gives you three options as examples: Morrish’s Real Discipline, Canter and Canter’s Assertive Discipline, and Jeanne Gibbs’ Tribes. You’re not limited to these — but they’re good starting points. Your choice here should be strategic. The model you choose will likely become the one you claim in Part 2 as aligning with your personal philosophy.
Pick the Model You Could Genuinely Argue For in 350 Words
The fourth model is your setup for Part 2. If you don’t have a strong opinion about any of the three required models, the choice model is your opportunity to find one that genuinely resonates with how you think classroom management should work. That resonance matters — Part 2 asks you to connect the model to your personal philosophy, and a forced connection reads as thin to an evaluator.
Assertive Discipline (Canter & Canter): Structured, clear consequences. The teacher has the right to teach without disruption; students have the right to learn without disruption. The model uses a hierarchy of consequences and positive recognition. Strong scholarly literature base — easier to find APA-formatted peer-reviewed sources. Good fit if your philosophy centers on clear expectations and consistent follow-through.Tribes Learning Community (Jeanne Gibbs): Community-building through cooperative small groups called “tribes.” The model prioritizes belonging, safety, and collaborative norms. Social-emotional learning is central. Good fit if your philosophy emphasizes relational classroom culture and student voice. Note that Tribes has a specific group agreement structure — that structure should appear in your Classroom Organization cell.
Real Discipline (Ron Morrish): Distinguishes between teaching compliance and developing genuine self-discipline. Morrish argues that too many modern approaches skip the compliance phase and try to go straight to cooperation — which he says doesn’t work developmentally. Good fit if your philosophy includes respectful authority and character development alongside relationship.
Part 2: Writing the 250–350 Word Reflection
Part 2 has three required components. They’re not optional add-ons — the rubric will check for each one. The reflection is short, so you can’t afford to spend half of it on introduction or context. Get into the substance immediately.
Name the Model and Explain the Alignment to Your Philosophy
Identify which of the four models aligns with your personal classroom management philosophy — then explain specifically why. “Aligns with my philosophy” needs more than “I believe in positive relationships.” Name the specific aspect of the model’s theory that matches a specific belief you hold about students and learning. Then address how this model works in both a physical classroom (in-person) and a digital learning environment. Digital environment = how the same principles translate to virtual management tools, breakout rooms, discussion norms, camera-on expectations, etc.
Describe Your Envisioned Learning Environment and How It Supports All Students
This is not a physical description of your dream classroom. It’s a description of the learning climate — what it feels like to be a student in your classroom, what norms govern the space, how students relate to you and to each other. “Supports all students” is a specific phrase — it means your framework accounts for diverse learners, students with behavioral needs, English language learners, and students who struggle socially. Address this explicitly. Vague inclusion language (“I want all students to feel welcome”) is not enough.
Explain Self-Motivation and Collaboration Opportunities
The assignment specifically names these two: self-motivation and collaboration. Address both directly. For self-motivation: how does your management framework encourage students to take ownership of their behavior and learning — not just comply with external rules? For collaboration: what specific structures or opportunities in your framework create meaningful student-to-student interaction? This doesn’t have to be elaborate — but it has to be concrete. “Students will work in groups” is not enough. How does your management framework create and protect space for that collaboration?
Word count: 250 is the floor, 350 is the ceiling. Under 250 suggests you didn’t fully address all three components. Over 350 suggests you didn’t edit. Both can affect your rubric score.
Scholarly sources: Peer-reviewed journal articles or academic books. For classroom management, look in databases like ERIC (education research index), Google Scholar, or your university library. Search terms: “classroom management elementary,” “[model name] classroom management research,” “teacher behavior management elementary.” Published within 5–7 years is preferable, though foundational works (Wong’s original research, Jones’ observational studies) are acceptable as primary sources.
APA format: In-text citations in the body of the reflection: (Author, Year). Full reference list at the end of the document. For journal articles: Author, A. A. (Year). Title of article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages. https://doi.org/xxxxx
Finding Your 2–3 Scholarly Sources
The assignment doesn’t require sources for Part 1 — but Part 2 requires 2–3. Those sources need to support the claims you make in the reflection, particularly about how your chosen model supports diverse learners, promotes self-motivation, or enables collaboration. Don’t find sources after writing and try to attach them — build the reflection around things you can actually support with research.
Where to Search for Classroom Management Sources
- ERIC (education.gov) — the most comprehensive education research database; free access
- Google Scholar — search “[model name] classroom management” or “elementary behavior management”
- Your university library — GCU and similar institutions provide access to ProQuest Education and EBSCO databases
- Journal of Education for Teaching — Taylor & Francis peer-reviewed journal on teacher preparation
- Teaching and Teacher Education — Elsevier journal covering classroom practice research
Search Terms That Return Useful Results
- “Harry Wong classroom management procedures research”
- “Win-Win Discipline Kagan elementary students”
- “Fred Jones proximity management classroom”
- “Assertive Discipline Canter effectiveness”
- “classroom management self-regulation elementary”
- “behavior management diverse learners elementary”
- “positive classroom environment teacher framework”
The ERIC database at eric.ed.gov is a free, federally maintained index of education research. Search for any of the model names and you’ll find empirical studies, literature reviews, and practitioner articles. Filter for peer-reviewed and for publication date. Export your citations in APA format directly from the database — it’s faster than formatting by hand and reduces formatting errors.
Mistakes That Weaken This Assignment
Writing the Same Content Across All Four Model Cells
If your Student Expectations cell for Harry Wong sounds nearly identical to your Student Expectations cell for Win-Win Discipline, the research didn’t produce model-specific understanding. The whole point of filling a comparative template is to show you understand what makes each model distinct.
Let the Model’s Theory Drive Each Cell
Before writing each cell, ask: given what this model believes about student behavior, what would this specifically look like? Wong’s student expectations look different from Win-Win’s because the underlying theory is different. Let the theory produce the content — don’t import generic expectations and apply them to all four models.
Treating the Classroom Organization Cell as Interior Design
“Colorful posters on the walls, comfortable reading corner, students sit in groups” could describe any classroom in any model. The Classroom Organization cell is asking for the physical features that specifically enable this management model to function. Fred Jones’ layout is different from Wong’s for specific reasons tied to their theories.
Connect Organization Choices to the Model’s Theory
For Fred Jones: the interior loop arrangement specifically enables proximity-based management. For Win-Win: group table seating supports collaborative norms that reflect the cooperative underpinning. For Wong: materials placement and visual procedure charts enable students to execute procedures independently. Each organizational choice has a theoretical reason.
Writing Part 2 as a Summary of All Four Models
Part 2 is a reflection, not a comparison chart continued in paragraph form. It’s not asking you to summarize all four models again. It’s asking you to pick one, connect it to your personal philosophy, and describe how you’d actually use it in a real classroom.
Make It Personal and Specific — It’s Called a Reflection for a Reason
Part 2 should sound like it came from you specifically — your philosophy, your envisioned classroom, your reasoning for choosing this model. A reflection that could have been written by any education student hasn’t reflected deeply enough. Name specific beliefs you hold about students and learning, and connect them to specific aspects of the model you chose.
Using Only Websites for Sources
Teaching blogs, general education websites, and even some university course pages are not scholarly sources. The assignment requires 2–3 peer-reviewed academic sources formatted in APA. A blog post about Harry Wong doesn’t meet that standard, even if it’s well-written.
Use ERIC or Your Library Database — Not Google
ERIC.ed.gov is free. Your university library has ProQuest Education and EBSCO. These databases return peer-reviewed journal articles and let you filter by publication date. Ten minutes in ERIC will produce better sources than an hour of general Google searching for this topic.
Pre-Submission Checklist
Frequently Asked Questions
Need Help With Your Classroom Management Assignment?
Classroom management models template, philosophy reflections, scholarly source support, and full education assignment writing — our team works with education students across undergraduate and graduate programs.
Education Assignment Help Get StartedBefore You Submit
The LopesWrite submission is required — not optional. Submit through LopesWrite before your final submission. If you’re unfamiliar with LopesWrite, the Class Resources section in your course has technical support links.
Review the rubric before you start writing, not after. The rubric tells you exactly what the evaluator is checking. At minimum, make sure you can point to a specific sentence or section in your template that addresses each rubric criterion. If you can’t find it, it’s missing.
Part 1 and Part 2 are one assignment — don’t treat them as separate tasks that happen to live in the same document. What you research and write in Part 1 should directly inform which model you choose in Part 2 and how confidently you can articulate that choice. Students who rush through Part 1 with generic content end up writing a Part 2 that doesn’t have the specificity the rubric requires.