PROPIEDADES FÍSICAS Y FUNCIONALES DE LA FIbRA DIETARIA

It is not surprising that teachers might utilise aggressive discipline behaviours such as aggressive techniques or physical punishment in practice occasionally (Sava, 2002; Lewis, et al., 2008). Fuller and Brown (1975) provided researchers with a concern-based theory, which might be able to explain teachers’ use of aggressive techniques or punishment. According to the theory, teachers experience different levels of concerns throughout their teaching career. The first-level of concern is themselves which includes their physical and emotional well-being. Teachers’ second-level of concern mainly relates to the teaching skills they have mastered during the process of gaining their teaching experience. In terms of the third level, teachers’ focus moves from themselves to the students. At this level, teachers are able to choose and employ the most effective teaching skills that could serve the actual needs of their students.

It has been found that the teachers’ concern would shift from their first-level concern to the second-level when their first-level concern has been satisfied; and sequentially move to their third-level concern when their second-level concern has also been satisfied.

However, teachers’ focus would regress to their first-level concern if their first-level concern (which includes their physical and emotional well-being) is threatened. It is for this reason that teachers might employ the aggressive techniques or punishment which might be able to effectively establish the classroom order in the short term whenever their first-level concern is believed to be challenged and threatened so that they could satisfy their primary concern immediately (Glasser, 1997).

The efficacy theory also claimed that teachers are more likely to use aggressive discipline behaviours when they confront the stressful and intense disciplinary challenges from their students because these approaches seem to be more effective in controlling students’ behaviours in short term (Riley, Lewis and Brew, 2010). During this process, teachers are said to consider more about what the misbehaving students deserve, rather than serve students’ needs when facing increasingly serious misbehaviours (Lewis, 2001).

There are also another two theories that might be helpful in explaining teachers’ use of aggressive discipline behaviours in practice: attribution theory and attachment theory. According to attribution theory, teachers might consider the use of aggressive discipline behaviours as reasonable and justified if they attributed students’ challenging behaviour such as aggression to students’ nature and characteristics. In this situation, teachers would react aggressively because they believe that it might be the only behaviour that those aggressive students could understand. That is to say, it is in fact the students who provoke teachers’ aggression rather than teachers themselves.

In the meanwhile, attachment theory describes teachers’ use of aggression as an indicator of insecure attachment that they have gained from their students. Teachers are said to have the internalised need of being attached, connected, and relied upon by their students. Whenever this kind of attachment is threatened by the independent or challenging behaviours of students; teachers tend to be more likely to implement actions for protesting against the affective abandon or separation, which usually include

aggressive behaviours that they learned unconsciously from their own experiences in childhood. It is noteworthy that although many teachers would explain their aggressive behaviours by use of these theories; none of these theories has been found to be dominating in interpreting teachers’ use of aggression (Riley, et al., 2010).

According to the research conducted in Australia, Israel and China, teachers’ aggressive discipline behaviours such as yelling, humiliating and punishment were found more likely to increase students’ misbehaviours rather than reduce them (Lewis, et al., 2005). Besides, these discipline behaviours might also exert negative influence on students’ affection towards their teachers (Romi, Lewis, Roache and Riley, 2011).

Riley, Watt, and Richardson (2009), however, found that the aggressively-behaved teachers in their study tended to be unaware of the negative impacts of their aggressive discipline behaviours, such as the potential negative influence on teacher-student relationship (Riley, 2009, 2011), or decreasing the time that students spent on tasks (Lewis, et al., 2008). In addition, teachers who use aggressive discipline behaviours might also lack the understanding that their aggression might result in a detrimental impact on students’ development from both physical and psychological perspective in the long term (Sava, 2002).

It has been suggested that teachers avoid using aggressive discipline behaviours such as aggressive techniques or physical punishment as much as possible in practice, even when facing the challenging behaviours of students for quite a long while. Instead, teachers are recommended to focus on those relationship-based discipline behaviours such as involving students in the decision-making progress of classroom rules as well as the relevant consequences of breaking the rules; talking with students about the impact of their misbehaviours; and rewarding the students for their good behaviours (Lewis, 2001).

Again, it is quite important that teachers could be able to manage their anger effectively during this process of dealing with the challenging behaviours of students. Rogers (1997) provides teachers with some useful tips for relieving their negative emotions in practice such as communicating their anger and the reasons for being angry with the others (which has been acknowledged as a skill that can be developed); being aware that their anger could be allayed by “gritted teeth”, “tense shoulders” or “the bodily constrictions” (Rogers, 1997:39); providing themselves, as well as the students with enough time to calm down whenever they are overly angry; apologising for any over-reacted behaviours while indicating that their overreactions focus merely on the incident, not on any specific person; self-mockery; sharing experience and learning from it; as well as seeking advices from the others.