Among all the other strategies suggested by Charles, the most effective one seems to relate to the students personally.
Discipline and behavior management is a fundamental part of concern in pedagogical interests. Failure of a teacher to execute appropriate strategic measures to resolve differences that often occur between teacher and students springs forth a bitterness of teaching experience. Those measures must be performed to reconcile this rift.
Disciplining understood in its action involves mending the wrong-doing of a student by using appropriate measures. But the term, as Charles (2008, p.9) points, is often referred to “coercion and forceful tactics” of the teachers. Management is therefore, the appropriate word to describe “preventing, suppressing, and redirecting misbehavior” (p. 9).
The approaches suggested by C.M. Charles (2008) in his book play handy in controlling misbehaviors of the students in the class. Firstly it must be agreed that often times students misbehave for reasons that the teacher is either responsible for or he/she has no knowledge about. Wynne (1990, p. 177) argues that “teachers should have clear personal visions of their own discipline and character standards”. An action, big or small, calls for a disciplinary reaction when, as Charles (P.8) notes, a student engages in behavior “that is inappropriate for the setting or situation in which it occurs.
First of his suggestions to “Prevent” (Charles, p. 7) any of misbehaviors from occurring, might seem futile and impractical on first look. That is because the relative implication of ‘preventing’ a student’s inappropriate behavior that occurs independently and mostly unpredictably, is difficult to meet. However, this strategy is not different from what Purkey and Strahan (2002, p.3) argue as inviting five “P’s”, “people, places, policies, programs,