New research led by University of South Australia’s Dr Jamie Manolev has put forward a case to suggest that schools’ use of ClassDojo to guide discipline and behaviour management in the classroom is, in a word, fraught.

Manolev says the widely-used platform is problematic because it fixates on narrow metrics to monitor and regulate student behaviour, while also skewing educators’ practice.

“What we’re seeing is a form of school disciplinary practice which governs student behaviour with numbers,” the researcher tells EducationHQ.

“Now, these numbers, they become fundamental to understanding and evaluating behaviour, to informing how it should be addressed and also to the ways in which behaviour is reported and communicated to school leaders or other teachers and sometimes parents, too.

“So, in these ways ClassDojo and its use of metrics is changing how disciplinary practices are happening in the classroom and in schools.”

Boasting more than 10 million installs on the Google Play Store alone, and with an average rating of 4.6 stars, it seems teachers around the world have taken to ClassDojo’s novel gamification approach to behaviour management. 

“Ready to build an amazing classroom community?

“ClassDojo is a beautiful, safe, and simple communication app for teachers, parents, and students,” the app asserts.

The platform assigns students a colourful cartoon monster as an avatar and then rewards individuals for good behaviour with ‘Dojo points’ and a pleasant dinging noise.

Meanwhile, points are deducted from misbehaving students, complete with a negative sound effect.

This allows teachers to collect data on students’ behaviour, reinforces good behaviour and encourages children to compete for the most Dojo points.

Manolev has previously warned that the app normalises and intensifies student surveillance, and works much like China’s Social Credit System, which tracks the behaviour of Chinese citizens and assigns them a score.

He says its design also fosters competition and comparison between students.

“So good behaviour becomes more about improving a score and beating your peers with that score, than developing more understanding about behaviour and how students should be behaving in a social context within the classroom.”

The researcher is keen to emphasise that teachers are in no way at fault for the impact of ClassDojo in schools.

ClassDojo’s reliance on metrics “reduces the complexity of behaviour to a number”, the researcher adds.

“When that happens it strips away all context, right? Context is really important for understanding why behaviours may be occurring.

“And if we’re only seeing behaviour as a number, that really tells you nothing about what’s going on in the classroom; when that behaviour may have happened, who else may have been involved, anything about what the teacher might have been doing during that behaviour as well – whether that student was having trouble with their learning task at the time and maybe it was a factor of being bored.

“And it doesn’t tell you anything about what else might be going on in that student’s life outside of school.”

Teachers are left with an oversimplified understanding of behaviour, one in which everything is framed as either good or bad, Manolev warns.

And in our multi-cultural school settings, this presents a problem.

“There’s no kind of grey area in there. That means that there’s no recognition of why behaviours occur and how that can then change, or how certain behaviours might be understood.

“If we think about cultural differences, these things sometimes complicate the way different behaviours can be understood and viewed in the classroom.”

So what are teachers themselves saying about the platform?

Manolev and his team interviewed seven South Australian educators as part of their recent study, finding their pedagogical practices had become unintentionally limited through using ClassDojo. 

“There are only a certain number of ways a teacher can discipline students if the platform is giving them a very simplistic reward and sanction process which they can deliver into their classroom to manage behaviour.

“So unfortunately, I think teachers, when they’re using platforms like ClassDojo, are restricted in many ways,” he reflects. 

Those that supplement ClassDojo with other methods of classroom behaviour management likely benefit from more sophisticated approaches and understandings, Manolev notes.

The researcher is keen to emphasise that teachers are in no way at fault for the impact of ClassDojo in schools.

“I can’t stress enough, I don’t think it’s something that teachers should be blamed for.

“I think it’s an issue with the platform and its design, and then what’s possible through that platform because of the design.”

While we have seen some schools (and certain districts across the US) advise teachers to err away from the platform, Manolev says these cases are the ‘vast minority’ when considering its use on an international scale.  

But having first sounded the alarm almost a decade ago, Manolev says translating research into policy solutions that bring about change is a tough gig.

He remains hopeful.

“I think if policymakers can be looking at this kind of research when we’re thinking about school discipline policy, and if that can inform future school discipline policy, that could be a really effective way of improving the practices that we see in our classrooms here in Australia.”

Meanwhile, one NSW teacher is taking a public stand against the encroachment of technology in his own school and is urging others to do the same.

Michael Kaissis, head of PDHPE at St Charbel’s College in Sydney, recently said teachers and school leaders must ‘draw a line in the sand’ and say ‘no more’ – especially considering 40 years of scientific research has shown mixed results of tech’s effectiveness in classrooms.

“For some of the tech, the evidence just isn’t there for it. It distracts from learning. It hinders the learning process, and it makes things more difficult for teachers,” he said.