Module 4 – Leadership models
Printable version of this page
Module 4 – Leadership models | |
|
Printable version of this page |
 |  |
On successful completion of this module, you should be able to:
describe in detail three leadership models of discipline
contrast the leadership models of discipline with the management models
reflect on your own model of discipline, and justify your position, and how you draw on these models
demonstrate a thorough understanding of implementation of one of the leadership models – optional.
Edwards, CH & Watts, V 2004, Classroom discipline and management, chapters 5, 6, 8 & 9.
Selected reading 4.1: Glasser, W 1990, ‘The quality school’.
Selected reading 4.2: Glasser, W 1997, ‘A new look at school failure and school success’.
Selected reading 4.3: Charles, CM, Senter, GW & Barr, KB 1999, Building classroom discipline.
The William Glasser Institute 2004, viewed 20 September 2004, <http://www.wglasser.com/>.
In this module, you will be provided the opportunity to study, in depth, three examples of leadership models of discipline: logical consequences, reality therapy/control theory, and cooperative discipline. Your primary source of information for your study is the Edwards text, where a chapter is devoted to each model. There will be additional information provided on each model in this study material; covered are the model’s origins, assumptions, key components, and problems. Where appropriate, additional readings and references will be identified for you to follow up on other aspects of the model. Finally, a quiz will be provided as a means of helping you check your knowledge and understanding of the model.
The logical consequences model is a comprehensive approach to managing the behaviour of children and adolescents in the home and school environments. The title refers to one, albeit important component of the total model. The essence of the approach is the encouragement of responsible behaviour. Rudolf Dreikurs is the originator of the model.
Two basic assumptions underlie Dreikurs’ approach:
Student behaviour is goal-directed.
People learn best through concrete experiences. The model emphasizes the use of student choice in the affairs of the classroom and the use of democratic ideals. Dreikurs believes that behaviour is the result of one’s own biased interpretations of the world. Every child views and interprets situations differently, and this should be a guiding principle for teachers as they communicate with their students.
Dreikurs’ discipline model focuses on understanding why students behave in a particular way. He believes there are four basic reasons which explain why children misbehave in school. These reasons range from gaining attention, exercising power, exacting revenge, to displaying inadequacy. By discovering and understanding the motives of children’s disruptive behaviour, teachers can develop strategies to handle particular problems – thus not allowing behaviour to interfere with learning. Dreikurs also encourages teachers to openly communicate with students concerning the motives/purposes for misbehaving. the logical consequences approach embraces the old maxim that experience is the best teacher. Students are more likely to learn to behave responsibly if they are given opportunities to exercise responsibility, and that includes accepting the consequences of one’s actions.
Discipline is based on mutual respect, which motivates students to behave constructively out of a heightened sense of social interest.
Three types of teachers exist. ‘Autocratic teachers’ force their will on students to prove they have control of the classroom. ‘Permissive teachers’ fail to provide standards and guidance through a system of humane rules and consequences. ‘Democratic teachers’ provide guidance through rules and consequences, while allowing students to participate in decision making. Democratic teachers are more likely to help students become self-disciplined.
A democratic classroom is one in which teacher and students cooperate in making joint decisions about class procedures, rules, and consequences for misbehaviour. Democratic classrooms are more effective that others in fostering student self-discipline.
Virtually all students have a compelling desire to feel a sense of belonging in the classroom. They expend considerable effort in the pursuit of this goal.
Classroom misbehaviour often results when students are unable to attain the genuine goal of belonging and turn to mistaken goals of attention, power, revenge, and inadequacy.
The first mistaken goal is that of trying to get attention from peers and the teacher.
The second mistaken goal is that of seeking power. Students who fail to get attention will seek a sense of power, usually by refusing to do what the teacher requests.
The third mistaken goal is that of seeking revenge. Students who are unsuccessful in a power struggle with the teacher will attempt to get revenge by hurting the teacher. They may deface property, subvert the class, or spread lies.
The fourth mistaken goal is that of displaying inadequacy. When all else has failed, students attempt to shield themselves from further damage by withdrawing or making no attempt to learn or to participate.
Encouragement is words or actions teachers use to convey respect for students and belief in their abilities. Encouragement differs from praise, which is counterproductive, since praise is only given when a task is done well.
When teachers see students pursuing mistaken goals, they should calmly point out that fact to the students.
Logical consequences are reasonable results that follow behaviour, desirable or undesirable. Good behaviour brings pleasant consequences, such as favourite activities or talking with friends. Misbehaviour brings unpleasant consequences, such as having to complete work as homework rather than in class.
Punishment is action taken by teachers to get back at students and show them who is boss, usually by humiliating or isolating the offending students. Because punishment has many pitfalls, it should be replaced with logical consequences.
A great deal of the success of the logical consequences model in classrooms depends on how correctly teachers diagnose the motives underlying student misconduct. Incorrect diagnoses may undermine student confidence in the teacher and make subsequent interactions more difficult.
A second potential problem involves the amount of time required to implement the various aspects of the approach. Individual conferences with students can require considerable time, as do class meetings designed to develop rules and consequences for disobedience. Unless a teacher regards classroom management as an integral part of being an effective teacher, it is likely that this investment of time will be greeted with resentment.
Identifying and implementing ‘logical’ consequences poses a third potential difficulty. For example, what is a logical consequence for a victimless act of disobedience, such as smoking a cigarette? Do teachers have the right to confiscate personal property such as skateboards of radios – if it can create a nuisance? What consequences can be legally imposed by school authorities when one student physically abuses another?
William Glasser, a psychiatrist, spent much of his early career working in a residential treatment centre for delinquent girls in California. In the 1960s, he became concerned about the plight of minority students as he read accounts of the low quality of education in inner-city schools. His book, Schools without failure contains many suggestions for creating learning environments where young people, particularly those who have experienced negative feelings about schools, can take an active interest in self-improvement. Glasser has extended his work in recent years to include his concept of Control Theory.
Glasser writes primarily about student academic problems. However, he makes the important assumption, that student behaviour problems often result from academic problems. The failing student, frustrated by his inability to function at the teacher’s level of expectations, frequently expresses his uneasiness by disobeying class rules.
To correct an academic problem, Glasser believes, a student must make a specific commitment to overcome the problem. To make such a commitment presupposes that the student is aware of the nature of his or her academic problem. Often this is not the case. Teachers who confront troubled students may take for granted that students clearly understand the source of their poor performance when, in fact, students do not possess such understanding. A student, therefore, may attribute his low grades to poor teaching, while his teacher lays the blame on inadequate motivation.
Glasser believes that the real problem may be linked to the belief – held by many students, he claims – that they have little chance of achieving success in school or in life. Failure in school serves to confirm student cynicism and low self-esteem. Loneliness and lack of love often lie at the heart of such negative feelings. To correct the situation, Glasser urges teachers to provide more opportunities for all students to be successful. These opportunities range from student involvement in school activities to academic tasks that are designed to build on what students already know.
Glasser makes several assumptions regarding teacher, as well as student, behaviour. For example, he believes teachers too often expect a certain proportion of their students to fail. In addition, they frequently ‘give up’ on students with behaviour problems before they have determined if these problems derive from correctable academic deficiencies. Glasser also claims teachers assume too often that students are motivated to benefit from instruction. He feels motivation is no different from reading or maths – it must be learned.
Students are rational beings who can control their behaviour; they choose to act the way they do. Though influenced by social and family conditions, behaviour is within their control.
Good choices equal good behaviour, bad choices equal bad behaviour, and behaviour almost always is a matter of choice.
Teachers must strive to help students make good choices.
Teachers who really care about their students accept no excuses for bad behaviour. Misbehaving students usually make excuses or blame outside conditions for their actions. Teachers should help students make better choices rather than accept these excuses.
Every class should have a workable list of rules that can be enforced consistently to govern behaviour. Students should be involved in formulating rules and consequences, but it is the teacher’s responsibility to enforce compliance with rules.
Classroom meetings are effective vehicles for addressing matters of class rules, behaviour, and consequences. Such meetings of the entire class should be conducted regularly, with teacher and students sitting together in a closed circle, an arrangement that became known as the Glasser circle. The purpose of classroom meetings is to seek solutions to problems that concern the class, never to find fault or assign blame.
All behaviour is our best attempt to control ourselves to meet our five basic needs of survival, belonging, power, fun, and freedom.
Students feel pleasure when their basic needs are met and frustration when they are not.
At least half of today’s students will not commit to learning if they find school boring, frustrating, or otherwise dissatisfying. Furthermore, teachers cannot make students commit to learning, though they often can force temporary compliance with directions.
Few students in today’s schools do their best work. Most are apathetic about schoolwork; many do none at all.
Today’s schools must create quality conditions in which fewer students and teachers are frustrated. Students must feel they belong, enjoy a certain amount of power, have some fun in learning, and experience a sense of freedom in the process.
Schools should require a new commitment to quality education, which occurs when students are encouraged, supported and helped by the teacher.
The school curriculum should be limited to useful and relevant learnings and should be delivered through activities that attract student interest, involve students actively, provide enjoyment, and lead to meaningful accomplishments.
Students should be allowed to acquire in-depth information about topics they recognize as useful or relevant in their lives (quality learning).
Students show that quality learning occurred when they are able to demonstrate or explain how, why, and where their learnings are valuable.
Teachers should try to befriend, encourage, and stimulate their students, and show an unending willingness to help, instead of scolding, coercing, or punishing (quality teaching).
Teachers who dictate procedures, order students to work, and berate them when they do not are increasingly ineffective with today’s students. They are known as boss teachers.
Teachers who provide a stimulating learning environment and encourage and help students as much as possible are effective with today’s learners. They are known as lead teachers.
As with the logical consequences model, Glasser’s approach requires considerable time to implement. To be effective, group discussions should be scheduled on a regular basis. When students make a commitment to work on a problem, teachers must be prepared to monitor their progress. The nature of these time demands may explain why more primary teachers use the model than secondary teachers.
Another potential problem with reality therapy/control theory concerns the idea of eliminating situations where students are likely to fail. No one can succeed all the time in real life. Learning to deal effectively with failure may be as important an educational objective as learning to achieve what one sets out to do. Glasser is vague about when teachers should and should not allow students to fail.
Note |
|
|
|
|
|
Key references for further study See Glasser 2000 (not in USQ Library). |
Linda Albert was a disciple of Adlerian psychology and was influenced strongly by the work of Rudolf Dreikurs. Like Dreikurs, Albert believed that student behaviour (and misbehaviour) was a consequence of students’ attempts to meet certain needs. Students need to feel that they belong in the classroom, they need to feel important, worthwhile, and valued. Albert’s main focus is on helping teachers meet student needs so that students will choose to cooperate with the teacher and with each other. She believes cooperation is more likely when students truly feel they belong to and in the class.
While behaviour is influenced by heredity, environment, and life experiences, Albert believes students still choose to behave as they do. Students need to feel they belong in the classroom, they need to feel important, worthwhile, and valued. When needs are not met, students misbehave. They do this by trying to gain attention, power, and by exacting revenge, or avoiding failure. Making students feel capable, connected, and contributing is the essential task of the teacher.
Students choose their behaviour; how they behave is not outside their control.
Students need to feel that they belong in the classroom; they must perceive themselves to be important, worthwhile, and valued.
Student misbehave to gain a certain goal e.g. attention, power, revenge, or to avoid the humiliation of failure.
Teachers can only influence student behaviour; they cannot directly control it.
Teachers, in general, reflect three styles of classroom management permissive, autocratic, and democratic. Albert refers to these styles as ‘hands-off’, ‘hands-on’, and ‘hands-joined’ styles.
The Three Cs – capable, connect, and contribute – are essential in helping students feel a sense of belonging. Misbehaviour diminishes greatly when students feel capable, are able to connect personally with peers and teachers, and are able to make contributions to the class and elsewhere.
Teachers and students should cooperatively develop a classroom code of conduct. An example of a code of conduct would be (1) I am respectful, (2) I am responsible, (3) I am safe, (4) I am prepared, (5) I will not prevent the teacher or students from participating in educational endeavours, (6) I will cooperate with the school community, and (7) I will respect myself, others, and the environment.
Teachers and students cooperatively should develop a set of consequences to be invoked when the classroom code of conduct is violated.
One of a teacher’s greatest assets is good self-control.
When conflicts occur between a teacher and students, the teacher should remain cool and relaxed.
Encouragement is the most powerful teaching tool available to teachers. Teachers should encourage students to make appropriate choices for behaviour.
Teachers should remember that to develop a good system of discipline, they need the cooperation of students and parents.
The problems associated with the logical consequences model also apply to the cooperative discipline model. There are several other difficulties with Albert’s approach. One is that in order to use the model properly, teachers must accept that students choose their behaviour, and that they can only influence student behaviour, not directly control it. Further, teachers must assume the hands-joined style of management and allow students to participate in making choices about their education and their classroom. It requires teachers to give up class rules and replace them with a code of conduct. Finally, Albert asks teachers to invite parents to cooperate in developing a good system of discipline. For some teachers, this will appear to be yet another task that takes time and energy they do not feel they have.
Two other leadership models are covered in this course. These are the Responible Thinking Process (Ed. Ford) (Text Ch. 8), and the Positive Behaviour Leadership Model (Bill Rogers) (Text Ch. 9). Both models have a strong following in Australia. You are encouraged to read chapters 8 and 9 very carefully.
Self assessment questions 4.1 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following questions relate to logical consequences, reality therapy/control theory, and cooperative discipline. Check your understanding of this module by responding to this True/False quiz.
Check how well you did. Turn to the back of this module for the answers to the quizzes. |
| 1 |
T |
| 2 |
F |
| 3 |
F |
| 4 |
F |
| 5 |
T |
| 6 |
F |
| 7 |
T |
| 8 |
T |
| 9 |
T |
| 10 |
T |
| 11 |
F |
| 12 |
F |
| 13 |
T |
| 14 |
F |
| 15 |
T |
| 16 |
F |
| 17 |
F |
| 18 |
T |
| 19 |
T |
| 20 |
T |
| 21 |
F |
| 22 |
F |
| 23 |
F |
| 24 |
F |
| 25 |
T |
| 26 |
F |
| 27 |
T |
| 28 |
T |
| 29 |
T |
| 30 |
F |
 | | |
| Teaching students with special needs: behaviour management | EDU5322 | S1, 2008 |
| © University of Southern Queensland 2008 |