Discipline Without Stress
Discipline Without Stress Punishments or Rewards by Marvin Marshall, Ed.D -5/2005-
Using internal motivation is far more effective in changing behavior than are traditional approaches of using bribes (rewards) or coercion (punishments). Following is a way to promote responsible behavior by using INTERNAL motivation.
The Raise Responsibility System
This discipline system is comprised of three parts (1) teaching a hierarchy (teaching), (2) checking for understanding (asking), and (3) guided choices (eliciting).
Teaching the concepts
Promoting responsible behavior starts with teaching a hierarchy of four developmental levels. Exposure to these levels encourages responsible behavior partly because of the motivating principle of challenge. The concepts comprise four levels of social development made meaningful by the examples students create for their own classroom.
The levels are:
- (D) Democracy – Highest level Develops self-discipline Demonstrates initiative Displays responsibility Democracy & responsibility are inseparable
Internal motivation - (C) Cooperation/Conformity
Considerate
Complies
Conforms to peer pressure
External motivation - (B) Bossing/Bullying
Bothers others
Bullies others
Breaks laws and standards
Must be bossed to behave - (A) Anarchy – Lowest level Absence of order Aimless and chaotic Levels
A and B are not acceptable levels of behavior. Since schools are organized institutions, Level A is introduced only to understand the hierarchy of social development. Notice that only level B uses a verbal or gerund form. This prevents referring to anyone as a bully. The verbal form also emphasizes that an irresponsible behavioral level is chosen. People at this level make their own rules and standards, rather than following appropriate expectations. Level B behavior naturally prompts the use of authority. However, authority can be used without punishment, as will be seen in the third phase of the system.
Level C refers to expected behaviors a requirement for a civil society. It includes following procedures the teacher establishes for classroom management. “Cooperation” is emphasized at the elementary levels, but in middle and high schools this level takes on an added dimension. Discussions include the powerful influence of peer pressure and situations where conformity would not be in the best interests of either the individual or society. Motivation at this level is “external.” It is to please or influence someone else.
Level D is the goal. It represents the ideal by taking the initiative to act responsibly because it is the right thing to do.
Both level C and D are acceptable. The difference is in the motivation. Level C aims at obedience. But obedience does not create desire. When a student picks up trash after being asked to, he is operating on level C. If the student picks up the trash without being asked, a positive feeling is engendered. Taking the initiative to do the right thing feels good. Obeying a directive lacks this positive emotional component.
Checking for Understanding
Disruptions are handled by checking for understanding. The purpose is for the disrupting student to acknowledge the chosen behavioral level (Level B). Accepting responsibility requires acknowledging the level. A vast majority of situations are handled by using this basic learning theory: teach the concepts and then check for understanding (asking to recognize the level chosen). The self-evaluating questioning strategy encourages students to reflect on their level of self-chosen behavior.
A key part of the system involves asking young people, rather than telling them, to reflect on their own behavior, either positive or negative. By using this system, teachers train themselves to ask questions that will encourage students to think honestly about the results of their actions and choices. You are much more likely to achieve success in helping young people make positive and productive choices by prompting them to think about the results of their choices. If you identify the level of behavior for them, you deprive them of the opportunity to become more responsible through reflection.
A number of factors are engaged using these two foundational steps of teaching and then asking. Perhaps most important is that this approach separates the person from the behavior, the act from the actor, the deed from the doer. By referring to a level outside of oneself, the tendency for defensiveness is eliminated. Other beneficial factors include an understanding between internal and external motivation, empowerment to address bully-type behavior, and the fostering of character education.
Guided Choices
Continued or repeated disruptions are handled by guided choices. Authority is used but without being punitive. The purpose is to stop the disruption and give the student a responsibility-producing activity and/or to develop a procedure to redirect future impulses.
As with Checking for Understanding, in Guided Choices the teacher asks–rather then tells. Since the student is making a decision and is not being coerced, dignity is preserved and confrontation is avoided.
A major reason this system works is that students know they will not be harmed. Students understand that the teacher’s intention is for student growth, not punishment. They understand that teachers want to help them help themselves–rather than being victims of their impulses.
With this system, essays and self-diagnostic referrals are available for future disruptions, but the most effective approach is to elicit a consequence or procedure to redirect future inappropriate behaviors. An elicited decision does not engender negative, adversarial, and victimhood reactions since people do not generally argue with their own decisions. That is not the case when a decision is imposed. Incidentally, when the decision is the student’s–rather than the teacher’s this approach gains parental support.
Using a proactive system that teaches a hierarchy of social development, asks reflective questions, and elicits procedures to redirect inappropriate impulses is a more effective approach to promoting responsible behavior than using traditional adversarial and negative approaches.
Copyright © 2005 by Marvin Marshall
MARVIN MARSHALL is a staff developer and author. Reach him at wwwMarvinMarshall.com, where you’ll find many resources for the Raise Responsibility System
