Thursday, July 31, 2008
Presentation 4: Thomas Gordon
GOrdon's model has several strenghts. IT gives teachers specific noncontrolling alternatives and strategies for influencing student behavior and for helping students become self reliant decision makers who exercise control over thier own behavior (cross pollination). What about those tough classes though...would his ideas work? Could we think of problems as something we own or not own? Are we paid to own all problems in the classroom? By the way this plan is similar to the way the Japanese manage many of thier workplaces.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I think some of the strategies presented in this chapter could work with some class, and I think it would take a certain type of teacher to use this style of discipline. However, in dealing with tough classes I feel this style would not work. I have the experience of having a few classes in my years that have been the worst of the worst.... I can think back and if I tried to use some of the strategies discussed the kids would have not taken anything seriously and they would have continued to misbehave. I believe there is a time and a place for a "no lose method of conflict resolution" and there are other times where the students need to know he/she was in the wrong and should face the consequences.
Gordon's model does have some strengths. The biggest strength for me was the use of "I messages" when using those confrontive, helping and preventive skills. I took an awesome grad class at McDaniel College called "Group Dynamics," as it was a requirement for my master's degree. It taught me a great deal about communication in general. Using "I messages" really helps not only with students, but with parents and administration as well. We had to do fishbowl activies and roleplay confrontations using "I messages." I still use this strategy whenever I have to deal with a confrontation. The idea is that you first listen to the concern, then mirror back what they said (Gordon calls this active listening)... saying "I understand you feel..."... then you say how you feel and eventually try to reach a common ground. According to Gordon, this would be a "no-lose" resolution. I think this strategy can help students learn some problem solving skils. However, I don't like the absence of punishment in this model. In the real world, there are punishments for our actions. If I don't pay my gas bill for months, all the talking it out in the world is not going to resolve anything. My gas is going to be turned off if I don't pay. Students need to learn, at an early age, that there are consequences for actions.
When there is a problem in the classroom (I teach the lower level classes and have several), I take it as my own because it is affecting me. I'll say that puts a great deal of unwanted stress on myself. I gave alot of orders, warnings, and created rules in hopes of eliminating the problem, but I feel like the students put more distance between them and me. I feel ultimately the student should be learning the responsibilities and expectations that they should be following and should not have to be told constantly about it (tough class or not). Will his ideas work on tough classes? I say that it can't be much worse than I experienced last year without using some of his techniques.
I believe that many of the things Gordan supports will work. I personally have used these in positive ways. Throughout the school year I am constantly changing the enviorment. Some of these changes occur to deal with discipline but some are just because change can be exciting. I am sure the active listening will work because most student want to be heard and most students want to know that someone cares enough to listen. With the tough student I am not sure the I messages would always work. In my experiences some of those hard to handle kids would probably say who cares what you think.
I am hoping that Gordon's model has given me additional strategies I will need with the tough class that is coming my way. I will definately try to be the influential teacher who is helping to develop self control within the needy student. I plan on using I messages, modifying the environment, and use no lose conflict resolution to
help confrontive situations. As far as the punishment piece goes, I plan on continuing to use natural and logical consequences when necessary. I feel there should be accountability for actions but they should be related and appropriate to the misbehavior.
I agree with several responses in this section. I feel that Gordon's model deffinately has its strong points. For many students and many classes, this method might prove valuable in redirecting minor misbehaviors. I do not feel, however, that his methods would work for all classes. Through talking to some of my own students, I have found out that in some cases, students try to get under a teachers skin. Whether it be for need of attention or revenge or whatever motive, they like to see teachers "lose it." Becuase of this, the "I-messages" might not work. By saying "I can't have you disrupting the class constantly," or however you put it, that student will intentionally continue to disrupt to push the teachers limits. That is why I feel that the teacher must express his limits assertivly, and not let the student determine their own and the classes limits freely.
I see the need for consequences in school. I like Carrie's example of the gas bill. In life, there are consequences. By deleting them from our classes, what are we teaching students?
During my presentation,I am sure most of you were perceptive to the fact that I struggled with some of Gordon's main points. I don't agree with his management style of no rewards / no punishment. Eventhough I strongly believe that if a student is having a problem you should talk to them and try to ascertain what the problem is, I feel Gordon's method of always talking things out and no punishment would not work for me or my level. Students are smart enough to know that after awhile they can just say the right things and talk their way out of a misbehavior. I agree there should be one-on-one talks about what is going on with the student, but I am disappointed that Gordon didn't have a backup system (diciplinary steps) that would take place when just "talking" isn't enough.
Gordon's plan resonated with me more on a parental level than as an educator. I felt that when my children were small, it was my job to give and help them understand external limits. (No! Danger! Do not touch the stove!) We did this by practice and repetition. When they were 2ish you could almost read their minds as their hands reached out to the stove while they knew you were watching them. (I know you said not to touch the stove yesterday, but how about today?) Our goal was that they would learn these external limits and from that learn to set internal limits. It worked for us.
In the classroom, the problem arises when children do not have these internal and external limits in place. I do like 'I' statements in response but I have a more global perception of problems. I do not like his ownership of problems ideas. For me, in the classroom, almost all problems effect us all. Even if it is one child who is misbehaving and it only effects me directly, I am still effected and thus the entire class is not getting the best of me.
Gordon's strategy may work with some students who misbehave, but it is the one approach that I think least likely to work with students who have ADHD. Many of them are diagnosed, but do not have meds or are not on them regularly, and self-control is a major issue with these kids. I don't mean to say that they are a lost cause, as I modify the environment to limit distractions, and use I-messages frequently. I will admit to resorting to you-messages at times and need to work on that. I also take students aside and ask them to talk to me about what the problem is, but they often have difficulty really defining it at their ages, saying things like "I don't know", or "I'm bored" in which case, I encourage them and talk about the positives I see in them. I own the problems in my classroom and sometimes I share them with another teacher who has the same student, so we approach the sitiuation together since my students come to me from their homerooms. I do think when you are in charge of students you own the problems that come with them, but the resources availble to you for support (principal, counselor, parents) should be used when necessary. No, we are not paid nearly enough to own all the problems that one classroom may have!
Would Gordon's ideas work in a tough class? I don't think so. No matter what you call all of his strategies, they are just talking. Some students are not going to be reached by talking. They get "talked to" all the time. It does not influence them. Personally, I feel you need to find out what motivates a student, either to do something, or not to do something. If nothing you implement in the class seems to help, call home. Sometimes parents can arrange to have cell phone use suspended, video games suspended, etc. Maybe this sounds harsh, but I feel that when talking has not worked, you need to try other measures. There are consequences in the world. When you don't perform at work, you get fired. You don't get paid. I feel that we are beginning to coddle kids too much. Yes, I care about them, but we need to prepare them for the real world. They will not be coddled out there. They will need skills and they will need to work to survive. I do believe in positive incentives also. If a student can come up with a positive incentive for him/herself, I am all for it. I say the student, becuase he/she is really the one who motivates him/herself, not me.
Gordon's strategies could work with elementary students in some cases. High school kids probably wouldn't care so much for the "I" messages unless they cared about you personally.
With smaller children, "I" msgs might work to a degree depending upon the behavior. The "I" msgs might make them feel guilty for their misbehavior and let them know it is affecting you as their educator. Active listening and mirroring their feelings might let the student know that you care and that you are listening. This would work with non-violent offenders.
My city kids would careless if "I" was bothered by their behavior unless, I formed a bond with them personally. I do not like Gordon's view that the student misbehavior is 'my problem' since it affects everyone in the room either directly or indirectly. There must be limits and consequences. I can appreciate Gordon's the listening techniques and the fluffy "I" msgs could work in some setting but not in all settings.
I agree with his notion of the teachers owning the problems because at the end of the day it is their job to make sure the problems do not impede the learning of the students. Bad behavior impacts the other students and the teacher more negatively than it does the misbevhaver. I would love to say that the plan would work for tough classes, but I am not sure because I have never used it or seen is done effectively. Anyone can make something sound good and effective on paper, but the implementation is more important. The I-messages would definitely be a positive addition to any classroom because they do eliminate blame and are nonabrasive to the receiver. These would probably work very well with the really tough classes because they are often the students who are not used to having their side of the story valued or even considered. The listening skills would also work for tough classes because many of the students who comprise tough classes are ignored in other areas of their life and tend to believe adults don't care about them. Truly listening to a person can make a huge difference because it shows true interest and a willingness to understand your point of view. The participative classroom management could also work well because the tough classes often include students who have very little interest in school. Making them an active part in the classroom could get them to see the value in coming to school and behaving in class.
I totally disagree with the fact that teachers should only influence and not control. With most students this could be effective but there are some who refuse to be influenced. I also think that punishment (which to me is another word for consequences) should be used when necessary. I also disagree with the fact that misbehavior is student action that the teacher considers undesirable. Misbehavior is (most of the time) student action that society agrees is undesirable. This includes teachers, parents, administrators, classmates, and the community. Is it the student's problem? Yes. Is it the teacher's job to fix the problem? Yes. I think the way that this strategy is worded is ridiculous because it takes too much responsibility away from the student when it is as much their responsibility as the teacher's.
Bryan, it sounds like you have some pretty tough groups to deal with. I think the use of some of Gordon's idean might work. I too have some rough classes, (also teaching low level classes), and have especially focused on the listening aspect of Gordon's model. By making time to talk to students and really listening, using what Gordon calls his Door Opener Questions, and then acknowledging their responces, I have built a pretty trusting relationship with many of my more difficult students. Another idea is covered in Jones' model in making classroom structure changes. I had a student who was very difficult and things a simple as having him turn on and off the lights for powerpoint or overhead presentations really seamed to make a difference.
So I agree with you, It wouldn't hurt to try some of the techniques with tougher classes, I know I will this year.
Gordon’s Discipline as Self-control could not stand-alone in a middle school classroom. Middle school students by nature have frequent lapses with self-control. They need constant verbal and nonverbal reminders to stay on task and in control. I do like Gordon’s I-message. They seem less confrontational and possibly help in defusing a volatile student.
I guess the only student problems that I don’t own are the ones that happen outside my classroom that administration or guidance handle, but there is a possibility that I will own them. Students can bring a lot of baggage to class and it keeps falling out of the overhead compartment. I feel, that I own all the misbehaviors in my classroom whether they are passive defiant, defiant or attention getting. I am paid to teach every single student in my charge. All of the previous mentioned behaviors are prohibitive to learning for the individual and some for the entire class. They remain my problem until I find a way to alleviate them or the school year ends.
Shoudnt't the students know what "undesirable behavior" is before it becomes the teacher's problem? I have a huge issue buying the whole, "it becomes your problem when behavior bothers you" theory. I think his appraoch would only work in elementary. I am ONLY saying that because I cannot see it working in middle or high school, and i guess it has to work SOMEWHERE...
No, We are not paid enough to "own" problems. Yes, there is a way to point out to students the correct way to behave. Having no punishment OR reward though? Where is he from again? Are we sure HE isn't from Japan? Just kidding.
I will never wish to live in Japan!
I agree with those of you who don't agree with Gordon's problem ownership. The whole class usually is affected by disruption or misbehavior. It has to be dealt with so that there is a natural and logical consequence. To me it sounds as if Gordon is saying to the student...Let's make a deal so we can both win. I don't believe this is developing a student's self-control; it is enabling him/her.
Tanya and Carrie, I must agree with your points concerning consequences in the real world. Some of these discipline approaches we've looked at don't sound realistic when they eliminate negative consequences for misbehavior in school. "Negative" is relative and not always that bad. And sometimes the negative consequence is a choice they make, like some kids in my school who missed out on a whole school field trip because they wouldn't do the work required. They had all year and were given many opportunities to fulfill the requirements, but chose not to do it. There is much to be said for talking things through and meeting basic needs for kids, but all ages need to take some responsibility for their behavior and know that consequences result when they make bad choices.
It seems to me that no accountability is being placed on the student with this model. Am I getting it right?
I think what I am going to take away from this model is to try using better questions to get students to help me understand why they do what they do. I will not try eliminating consequences, though.
Post a Comment