Reading7-1-4




	ESE502 : The Class : Discipline : Introduction : Reading7-1-4

Summary of Developmental Reserach Findings

Developmental Discipline (DD), instructs teachers in how to set up a proactive classroom using characteristics of expanded teaching roles and the idea that classrooms are communities. In the typical classroom where DD was first introduced, teacher and student ownership required the most change. Shared ownership is a foundational principle in DD. In many classrooms the model for ownership is clearly teacher centered. The teacher is organizer, molder and holder of keys. In most of the classrooms the teacher ownership could include dynamics of subject centered or teacher centered, depending upon the format of information giving and evaluation, yet there is a definite awareness of the teacher as ultimately responsible and the true adult in the process.

The first hurdle to implementation tends to be justifications for rejection presented as the following belief statements.

The teacher:

is the expert
is responsible to the district
has life experiences which are not part of the student vision
can teach to enhance performance on national evaluations
has a deeper knowledge of content and what should be taught and learned.

We agree completely, and do not see these as barriers, unless these are the sum total of the teaching role. We speak to teachers of balancing these very real roles with the roles of students. This balancing is not a one-time occurrence, but rather an ongoing part of every lesson, the essence of the day. We also see it as a valuable insight for teachers to share with students, so the balance comes from both sides.

In addition, many teachers express concern about “letting go of the reins” with a belief that:

once students are given such freedom they cannot be pulled back
open rebellion may occur affecting learning
student reasoning and social skills are too limited to maintain appropriate social behaviors
teacher as fallible may mean students will not respect requests and thus won’t be as likely to attend to requirements
respect and the acts of respect are a perk of the classroom teacher
uncertainty of the outcome
mechanisms and power bases that currently force a student to comply may be lost
obedience is an important lesson and students should be subject to it
work ethic will disappear
students will not honestly self evaluate
evaluation will become more subjective
parents and society don’t want this type of setting.

These concerns are very honorable. A lasssez faire teaching setting is not good for youth and does not promote high achievement. Further, most of the teachers who established DD experienced a very difficult time learning to trust youth, learning to take the role of facilitator, finding new ways to help students give their best, letting “go” long enough to see that students are quite thrilled to be trusted, more apt to work than not, and that the work ethic increases in almost every instance with students feeling empowered. With the few students who are not yet ready to take responsibility for learning, who have not learned to set and stay with personal goals, the teacher has time and energy, as facilitator, to help these students learn new roles.

Children in preschool through second or third grade seemed delighted with opportunities to grow, to take personal responsibility for education and could acclimate rapidly to shared ownership. In these grades the teachers had the greater difficulty with risk and change, yet most teachers in the lower grades were able to adapt and to see productive outcomes from the expended energy of learning new roles and teaching students the necessary skills to be successful co-owners.

By the middle school area, there was persistent resistance in the belief structure of shared ownership. Most students did not believe that teachers would give them responsibility, that they would discontinue power struggles and verbal battles. Few seemed to believe their teachers were there to assist them to acquire personal strengths and empower them to learn. Teachers were often more optimistic about changing their roles than students. Those who were able to take the role of facilitator, who could shift from being in control to encouraging and directive guiding struggled for about three weeks. The initial struggle came from disbelief, the next from the students’ willingness to sit back and do nothing, or look to their peers for rebuffing teaching efforts. Finally, there was a sense of excitement when the students caught the vision of personal involvement, felt the success of developing and completing their own vision of a task, When students realized that teachers were sharing the reins, wanted their input and expected restitution rather than punishment for learning and relationship errors, then taking off and accepting personal responsibility became infectious and the program was fully functioning.

When this program was tried in the High School there was considerable resistance. The intensity of interest in content by teachers was much more idiosyncratic from class to class and with respect to age or maturity of student. Least successful trials came with seniors who appeared to have disengaged from the educational system to a large degree. Greatest success came with the sophomore and junior students. Teachers, on the other hand appeared to experience difficulty based on personality and willingness to give up “the kingdom and the curve.” Teachers who already had experienced the success of quasi- egalitarian classrooms (for instance those who taught “writing workshop” or who used a portfolio approach to grading) were delighted with the increase in facility that the clear definition of student and teacher roles provided. Teachers who tended to lecture, review and test with the student seen as the empty vessel, and those teachers who held the class in check through intimidation, were the least successful.

Once you have finished you should:

Go on to Assignment 1
or
Go back to Introduction

E-mail J'Anne Ellsworth at Janne.Ellsworth@nau.edu