Assignment Two – Adam Moulds

2.1 Gardner and others have emphasised the different learning styles of students. How would you use the theory of one Psychologist to effectively engage a particular preferred learning style?


I have decided to explore the heart of this question from the vantage point of being a teacher and an actor, a facilitator and a past student of the dramatic arts. In attempting to do so, I will investigate and evaluate the preferred learning styles of the most common and at once the most frequently productive and disruptive drama student; the individual who learns through interpersonal intelligence and bodily- kinaesthetic intelligence. Furthermore, I will explore another highly favoured ‘personality types’ theory, the Enneagram and more specifically, those who may be categorised as a type 3: the performer, the achiever, the motivator. From my experience, it is these three classifications together that most aptly summarise the typical child who is educated under my leadership and care.

My next challenge is the effective engagement of this type of student using the theory of one psychologist and it is with the key idea of, ‘Forming a Sacred Circle’, expressed in ‘The Artist’s Way’ that I arrive at my decision.

“It is my experience as a teacher that an atmosphere of safety and trust is critical to creative growth.” (Cameron 1994)

For this reason I have selected the applications and methodologies of Rudolf Dreikurs ‘Democratic Discipline Model’, which has at its core people’s ‘innate drive to belong to a social group’ (Edwards & Watts 2004). It is the individual who learns primarily via interpersonal intelligence that so earnestly needs to belong to a social group, it is the performer who requires a ‘sacred circle’ to creatively flourish that depends upon this social group and it is the practical intelligence of bodily-kinaesthesia that makes this a reality.

Not only does Dreikurs suggest ‘that all humans have a primary need to belong to a social group’ (www.calstatela.edu 2007), he ‘also believed that all students desire to feel they have value and to feel they can contribute to the classroom’. This notion is of paramount importance to those who fall within the personality parameters of type three on the enneagram. Or as the following ‘Basic Proposition’ of the type 3 suggests,

“Love, acceptance, and recognition results from performance, achievement and success. Attention naturally goes to task.” (www.enneagram.com 2007)

According to this logic, and personally I am familiar with the concept all too well, this type of students not only wants to perform, they need to perform. And it is through the development and implementation of classroom activities and assessments that foster the marriage of interpersonal and bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence that their valued belonging to the group can occur.

It is imperative for me as a teacher of drama that I follow this constructivist interaction amongst individuals within my classroom with a focus on performance so as to maintain a positive and productive social ambience and equilibrium. For it is when the necessary balance of this equation is disharmonious that the democratic discipline model suggests that problematic behaviours will arise.

“…when students are not able to gain their genuine goal of belonging they turn to a series of mistaken goals.” (www.calstatela.edu 2007)

It is these mistaken goals which can unfortunately cause disruptions to my classroom and according to Edwards & Watts et al, Dreikurs proposes a threefold ideology to teachers in his principles of the democratic discipline in having an effect on these misbehaviours:

1. Try to understand why a student is behaving in a particular manner
2. Allow students some say in decisions that affect them
3. Be a kind, responsible, accepting person who models for students the behaviour that is expected of them.

In response to point one, when a student in my class is misbehaving despite a lesson plan that has catered for the type 3, interpersonal and bodily kinaesthetic learning individual and, furthermore, it also appropriately hones in on there zone of proximal development, I immediately know there is a high chance that a particular psychological need is more than likely not being met. In affirming the guidelines outlined in point two, I have recently conducted a privately written ‘Rights & Responsibilities’ forum amongst every student in all my classes and come up with a consistent policy which I am currently applying across the board and is achieving highly successful outcomes. Also, when casting classroom plays students can bid for certain roles and in the unit on ‘Playbuilding’ they are to decide upon their own topic and create from scratch a piece of theatre themselves. And, thirdly, as I am also the typical type personality that most often finds its way into my drama classes, I understand the humanity and guidance that is desired by the students from their teacher.

However, despite the above and the obviously the fact that not all my students are within this personality/learning type classification, the fact remains that there can be behavioural issues which need to be sensitively dealt with.

Dreikurs makes it clear that understanding your own teaching style can go a long way to further developing the trusting and positive educational relationship a teacher may have with their students. Particular emphasis is placed on the benefits of adopting a democratic style which encourages the development of student autonomy and since practically evaluating the following suggestion, also helps keep the teacher’s emotional tank full;

“(Democratic) teachers do not feel compelled to habitually correct the behaviour of their students.” (Edwards & Watts 2004)

Dreikurs also goes on to suggest that these behaviours are generated by students attempting to satisfy mistaken needs and goals and that the teacher should not take the bait.

“Teachers … should avoid responding in the way the student wants. To do so implies that the student is the person in control.” (Edwards & Watts 2004)

I have only been in the profession of education for a fairly limited time, but I know this statement to be so wise and so true. The performer and interpersonal learner so desperately wishes to connect with others on a level that involves achievement and they will stop at nothing till this goal is attained. If this desired need is not met then as a teacher of any drama class, anywhere, you can expect the negative classroom consequences of disruption, low productivity and group imbalance.

In conjunction with the theory of Dreikurs, Edwards & Watts et al also put forth the directions on how a teacher should deal with students acting out and, I paraphrase to suit my needs of latter reflection:

If a student is seeking attention, ignore the negative and affirm the positive
If a student is seeking power, avoid the conflict and give him a leadership role (or as the case may be in drama, a lead role)
If a student is seeking revenge, be friendly and kind
If a student is displaying inadequacy, be gentle and provide encouragement

It is this flip-side, yin-yang approach that I find so appealing about the model established by Dreikurs. Or, as Dinkmeyer, McKay and Dinkmeyer articulate it,

“In the democratic discipline model ‘each goal of misbehaviour has a positive counterpart’” (Cited by Edwards & Watts 2007)

The very same idea is present within the mindset of a type 3 on the enneagram and therefore they must be taught to positively harness their need to perform so as not to go too far down the path of mistaken goals.

“3’s have an unusually strong inner contradiction; they project qualities of leaders: drive, energy and success, and yet their definition of success is usually dependent on the values of the society they belong to.” (www.9types.com 2007)

Thus, it is the teacher of this type of student who has the responsibility to lead the child down the path of belonging for the right reasons i.e. positive, collaborative, classroom contributions and not negative, self-centred, classroom retributions.

So how does one effectively teach a student, and indeed a body of students who appear to have such high needs and at the same time create an environment of belonging that Dreikurs believes is the linchpin of all human values? The answer most surely rests in the hands of the Steiner school educational lesson philosophy;

‘Head, heart, hands.’ (Coman classroom notes 2007)

‘Head’ to stimulate the discussion of ideas amongst the ‘people smart’ interpersonal learners, ‘heart’ to accommodate the feelings of valued community acceptance for the ‘performer’ and ‘hands’ to concentrate the activities of the ‘body smart’/ bodily-kinaesthetic preferential individual.

The cornerstone of the democratic discipline model developed by Dreikurs’ was that,

“…students would learn to cooperate reasonably without being penalized or rewarded because they would feel that they are valuable contributors to the classroom.” (http://en.wikepedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Dreikurs 2007)

What better way to contribute then by being an active member. Thus, I will conclude with the wise words of the educator, John Holt,

“We learn to do something by doing it. There is no other way.” (Cited by Cameron 1994)


































2.2 You were provided with a one page overview indicating the relative control level of teachers in the classroom. Do you agree with this overview? Does it provide a means to manage the diversity in your classroom? Is it implying that you should use different methods of management with different students?


In following on from the democratic ideas expressed within assignment 2.1 and upon observing my preference for the model of classroom management advocated by Glasser in assignment 1.3, it becomes quite obvious which area of the one page overview my educational practices lean toward. However, not all students are the same, not all classes are necessarily similar in nature and subsequently it is my belief that not all of ones instructional/facilitation methods of ‘successful classroom teaching’ should reside under the one philosophical umbrella.

The founder of the school of Lead Management has spawned followers of his own who support this individual, kaleidoscopic ideology and one would be a fool to ignore the relative benefits which may accrue if the various methodologies were not to be implemented as occasion called upon them.

‘…lead teachers “…realise that their task in teaching is to use any tactic they can to help students learn.”’ (Charles 1999 cited in Coman classroom notes 2007)

Thus, in discerning whether or not I agree with the overview provided, I will work my way from the bottom of the sheet to the top i.e. I will very briefly investigate and comment upon each individual psychological theory, its inherent assumptions and discipline styles and my belief as to its benefits in managing the diversity that is present within every classroom.


On the whole, the Behaviour Modification Model proposed by Skinner has a ridiculous set of assumptions. To suggest that human beings have no will, also implies that individuals have no capacity for intrinsic motivations. This is a very bleak synopsis of the human condition. If we take this idea one step further, the core beliefs of this model are that human beings have no desire for self improvement, genuine relationships or even a soul/spirituality of any kind and are simply automatons in the pursuit of pleasing a teachers needs. It is interesting to note that research into this model of total teacher control actually promotes the opposite result of its goal; rebellion and a resistance by the majority of students to modify their behaviour.

The Assertive Discipline Model also contains a similar collection of dictatorial assumptions that would have us believe that human beings desire to be controlled and experience little self determination as to their own free will. Historical uprisings such as the French Revolution and to no lesser extent what is currently happening with the situation in Iraq prove this concept to be a fallacy. People want to have greater levels of control over their own destinies, just like students desire increasing levels of autonomy over their learning experiences as they head towards maturity.

Lee & Marlene Canter’s model is not all doom and totalitarian gloom though, it does contain one important ideology I believe and that is the collaboration of teachers, school administrators and parents to establish, enforce and maintain a solid, bedrock of rules. My brief experience at The Kings School has shown me that this provides the majority of students with a sense of safety and security in which they can be educated. Obviously any school disciple policy is up for criticism, as is any overall classroom behavioural management practice. The primary issue at stake here is that students who step beyond the expected behavioural parameters of the individual classroom, be they teacher defined and regulated or teacher/student defined and regulated should suffer the logical and consistently applied consequences. It is my observation and my own personal recollection of being a student, that stability is a vital commodity for school children. Whatever the fluctuating levels of relative control may be from class to class, students like to know that their teachers, whether situation ever calls upon it or not, are highly capable and responsible disciplinarians.

Having now focussed upon and sifted through the authoritarian styles of classroom management, I will now investigate the authoritative discipline models which tend to balance out the relative levels of control for both teachers and students. It is here that teacher’s border on teacher/facilitators in the pursuit of leadership in learning.

The assumption that student’s misbehaviour is the result of misdirected attempts to belong to the class group, or a group within the class, was and continues to be a mini revelation for me. Via first hand experience I have guided the process and observed the subsequent affirming results of the Democratic Discipline Model. In discussing with and encouraging students to replace their misbehaviour with positive attention seeking, task oriented action in the form of performance, my drama classroom has taken on a far greater productive and harmonious ambiance. It is one of those rewards so often heard about in teaching, but genuine when it is right before your very eyes, to watch a student’s face light up when they have been accepted by their peers for positive and productive creative learning interactions.

Glasser’s Choice Theory, Reality Therapy and Lead Management are at the centre of the overview provided for very good reason. His theories on successful classroom teaching truly are the linchpin of all ideologically sound educational philosophy. Glasser’s ideas are well balanced in terms of relative control levels in the learning environment and reflect the needs of the Generation Y’s/Digital Natives that we as teacher facilitators find under our guidance today.

The five genetic needs of survival, love and belonging, power, freedom and fun can all be found in different guises in each of the other discipline models contained within the overview. His idea that, ‘The only person whose behaviour we can control is our own’ (Edwards & Watts 2004), staunchly advocates the yin and yang of teacher/student relationships in the ever fluid concept of classroom control and autonomous learning. His Reality Therapy program is the quintessential practical methodology in developing healthy education based relationships between teachers and students and is, as you say Allan, ‘At the heart of classroom management’. Furthermore, his thoughts on developing a quality school in the pursuit of adding to the quality world’s of students, almost negates the need for a discipline model. Instead, this pedagogical construct views educational leadership by a highly capable facilitator as the epicentre from which all classroom activity and learning stems.

The assumption contained within Rogers’ Positive Behavioural Leadership Model that, “Classes are small communities of learners and teachers relate to students as community members” (Edwards & Watts 2004), takes the ideas of Glasser from the macrocosm to the microcosm and has its place under his theories as a warm blanket upon which they may rest. The concept of every classroom being like a small community lends one a license to make a political comparison with regards to this model’s relative level of control and how it caters for differences within the group. Each classroom is a unique whole, similar to a state within the entire country of the school. The teacher facilitator of every individual class must be a figure modelling positive leadership behaviours and engaging the various community members in productive and progressive learning activities; a prime minister governing their people to a fortuitous and socially aware future. Furthermore, its positioning in the authoritative column of discipline is also suggestive of its educationally and politically balanced views on managing the learning environment.

Gordon’s Teacher Effectiveness Training Model has a few gems of its own when it comes to understanding classroom management and its various underpinnings.

“Students commonly rebel when their teachers actively regulate their behaviour… Rewards and praise may undermine intrinsic motivation…; (and) Punishment (can) destroy teacher-student relationships.” (Edwards & Watts 2004)

These assumptions counteract those expressed on the other end of the spectrum by the likes of Skinner and Canter. If students behaviour is attempted to be ‘modified’ or the level of control exercised by teachers is too ‘assertive’, than you can expect to have a situation on your hands. By the same token if classroom facilitation is too laissez-faire than teachers can expect to feel emotionally ‘modified’, as power seeking students assume the role of the ‘assertive’ controllers of a classroom’s learning climate.

This is not to say that the rebel does not have their place in the culture of education and indeed should be seen as very important in a teacher/facilitator understanding if their classroom management approach is a match for the individuals within it.

“The rebel can critique and judge their own culture. An important person in revolutionising and evolving morality.” (Regis, M Classroom Notes 2007)

A distinction of course must be made between the rebel and the attention seeker. They may at first appear to be a similar entity, but are in fact poles apart with totally dissimilar agendas. The attention seeker acts as their label would suggest, purely out of a desperation to be seen as an important and needed member of the class. The rebel knows they are an important member of the class and seeks attention to upset the relative level of control that the teacher is currently implementing in the hope of getting others on side to create change. The desired change may be due to the overly authoritarian style of classroom management enforced by the teacher, but may also represent a yearning for more control to be exercised by a facilitator who is modelling an indifferent style of non-directive intervention.

Ford’s Responsible Thinking Process Model speaks volumes with regards to the social justice implications of successful classroom facilitation and I wholeheartedly agree with one of its underlying premises;

“All students have the right to learn and teachers have the right to teach in safety. No-one has the right to disrupt the teaching-learning process, to prevent other students from learning or to violate the rights of others.” (Edwards & Watts 2004)

However, this utopian vision of education, whilst definitely being something to strive for, does not account for the realities of overlapping individual student needs and the true complexity and often reflexive nature of individual facilitation practices. If facilitators fail to cater to the ‘Quality Worlds’ of students and do not accurately and consistently advocate the engagement with and the completion of tasks within the zone of proximal development of their class members, than many individuals needs will not be met and subsequently the rights of both teachers and students will be constantly compromised.

The Pain Model finds itself on the far right end of the classroom management spectrum and rightly so. Attempting to regulate and discipline children who fall within the ‘emotional’ Pain Model is futile. At best, these children require several detailed steps to relieve the unshakeable vulnerability that pervades their existence, with a view to reskilling them in the area of emotional literacy, so that they can become fully functioning members of the classroom; a very one-on-one teacher-student intensive process. At worst, these children are at risk of harming themselves and harming others and often it is best to refer them on to specialised counselling within the school or to an external psychologist if this avenue is not available, whilst they are in or before they can return to the regular classroom.

For a facilitator to provide this level of attention to one student in their class is philosophically in accordance with the social justice principles that have been so avidly taught within the Diploma of Education at Notre Dame and time permitting is the correct and most appropriate strategy in terms of inclusive education for a child of this ilk. However, in practical reality, time management and the equality of learning for all within the classroom must be taken into consideration before one should immerse themselves too deeply into the pain model and in doing so possibly risk minimising the overall success of their classroom teaching. Hence, the use of a third party professional.


At the edges of the provided overview lies a danger in overall teacher effectiveness as to managing the diversity that exists within the classroom. Too far to the right and you have become too student centred. Too far to the left and you have become too teacher focussed. The vast area that resides within these parameters accounts for the complexity of the task and the varied scope of management, leadership and non-directive intervention, that is available to teacher facilitators.

The authoritarian styles as you have said, Allan, should be used sparingly to retain their potency, otherwise one risks disciplining when necessary from ‘an empty tank’. The indifferent styles, too, have their place in the promotion of students working productively and progressively on a task once the teacher has modelled how individuals may go about creating and constructing the required knowledge alone or in groups. It is my goal within my drama classes that all students are heading towards this autonomous decision making and self-regulation.

It is the authoritative, leadership style, however, that must anchor all the schools of thought together if a teacher facilitator is to balance the educational needs within the emotional climate of the classroom.

“We must not forget that our primary business is in educating young minds.” (Dr. Hawkes, T 2007)

If one’s own personal model of classroom management is well synthesised and informed from both a theoretical and experiential standpoint, then a teacher facilitator may, for the most part, practice their craft in an unimpeded fashion in this most important of societal functions.

In short, yes, I agree with the overview that successful classroom teaching and educational philosophies can be organised (and evaluated) according to the amount of control/freedom given to teachers, provided that curriculum and its method of instruction are relevant, stimulating and accessible. In terms of managing the diversity in your classroom, the overview is most comprehensive and only the clichéd ‘there is always an exception to the rule’ stands in the way of this. And finally, no, I do not believe that this overview is implying that you should use different methods of management with different students. I for one am from the authoritative school of thought, but as any teacher facilitator would agree, it certainly does not hurt to have a few tricks up your sleeve.























References

Edwards C.H & Watts V, 2004, Classroom Discipline & Management an Australasian Perspective, John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd, Qld
Coman, A, 2007, Classroom Notes, University of Notre Dame, Syd
Regis, M, 2007, Classroom Notes, University of Notre Dame, Syd
Dr. Hawkes, T, 2007, Staff Meeting Address, The Kings School, Syd
Cameron J, 1995, The Artists Way, Pan MacMillan Ltd, London
www.calstatela.edu 2007
www.enneagram.com 2007
www.9types.com 2007
http://en.wikepedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Dreikurs 2007