I’m surprised no one has mentioned the parallels to dog training yet.

Anyway, just jealous.

And anyway, sorry I couldn’t keep up with the pace of this conversation but re: humiliation, throughout ed school when folks said you absolutely cannot be sarcastic, I stuck up for it right alongside some other left-field hypotheticals.

Maybe Ben has some semantical wiggle room but even if he sees some tiny good in making his students feel like less for (eg) not turning in their fifteenth straight assignment, it’s a candle in the wind, over time, compared to an ethic of respect and the merciless enforcement of high expectations.

I’ve swapped sides over my short career from Ben’s to Tom’s, not because I’m some bleeding heart, just because it works much better.

Quite simply, we’re talking about behavior here, right? The essence of classroom management is getting students to behave as you’d see fit. Discussions of individual classroom atmospheres and cultures aside, whether it’s a classroom full of happy constructivist relativistic meaning development or the oft-lambasted class with desks in rows, etc etc it doesn’t matter.

It’s still all about students doing as you’d have them do.

Ok, fine, so doesn’t that lead us to a discussion of behaviorist theory? Shouldn’t it?

Haven’t folks been researching for lots of years about how behavior works and how to shape/mold it?

Understand that we’re not talking about learning. Effective classroom management prepares the way for instruction and learning, however that takes shape (oh boy that’s another discussion for another post).

Ok then, it’s behavior we want to look at, right?

So why in 62 comments has no one talked about Skinner and Operant Conditioning? Why has no one talked about Classical Conditioning? I’m particularly curious why there’s been no talk of Gagne! Why has no one taken the time to look at the large body of research that deals with this topic!

Brow-beating each other and earning street cred for going to BA (hey, I went to Dillard HS in Ft. Lauderdale, FL!) and for teaching in certain areas doesn’t help the fact that at it’s most basic, this is a conversation about the core foundation of behaviorism.

I’m not setting this up as a behaviorist/cognitivist/constructivist thing at all, just pointint out the fact that you are are working on this out of a place of intuition coupled with anecdotal evidence. Both can be powerful, but you are leaving out the critical fact that there are folks out there that understand the inherent nature of human beings a bit more than we do. Why not consult them?

No, I’m not one of them.

I just know that in my classroom certain behaviorist techniques are marvelously effective because they are grounded in research.

If you write a book, spend twice as long as you write exploring what’s already out there that goes beyong Wong. Pick up folks like Vygotsky, Gagne, and especially Skinner.

Chris

It should not be used on anyone, no matter how “belligerent.” Keep in mind these are children. Humiliation is, in my experience*, most likely to aggravate problems with the kind of “belligerent” student you’re describing.

It generally results in two things. One- the student decides you’re a personal enemy and s/he does everything possible to make your life unpleasant. Two- they shut down. Apathy looks like behavior but it isn’t. Maybe it’s all the same to you. It shouldn’t be.

I’m not asking you to “reinvent the system.” This is your behavior, your personal “bag of tricks.” I’m asking you to treat the children in your care with respect. It’s really easy to screw things up unintentionally when teaching, I’d hate to see you do it with intention.

*I’ve worked with “belligerent” students of one kind or another for around 6 years. That’s not a lifetime and I don’t claim to be an expert but I can state a few things without equivocation. Humiliation doesn’t work is one of them.