Glasser

Mike

Glasser is one of the topical words in CRM. Do you support the Glasser approach, could you work within it, identify its strengths and weaknesses.

Lesley Thurston | (129.78.104.184) | Tuesday, 15 May 2001 12:39:25 PM
I believe that all students are motivated by certain things, but whether they can be categorized under such specific headings, I don't know. I believe students are who they are and you must treat each student as an individual. There are many different things affecting a students learning, not just what motivates them to do and say things, and this needs to be taken into account by the teacher. As a teacher, I will not be seeing each student as being motivated by just power, for example, but will see them as an individual who is affected by many things. One strength of the glasser approach is that it shows that each student is different and therefore you will have students in your classroom with different learning styles. One disadvantage is that it is too specific and does not allow for students to change throughout their schooling period.

Jackie Saisithidej | (129.78.104.84) | Wednesday, 16 May 2001 1:03:39 PM
I have similar concerns with Glasser's approach. His 'hierarchy of needs' is a useful starting point for thinking about what may be motivating your student's misbehaviour. But I emphasise that it is a starting point only. For me to account for misbehaviour or a pattern of misbehaviour by reference solely to the 5 needs would be necessarily limiting. To adopt this approach I would be unduly ignoring other possible reasons for the misbehaviour, for eg, medical. The world does not stop at my classroom door. What do you think about Glasser's "Quality school" approach ie his managing students without coercion approach? Perhaps I should start a new thread.

Antonio Knezevic | (203.101.17.56) | Wednesday, 16 May 2001 8:55:49 PM
Yes, well Glasser in my point of view has a great deal to say. His motivation headings such as 'attention' are of great interest to me. I could see myself one of these students being disruptive in class because of 'attention'. His theorey is very true but the updating of his theorey would be of a great idea as students these days are under so many different circumstances and situations which cannot be easily defined.

Antonijo Knezevic | (203.101.17.56) | Wednesday, 16 May 2001 9:02:48 PM
All I can say is that Glasser is very right but very out of date. Students these days have soo many more responsibilities and worries. His topics must be updated to suit currant schooling and students of the future.

Crispene Nathan | (202.67.64.146) | Friday, 18 May 2001 7:07:27 AM
I agree that his theory on the reasons for motivation shoud be expanded and updated a little. I liked his 10 step outline for displining a disruptive student, especially the part about not entering into an arguement with the student. Easy to say. But he states that teachers should just state what they are not happy with ie - that the student's actions were against the rules and then work out with the student what the problem is. Glasser seemed to empathise with the student because he states that the teacher HAS to work out the problem WITH the student. Also says that if a strategy by the teacher is not working - then the teacher MUST CHANGE IT. I think the time out practice is very good. I don't know if it will work for all kids, probably not. But at least during this time out, the teacher and the student could calm down and then discuss things with more detachment.

Andrei Laptev | (129.78.64.5) | Friday, 18 May 2001 11:39:33 AM
The ten steps (as used at Balmain High) seem pretty reasonable. Problem is, i could not find any answer to what to do if you blow your top (which is pretty likely to happen). The Glasser system seems to rely on both sides being quite reasonable creatures, but not all humans are equally reasonable, so the Glasser approach might mean a lot less for certain students than it does for others. So that the class can work you need some sort of order, and the time out spot is a good way of displaying to a kid that certain behaviour is not on- this is, of course effective if you treat it fairly (and not so often that is becomes ineffective).

Caroline Eaton and Clare Taylor | (172.16.17.94) | Friday, 18 May 2001 2:12:35 PM
We agree with Glasser about the five basic motivations because if you analyse the "surface" motivation for a particular piece of behaviour it is likely to come down to one of the five. We like Glasser's reversal of the problem that we must look at what is happening in the classroom rather than at the individual student's behaviour. Improvement in education and student behaviour will come about through changing the way classrooms function rather than trying to change the students' behaviour. Schools can be very boring places for students and asking them to do the boring work and not misbehave is, as Glasser says, like asking someone who's sitting on a hot stove to sit still and stop complaining. We like the way Glasser suggests that a key way of changing the traditional classroom fucntion is to move away from "boss" teaching to "lead" teaching, giving students much more responsibiity, independence and choice about the things they do (eg what they study and how).

Matthew L | (203.63.158.2) | Saturday, 19 May 2001 8:23:15 PM
Do you support the Glasser approach?
Yes, with qualifications, because his theory makes a kind of existential sense to me. It 'feels' as if people might act according to 'pictures in their heads' (Glasser) and it is plausible that all people are motivated by only four or five different kinds of desire. What separates me from an Inuit hunter-gatherer in Alaska is, at the genetic level, minimal: 99.7% of all human genetic material is common to all human beings. The tendency to believe that human beings from different cultures or age groups are motivated by drastically different desires is likely to be a function of our (genetically inherited) hypersensitivity to behavioural cues such as blinking, crossing our arms and dressing in a certain way. We are good at getting upset and going to war about really trivial differences. This tendency does not prove that we actually are all irreconcilably different.

Could you work within it? I am already committed to treating my students as if they were 'completely good' (that is a premise of my training in a Rogerian style of counselling) and as if they were rational agents who were capable of acting meaningfully. The possibly odd-sounding idea of all students being 'completely good' can be more strictly defined as assuming they all have a right to exist and flourish. My preferred approach overlaps largely with Glasser's. I'm prepared to test his recipe for teaching with 'learning teams' because the idea sounds realistic and challenging, and because he reports that teachers and students have worked successfully in learning teams.

I've had a few weeks' classroom teaching experience at a private tutoring school and I've found that treating the students as though their motivations were rational, at least rational given their 'basic needs', has helped me forget that I ought to control them, threaten them with punishments and use their status as a captive audience to bolster my own need for power. It could be that Glasser's theory owes its effectiveness to the changes in outlook that it produces in the minds of teachers, not students.

The greatest challenge posed by a commitment to Glasser's motivation theory lies in the demands it makes on the structure of the typical high-school classroom. Glasser is convinced that so long as students are forced into competitive, individualistic, academic patterns of schooling, they will not satisfy their needs well or often, though some teachers may get a degree of power from the arrangement. Adopting his methodology implies reconstructing the school system to allow large-scale instruction via work in learning teams. It implies re-educating many teachers to encourage them to cede some of their power to the students they are teaching. Learning teams won't work for all parts of the curriculum as it now stands. Glasser acknowledges that team learning methods are unsuitable for 'drills and fact memorisation tasks', yet these are the most boring bits of the curriculum, the ones that most heavily tax our creativity as teachers. So that punches a big hole in the argument that learning teams are a panacea for poorly motivated classrooms - a bigger one than Glasser seems able to admit. I would be able to work within his Choice Theory happily, but I could not rely on it for producing an answer to every difficulty students encounter in their schooling.

Identify its strengths and weaknesses.
Glasser's theory is plausible but like psychoanalytic theory its premises are not falsifiable. We have no empirical basis on which we could prove that he isn't right about our having five basic needs. It follows that neither does he have any basis to prove his claims. Glasser can of course rely on the pragmatic criteria that his system 'works' and students seem in their outward behaviour to have 'satisfied' their basic needs when the existence of these needs is recognised in his own preferred terms. But of course we can't look inside someone's head to verify that they really do think in pictures related to satisfying basic needs.

In his book Control Theory in the Classroom (1986) Glasser makes strong claims about the whole of society, such as that industrialised countries like the US and Australia have become what he calls 'identity societies'. These are societies that have succeeded in satisfying most survival needs of most people(?) living in them. Once our need for survival is satisfied, he argues, societies on a large scale turn to satisfying the other needs of fun, love/belonging, power and freedom. This logic he uses to explain such diverse historical events as the epidemic of corporate greed and cutbacks on state welfare provision that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s, and the hippie culture that spread through the middle classes of many western countries in the late 1960s. The common denominator of this unlikely historical equation is the need for power. 'We' sacked thousands of workers to satisfy our need for power, just as 'we' went to bed with strangers while under the influence of hallucinogens for power. What is missing in Glasser's account is any acknowledgement that the actions people take to satisfy their basic needs might be conditioned by their social class position. This is a typically American selective blindness. Glasser does make a good case for separating 'pre-war survival societies' and post-war 'identity societies' on the grounds that before WWII people weren't much interested in getting more power or freedom. He has no interest in asking what it was that made survival so difficult for lots of people in the pre-war survival society. Researchers like Bob Connell have showed us that this is an important question to ask and answer.

Although as a sociologist Glasser is uninteresting and even misleading, his analysis of schools and their problems makes sense to me. He identifies the motivation problem as being structural and organic to our 19th-century school system, not a neurosis in students. Granted that his theory is true, he makes a compelling case for changing our method of teaching to one that gives central importance to learning teams. I think classroom relations will improve if teachers treat students as rational agents who have a few basic needs which we ignore at our peril. But Glasser's model of human motivation is not the only one that would require us act in this way.

Matthew L | (203.63.158.2) | Saturday, 19 May 2001 8:30:47 PM
Sorry about this. In what I just wrote,

"Glasser does make a good case for separating 'pre-war survival societies' and post-war 'identity societies'..."

should read:

"Glasser does NOT make a good case for separating 'pre-war survival societies' and post-war 'identity societies'..."

Mark Grace | (129.94.6.29) | Sunday, 20 May 2001 3:22:58 PM

Glasser

Jenny Latham | (139.134.251.30) | Sunday, 20 May 2001 6:29:42 PM
I support the Glasser approach in its ability to create a positive classroom and school community. I like the break-up of the 10 steps but there seems to be little room for variation if something doesn't go to plan, even though it is set up for individual students. Glasser's system has been proven to work in many school discipline policies e.g.Balmain High, and I think I could work within its structure due to the fact I went to a school that implemented it. I see a strength in Glasser's approach being its ability to create different learning styles and its basic structure.

Jenny Latham | (139.134.251.30) | Sunday, 20 May 2001 6:30:08 PM
I support the Glasser approach in its ability to create a positive classroom and school community. I like the break-up of the 10 steps but there seems to be little room for variation if something doesn't go to plan, even though it is set up for individual students. Glasser's system has been proven to work in many school discipline policies e.g.Balmain High, and I think I could work within its structure due to the fact I went to a school that implemented it. I see a strength in Glasser's approach being its ability to create different learning styles and its basic structure.

Kat Hand | (203.54.217.250) | Sunday, 20 May 2001 11:05:59 PM
I would give it a go, and his theories sound interesting, however I feel that there is something inherently wrong with some of his ideas and there is no way that I believe that humans always make the best choices according to the information available to them -people make bad choices and sometimes deliberately. I also am not comfortable with the idea that humans only behave to satisfy genetically determined needs, and even if we did I would be even more reluctant to state or categorise those needs.I think I agree with many of the others in believing that this theory does not allow for much in the way of individuality.

Michael Hammonds | (203.27.69.94) | Sunday, 20 May 2001 11:08:42 PM
Glasser's approach certainly seems attractive as at least an alternative to the 'traditional' SR method of teaching. However, I remain unconvinced that stimulus/response theory as manifested in positive and negative reinforcement is inneffective. Having said that I believe that I could work within the approach if necessary. Its strengths I suppose are the recognition of the typical student's desires and an acknowledgement of their importance. The weaknesses are a tendency towards a 'soft touch' and the apparent refusal to accept that some scenarios are simply going to make effective teaching and learning next to impossible. Overall I think Glasser's work certainly has its value but it hardly seems revolutionary..

Helena Ng | (203.109.250.95) | Monday, 21 May 2001 12:44:00 AM
Here is a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the Glasser approach that have been contributed to this thread. Please excuse any misinterpretations of personal opinions! Strengths  Recognises that each student is different and will therefore have different learning styles.  Recognises each student is an individual who has free choice.  Gives a good broad starting point to consider student motivations for certain behaviour.  Time out theory is a good strategy as it gives both the teacher and student time to calm down and discuss issues with more detachment.  The “learning teams” concept sounds realistic and challenging and has reportedly been successful.  Helps teachers change their outlook on how to motivate student effectiveness as it helps teachers see students as individuals  Ability to create a positive classroom and school community. Weaknesses  Glasser is too specific and does not allow for students to change throughout their schooling period.  The five “basic needs” are too limiting. Misbehaviour could be attributed to other agents eg: Medical reasons.  Theory needs to be updated as students these days are under difference sorts of circumstances and situations, more responsibilities and worries.  The Glasser approach seems only reasonable if both the student and teacher are relatively calm and rational about the way they approach their problems. Most people will not always be so rational in the heat of a tense, confrontational moment. The Glasser theory will only work for students who want to cooperate in reaching their basic needs.  Glassers approach sounds plausible but it can’t strictly be proven.  The actions people make might take to satisfy their basic needs might be conditioned by their social class position.  Humans do not always make the best choices according to the information available to them. People often make deliberate bad choices.  Do humans really behave only to satisfy genetically determined needs? How can these needs be so simply categorised?  The Glasser approach has a tendency towards a 'soft touch' and the apparent refusal to accept that some scenarios are simply going to make effective teaching and learning next to impossible.  The stimulus/response theory as manifested in positive and negative reinforcement might well be effective.

allison throwden | (129.78.104.147) | Monday, 21 May 2001 9:59:49 AM
I do not really believe that Glassers theory realistically explains the motives behind the behaviour of children. It seems far too simplistic to say that every childs actions can be understood by their efforts to achieve a limited number of basic needs. The theory does not take into account other influencing factors, such as family problems, abuse etc, that may cause behavioural problems in children.

allison throwden | (129.78.104.147) | Monday, 21 May 2001 10:00:08 AM
I do not really believe that Glassers theory realistically explains the motives behind the behaviour of children. It seems far too simplistic to say that every childs actions can be understood by their efforts to achieve a limited number of basic needs. The theory does not take into account other influencing factors, such as family problems, abuse etc, that may cause behavioural problems in children.

Allison Throwden | (129.78.104.147) | Monday, 21 May 2001 10:05:31 AM
I do not agree with Glassers theory that every childs behaviour can be explained through their attemt to achieve a limited number of needs/desires. It is far too simplistic and does not take into account other influences in peoples lives that cause them to behave in particular ways - for example, family problem, abuse etc.

Mina Kitsos | (129.78.64.5) | Monday, 21 May 2001 10:40:31 AM
The Ten Axioms of Choice Theory 1. The only person whose behaviour we can control is our own. 2. All we can give another person is information 3. All long-lasting psychological problems are relationship problems. 4. The problem relationship is always part of our present life. 5. What happened in the past has everything to do with what we are today, but we can only satisfy our basic needs right now and plan to continue satisfying them in the future. 6. We can only satisfy our needs by satisfying the pictures in our Quality World. 7. All we do is behave. 8. All behaviour is Total Behaviour and is made up of four components: acting, thinking, feeling and physiology. 9. All Total Behaviour is chosen, but we only have direct control over the acting and thinking components. We can only control our feeling and physiology indirectly through how we choose to act and think. 10. All Total Behaviour is designated by verbs and named by the part that is the most recognisable. CHOICE THEORY contends that the only person's behaviour we can control is our own. By using this theory, we help people learn that what we do is not determined by external causes, but instead by what goes on inside of us. Since all that is taught by the Institute (counselling, education and managing) is based upon this theory, teaching CHOICE THEORY in great detail is an integral part of all Institute programs. I agree with Glasser's approach. All children behave in many different ways for many different reasons, whether it involves peer pressure or their families.I guess i could work within Glassers theory. Other schools have tried it and agreed that it works well. Working with the 10 axioms of choice theory may be interesting.

Jenny Layzell | (139.134.23.68) | Monday, 21 May 2001 9:58:31 PM
The Glasser reality theory is one that certainly should be given credibility and one that I would try. However, there are some points that are of concern. I agree with Allison in that the theory is too simplistic and does not account for outside forces and peer group pressure. A student will agree to anything the teacher wants just to get them off their back.2 negotiation sounds reasonable and student invovlement I would be willing to try this. The Glasser theory looks good on paper. I would like to see it in action. I suppose in the end it depends on the teacher response and given that the response is positive maybe a positive outcome to this theory could be possible.

Esther Choi | (210.8.224.3) | Monday, 21 May 2001 11:58:58 PM
I can see how most teachers would prefer his approach. However It sounds too good from my point of view. I don't see how it could possibly work in real classroom situations with students bringing all different types of "problems" with them from their other- than- school-environments. Sure we need to respect students as individuals but where does immaturity and lack of experience on students part and hence discipline on the teachers part fit in?I don't mean to be pessimistic but from my experience all-student-centered,all-loving-only classes cannot exist or rather will not work.I like his apprach because it is a very loving and gentle approach.His first two steps,secure student involvement and identify the problem behaviour especially the part where he says we need to deal only with the present, not with the past, sound really convincing. I can work with them. I strongly beleive in love but where he says not to punish, I am perplexed about. Isn't punishment one of the consequencies? Glasser on one hand wants students to understand the cause-and-effect relationship and yet won't allow punishment. It doesn't seem to make sense. I believe appropriate punishment is one way of "loving" your students. If classrooms are all democratic "where students have freedom, power and where the learning environment is fun",aren't we ultimately leaving the role of classroom management to the students? Indeed we may need not "manage" classrooms at all. Wouldn't that be heaven?

Kate Gard | (198.142.210.106) | Wednesday, 23 May 2001 11:31:20 AM
Generally I quite like Glasser's ideas, and it would be great if everyone could have the strength and maturity to control their own behaviour based on 'what lies within', but I don't think it is that simple. I think successful application of Choice Theory requires having a lot of faith in people, but I just think that many people cannot fully understand what motivates them, or have the maturity or foresight to make the 'right' decisions based on that. I think there are lots of internal factors which motivate behaviour- concious and subconsious- and it is not always easy to identify these factors and make wise choices according to them. It is a good theory to keep in mind, though, and I think elements of it could be very useful.

Mike H | (129.78.224.226) | Wednesday, 23 May 2001 3:14:38 PM
Interested to see what Mina, Aison, Jenny, Esther and Kate wrote. Especially interesting to see Mina's critical axiom list, but are some axiom's more important than others Mina. Glasser is the basis of a whole school approach to classroom relations and management and discipline because it does offer a system approach to behaviour by students and teachers and school executive. Bill Rogers work builds on this with some variations.

Mike H | (129.78.224.226) | Wednesday, 23 May 2001 3:34:46 PM
Interesting to read what esther, jenny, mina, kate and alison wrote about Glasser. Mina's axioms i aso found interesting, but are all axioms of equal value and impact, are some more relevan than others. Glasser is used by many schools precisely because it is a system that offers guidance to the behaviour of students and teachers and school executive, a whole school approach - Bill Rogers has modified this whole school approach in his writings.

Steph Lawson | (210.50.30.4) | Wednesday, 23 May 2001 3:47:16 PM
Okay, so every one of us would probably like to work in a 'pleasant and creative working environment'and help develop in our students 'a concept of self-discipline', such as that at Balmain High School, but it all sounds a little too perfect to me. Maybe it would be a piece of cake if you were teaching at a girls' selective high school, where the students are willing to learn and discipline really isn't a problem, but I'm struggling to see how parts of Glasser's approach would succeed in a 'difficult' high school. I agree with the idea that students who are 'unwilling to participate in creating a positive learning environment' and are 'disturbing the learning of other pupils' are removed from the classroom, because we do need to consider all the other students in our class. What I have a problem with, is the notion that a teacher mustn't get into an argument with the student. As was mentioned above, that's all very well on paper, but what about in reality? If your only comment to a student is "what you have done is against the school rules", I think some students would see this as a 'soft' approach, and it wouldn't faze them. Having said that, I do think that I could teach in a school with a discipline policy based on Glasser's approach, because I believe it is important to teach the students from an early age, that they are responsible for their own actions, and to teach them the important life skill of self-discipline. Also, involving them, and ultimately making them responsible for their own learning environment, is only going to enhance their learning experiences.

Herlina Massing and Luzviminda Macasaqui | (172.16.17.81) | Friday, 25 May 2001 4:30:11 PM
We are both parents so we think we are using Glasser approach already in dealing and raising our children. We mean we love, we are emotionally involved with them, we try to fulfill their emotional need. We certainly will use Glasser system in our teaching strategies. But as new teacher we don't know whether it will be too demanding for us. We are not sure whether we can trust the student to make their own choice and be personally responsible Perhaps when the school we are going to support Glasser system like balmain HS we will be more confident in impllementing it. We are still not sure about Glasser choice theory Axiom 1 says that the only person whose behavior we can control is our own We don't agree with that as an individual behaviour is often controlled and shaped by society, family,culture and their environment. Can an individual strong enough to control and choose and raise above society? As parents we often have to make decision for our children. We think punishment is OK. Society punishes us all the time when behave unacceptably WE punish our children with the aim to make them responsible individuals. They might not like it but they know we do it because we care for them. Whether or not we can work within the Glasser system remain ?????

Wendy Kemmis | (202.7.169.70) | Friday, 25 May 2001 8:30:34 PM
In some ways I support the Glasser approach, and be able to work within it's boundaries if required to do so, but I must agree with Steph in the importance of teaching students from an early age to become responsible for their own actions. Yes it would be great to work in such an environment but at some stage in aur teaching lives we are going to experience at least one student who refuses to cooperate or take responsibility for their own actions and I beleive some other classroom managamnt thoery would have to be implemented. What this would be would depend on the circumstance, it can't be labelled as there can never be a clear cut answer for this kind of thing - each case wil be unique. For the majority of children the simplest of things such as breaking classroom rules would be enough humiliation for them not to do it again. If they let the class down they run the risk of being ostracised in the playground. That in itself is punishment. But what do we do with those who simply don't care? Sure we need to remain aware of influencing factors such as family problems etc. but how do we handling those lacking simple maturity? I don't think the Glasser approach would work here because as Andrei said, it relies on both sides being reasonable creatures and how does one reason with a 15 year old who has no respect for anyone other than themselves without blowing our top?!

Herlina and Luzviminda | (10.1.37.30) | Saturday, 26 May 2001 12:24:08 AM
We read more of Glasser and would like to comment further about his Reality Therapy which includes helping peple to fulfill their own needs. Glasser suggests that the basic human's need is to love and be loved and the need to feel that we are worthwhile to ourselves and others. Helping students to fulfill these two needs is the basis of Glasser approach. In the classroom, teachers are encouraged to help students to fullfill their own needs through proper combination of love and discipline which do not inflict psychological pain. In its practical application teachers should develop strong emotional involvement with students and show genuine care and concern. In this way students are given the opportunity to love and be fulfilled. Teachers must make it hard for students to hate them, by avoiding conflict, being courteous and avoiding punishment which hurting them emotionally/physically. When things are not working out students are isolated and sent to the 'time out' room. However, we feel that Glasser's system will only work in a school environment which fully support it. In most of the schools that we visited, teachers are left to their own devices in implementng classroom discipline. What would teachers do if 'time out' is needed and yet there is no arrangement for it?. One teacher that we spoke to said that she never even bothered to refer badly misbehaved student to the head teacher or principle because she was made to feel inadequate if she used this procedure.So teachers often use threat, criticism and humiliatin as their means of control. It is no wonder that many students hate their teachers. As new teachers it was sugested that we are not to smile untill easter. We think it is very hard to love or be loved without smile. What do others think?

Reema Hozeiran | (203.134.156.84) | Sunday, 27 May 2001 4:16:47 PM
I agree with “Glasser`s Control Theory in the Class Room” in some points. I belief its strength is that all living creatures only do what they believe is most satisfactory to them, and the main reason our schools are less effective because this factor was not taken into considerations. I agree that the misbehaved students will behave in acceptable manner if they will be paid off for changing their behavior to a good one, so this paying off is the main factor for motivating them. As teachers & to be able to apply this theory we should know the psychological needs of the students to find ways to motivate them by satisfying their needs. Another strong point in this theory is that there is no punishment that can make any student learn if he don’t want to; even prisoner in jail after being set free will not change his unacceptable behavior if he is not motivated and given new hope in life. From above I believe that the best way to discipline is motivating the misbehaved, otherwise they may be ending in jail if they are expelled from school. From all above & from understanding my responsibility as a teacher is to rise good generation, I will apply this theory in managing my classrooms. I know applying this theory will be hard and there will be some obstacles at the beginning but I am sure that the results will be perfect. Its weakness is about concentrating on the team model, I don’t belief that this teaching style will work for all students as psychologically there are different types of students & the above teaching style may not be perfect for all of them. Therefore we as teachers should adjust some aspects of our presentations to suit individuals to achieve the best teaching outcomes.

Roslyn S | (129.78.64.5) | Sunday, 27 May 2001 5:11:36 PM
I appreciate Glasser's approach as providing a way of analysing behaviour, yet I cannot bring myself to see students in so robotic a way - just driven by five needs. Not only do people sometimes behave in irrational ways or completely unselfish ways, but people are complex beings with many interacting influences (external and internal) on their behaviour.

Yuki Tagana | (202.7.209.121) | Sunday, 27 May 2001 7:00:38 PM
I agree with Glasser in his opinion that the total curriculum needs revising because current curriculum has too much emphasis on memorising "fragments of information" which aren't very useful in student's lives. This is particularly true in Japanese high school education and I strongly feel this needs to be changed because really, what is the point in memorising some information just because it is going to be in the exam, and forgetting it all as soon as the exams over, and memorising another lot of information for the next exam... it is a complete waste of time! I believe that this is one of the reason why many students aren't motivated to learn and do not really care what is being taught in class. They need to see the meaning and relevance to their lives in learning. Glasser's approach to quality curriculum/teaching/learning addresses this issue and I like the idea that students should learn what they are interested in, because I remember myself as a school student thinking 'I wish I could learn about something I was interested in instead of wasting time here.' How can students be motivated to learn something which they percieve is completely useless? I also agree that unless student is motivated to learn, no learning is likely to take place in the student. However there will of course be problems if we try to teach only things which students are interested in because of individual differences. Our role as a teacher is also to open up their perceptions and lead them to another level. I also agree with Esther that students aren't mature enough to be able to take so much control over their learning. However I understand Glasser's point in saying that punishment is often illogical as a consequence, hense not effective for letting students understand the real meaning of it. Overall I think Glasser made many important points and at least to some extent provided usefull steps for us not only to improve our management skills but to make school a better place for students to learn.

Catherine Huang/ Eve Chen | (203.88.255.122) | Sunday, 27 May 2001 7:49:07 PM
We would use Glasser's approach to some extent as it concentrates more on the interests of the students. Motivation can mainly be achieved through doing things that we are interested in and not the things we are forced to do or learn. We agree with Yuki in "what is the point in memorising some information just because it is going to be in the exam.......". When you memorise something you do not fully understand it especially when it is something out of the students' interest. Students do not learn from the things that they are forced to know mainly because they do not see the point in knowing such things. But yet again, looking at individual interest and needs of each student would be a problem in teaching as students are all different in some ways.

young h | (198.142.206.25) | Sunday, 27 May 2001 9:29:53 PM
hi all, i will refer to W. Glasser's 'Control theory in the Classroom'. First impression was that he is M.D. what does he know about class management. One particular, where he talks about 'classroom example of the learning team model'. He talks about how it has several steps in this model. what i could follow was when all goes well but what about 'what if it isn't situation'? but it is a situation of where a question needs to addressed another questions. so far i do strongly agree with what he has to say about the learning do not occur something like an algorithm. in this chapter particularly, he's given 4 teachers' whom acted well in relation to as modern magagers in that they structured a assignment that if made good sense for students to work hard. they coached, facilitated, answered questions and provided materials as needed. but they did not present the materials as they do in tradional classes in the hope that students would learn enough to pass the test. so it was more of learer based rather than one way feeding. i believe that students are willing to work hard when they are taught in ways that satisfy their needs. whether this is an ideal, that's another matter but his control theory explains that the learnin team model is an effective way to do this. this 'effective way' is best illustrated like this. collaborative skills requires 4 roles to participate in a team. encourager of participation, praiser, summariser, checker. we are led from theorist and academics, as we discussed in the early discussion, our fear may arise under so many worst possible ways. then we all tend to hurry and forget good old wisdom. hope we will become strong enough to carry the lot. finally, i love his remarks "We are mistaken if we believe that disciplin, dropouts and drugs are what is wrong with today's schools. Serious as these are, they are symtoms of a much larger underlying probelm which is that far too many capable students make little or no efforts to learn. control theory, a new and powerful explanation of how we behave, expains why this probelm exists and how, through learning-teams, we can begin to solve it."

Yun-yi, Eve, Chen | (203.88.255.122) | Monday, 28 May 2001 4:07:29 AM
I agree with Glasser's theory but I think it is not very realistic in this real world. The major principles about motivation and behaviour, needs and feelings, etc., are right because it is very importnat to motivate the students to learn and encourage the students. But I dont agree with theory about attempting to force students to learn and behave properly are ultimately bound to fail. I think students to to be forced to learn sometimes, there are things that is important but boring but students need to know that!! Not only just for the sake of exams but for the purpose of being a new age generation. So sometimes a bit of force is recommended !! ( from only my point of views!)

INGRID SILCOCK | (210.8.232.5) | Thursday, 14 June 2001 8:25:32 PM
just checking

Ingrid Silcock | (210.8.232.2) | Thursday, 14 June 2001 8:54:18 PM
First;y I'd like to say I've really enjoyed reading everyone's comments and thoughts on Glasser. Even though there practicalities regarding all Glasser's management theories, I think its success depends on the school or organistaion as a whole. If the whole school doesn't get behind the strategies nedding to be in place, the focus is lost and the intentions become unclear to especially the students involved. I don't think just a single teacher implementing the Glasser theory in their individual classroom strategies would really be that practical. If the whole school used the management theory students would come to expect the strategies and procedures and ways of dealing with issues as part of the natural thing to do. It would be uniform for all students as well as teachers to handle situations as they arose. I'm not saying however the techniques could not be used. Glassser's ways of dealing with behavioural issues are relevant in every day situations as well. For example, the teacher may look at the situation and react differently ifhe/she stops to identify 'why' the student is behaving in a particular way and what needs of the students are not being met. As teachers I think we need to be aware of all of Glasser's but incorporate them in our own individual way and our own individual styles of teaching. We all as evident above in all the responses, have very different viewpoints. By keeping all the theories in the back or our minds we will all develop our own management techniques and theories. I was really interested in Glasser's reality theory of behaviour. However as far as having 30 students in the classit would be extremely difficult to identify the needs of every child and also what they are lacking in life. I think this theory is more relevant for one-on one situations of therapy. Glasser has alot of valuable and relevant concepts with regard to school disapline systems. Even though he devised his theories some time ago, I don't think the behaviour of students will or the theories behind behaviour problems, should and will ever be very much different as far as the school system is concerned.

tracy chang | (203.76.17.27) | Monday, 2 July 2001 12:57:49 PM
I support the Glasser’s approach in its ability to implement disciplne and classroom management. In his view regarding reality therapy, he believes that students could do something about their lives right now. Pepla can control their behaviour, if helped, make good choices. There are 8 steps which read like a recipe and the finished product is to improve student behaviour. He also believe that reasonable rules do not just happen, it invilves both students and teachers. He is less interested in the reasons found ina child’s past that might explain his/her problem.

tracy chang | (203.76.17.27) | Monday, 2 July 2001 1:02:17 PM
I support the Glasser’s approach in its ability to implement disciplne and classroom management. In his view regarding reality therapy, he believes that students could do something about their lives right now. Pepla can control their behaviour, if helped, make good choices. There are 8 steps which read like a recipe and the finished product is to improve student behaviour. He also believes that reasonable rules do not just happen, it involves both students and teachers. He is less interested in the reasons found ina child’s past that might explain his/her problem.

Tracy Chang | (203.76.17.27) | Monday, 2 July 2001 1:05:22 PM
I support the Glasser’s approach in its ability to implement disciplne and classroom management. In his view regarding reality therapy, he believes that students could do something about their lives right now. Peple can control their behaviour, if helped, make good choices. There are 8 steps which read like a recipe and the finished product is to improve student behaviour. He also believe that reasonable rules do not just happen, it invilves both students and teachers. But he is less interested in the reasons found ina child’s past that might explain his/her problem.

Tracy Chang | (203.76.17.27) | Monday, 2 July 2001 1:11:49 PM
I support the Glasser’s approach in its ability to implement disciplne and classroom management. In his view regarding reality therapy, he believes that students could do something about their lives right now. Peple can control their behaviour, if helped, make good choices. There are 8 steps which read like a recipe and the finished product is to improve student behaviour. He also believe that reasonable rules do not just happen, it invilves both students and teachers. But he is less interested in the reasons found ina child’s past that might explain his/her problem.

Tiziana | (203.88.255.235) | Tuesday, 7 May 2002 10:25:34 PM
I tend to agree with the Glasser method in that it is a way of implementing self-discipline. I believe that by the time the student has reached high school they should be able to do this. One point that I would like to make when implementing this system would be that the teacher should try to uncover and understand if there is a deeper underlying reason for the childs misbehaviour by talking to the student about his/her conduct after every incident and/or involving the school councellor as early as possible. I believe it is important to show the student that you (the teacher) really care about the student and are interested in helping him/her to learn in class.

Hulya Boz | (203.202.59.151) | Monday, 3 June 2002 1:20:00 PM
Well i support Glasser's method of how to discipln students, but will it work with the students of today , maybe his methods should be updated as the kids today are im sure much different to what they were back then, if the kids of today were the same i would be one of those who would use his methods but i just dont think it would work all 100% of the time today .Maybe if the school as a whole worked togther on these methods rather then just a teacher in your class room it might work as then you work as a team and not as one.

JKS | (129.19.71.111) | Thursday, 16 December 2004 9:43:10 AM
I am a fan of the entire school doing it as a whole.

To respond to the above item or the discussion below, use this form