Driekurs summarises disruptive classroom behaviours by dividing the root causes of these behaviours into 4 different groups. These groups are those who are seeking attention, desiring power or revenge, or those trying to demonstrate their inadequacy. I think that these broad groupings are helpful in trying to determine a student's motivation for being disruptive in class, but I feel that I do not have the classroom experience to determine if this methods actually works. I believe that each student should be treated as an individual wherever possible, yet this theory is good in giving some overarching principles to help deal with the situation in a positive way (although I don't think all the questions posed have been couched in positive terms). The research would seem to indicate that it is effective.
Sally | (129.78.104.84) | Wednesday, 22 May 2002 1:37:43 PM
I feelthat there is a basis in what Driekurs says about why children are acting up and the areas he defines encompasses most of the reasons kids have. I don't think however, you as a teacher can find out why a student is behaving the way he/she is by asking yourself how you feel about the behaviour. Your own emotions and how you feel on the day or about the student could quiet easily bias your feelings on a specific behaviour. The idea that knowing why there is a problem will help you sort out the problem in a positive manner is effective.
Tiziana | (203.88.255.235) | Sunday, 26 May 2002 8:25:52 PM
I think Driekurs theory is a good start for trying to understand why kids act badly. I do think that it is a bit simpistic, though, as I beieve there are more then four reasons why kids misbehave. Each child is an individual with differing backrounds, family life, social status and personality. I don't think Driekers theory will work for all children and for all teachers for that matter, but I do think it's a good way of thinking about why bad behaviour is occurring and to try to come up with a solution.
Glenn | (172.16.79.62) | Sunday, 26 May 2002 10:01:18 PM
I agree with Tiziana that Dreikurs' theory might be a bit simplistic to explain why children (adolescents) misbehave. In any event, comparing Dreikurs to Glasser, I think that they approach this problem from different ends. Glasser would appear to deal with the student's BEHAVIOUR through PUNISHMENT or THREAT OF PUNISHMENT. By contrast, it would appear that Dreikurs tries to deal with the student's MOTIVATION for misbehaving through UNDERSTANDING and DISCUSSION. I feel that each approach has its merits and can work with some students, but I feel that neither will work with every student. I think some students respond to negative stimuli (ie. punishment) and some respond to positive (ie. discussion, though I agree with Rebecca that not all the discussion in Dreikurs' model may be viewed as positive by the student) and some to none at all. This last category I will ignore for now since I do not think either Glasser or Dreikurs effectively deals with this type of student. The problem that I think that we will have as teachers is that I believe that it is very difficult to know which type of student each one may be. Even if we could identify the correct "goal" of the misbehaving student, we will not know necessarily whether discussion will be useful or punishment. That having been said, I do believe that it is important for teachers to try to understand the root of the misbehaviour if they can, so that at least they can know why a student may be acting the way they are, even if they cannot necessarily fix the problem immediately using the Glasser or Dreikurs method.
Jessica | (203.45.114.218) | Sunday, 2 June 2002 8:52:12 PM
I agree with what has been said about Dreikur's theory being a tad simplistic. It does seem to be, as Glenn has pointed out, that a teacher's response really does depend on our knowledge of the student. However, it may be that this is a STARTING point for us since the responses would be a start of handling troublesome behaviour. It may be that we would have to further our development of responses, after all, we have to start somewhere.
wickitty what | (72.1.206.184) | Tuesday, 1 March 2005 2:25:37 AM
i hope glenn is glenn danzig