Who is in control?
In reading the Positive Behaviour for Learning (PB4L) documents I am heartened by several things. The reference to interlinking of well-being, learning, and behaviour is a really important statement. Happy students learn well. Unhappy students do not – bottom line.
PB4L suggests we teach behaviour in the same way as other curriculum subjects. This puts the teaching of responsible behaviour firmly where it needs to be. No more can we say, “But that’s the parent’s job” or “they should be doing this or that”. If students don’t understand part of the curriculum, we teach them. It is the same for behaviour.
A second statement is also heartening. “It is not about changing students; it’s about changing the environment and putting in place systems and practices that will support students to make positive behaviour choices.”
There are two aspects of PB4L which may result in a disconnect for those who believe in the power of intrinsic motivation.
Again this is a very important statement. If we focus on changing the system from one where we punish to get students to comply, to a system that teaches students to make responsible behaviour choices, then we are maintaining a focus on student well-being.
On one hand it states “The New Zealand Curriculum promotes the development of social and emotional competencies”. In the same document, one of the key competencies is managing self and yet teachers are asked to reinforce behaviours with rewards.
The question is: Who is managing the behaviour when the teacher is in control of the reinforcements or rewards? Doesn’t self-management mean that the student chooses to do the right thing even when the teacher is not in the room, or is not giving out rewards or praising? A self-managing student would choose to pick up the rubbish because it was important to him or her that the classroom was a tidy, clean place. The motivation is from within, not from external motivation like a reward.
Elsewhere in the document it says, “Motivating students by giving them incentives”.
In a book titled Punished by Rewards, Alfie Khon wrote about research from hundreds of studies that demonstrate that people actually do inferior work when they are enticed with money, grades, or other incentives. Daniel Pink also quotes this research that shows that carrots and sticks are “so last century”.
So do incentives work? Maybe – in the short term. Are they going to work for all students all the time? No. Are they teaching students to be self-managing? No.
“If you do this, then you will get that” is an attempt to control others, in our case the students. It is the teacher’s best attempt to get what they want and is done with the very best of intentions. It is external control. It does not encourage self-manag
ement.
William Glasser’s Choice Theory® focuses on internal control and motivation that comes about when students are able to self- evaluate and self-monitor their behaviour and their work.
I am not suggesting that we don’t celebrate success. I am not suggesting we don’t encourage, acknowledge or appreciate what students do. If we are serious about students becoming self-managers, they need to learn to become self-reinforcing, self-evaluating with the power to recognise when and why they are proud of their own work. They are not waiting for the teacher to say it is good. ‘The disease to please’ results in difficulties with important relationships in life and sometimes in long term mental health issues.
The key to learning in every learning area is to create a learning environment where every child or student can experience success by developing skills in key competencies: Managing Self (Rangatiratanga), Relating to Others (Manaakitanga), Participating & Contributing (Tataritanga) and Learning Achievement (Whaiwahitanga).
Perhaps we could combine PB4L and some important aspects of William Glasser’s Choice Theory® for the best way forward.