This week I tried using Sherry’s idea in my grade one classroom.  Here’s one example:

Two boys sat down on the carpet near each other as we were getting ready to read a story. The boys weren’t right beside one another; there was a space between them.  I noticed out of the corner of my eye that a third boy was coming nearer, with a plan to sit in the space.  As the third boy got closer, the first two quickly moved together, obviously shunning the new boy.

After asking them to identify their level of operation in this instance and having them explain why they saw themselves at that level, I did as Sherry suggested and offered them a chance “to raise their behavior to a higher level.”  I said we could try the whole scene once again, but this time we would try it at Level C.

I asked the third boy to move away again and the first two boys to sit as they had been originally.  I asked them to think about what they could do this time that would put them at a higher level.  I gave them a moment to think and then asked if they were ready.  When they said, “Yes,” I directed the third boy to approach them again.

This time the two boys moved over a bit to ensure that the third boy had ample room to sit down.  Then one of them said, “Come on, Dylan, sit here with us.”

We talked for a minute, comparing how it feels inside to push someone away, with the feelings that result when we generously welcome someone.   I gave Dylan a chance to say how he had felt, in both the first and second scenario––once when he was shunned and once when he was welcomed.

Another thing we could have discussed would have been the difference between Levels C and D.  Level D actions would have looked the same, the two boys welcoming the third––but the motivation and initiative would have come from the two boys involved––rather than from me, the teacher.

Then I reminded them that the level of someone’s operation is a choice.  People can choose to act on any one of the four levels.  I left them with the idea that another time when they saw someone approaching them, they could consciously choose the level from which they wished to respond.

At the end of this experience we were all left with a positive feeling––the third boy was properly welcomed and the first two boys were given an opportunity to see how their impulsive actions had affected someone else. They were given a chance to reflect on which feels better––operation at Level B or Levels C/D?  Instead of leaving the two boys to feel badly about what they had done––and they did feel badly, because they’re usually two of the nicest boys in my class!––they were left with the uplifting feeling that they really did know how to operate on a higher level.  I think it gave them an opportunity to think about what kind of people they want to be in the future.

Dr. Marshall encourages adults “to view misbehavior as an opportunity to learn.”

Sherry’s use of role-play sends exactly the same message to students:

Acting in an unacceptable way is not something that adults will allow in the classroom, but at the same time we won’t hold what you’ve done against you.  Instead of getting angry, we will provide you with an opportunity to learn that it actually feels better inside to behave in an acceptable way than it does to misbehave.  We have faith in your ability to learn to make good choices.

I want to implement DWS in my classroom this year. My concern is the fact that I’m required to send home weekly behavior reports rating behavior, completed work, homework etc.  Do weekly reports match this approach?

RESPONSE:

DWS is based on promoting internal assessments––students reflecting on their own behavior. Typically, schools that use daily/weekly reports base them on external assessments by the teacher.

The DWS Hierarchy is meant as a tool of self-assessment.  It’s intended purpose is for an individual to use it to assess their own behavior. It’s not intended to be used by a teacher to report on a child. Although reporting to parents is part of our teaching job, the DWS level chart is not the best tool for assessing someone (other than yourself.)

Here’s one important reason:

The top two levels (both acceptable,) are defined by motivation. Motivation involves what the child is thinking more than it does their actions. We can’t see what other people are thinking. Operation at Level C and D often look the same to an observer. If you walk into a classroom where everyone is on task and working, you wouldn’t know which students were operating on Level C and which ones were operating on Level D. Those operating on Level C are keeping themselves on track because the teacher is in the room, while those operating on Level D are the ones who would keep themselves on task whether the teacher is in the room or not.

Another example:

If you witness a child doing something kind for another student, you couldn’t know for sure on which level they were operating––Level C or D?  Is the child genuinely wanting to be kind (D)? or is the child acting kind, to impress someone else perhaps (C)?  While we can accurately assess our own motivations (as long as we choose to look with honesty,) we can only guess at the motivations of others.

If children are aware that they will be marked on a report card with the DWS levels, then it could easily change their motivation level––to something lower!  A child who normally would be operating in a genuine way (Level D,) may be influenced to put on an act (Level C,) simply to impress the teacher in hopes of being marked as Level D. This is counterproductive to the whole purpose of DWS.

Therefore, a different tool is needed to report to parents; a tool that describes only observable behaviors and not motivation levels. If you want to stay true to the DWS philosophy––but must also meet school requirements for weekly reports––use a different assessment tool designed for that purpose. Sending a report home about homework and completed class work is straightforward––either the work is done, or not.  This is very easy to assess and  observe. As I said, behavior is a trickier matter, but can be externally assessed by using a tool that allows you to assess whether their observable behavior is appropriate––or not.