QUESTION:
I’ve always used logical consequences with my students. It seems like such a sensible way to discipline. I’m surprised that Dr. Marshall recommends NOT using logical consequences. Can you explain why?

RESPONSE:
You’re correct in thinking that Dr. Marshall does not advocate the use of logical consequences. Whenever a consequence might be deemed necessary in a discipline situation, a DwStress teacher is encouraged to use ELICITED CONSEQUENCES.

Dr. Marshall does not recommend the use of logical consequences for the following reasons:

1. Logical consequences are a form of punishment, in the sense that they are IMPOSED ON the student, BY the adult.

• DwStress is a positive, noncoercive approach to discipline and therefore does not employ the use of punishment in any form—even punishment that may seem “logical.”

• When a consequence is imposed, there is the strong likelihood that the student will FEEL punished (Individual reactions can range from a little bit to a great deal.)

• It doesn’t matter if the adult’s intention is simply to teach, imposing punishments (logical consequences included,) increases the likelihood that the students will FEEL they are being punished BY the adult.

• While punishment may effectively stop misbehavior in the short term, there are often many unintended and negative side effects.

• A discipline approach that uses ELICITED consequences avoids the problems typically associated with punishment. Students do not feel like victims when they have designed their own consequence and when they have been guided to a focus on learning from the misbehavior, rather than being punished for it.

2. By assigning a logical consequence TO a student, the responsibility for thinking about and determining the nature of the consequence, falls to the adult, rather than the student.

• Dr. Marshall points out that if we want students to learn from incidents of misbehavior and become more responsible for their own actions, then it makes sense that the students–as opposed to the teachers–should be the ones required to do the most thinking in discipline situations.

• Rather than designing a logical consequence FOR the student, Dr. Marshall suggests that teachers would be more effective if they were to ASK the students to generate their own suitable consequence-–one that facilitates learning, and yes… one that is logically connected to the situation.

Here is a classroom example to help you understand the one difference between a typical logical consequence and a DwStress Elicited Consequence.

Imagine the following discipline situation: A young student has scribbled on a wall, or an older student has vandalized a wall with graffiti.

In a school where logical consequences are employed, the adult would think about the situation (logically), arriving at a consequence that seemed fair and meaningfully related to the misbehavior. In this situation, the adult would likely decide that as an appropriate logical consequence, the student should be required to clean up the mess on the wall. The adult would inform the student of the consequence (thereby IMPOSING the consequence and making it a punishment) and monitor the situation to make sure that the consequence had been carried out.

In a school using DwStress, the situation would be handled in an almost identical way but with one important difference. In a DwStress school, the teacher would expect THE STUDENT to do the thinking—thus allowing the student an opportunity to take responsibility for his/her behavior in a meaningful way. Instead of imposing an appropriate consequence ON the student, the teacher would instead ELICIT an appropriate consequence FROM the student.

The student would be ASKED, “What do you think should happen now, now that you’ve drawn on the wall?” The STUDENT would be asked to think (logically) to him/herself.  As you can imagine, he/she might likely end up saying something like, “I should clean the wall.” The teacher would certainly agree that this seemed like a suitable consequence and then would monitor the situation to ensure that the clean-up had been completed.

Interestingly, in either case, the actual consequence itself is EXACTLY the same–the wall is cleaned up by the person who drew on it. The nature of the consequence is not the important issue however. The important point is that a logical consequence is IMPOSED by the teacher and an elicited consequence is DRAWN OUT from the student.

This naturally leads many people to ask, “What’s the big deal? If, in both scenarios, it ends up that the young person cleans up the mess he/she made on the wall, why does it matter who thought of the idea?

Dr. Marshall is interested in promoting internal motivation with his DwStress approach.  He points out that this one difference is in fact, very important. True learning and genuine long-term change comes as a result of THINKING TO ONESELF about one’s behavior and about the outcomes that result from that behavior. By being prompted to think about the appropriateness of their behaviour in a conscious way, students are more likely to choose to make better choices in the future.

Print This Post Print This Post
For More Information on Disciplineand Learning Click Here
Posted In: Guided Choices
posted On: July 24, 2008: 9:12 am: By Kerry Weisner
Comments: No Comments