TUTORIAL WEEK 11

SKINNER MODEL CANTER MODEL DREIKURS MODEL

 B.F. Skinner’s behaviour  Canter’s basic assumptions  The logical consequences

modification discipline model associated with assertive discipline model of Rudolf
is based on the assumption discipline focus upon rules for Dreikurs is more students
DEFINITION that humans respond to providing a framework for a oriented.
environmental stimuli (Skinner, discipline management plan.
1971).

 This model is a teacher control  The Canter model encourages  The Dreikurs model encourages a
model relying upon either both parent and administrative democratic approach to both
positive reinforcement support for teacher discipline development and enforcement of
EMPHASIS ON consequences or punishment management. rules (Erwin, 2003).
to shape observable student
behaviour.
 It is simple to use.  It is simple to use.  Promotes a degree of autonomy
 Results are immediate.  The personal desires of the for students.
STRENGTH  It accommodates most teacher can be enforced.  It incorporates a preventative
teachers' desire to maintain  It involves parents and approach to discipline.
 control.
 Students can feel successful
when they obtain rewards.
 Standards of behaviour are
uniform, consistent, and clear
to all students.
 Time does not have to be
spent in class discussing rules
and students' conduct.
 It can be readily employed
with all students regardless of
age.
 The procedure has been well
researched and found to work
consistently.
administrators in the discipline  It helps students to understand
process. why they behave as they do.
 It helps students to learn correct
behaviour.
 It promotes mutual respect
between teachers and students.
 It relies on logical consequences
instead of arbitrary punishment
and systematic reinforcement
 It helps teacher focus on causes
for behaviour before they take
action
  The results might not last long.  The practice of warning students  Teachers have trouble
 Students may not perform as by putting their names on the determining the actual motives of
desired when rewards are board may entice some students their students.
terminated to misbehave who otherwise  Students may not admit their real
 Students may not learn how to would not. motives, either because they
WEAKNESSES govern their own behaviour  Students angered by warnings believe that their motives are
 The approach may seem too and sanctions may go further in unacceptable or because they do
much like bribery to some their rebellion than they ordinarily not know what they are.
teachers would.  Teachers may find it difficult to
 It ignores any underlying  Students may be embarrassed by respond to students in a non-
problems caused by having their names on the board. controlling way.
influences at home, in society,  This approach fails to promote  Teachers may have a problem
or at school self-direction in students. dealing with the complexity of
 To use so much control in a  It fails to deal with the underlying engaging in a dialogue with their
democratic society may be causes of discipline problems, students.
unethical such as emotional illness, divorce,
 Students do not get an poverty, racism, and so forth.
opportunity to clarify emotions,  It advocates suspensions for
weigh alternatives, decide on extreme misbehaviour when far
solutions, or develop their too many children are out on
intellect suspension already.
 Rewards undermine intrinsic  Although Canter recommends
motivation using positive reinforcement while
emphasizing negative
consequences, in actual practice,
positive reinforcement may be
excluded.
 Canter recommends strictly
enforced rules in the cafeteria.
Children frequently go to fast food
restaurants for lunch without
supervision and cause no
problems. Perhaps schools could
learn something from this fact.
 Negative consequences or
punishment stimulates rebellion
and promotes the very behaviour it
is designed to eliminate.