RespectAt many schools, there is a clear dichotomy between the teachers who believe that respect in the adult-child relationship goes in one direction and those who believe that respect is a mutual affair. Within my classroom, I establish a set of guidelines and expectations that allow students the freedom to make the decisions that will help them mature and to develop the means to reach their goals. In aiming to reflect the LMU conceptual framework, I believe that it is imperative that an atmosphere of mutual respect is present in which the teacher can both challenge their students and students can engage the teacher in a dialogue about their learning. While creating a mutually respectful adult-child relationship may be a difficult concept for some teachers to accept, educational psychologists such as Jean Piaget and Maria Montessori both developed theories that support the idea of mutual respect within the classroom.
The educational theorist Jean Piaget posits that an adult-child relationship in which respect is a one-way affair can ultimately be harmful for a student’s moral and ethical development. Piaget explains that this type of adult-child relationship requires teachers to control their students’ behavior and that the students fully submit to their authority. Thus, “in this sociomoral context, the child’s reason for behaving is outside his or her own reasoning and system of personal interests and values” (DeVries, 1997). The consequence of this relationship is that students who truly submit will have difficulty cultivating their own independent moral and ethical compasses. According to Piaget, “a life dominated by the rules of others through a morality of obedience will never lead to the kind of reflection necessary for commitment to internal or autonomous principles of moral judgment” (DeVries, 1997). This consequence is alarming, particularly as a middle school teacher within a Catholic school where moral and ethical development of our students is supposedly emphasized. In my second month of teaching I learned that I could not maintain a laissez-faire attitude with my students due to the behavior issues in my classroom, so I adopted the classroom guidelines that one of the veteran teachers created. My classroom became a micromanaged dictatorship in which I was the supreme authority figure and no student could question any rule, assignment, or instruction: in short, the type of classroom that Piaget would strongly criticize. While classroom management was no longer an issue in that students did not break the rules, it had no discernible effect on their behavior outside my classroom. I only maintained this strategy for about a month as I found that while students respected the rules and largely had respect for me, I could no longer respect myself and saw no long-term benefit to this form of teaching. Eventually I came to the realization that developing my students required more than simply disciplining them. I aimed to create a classroom where students felt free to express themselves and have the liberty to design their own path towards reaching class and project-wide goals. I allowed myself to respect their ideas, opinions, and perspectives. Montessori wrote that a student’s job “is to create the man he will become. An adult works to perfect the environment but a child works to perfect himself” (Montessori, 1967). To reflect the Montessori method in my class, I enacted a three-step discipline process, which includes an initial warning, then a conversation with them asking them how we can work together to help the student reach their goal, and finally sending them to the principal. My teaching is now predicated on creating “an environment of encouragement, an emphasis on success, which encourages the child’s desire to become independent, and an emphasis on respect that fosters consideration for others” (Montessori, 1967). Since this strategy has been put into place, students have become enthusiastic about learning in class and are more inspired to get started on assignments earlier and meet deadlines. |
ArtifactsArtifact I: Student Background Presentations
Students shared their personal backgrounds and expectations for the classroom at the beginning of the year in order to establish a shared understanding of what students should be contributing to the classroom environment. Artifact II: Makey Makey Circuits
Students manage their own learning in project-based learning. In this project, students worked together to create conductive circuits in order to play a video game using a Makey Makey board. Through collaboration and guidance from the teacher, students are engaged in contributing to a classroom environment of respect and learning. Artifact III: Behavior Management Chart
Students who receive two warnings in a class period must fill out the behavior management chart before meeting with the teacher. This chart helps students to articulate what they have done and provides a starting point for a conversation with the teacher on how to best move forward and address the issue. |
References
DeVries, R. (1997). Piaget’s social theory. Educational Researcher, 26, 4-17.
Loyola Marymount University. (2009). Loyola Marymount University School of Education Conceptual Framework. Los Angeles: LMU SOE.
Montessori, M. (1967). The absorbent mind. New York: Dell Publishing Co.
Piaget, J. (1960/1995). Problems of the social psychology of childhood. New York: Routledge.
Pickering, J. (1992). Successful applications of Montessori methods with children at risk for learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 90-109.
DeVries, R. (1997). Piaget’s social theory. Educational Researcher, 26, 4-17.
Loyola Marymount University. (2009). Loyola Marymount University School of Education Conceptual Framework. Los Angeles: LMU SOE.
Montessori, M. (1967). The absorbent mind. New York: Dell Publishing Co.
Piaget, J. (1960/1995). Problems of the social psychology of childhood. New York: Routledge.
Pickering, J. (1992). Successful applications of Montessori methods with children at risk for learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 90-109.