> We have all experienced teacher response to classroom talking in
>an elementary classroom. The most general response is a reprimand,
>sometimes a curt put-down, sometimes a mark on the report card, sometimes
>punishment such as loss of recess, etc.
>
> Student talking within a college classrom is generally ignored.
>Sometimes I have heard vague references by the instructor that it is
>polite to listen, and sometimes I have heard direct comments .. "Could we
>all please listen."
What struck me about this comment is that you're contrasting adult
classes with with children's classes. Are you saying that children
should be treated as adults? As you may have gleaned from my previous
E-mails, education is not my field of expertise. However, it seems
to me that part of the role of schools, aside from teaching kids to
read & write, etc., is to socialize them--teach them what's expected of
them in a classroom or similar setting. Therefore, professors assume that
by the time these children are ready for college, they know what's expected--
they have a script (schema, what have you) to guide them, and therefore
they are not in need of the same kind of guidance they would require in
grade school.
> There are, however, no blots on the report card. There
>are no punishments dealt out. There are no direct reprimands. "Ms
>Schulze, I'd like you to go stand outside in the hall until you can sit
I agree that direct reprimands are not necessarily the best means of
directing classroom behavior. What, in your experience, works best?
Wouldn't this vary somewhat from child to child? Shouldn't the child's
ethnic background be taken into consideration?
I think Robin's research with Puerto Rican and Anglo infants may
shed some light here. When teaching their children various
tasks, such as drawing a line or stacking blocks, Anglo mothers
used more indirect means of guiding their children, such as
questions and suggestions, whereas the Puerto Rican mothers
used very direct verbal commands. The Puerto Rican mothers
were also more likely to physically guide their children--for instance,
they were more likely to physically restrain them when they tried
to wander off. I'm sure Robin could explain this much more clearly
than I!
It seems to me that what we're dealing with here (and I've said this
before) is not a question of *less* control, but a different
style of controlling. Anglo mothers, in Robin's research,
were more comfortable with a style of control that allowed
the children the *illusion* of choice. ("Would you like to
draw a line?" as opposed to "Draw a line.")
> In my classroom I want to direct the process, not the students.
Interesting distinction. Could you expand on this? (Aren't students
inevitably part of the "process"? How do you control the process
without controlling the students as well?)
> I think that the misunderstanding is in degree - that perhaps
>there was a move into a dicotomy - if there is no coercion, there is
>terrible behavior.
Again, I think the more interesting way to look at this is as a difference
in *quality* and not *degree*. I don't know how familiar everyone here
is with attachment research, but I see a good analogy here. When
assessing attachment between a parent and infant, attachment is not
talked about in terms of degree, but in terms of quality. An infant
is not "less" attached to his/her mother. Rather, an infant is seen
as being securely or insecurely attached (actually, it's not a
dichotomy, but I'm trying to be brief here!)
So maybe control in the classroom, or cultural control, whatever sort
of control or coercion you're looking at, can be conceptualized in
a similar fashion. I agree that it's too simplistic to look at it
as a dichotomy, but I also think that looking at it in terms of
*degree* or *amount* is similarly limiting, and perhaps misleading.
-Pam
PAM SCHULZE
PAS94003 who-is-at UCONN.EDU
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT