Glasser's Choice Theory Analysis

Choice Theory, a behaviour management learning theory under the leadership banner, is the work of Dr William Glasser, an American psychiatrist who favoured a behaviour approach to help his patients find solutions to their problems in the present rather than the classical psychotherapy which was more focussed on the subconscious mind (Edwards & Watts, 2004). The theory focusses on providing children with the tools and guidance to satisfy the needs that ignite their behaviour, whether that be through providing opportunities for autonomy, including fun in the teaching content, and/or making sure students feel like they belong in the class (Edwards & Watts, 2004). The theory possesses some limitations, including the immense dedication teachers

need to undertake to effectively use the learning theory in the classroom, as it requires a change of mindset in teachers to move away from punishment which is easier and quicker to use and therefore tantalising. This can lead to worn out teachers too tired to run the classroom efficiently during training periods.

The implementation also needs more funding, resources, and school-wide support to reach potential effectiveness, as well as ongoing professional development as it is not a quick-fix solution. However, there are many positives to the theory, including providing a sense of autonomy and independence in students by allowing them to make their own decisions with guidance, and by promoting healthy relationships between teachers and students, and peer relationships. This promotion of relationships and trust prevents misbehaviour and student outcomes are improved as their self-esteem and ability to determine answers to their needs is honed. Finally, it equips students with values that are consistent with internal choice and motivation, quality work, personal responsibility, and needs satisfaction (Loyd, 2005). The learning environment can be positive if students experience the sense of autonomy and pride in their work, as they will have a desire to be at school and to do

well.
Assertive Discipline (AD) was created by child guidance specialist Lee Canter between 1976 and 1981 as a model for teachers to follow to be more assertive in their pedagogical practices (Edwards & Watts, 2004). The use of this model in the classroom relies on reinforcement to deal with behaviours that are undesirable in students, since it is based on reason rather than emotion (Edwards & Watts, 2004), meaning that the model focusses not on the emotions and feelings of those in the classroom, but on what is practical to be of influence as a teacher. The model has many positives to consider. Firstly, a study conducted by Ferguson and Houghton (1992) showed that using the AD model created a mean increase of on-task behaviour between 1 and 10%; 14 children between 11 and 20%; and three children by 21% or more. Furthermore, teachers who are assertive clearly, consistently, and confidently model and express class expectations, teaching students how to behave so they can relate better to others and therefore understand which behaviours lead to success and which lead to failure (Charles & Senter, 2008). Nevertheless, the model also has some negatives that can affect the classroom climate negatively, including relying on punishment and reinforcement. If a behaviour is something the student cannot help, for example disability or skill-deficit, ethically should not be punished for displaying a behaviour they may not understand or cannot stop as it is out of their control, but should be taught instead (Intervention Central, n.d.). The use of punitive methods such as suspension and expulsion are advocated by Canter (Edwards & Watts, 2004), even though research has shown suspension to have a detrimental effect to learning ecosystems (Gutierrez, 2016). Lastly, it has been noted that all kinds of punishment generally provoke resistance and resentment, which students may take out on their peers (Edwards & Watts, 2004).
As demonstrated in the above paragraphs, there are many differences between CT and AD, in terms of how the students are seen, how the teacher responds to behaviour, and the management and prevention strategies for supporting students.

Firstly, they both aim to teach kids how to behave properly and appropriately, and they both believe that the teacher is truly in control of the class (Edwards & Watts, 2004). They both encourage positive relationships between teacher and student as a preventative measure for inappropriate behaviour and to manage behaviour as it occurs (Edwards & Watts, 2004). However, there are more differences than similarities between the two theories. The way the teacher using the theories to back up their actions may use the same points but will deliver them differently. Using the above points as an example, teaching students how to behave appropriately using CT would be finding connective behaviours and maintaining them, whereas in AD this looks like modelling respectful behaviours and treating students with respect (Edwards & Watts, 2004). For the teacher to be in control of the class in CT, they are acting as a guide for the students and not as the authority figure seen in AD. By showing students the way and providing options creates a sense of autonomy and independence, unlike the teacher being completely in charge and allowing no freedom of choice for students (Edwards & Watts, 2004). Another vast difference between the two theories is Assertive

Discipline’s lack of preventative strategies. AD has no such strategies, relying on the establishment of rules and the knowledge of consequences to deter students from misbehaving. It argues that students cannot be expected to behave well, even if they learn to self-govern and responsible (Edwards & Watts, 2004). Conversely, Control Theory has plenty of preventative strategies including a negotiated curriculum that is relevant to student interest, collaborative learning such as groupwork, and open-ended classroom meetings to solve social problems (Edwards & Watts, 2004). The last difference between the two theories is the time and effort required to implement them. AD is relatively easy to use: expectations are set and followed, misbehaviour is tracked, and there are positive or negative consequences that follow behaviour. In contrast, CT requires more intensive work with students by conducting reality therapy, an interview that aims to help individuals gain effective control by showing them whether the behaviour they are demonstrating will get them what they want (Edwards & Watts, 2004). There are also buddy classes, where students go to assigned classrooms with work to do, and a neutral place that students can go to when they need to devise a plan to help them succeed in the classroom (Edwards & Watts, 2004).