Rheta DeVries & Betty Zan
Picture from Moral Classrooms, Moral Children: Creating a Constructivist Atmosphere in Early Education.
To reduce the possibility that children will experience consequences as arbitrary and punitive, we suggest implementing the following constructivist teaching principles.
It is not unusual for an adult to feel that a child should be made to suffer for a misdeed. This may be vengeance based on anger, or it may derive from the common idea that if the child suffers, he or she will not do the misdeed again. Suffering may lead the child not to do the act again, or it may lead the child to resent or even hate the perpetrator of the suffering. It may lead the child to feel inwardly that he or she is bad and thereby negate self-esteem. Or it may lead the child to be more calculating next time so the adult does not find out. From the point of view of the child's psychological development, punishments are risky and most likely counterproductive if the adult wants to promote the child's moral development.
It is clear that any consequence, even the reciprocity consequences, can become expiatory if implemented with a punitive tone and attitude. To avoid turning reciprocity consequences into punishments, be matter-of-fact and supportive of the child.
Logical consequences can often be discussed with children as a group. The teacher can help children become conscious of a problem, make sure that children agree and truly believe that a problem exists, and ask children for opinions about what to do about the problem, with an emphasis on preventing future occurrences. Once the group has agreed on a logical consequence, children are more likely to understand the logic of the consequence. Constructivist teachers point out that even when children are warned of consequences, they sometimes still seem surprised to confront them. Children may not be able at times to think of consequences until these are experienced.
When consulting young children about consequences, the teacher must be prepared for expiatory (punitive) suggestions. For example, in one class, the Special Helper was using a spray bottle of water to aid his cleaning. When D, an adult from a nearby office, walked past, the child deliberately sprayed water on her. At second grouptime, the children discussed the event and voted that he should be deprived of his Special Helper privileges for the rest of the day, and that these should be taken over by a teacher. The mistake here was in letting this issue be dealt with by the group. It should have been dealt with as an individual matter between D and the child. As mediator, the teacher could have led the child toward an understanding of D's point of view. The class's action, in contrast, only led the child to resent the punishment.
In Peige's Experimenters classroom (3-year-olds), urine was found on the bathroom floor over several days. Peige did not know who was responsible but suspected that more than one child was involved. She figured that they were not being malicious but thought it was funny. She brought the problem to the group for discussion. They talked about the health aspect, the unpleasant smell, the problem of trying not to step in it, etc. The children generated an elaborate set of rules that were posted in the bathroom. The rules included "Put pee-pee in the potty," "Wash your hands after you pee," etc. Also posted was the consequence the children created for breaking the rule. This was "You can never use the potty at school again." Peige did not question the severity of this consequence because she knew that it made sense to the children and that they would not change their view until confronted with implementing it. A week later, children found K urinating on the floor. A class meeting was called to discuss what to do. K was terribly distressed, and Peige asked the Assistant Teacher to hold him and be his advocate. She herself could not do this because her responsibility was to be the moral voice of the class. When the children insisted that K could never use the potty at school, he began to fall apart. Peige asked him if he did not like that idea. He was able to say, But what if I need to go potty and I can't wait 'til I go home? I'll wet myself." Peige was then able to elaborate his point and represent this view to the class. She pointed out that that would make a mess and be sad for K. Peige invited K to talk about whether he was really through peeing on the floor. The group did not withdraw its consequence but decided that K could have one more chance, to his relief.
Children do not always make the cause-effect connection when natural consequences occur. Peige (T) brought such a consequence to children's awareness when she showed them a broken classroom decoration at grouptime.
T: Before we get started on the story, we have a little problem. Do you remember we had a talk about how careful we needed to be if we had delicate decorations in our class? (Hold up broken decoration)
Children: Yes.
T: And we decided we liked this one?
Children: Yes
T: Well, this delicate decoration has been ruined and will have to be thrown away because people didn't take care of it. (A matter-of-fact, nonjudgmental tone of voices to avoid the possibility that children will hear it as a criticism.)
Teachers sometimes rescue children from natural consequences and lose an opportunity for children to construct the relation between action and consequence. For example, the teacher may separate children in a conflict without letting them experience the other's reactions. Or, the teacher may constantly put the caps back on markers. We understand the concern for waste but believe that the lesson on consequences is well worth a wasted marker.
Two kindergarten boys during a cookie-making activity were careless and did not pay close attention to the recipe. They put in one cup of baking powder instead of one teaspoon. The teacher observed their error and could have prevented it. However, she felt that the only way the boys would become more serious and careful about cooking was to experience the result of their carelessness. At snacktime when everyone tried the cookies, children were disappointed and said they tasted "yucky." The teacher was able to review the recipe with them and help them realize their error. The next time they made cookies, they were more serious and careful.
In the instance involving running in the classroom, mentioned above, Peige decides to intervene before a natural consequence occurs. Her responsibility for the safety of her children is too important to risk injury as a natural consequence of K and G's out-of-control behavior. Instead, she talks to K and G and invokes a logical consequence, depriving the children of the thing misused (in this case, the opportunity to play on the carpet).
Restitution helps a child regain dignity and self-respect after a misdeed as well as repair the rift in the social bond between the misdoer and the victim. In the following example, Peige (t) matter-of-factly handles the situation when G slaps K's hand and causes him to drop his wet clay object on the teacher's sweater. After attending to the hitting issues, she says:
T: Do you know what happened? You knocked his thing down which might have broken it, and it got it all over my sweater. I didn't like that when you got it all over my sweater. So, could you please do something to get this off of my sweater?
G. Yeah.
T: Okay, what can you do?
G: Wipe it off.
T: Okay, thank you very much.
G: Can you get that game off the shelf for me?
T: Remember, G, you're getting something to wipe off my sweater 'cause it's really yucky.
G: (Get paper towel and wipes sweater) it comes off easy.
T: Thank you.
Restitution can take the form of making a hurt child feel better. Once a conflict discussion turns in the direction of recognition of the other's pain, the teacher can open the way for restitution. We caution that if restitution is done as a result of coercion, it turns into punishment.
The exclusion consequence should never be invoked by the teacher without indicating how or when the child may be reinstated as a participant in the group. It is best if the control of the exclusion can be given to the child. When W complains to Peige that D keeps on hitting him with his head, Peige makes several efforts to mediate a conflict resolution, but this does not seem to lead to a reduction in hitting. Peige then approaches D in the following way. "If you are going to hurt children, you cannot be with them, so you will either need to stop hurting or, if you keep hurting, you will need to get away from the children. Which one will be?"
At grouptime, young children sometimes talk or play and disturb others. It chapter 6, we discuss how to approach children in respectful ways, to give them opportunities for regulating their behavior voluntarily. If a child seriously disrupts, the teacher may have to ask him or her to leave. One strategy that sometimes works well is to give children the opportunity to take themselves out of the circle, to sit quietly at a table and return when they feel ready. The teacher thus cooperates with the child by recognizing that he or she may not want to be in circle and by offering a nonpunitive way in which to withdraw that protects autonomy. While this is different from the arbitrary and punitive use of "Time out," it can still be experiences by the child as punitive.
We should also say that there are times when a child refuses to leave voluntarily and a teacher must make the child leave, in order to protect the rights of children who want to enjoy circle. In order to reduce the coercion as much as possible, the teacher should explain why the child has to leave. If no assistant is available at the time, the teacher should find a later time in which to talk with the child. This conversation should be relaxed and sympathetic but firm about the logic of the consequence. By trying to learn the child's perspective, the teacher may be able to lead the child to understand something of the perspective of others in the group.
It would be disrespectful of children's feelings to insist that they plaly with a child they have excluded. In chapter 5, we tell the story of the child excluded from pretend play. When the teacher asks if he can be a brother, they happily agree. Often the teacher can help the excluded child find a role that will be valued by other children. Sometimes, the problem is less easy to solve if it reflects a longstanding experience of the children with each other. For example, an aggressive child may be excluded "because you have hurting hands." Or an overly competitive child may be excluded as children complain. "You cheat all the time, and you don't listen to our words!" In these cases, the teacher will have to work to help the child decenter and cooperate so that his or her behavior will be more acceptable to the peer group.
A consequence should be clear and definite so the child knows what to do to avoid it in the future and what to do to reinstate him- or her-self when it is invoked. In the following example, the teacher leaves the consequence so vague that children are left in doubt as to what they can do to reinstate themselves. When children scatter the Construx all over the floor, despite the teacher's effort to get children to keep them on the table, the teacher invokes the logical consequence of withdrawing the children's possibility of using of these materials. After collecting all the Construx, three children, H, S, and C leave the class to take the Construx back to the kindergarten class from which they were borrowed. The children play in the hallway, and H falls and hurts himself. The teacher has a conversation like the following with each child.
T: S, you really like doing special stuff and going to other peoples' classes. Do you like that?
S: (Nods)
T: But when you do it, do you know what happens? You make the choice to fool around instead of just going and doing it. So, S, that shows me that you cannot be safe if you do these things, and if you cannot be safe, then you can't do them. So that will be something that you cannot do for a while until you show us that you know how to be in control and just go to the class and just come back.
The teacher gives the children no indication of how long this privilege will be revoked, or what the children might do to retain the teacher's trust.
In contrast, after a 4-year-old is excluded from field trips, Peige adjusts the lesson plans in order to help the child reinstate himself. R was a problem whenever the Investigators when on a field trip, running away from the group and violating other rules. As a class they discussed field trip rules and decided that any child who could not listen to the teacher's words and follow the rules on fields trips would not be allowed to go on the next field trip. Sure enough, this happened to R on a trip to visit the campus newspaper. However, Peige knew that a big field trip to the zoo was coming up, and she did not want R to miss it. So she planned two small field trips before the zoo trip. On the first, R was not allowed to go on a walk across campus to play on some favorite trees. Peige emphasized that this was the consequence on which the group had agreed. Before the second campus trip, Peige talked with R about his behavior, explaining that if he did not follow the rules, he would not be allowed to go on the zoo trip. She asked him if he could demonstrate to her that he could be trusted on field trips now. He said that he could. Peige gave him the opportunity to regain her trust on the second small trip so that he would not experience the disappointment of missing the big trip.
Constructivist teachers do not "discipline" children in the sense of controlling and punishing them. Rather, the constructivist alternatives to such discipline focus on strategies to foster children's construction of convictions about relating to others in cooperative ways. Piaget's distinction between expiatory and reciprocity sanctions provides the basis for planning general responses to misdeeds. More specifically, the criterion of reciprocity leads constructivist teachers to six types of sanctions (discussed by Piaget) that emphasize the social bonds broken by children's misdeeds. To reduce the possibility that children will experience consequences as arbitrary and punitive, constructivist teachers follow nine guidelines that protect children's autonomy and lead to development.