A NEW PSYCHOLOGY FOR THE MILLENIUM
A talk to the BDA Eastern group at Bury St. Edmunds.
20.10.98 Neil. Davies
Introduction.
Tom and I have collaborated on a number of projects
recently. We seem to share a similar view of the need for deep
change in the nature of the psychological theories that we have
all inherited from the past. I feel this new thinking in psychology
is so important that it would help to have it discussed by from
slightly different angles. I will attempt to explain the need
for change in the assumptions we make about what motivates people
to behave. Then I'll outline how I have attempted to apply the
ideas, and deal with the consequences. Tom will relate the thinking
to his collaboration with people in industry, and the links to
other work in psychology. We both have enough material for a
series of talks and would like to think of tonight as an introduction
to the field. If you think about which aspects appear most useful
or interesting to you, then we may explore them at a later date.
Tom will now set the scene for what follows.
Experiment and theory in conflict
Alfie Kohn was talking on the Oprah Winfrey Show
recently. Some teachers who saw it were impressed with his descriptions
of a study where two groups of children were given the same mathematical
puzzle. One group was promised rewards upon completion, and to
the other no mention of rewards was made. The rewarded group
didn't finish, appeared bored and were totally focused upon the
reward. The non-rewarded group worked faster, completed the task,
did a much better job, worked together and enjoyed the problems
so much that they asked for more.
This is equivalent to the Michelson-Morley experiment
of 1887 the test of Newton's Laws which finally killed of the
idea of the ether. The speed of light was found to be the same
in the direction of the earth, and at 90o to it. The
principle of relativity was born in 1905. I believe that we are
now witnessing the equivalent in psychology.
The interest of teachers is something I find interesting.
There are hundreds of studies like this all demonstrating something
that questions 'common sense' assumptions about what is going
on. The reason is that most of us expect the opposite result.
This work comes mainly from the field of Social Psychology and
goes back to the late 30's: (Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., and White,
R. Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally created
"social climates." Journal of Social Psychology; 10.
271-299.)
There was a very productive period in the 70's and
80's: For example Richard deCharms. (1976). 'Enhancing Motivation.
Change in the Classroom'. Irvington Publishers. In this lengthy
study his team increased pupils' sense of their own control in
the classroom, at the same time as decreasing teacher's attempts
to maintain strict control, through a training programme introducing
alternative discipline methods (similar to Reality Therapy.)
The achievement of pupils increased significantly, and reliably,
as their motivation was correspondingly enhanced. Teachers who
moved too quickly to change their style were disappointed at the
chaos that could result. Others were concerned that developing
motivation took time away from the teaching of their subject matter;
and they were anxious about test results.
It was a simple step for me to test out some of these
ideas in the classroom. I sat in a circle with the kids one day
and talked about what helped them learn most effectively. How
could we get rid of fear and anxiety from the classroom? I suggested
we try to abolish rewards, such as grades and commendations, substitute
other methods of feedback, and also punishments such as detentions,
minus points, me shouting and anything else we could think of.
We would talk about how this felt and whether it made learning
more effective. Eventually I began to tell them about the management
ideas themselves in the way that we will discuss them tonight.
They slowly shifted to self-evaluation of their own work as a
natural outcome of my ceasing to manipulate them from the outside.
After a two year study the results have confirmed
the work of deCharms. All positive measures of work improved.
Behaviour, motivation, work quality and pleasure in the work.
This was reflected in an increase in summative assessment scores
compared to control groups. The effect on parents was also interesting
and unexpected. What are you doing? They talk about your classes
all the time? They are so much happier. You have not only increased
their motivation for maths, but for all subjects, and life itself.
Why isn't what you're doing school policy?
As the study progressed these effects increased,
and were particularly evident on parents evenings. I started
giving out articles and references on the management methods that
I was using, quoting Deming, Glasser, Kohn, etc. Also advice
on discipline in the home and counselling techniques that would
help them talk to their children in a non-judgemental tone of
voice. We discussed accepting, most difficult of all, that the
control you have over your own children is very limited. The
only possible influence you can have is due to your relationship
with them, and that must not be harmed at all costs. Try not
to be coercive, ask about their plans and how they think you might
be able to help them. Pupils reported changes in relationships
with parents; they felt more relaxed and were getting on better.
There were sometimes quite emotional scenes with people grasping
me and saying that I was the first teacher they had ever met who
talked any sense. In a short while I had gone from being just
a teacher of maths to a person youngsters found a useful source
of life experience and advice. They used to ask me why they had
not been told about understanding their needs and motivation before.
Many felt it was the most important knowledge they had ever received.
These developments did not escape the notice of the
management. The feedback to the head in particular, and the fact
that I was getting results (i.e. no complaints and good exam scores),
helped me to maintain my idiosyncratic approach. Managers were
concerned that I was diverging from school policy and tried to
get me to give grades. But on the whole they were very tolerant
and gave me a surprising amount of freedom. For example I later
discovered they found ways to give out commendations certificates
to my class without even telling me. I was allowed to publish
articles on the work, as long as the school was not mentioned,
since one governor felt that my work was particularly seditious.
For a while I visited other schools who were interested in the
ideas, but this was eventually stopped after approaches to the
LEA.
In March 1998 Black and Wiliam published a review
of the literature on classroom formative assessment. Innocent
sounding but the implications for the education service are far-reaching.
A lengthy study of world research into the nature of assessment
was recommending that the way to raise standards is to replace
marks and grades with meaningful feedback in the form of comments
on the work, such as how it could be improved. They also recommend
avoiding competition and using co-operation at all times. Four
months later the school produced an assessment policy advocating
precisely the opposite. None on the working group had looked
at any of the psychological or educational research.
All the time I sensed deeply rooted value conflicts at work in me. Is it the same for others? OHP:
I now imagine a continuum with coercion at one end,
and freedom at the other. I want to move away from the need for
coercion as much as possible, but I accept wild swings between
extremes, sometimes within milliseconds. At my present EBD (Emotional
and Behavioural Difficulties) school the continuum seems to have
altered somehow. I am now generally far less coercive
than I was in mainstream, but have used physical restraint a number
of times. I have waited patiently for the last 5 weeks for some
children to start work, trying persuasion, not coercion. At last
they are beginning to trust me and have started work. I get surprising
comments like "it feels good to be learning again - its like
primary school."
The paradox appears to be that you release control
in order to get more. What is being advocated is not an abdication
of responsibility, but a commitment to a leadership style that
is more in tune with the psychological needs of those leading,
and those led. In education, as in all walks of life, this defines
the limits of what is possible; and says that although we cannot
get miracles, we would expect to see work which both we, and our
pupils, agree is of higher and increasing quality, simply because
it has been need satisfying in its execution. This may be an
ambitious goal, but it is worth pursuing, and may be easier to
attain than we realised, once we start to work with a more appropriate
model of what it means to be human.
The mythology of theory
'No knowledge without theory' is an important phrase.
To be alive is to operate with assumptions and theories about
the nature of this reality around us. There could be no interpretation,
or meaning, otherwise. These assumptions are silent for most
of us, we are not aware of them, and may find them difficult to
uncover and verbalise. For example we talk about the colours
in nature, and in doing so deny all we know today of the relationship
between electro-magnetic radiation and our nervous systems. There
are no colours in nature. The entire visual scene for you is
being produced at the back of your brains and projected outwards
as a 'virtual' world. Yet we are not even conscious of that for
most of the time. Our language structure serves to solidify for
us the assumptions about reality passed on by culture.
We are tied inexorably to our theories. As conditions
in the world change, in order to adapt we need to question and
change our theories constantly. Just such a change is taking
place within psychology right now, I believe.
Feuerstein saw this in 1980. He wrote:
"Whereas psychoanalysis attempted to penetrate the depths of the 'black box' of the mind, behaviourism emerged as a reaction against any form of introspection and 'outlawed' the concept of mind. Only those behaviours directly observable were regarded worthy of scientific endeavour. Thus, with a single stroke, behaviourism effectively removed from psychology the entire apparatus of man's capacity to think and reason.....As a consequence, for many years experimental psychology was simply irrelevant for education."
'Instrumental Enrichment'
(1980) University Park Press; p5.
The last sentence still appears to be true for our
education service today. One objective for me tonight is to confirm
the need for a change in our thinking. Once we see the benefits
using a more appropriate model of motivation and behaviour we
may also agree with the phrase 'there is nothing so practical
as a good theory'.
Alfie Kohn has studied the work of social psychologists
from the seventies onwards. He has concluded that most of us
(in the US and the UK at least) live under the spell of a doctrine
that pervades every aspect of our existence. He uses the term
'behaviourism' for it and is fond of attacking B.F.Skinner - 'The
Father of Behaviourism'.
This holds that we are controlled by stimuli external
to us. We sit at a red traffic light until the stimulus changes.
It is a short step to control children through manipulators like
rewards and punishments. Add to this an atmosphere of competition,
in which one gets the reward, or avoids the punishment, at the
expense of others, and you have the theory of motivation which
now dominates our education system, and much child-rearing practice.
He has done an excellent job of debunking this theory and I don't
propose to summarise his work tonight.
In education I know that practically everyone that
I ever met (except for children) have been mesmerised by this
idea. They do not even recognise the counter-arguments when they
are put forward and cannot tolerate any attack on the core assumption
of this external control psychology.
I speak from personal experience. A few years ago
I discovered that it pervaded my own thinking. When my first
son was born I remember delighting in observing the explorations
of his world. But as he got older and began to assert his will
over mine there grew in me a desire to make him better by punishing
him. All the symptoms of the bully were there; he deserved it,
it was good for him, not my fault but his. When he reached 5
his brother was born and the tendency to smack them grew. This
was the treatment I remembered from my father. I can just recall
the self-loathing which accompanied what I did. At the time I
was desperate to find another way to go on, but felt compelled
to do it, as if being controlled myself by some outside force.
When not punishing them I was thinking of ways to bribe and reward
them; schemes to get them to tidy up their room, etc. I employed
all I knew of psychology at the time - all to no effect.
This theory is not wrong, but we have misunderstood
its time scale and usefulness in human affairs. It is ultimately
about control and many seem to sacrifice almost anything in a
desperate attempt to push others in the direction they want them
to go. In education the whole purpose of fitting people for a
responsible role in a democratic society seems to be lost in a
bureaucratic morass of 20,000 competitive examinations that youngsters
may take:
When competition is added the corrosion runs deeper:
I feel behaviourism runs much deeper than Skinner.
I see a struggle that is at least 2000 years old with Christianity,
based on love and forgiveness, trying to replace an earlier doctrine
of rewards in heaven and punishment in hell. This battle is still
going on in the Church today, and will probably not be resolved
until a new language, to express spiritual feeling, begins to
emerge. Is it possible that a theoretical divide between two
great systems of thought has seen this dilemma throughout the
100,000 years since homo-sapiens emerged in Africa?
An alternative
What do we replace it with today now that we have
at last turned our scientific ingenuity inwards towards the urgent
need to understand ourselves? The new psychology is not a new
idea in the world. Some words have been coined to provide a robust
challenge to the doctrine of behaviourism that so pervades our
entire culture. I am going to use some of the terminology of
William Glasser because he has provided for me a very simple set
of ideas which make sense of some complex phenomena.
This is an Internal Control model to contrast with
the External Control idea of behaviourism. We are seen as directed
from within by powerful drives which must be satisfied at all
costs. We have no choice over this. The only choice we eventually
can have is how we find ways to meet them in the unique
world that each person inhabits. This diagram the start of a
model for the operation of the brain: OHP
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
There are observed to be great variations between
and within individuals as to the relative strengths of these needs.
After survival the four higher or cortical needs are those that
are of particular interest to managers and counsellors. If any
one of these remains unsatisfied then this is experienced on a
scale of unhappiness from unease to severe pain. The consequence
is an urge to do something, or behave. Hence all behaviour
is seen to be an attempt to satisfy one or more of these needs.
We may contrast the two models in the next diagram:
OHP of Behaviourism vs. Choice Theory.
These two theories are incompatible. There seems
to be no reconciliation between them. With these diagrams I have
tried to stress the implications for responsibility arising from
the two contrasting models of motivation and behaviour. External
Control (for example punishment) it turns out removes an individual's
responsibility for their own behaviour. This comes as a shock
for those who punish in order to instil the sense of responsibility.
The name of Choice Theory has recently been given,
by Glasser, to a feedback model based on the view of motivation
as deriving from the need to gain Internal satisfaction of the
needs. Interpretations of reality are weighed against how the
needs are doing inside the core of our being. The Quality World
is the name he has given to the pictures that we create of how
we can do justice to the genetic needs that are driving us to
behave. The balance represents the judgements we make about how
successful we are in meeting our needs. Thus a scale in balance
means temporary happiness, and no urge to behave.
Managing and Counselling
The two roles are very different. When counselling
a person, they choose to talk with us because they are not happy
with what is happening in their lives, their scales are out of
balance and they seek our help. The manager, in contrast, has
an agenda for the person. They may be perfectly happy with their
lives, it is others who may not be. For example the child who
disrupts lessons and feels that it is the teacher's fault for
being so boring. We have to try to convince them to change.
After parenting, teaching is the hardest job there
is. The good teacher has to try to persuade disaffected and unhappy
pupils that it is in their best interest to work hard in a place
they have not chosen to be. This is a good test for Choice Theory
which is why the subtitle of Quality School is 'Managing Students
Without the Need for Coercion'.
The application of Choice Theory to both management
and counselling has been given the name Reality Therapy. It is
a technique of counselling, similar to the 12 step AA approach,
which directs the person to see themselves as choosing their own
misery, not hapless victims of a cruel world. It is centred on
the present, and what they can do in the future to change the
way they behave, and hence feel. In a non-judgemental atmosphere
of trust and confidence we try to help the person to face up to
their reality and find ways to behave that help them to satisfy
their needs effectively. This usually means through relationships
with others, who are themselves getting their needs met in exchange.
It is not an attempt to dig over the past to find excuses for
irresponsibility or inaction in the face of a seemingly hopeless
situation.
Learning Reality Therapy, the application of Choice
Theory, was the way that I finally began to understand how to
help my pupils and students produce work that they valued - quality
work. I believe Choice Theory is the very basis upon which Deming's
philosophy is founded, not merely some revamped psychological
arm. It is helpful, for me, because it is such a simplification
of very complex ideas. The main type of question in all applications
is 'Is what you're doing in your life helping you to get what
you really want?' The wants are of course based on the needs,
and uncovering what we really want may not be straightforward.
A Summary of the implications for us is contained
in the following chart: OHP:
CHOICE THEORY maintains that for every minute of our lives all our behaviour is internally motivated and chosen. It is our best attempt at the time to satisfy one or more of the five basic needs (survival, significance, belonging, freedom and fun) programmed into our genetic structure. It rests on ten axioms:
Although simple in outline I have found applying
it to be as difficult as an alcoholic choosing not to drink.
I conclude that I was addicted to behaviourism, and can never
consider myself completely cured. I am a recovering behaviourist.
Example from industry:
A friend of mine manages the central accounts department
for a large company with a variety of activities. He described
as a mistake his taking on a woman whose unhappiness was upsetting
a large open plan office. The staff were beginning to feel that
they were at fault, and they were becoming critical of her, which
was compounding the problem. I told him that I felt this woman
was unhappy about a current problem relationship. Eventually
he did discover from her that work had become her only release
from a tense domestic situation. Although originally she had
agreed with him that it was best if she left, she was in fact
desperate to keep the job, where she felt competent. He managed
to help her after only a brief introduction to counselling, and
there was a satisfactory outcome. This example illustrates the
need to distinguish between what someone says they want, and what
they really want. Some children will disrupt classes for their
entire time at school, when in fact they really want to do well.
Examples from teaching:
1) A boy with a history of violence in primary school
joined us and immediately began to bully children in year 7.
The punishments meted out by the school were described as counterproductive
by the management. They were persuaded to let him chaperone a
girl who had transferred from another school. He was described
as a transformed person after one week, with many quite surprised
by the result. The simple explanation is that he had been helped
to find a more effective way to satisfy his power need, which
was the cause of the bullying in the first place. This shows
how the two theories of behaviour lead to quite different approaches
for dealing with problems.
2) Homework: I started by conducting a survey into
how they felt about homework, whether they found it useful. I
discovered a visceral hatred which was felt by almost 100%. It
appeared to violate all the needs in one go. I listened to their
reasons and showed real sympathy for their predicament. What
could we do about it since it was in my contract to set it? We
came to a deal where I would make it very easy and relevant to
the current lessons. They would self-mark next lesson, and I
would collect it in and countersign with a "pass" those
who go 90% plus correct. Those who missed for any reason should
have no fear of detentions (the normal consequence of missing
it), and would simply do it next lesson. Those who did not pass
were usually helped to do so by friends during the following lesson.
The result was that I collected in full class sets of homework,
whilst my colleagues, who were still punishing, were grateful
if they got half the books in. There was less evidence of direct
copying, and the children were much happier in lessons. Despite
knowing what I was doing most teachers could not manage the change,
and felt they had to still give out detentions otherwise they
would be seen as not doing their job.
I made a lot of mistakes during the two year pilot
study. I felt that I had a good idea and in my anxiety to move
quickly I discovered that you cannot force an idea upon someone,
even a good idea. Your innovations may only work if people choose
them. So if people initially believe you are wrong they may continue
to choose what they know and prevent themselves from experiencing
an alternative. This is a relativistic theory, I discovered.
What a person thinks is happening is important. If you
are judged to be sincere, then people will forgive a lot. I think
we excuse our parents' mistakes because we have a need to believe
that deep down they acted out of love for us.
There remain some interesting apparent paradoxes
for the teacher on the road to transforming how they want to approach
the job. If you believe in co-operation and work in a competitive
ethos, your colleagues may see you as not co-operative for constantly
challenging their assumptions. You will be caught in a logical
contradiction and seem to advocate neither view. Perhaps you
are just confused, or being awkward.
How is change possible at all when you can only view
a new system of thought from the standpoint of the existing one?
The questions to be resolved are those of leadership. How to
lead in such a way that you inspire in others the desire and the
means to improve? How to persuade people that what looks inevitable
is really a choice that they have made, even though it has never
been verbalised?
Kohn asks how can a system so dysfunctional as behaviourism
have arisen in the first place? I would add, for how much longer
can we tolerate the treatment of children that we see everyday
in schools at the end of the Twentieth Century? I gained some
insight into this question from The History of Childhood by Lloyd
de Mause. This book was the result of the collaboration of historians
with psychiatrists, and it provides evidence for the abuse of
women and children going back to the stone age. He speculates
that the physical and sexual abuse that we now consider deviant,
was once the norm.
OHP: The Evolution of Child Rearing Modes.
Finally I would like to draw together and connect four recent influences upon me, which reflect different pieces of the jigsaw of a new epistemology, or system of knowledge.
OHP: Deming, Glasser, Kohn and Feuerstein: Relationships
and Quality.
W.Edwards Deming
1) psychology 2) systems thinking 3) theory of knowledge; leadership is prediction 4) variation - statistics | William Glasser
a theory for Deming; external control thinking challenged with invention of:
its application is called
| |
| These four areas can be linked | through the need to understand | |
| the concept of quality in terms | of human relationships. | |
Alfie Kohn and the social psychologists
all damage intrinsic motivation and the need to feel competent and in control | Reuven Feuerstein
| |
What interests me about this is that we obtain a
simple picture of what is important in living. Without fulfilling
relationships in our lives, what is the point of pursuing quality?
In the discourse on quality that was the subject of 'Zen and
the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' the final irony was that despite
Pirsig's insights into knowledge and Western Culture, he had not
been able to obtain what was most important to him - a satisfying
relationship with his son. I can say that Glasser's influence
has enabled me to do this.
