Sample Summary Plan for “Three Disciplines for Children”
In “Three Disciplines for Children,” John Holt claims that we can identify three different conceptions of discipline related to children’s learning, but he argues that the three aren’t all equally effective “teachers.”
Holt tells us that the “Discipline of Nature or Reality” may well be the most effective teacher.
Learn from natural consequences of actions (“block” example)
“A great teacher”:
Relates to authentic “doing” with real-life consequences
Provides obvious and immediate feedback
Fosters sense that “teacher” is unbiased
The author identifies the “Discipline of Culture, of Society” as another viable approach to learning.
Based on social pressure and modeling
Children tend naturally to mimic behaviors of “society” they’re in immediate contact with (“church” example, “courteous” example)
Holt warns that while the “Discipline of Superior Force” is sometimes a necessary choice, it seldom provides a healthy model for learning.
The way most of us typically define “discipline”
Has to be used sometimes, but is often overused
Creates resentment and antagonism
Demotivates learners
Teaches individuals that they aren’t responsible for their own actions and learning (“babyhood”)
(over, please)
Sample Summary Draft for “Three Disciplines for Children”
In “Three Disciplines for Children,” John Holt claims that we can identify three different conceptions of discipline related to children’s learning, but he argues that the three aren’t all equally effective “teachers.” To begin, Holt tells us that “the Discipline of Nature or Reality” may well be the best teacher. This is the circumstance anytime children learn from the natural consequences of their actions; for instance, if a child attempts to stack blocks on a level surface, they stay stacked, but if he tries stacking them on a slant, they topple, thus “teaching” him the right way to do this task. Holt asserts that this form of discipline is “a great teacher” because it relates to authentic action with real-life consequences, because it provides obvious and immediate feedback, and because it fosters a sense that the “teacher” is unbiased. Likewise, the author sees “the Discipline of Culture, of Society” as a viable approach to learning. This “discipline” is based on notions of social pressure and modeling and assumes that children tend naturally to mimic behaviors of the people and social contexts they’re in immediate contact with; thus, Holt notes, “children who live among adults who are habitually courteous to each other, and to them, will soon learn to be courteous.” However, the author takes a more critical view of his third form of discipline—“the Discipline of Superior Force,” a method of “teaching” based on the threat of punishment and physical coercion. While Holt recognizes that his form ofteaching is what we typically mean by the term “discipline” and that it must occasionally be used, he warns that it is often overused. The “Superior Force” approach demotivates learners, and it creates resentment and antagonism. Moreover, it teaches individuals that they aren’t responsible for their own actions and learning; thus, it locks children “into babyhood.” Clearly, from Holt’s perspective, some forms of “discipline” have much more value than others.