######### FROM CHUCK TUCKER 930528 #########
GLASSER
I use Glasser to give some of that "ordinary language" and
illustrations to the discussion of PCT. It is at times
dangerous to let students read this "unsupervised" and w/o
some "what to look for" directions but I use it mainly to
give some more life to the presentation. I reject Glasser's
discussion of needs and drives (all his biology stuff), parts
of discussion on behavior but concentrate on his examples and
his discussion of "pictures" (which BTW I am hearing people
using quite often in conversation). I use selected parts of
TAKING EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF YOUR LIFE (1984) [I scan it and
do my own editing]; I use his chapter in WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
on "Reality Theraphy" (BTW note chapters in that book by Perry
Good and Ed Ford) and selected parts of THE QUALITY SCHOOL. I
try to select for reading those parts which illuminate PCT
and delete those parts which usually deal with the behavior
and biology. I like his emphasis in TQS on cooperation and
a noncoersive approach to learning. [Dag did a good job of
pointing out the problem areas of Glasser's book - I would
not use anything from POSITIVE ADDICTION or STATIONS -both
to biological]
LOCKE
I found a reference for an article by Locke wherein he
directly deals with the GT vs. CT comparison (I think
Tom mentioned it on the net) MOTIVATION AND EMOTION 15:
9-28 1991 but no one has noted that there is an article
following that one by Howard J. Klein who defends CT.
"Control Theory and Understanding Motivated Behavior:
A Different Conclusion" 29-44. Klein mentions the work
of Lord and Hanges (1987), Lord and Kernan (1988) [Wayne's
book], Taylor (1983-84) and Powers (1973 & 1978) [BTW
Locke uses (he claims) the SCIENCE article of Bill's
NOT his book]. Both of these articles have severe problems
with presenting PCT. I thought that it might be an
opportunity to take that idea on the combined paper and
turn it into a commentary on both of these articles
and see if this journal would accept it. I also noticed
a number of articles in this journal on goals and purposes
and thought that Tom's cooperation work could be cast as
dealing with the issues of goals and sent to this journal.
Ponder this. I also plan to look at Locke's research next
week; my bet is that it will be rather weak and deals with
answers to questions on questionnaires rather than observa-
tions of other actions.
Regards,
Chuck