toptermpaper.com

Title: The contribution to science by a scientist of your choice. 3000 words

This paper discusses the contribution to science made by the English scientist Charles Darwin, (1809-1882), author of The Origin of Species (1859), the originator of the Theory of Natural Selection or Evolution. It examines the manner in which the work of Darwin could be related into the existing science curriculum, considering his work as an exemplar of the scientific method. It also sets out to relate the scientific discoveries and principles involved to other aspects of the school curriculum, especially in the area of citizenship. The contentious nature of Darwin’s ‘discovery’ in his own time illustrates the fact that there is a common interest in the discipline: we are, in a sense, stakeholders in scientific facts and methods, since they help to determine the shape of our daily lives. As the House of Lords points out, ‘….this is not confined to scientists; it extends to those who make policy, whether public or commercial, on the basis of scientific opportunities and advice. Policy-makers will find it hard to win public support….on any issue with a science component, unless the public’s attitudes and values are recognised, respected and weighed in the balance along with the scientific and other factors.’ (House of Lords, 2000, para 2.66). Despite its age, Darwin’s theory continues to be debated, and can inform us about the importance of observational skills and scientific integrity. It also provides precedents for the way science and society interact, which may be useful in our society. As the Royal Society observes, ‘It is thus not trust in science per se which is of concern but the speed of scientific and technological development, the uses to which science is put, and the ability of regulatory and institutional structures to keep pace with this change.’ (Royal Society, 2004, p.13). Darwin’s work brought him notoriety, but also controversy and personal vitriol. (See illustrations). This is where the link between science and citizenship can be made.

How does this contribution map to the science curriculum?

As a 2002 Report by House of Lords acknowledges, ‘The foundations of an interest in science are laid at primary school, between the ages of 5 and 11.’ (House of Lords, para. 6.3) The principle benefit which could be obtained through the work of Darwin is a general accessibility, which would itself enable learners to engage with the curriculum. As Meadows points out, ‘Much of cognition and learning depends on identifying the relevant knowledge that the learner already has in existing memory so that this knowledge can be used as a starting point for learning what is new. Having no starting point…will hamper learning and reasoning…’ (Meadows, 2006: p.112). A variety of authorities and analysts have noted there that are continuing conceptual problems in the way learners, and the wider community engage with science. These are attributable to a variety of factors. Qualitative (i.e. phenomenological) research commissioned jointly by the DTI and the Wellcome Trust revealed public support for the idea that ‘Science makes our lives change too fast.’ (Wellcome Trust, 2000, p.23) Beyond this apparently simple picture there lay a more complex picture, with differentiated levels of understanding and interest claimed for different areas of science. Environmental concerns, health issues and medial discoveries held the greatest interest for 82-91 per cent of respondents, whilst new technology was considered more interesting by 74 per cent. Only 48 per cent of those questioned claimed that energy issues were the most significant for them. (Wellcome Trust 2000: p.21) The same research also discovered that it was possible to categorise respondents into different groups, determined by their interest in science, and the degree of trust they felt in science and scientists. Correspondingly, subjects characterised themselves as ‘confident believers’ at the end of the continuum most engaged with science, to ‘supporters’ half way along the scale, right down to those who stated that science was ‘not for them’. (Wellcome 2000: pp.5-7)

Correspondingly, there are several overlapping benefits which could be obtained through an expanded use of Darwin’s work. Firstly, an enhanced understanding of scientific method, secondly, an improved awareness of the operation of natural laws, and thirdly, the means by which research results are validated, interpreted and shared. The benefits of this could start to be felt even at the Primary phase, as Peacock et.al. argue, ‘Primary science is perhaps best regarded…as an intellectual, practical, creative and social endeavour which seeks to help children to better understand and make sense of the world in which they live…(and)…should involve children in thinking and working in particular ways in the pursuit of reliable knowledge.’ ( Peacock et al., 2007: p.1). It is in this way that a rigorous interpretation of the general principles established by Darwin might be very beneficial, in overturning and challenging pre-conceived ideas about identity and value, such as those often attributed to the so-called ‘hidden curriculum.’ As Bishop and Simpson point out, ‘The pressures of the hidden curriculum are also present with regard to structure. The children themselves can be very forceful in structuring science activities with preconceived social frameworks.’ (Bishop and Simpson, 1995: p.7).

In thematic terms, Darwin’s work is thoroughly supportive of the Knowledge, Skills and Understanding element of the science curriculum, i.e. , Ideas and evidence in Science, Investigative Skills, and subsidiary disciplines such as planning and presenting evidence. By the time students reach Key Stage 3, these skills are being further developed under the headings of Practical and Enquiry Skills, Critical Understanding of Evidence, and Communication. In practical terms, principles developed from Darwin’s theory could be incorporated into the science curriculum as early as unit 1A, Ourselves, and then continued on through key Stage 2 in Life Processes and Living Things. Within the latter, it would be important to focus on sub-unit 4, Variation and Classification, and 5, Living Things in Their Environment, noting how living organisms vary and change according to their context. This theme could be carried on developmentally in the context of Key Stage Three, which incorporates two highly relevant modules, Organisms, Behaviour and Health, and The Environment, Earth and Universe. Moving away from the formal curriculum, Darwin’s theory could help by developing the foundations of causal reasoning and also problem solving, contributing to a general improvement in science standards overall, across all units of study.

How does the work of the scientist demonstrate the scientific method, or is it a counter example?

From an educational and scientific perspective, Darwin’s work is interesting because it is based extensively on observation and deduction, rather than extensive or repeatable physical experimentation. Because of the enormous timescales involved in the evolutionary processes which preoccupied Darwin, it is in effect, impossible to prove, in absolute terms, whether the theory is correct or not. The theory still has its detractors, and direct opponents, who object to it on ideological or theological grounds. Despite this however, it has become a generally accepted scientific principle. Darwin’s work is therefore, in one sense, the purest expression of the scientific method, especially since it was formulated in a vacuum of worthwhile antecedents, and an atmosphere of considerable ideological opposition. The only possible way in which his work might be deemed a ‘counter example’ is the manner in which it ran directly contrary to much mainstream scientific thinking amongst his contemporaries. However, it definitely was a discovery made because of – rather than in spite of – scientific method.

Essentially, what Darwin did was to propose an interpretation of events, extrapolated from a vast amount of biological and geological evidence: he then formulated a specific interpretation of causality which, in his analysis, had only one possible scientific outcome. It is this kind of observational model, based on causality, which can tap into the learner’s innate cognitive ability, even from the youngest age. As Meadows observes of children’s interpretative perception, ‘…By the beginning of school years, it follows basic causal principles, for example that causes precede effects rather than following effects, that they covary with their effects – the effect regularly and predictably appears after the cause and does not appear without it, and the cause and effect are close, or at least linked, in time and space.’. (Meadows, 2006: p.109)

How can the work being discussed be used to address citizenship issues in schools?

As Rose and Rose indicate, it has always been possible to take the view that, ‘…science appears to advance in a more or less ordered manner, irrespective of the prevailing social environment in which it is performed.’ (Rose and Rose, 1970, p.241) The power of Darwin’s work lays in its ability to bridge the gap between science and the community, and it is here that his relevance to issues of citizenship may be found. Darwin’s contribution to science as mirrored to a great extent by the way his work reinforced other areas of academic, philosophical and social study: all of this makes it directly relevant to citizenship issues. As Wallace points out, ‘A reading of the Origin…make it difficult to assert that Darwin’s mind was ‘devoid’ of economic and philosophy. A more sustainable conclusion is that it was permeated by principles of political economy and philosophy in the form of a language which did not differentiate between the political and the biological.’ (Wallace 1995: p.11) In other words, Darwin’s work was implicitly bound up with the values of his host society: it is this which makes it an ideal link between science and citizenship. The only contrast is that we move from a Victorian context, to a present day one. This, it may be argued, has potential benefits for science, education, and society alike. As the Royal Society concluded with regard to the current science curriculum, ‘…many students lacked enthusiasm for…. the subject, and felt frustrated by a content-heavy curriculum which gave them little room to explore controversial and ethical issues that might interest them.’ (Royal Society, 2004, p.21 ) Darwin’s work, it may be argued, is perfectly adapted to facilitate the latter: it is not remote, or obscure, and on certain levels it is highly accessible.

The links between science and citizenship manifest themselves in various ways. Firstly, there is the whole issue of public understanding of, and trust in science. As Meadows points out, ‘…understanding cause builds up into what has been called a ‘naive physics’, a coherent set of notions about how objects behave; if this gives rise to the formation and testing of hypotheses by observation and experiment, it becomes the basis for a physics which is scientific rather than naive.’ (Meadows, 2006: p.109). Darwin’s work teaches us that it is not only the observation of a phenomena, but the cultural capacity to assimilate its meaning, which is important. Scientific matters are not the discrete concern of the scientific community itself, but spill over into the political sphere and eventually concern us all. This is especially true when ethical issues become involved, as they increasingly tend to do in the biological and life-sciences, affecting everything from the air we breathe, the food we eat, the health treatment we can expect, and even the degree of control we might have in determining the health, gender, and character of our children. The important point here is that attitudes vary, from a profound mistrust, to an almost myopic faith in science. As the House of Lords observed, neither position is entirely valid, a situation it attributes sqaurely to schools. ‘In common parlance, “scientific” is almost synonymous with “certain”. This perception, which is probably picked up at school, is virtually true of much old and well-established scientific knowledge. In many of the areas of current concern, from climate change to cancer, it is however very wide of the mark.’ (House of Lords, 2000, para. 4.1) It is not the fallibility of science which is useful from a citizenship point of view, but rather the necessity of maintaining an open mind and capacity for objective debate. It is also important to remember that we all share a collective responsibility for the way that society is conducted, and the manner in which scientific affair are run on our behalf. Again, this is not a remote or academic debate, and at its most intense, can demonstrate the relevance of scientific method in our everyday lives. As the Royal Society points out, contemporary crises such as that created by BSE illustrates this. ‘… BSE highlighted profound concerns about the science advice process and the role of scientists and government officials, the effectiveness policy making and action within departments such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the ability of Ministers to both gauge and communicate risk effectively, and fundamentally the relationship between science and politics.’ (Royal Society, 2004, p.17)

If we take the Key Stage Three Citizenship curriculum as an example, the continued relevance of Darwin’s ideas becomes apparent. In the sphere of political, legal and human rights, we must take account of the DFES guidance that every child is ‘…A unique child….every child is a competent learner from birth who can be resilient, capable, confident and self assured.’ (DFES, 2007: p.5). The essence of Darwin’s thought is that all people are descended from the same ultimate source, and therefore equality before the law, and of political rights, is a prerequisite of an equitable society and civil polity. This in turn leads into the principles of democracy and the idea everyone should have a voice in determining the legislative conduct of government. The importance of maintaining freedom of speech and allowing a diversity of views are also essential to the principles of citizenship as enshrined in the curriculum.

It is important to remember that, without these facilities, Darwin’s scientific ideas might never have received public attention. In Section 2, Key Processes, the KS3 Citizenship curriculum requires that learners ‘…engage with and reflect on different ideas, opinions, beliefs and values when exploring topical and controversial issues and problems.’ (QCA 2007: p.30). Darwin knew that publishing his ideas about evolution in Victorian society would draw fierce opposition from many quarters, because of its dissonance with biblical teachings about the Creation. This opposition was likely to be immovable and resistant to logic: As Hull points out, those ‘…who rejected evolutionary theory primarily for theological reasons…would not have been able to accept it even if all the evidence had been overwhelmingly in its favour – which it was not.’ (Hull 1974: p.450). Similarly, his right to debate his theories with opponents and critics formed an important part of the way in which he fundamentally changed attitudes, way beyond the purely scientific sphere. As Darwin himself wrote of one of his counter-theorists, ‘He will be dead against me, as you prophesied…but he is generously civil to me personally. On his standard of proof, natural science would never progress, for without the making of theories I am convinced there would be no observation.’ (Hull 1974: p.229). As can be seen from this, it should be possible, in a tolerant and progressive society, to express and discuss opposed views in a reasonable way: the freedom to do this, and determination to protect such freedoms, are important tenets of contemporary citizenship. As the Key Stage Three citizenship curriculum puts it, responsible citizens should be able to ‘…communicate an argument, taking account of different viewpoints and drawing on what they have learnt through research, action and debate…justify their argument, giving reasons to try to persuade others to think again, change or support them.’ (QCA 2007: p.30).

In contemporary UK society, responsible citizenship also requires us to understand diversity of cultures and identities, and that movement of people, either temporarily or permanently, is an intrinsic feature of our society and economy. This is fully reflected in the citizenship curriculum, which states that learners should recognise …the hanging nature of UK society, including the diversity of ideas, beliefs, cultures, identities, traditions, perspectives and values that are shared.’ (QCA 2007: p.33) Darwin’s theory of natural selection is supportive of such perspectives in a variety of ways. By teaching us that we all have common origins, his thinking undermines any ideas of intrinsic racial difference, or any barriers erected around such ideas. Since we all developed from the same biological source, there can be no justification for valuing any individual differently: in other words, concepts of ‘biological determinism’ are invalidated. Moreover, any attempt to do so can, by Darwin’s teaching, at once be revealed as arbitrary, subjective and unscientific. There are obvious cross-curricular links to be made here, both historically and in terms of contemporary societies, where such conditions still endure. Children are natural observers of the phenomenon around them, and Darwin’s ideas are profoundly supportive of this. Meadows points out that children ‘…appear to draw inferences about the causes of events they see, to discriminate between self-caused and other-caused movement, to categorize living things that are agents as different from inanimate objects.’ (Meadows, 2006: p.109). Being citizens also accrues us the responsibility to change things for the better: correspondingly, although we have rights in society, we have a duty to ensure that such rights are exercised responsibly, without impinging on the rights of others. Darwin’s theory also taught us that we are, as social actors, entirely interdependent upon each other.

Bibliography

Amigon, D., and Wallace, J., (1995), Charles Darwin’s the Origin of Species: new Interdisciplinary essays. : Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Anderson, R.D., (1992), Universities and Elites in Britain since 1800, MacMillan, Basingstoke.

Bishop, A., and Simpson, R., (1995), Strategies for Structured Play in Science in the Nursery’, Primary Teaching Studies, Autumn, Vol.9, No.3, pp.5-8.

Burgess, R.G., (1989), The Ethics of Educational Research, Falmer Press, Lewes.

The Children’s Plan: Building Brighter Futures, (2007), Department for Children, Schools and Families. HMSO, London.

DeFalco, J., ‘Trade-Offs, Risks and Regulations in Science and Technology: Implications for STS Education.’, in Kamur, D.D., and Chubin, D.E., (eds), (2000), Science, Technologyand Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

DFES, (2007), Practice Guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five, HMSO, London.

House of Lords, (2000) ScienceandTechnology, 3^rd Report, downloaded from http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm

Hull, D.L., (1974), Darwin and his Critics, Harvard University Press, Mass.

Kamur, D.D., and Chubin, D.E., (eds), (2000), Science, Technologyand Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Lenton and McNeil, (1991), ‘Primary school teachers understanding of the biological concepts in the National Curriculum’ Primary Teaching Studies, Oct., Vol.6, No.2, pp.196-203.

Mackenzie, D., and Wacjman,J., (eds), (1994), The Social Shaping of Technology: How the Refrigerator got its Hum, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

Mauther, M., Birch, M., Jessop, J., and Miller, T., (2002), Ethics in Qualitative Research, London, Sage.

Meadows, S., (2006), The Child as Thinker: The Development and Acquisition of Cognition in Childhood, Routledge, London.

Pursell, C., (1994), White Heat, BBC Books, London.

QCA, (2007), Citizenship: Programme of Study for Key Stage 3 and Attainment Target, QCA.

Rose, H., and Rose, S., (1970), Science and Society, Penguin, Harmandsworth.

The Royal Society, (2004) Excellence in Science: Science in Society, London.

Rose, H., and Rose, S., (1970), Science and Society, Penguin, Harmandsworth.

Scruton, R., (1982), A Dictionary of Political Thought, MacMillan, London.

Science and the Public: A Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes to Science in Britain, A Joint Report by the Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust, (2000), HMSO, London.

Wakeford, T., and Walters, M., (eds) (1995) Science for the Earth: Can Science Make the World a Better Place? John Wiley and Sons,Chichester.

Wallace, J., (1995) ‘Introduction: difficulty and defamiliarisation-language and process in the Origin of Species’, in Amigon, D., and Wallace, J., (1995), Charles Darwin’s the Origin of Species: new Interdisciplinary essays. : Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp.1-46.

Winner, L., ‘Do Artefacts Have Politics’, in Mackenzie, D., and Wacjman,J., (eds), (1994), The Social Shaping of Technology: How the Refrigerator got its Hum, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

Coaching is about learning specific skills, to improve performance or to prepare for advancement. To an outsider, coaching situations may look similar. All are based on an ongoing, confidential, one-on-one relationship between coach and learner. Yet each teaching situation can be quite diverse and some of these distinctions are important to recognise, if only to foster informed choice by everyone involved. Therefore this essay defines and explores key distinguishing features amongst coaching. Furthermore taking account of these factors, this essay will discuss and suggests different coaching roles. Any instructional strategy should be based on learning theory because without an understanding of how athletes learn, one cannot expect to achieve intended learning goals (Griffin et al, 2005). The use of student and athlete has been used interchangeable throughout this essay to reflect its meaning. So focusing on this I will look from a behaviourist perspective on how people learn best and what certain influences can facilitate learning, by briefly discussing the place of feedback will identify influential factors this can make to a pupils education and overall learning experience.

Watkins and Mortimer define pedagogy as ‘any conscious activity by one person designed to enhance learning in another’ (1999; 3). With coaching being recently reconceptualised as a pedagogy (Cassidy et al., 2004), it is imperative for a coach/teachers to ensure learners are facilitating in their learning, so rather than just teaching a certain skill, they also teach when this skill should be used. By being a coach, in other words, implies being a ‘certain kind of teacher’ (Hacking, 1986; Gee, 2001), but exactly what such being entails remains covered in uncertainty (Richardson, 2002). The role for the coach or teacher has been very directive, instructional or prescriptive (Cassidy et al. 2004, Kidman, 2001). For instance, the coach or teacher deciding when and how athletes/students should perform specified skills or movements. This has led to the coach being regarded as the sole source of knowledge, transmitting this in a unidirectional way with learners having a passive role in the learning process (Potrac and Cassidy 2006). Furthermore, this occupies a position of centrality and influence in the sporting environment (Cushion et al. 2006, Smith and Smoll 2007). Therefore, Lyle’s (2002) research suggests there is a strong belief that the quality of coaching is one of the most important environmental factors in determining performance improvement with success. Signifying not only the behaviour of the coach being an influential socialising agent but might also impact on performance, learning, and a range of many other psycho-social outcomes.

Coaches and teachers can be implicitly or explicitly, by their beliefs about learning. By practicing and behaving according to their own beliefs, directly impacting on how the coach’s role is perceived and enacted within the coaching process, such as tradition of the sport taught, socialisation experiences etc. Research suggests knowledge and practice, remains largely based on experiences and the interpretation of those experiences (Cushion, Armour, and Jones 2003; Cushion 2006; Gilbert and Trudel 2006). This however, is regardless of the implementation and availability of education programmes and courses. Furthermore, Douge and Hastie (1993) believe that the accumulating years of involvement doesn’t necessarily guarantee that an agent will become an effective coach. Chelladurai also expands suggests that “future research could focus on generating items based on the experiences and insights of both coaches and athletes” (1990; 340). Indicating that there is no single behaviour, role or approach that is either a defining or essential component to an athlete’s/student’s centeredness (Popkewitz, 1998; Cain, 1989). In fact, the amount that a coach feels compelled to act in a single way; the more likely they are to impose limits on their athletes because their own behaviour is constrained (Daniels 2001, Cain 1989) not only implementing interventions but could interfere with coaching preparations.

There are many different ‘building blocks’ which aid coaches in the effectiveness of their coaching and improve their coaching practice, although there are a number of reflective cycles to assist coaches, Gibbs (1988) offers a model of coaching effectiveness ideal for the beginner coach involving the following six elements:

1) Description – Describe as a matter of fact just what happened during your critical incident or chosen episode for reflection.

2) Feelings – What were you thinking and feeling at the time?

3) Evaluation – List points or tell the story about what was GOOD and what was BAD about the experience.

4) Analysis – What sense can you make out of the situation. What does it mean?

5) Conclusion – What else could you have done? What should you perhaps not have done?

6) Action Plan – If it arose again, what would you do differently? How will you adapt your practice in the light of this new understanding?

This framework is an ideal excellent starting point for coaches/teachers in their investigations of the coaching process itself, not only this but Bandura states “People not only gain understanding through reflection, they evaluate and alter their own thinking” (1986; 62) enticing coaches to un-earth their theory in use, inevitably extending learning in both coach and athletes. Paradoxically focusing on this, coaches and teachers have varied roles to consider, whereby they can aid the need for the following specific knowledge and skills:

Interpersonal skills.

Communicating and establishing trusting relationships with whom they are trying to change their practices. Coaches must be able to observe accurately and provide appropriate feedback.

Content knowledge.

Having an understanding of their subject matter, this includes how knowledge of a discipline is developed through curricula and learning materials. Experience with others coaches at the different level indicates that a certain level of content-area expertise is necessary to be a subject area coach. However, expertise also may create tension when coaches are labelled experts. Most important is for a coach to establish a collaborative, reflective relationship.

Pedagogical knowledge.

To lead, coaches need to understand how students and athletes learn, including knowledge of the tasks, questioning strategies, and structures that can help students/athletes develop their own ideas.

Knowledge of the curriculum.

Familiarity with the structures and experiences offered by a curriculum is important, including understanding the fundamental ideas behind a curriculum and how those ideas connect across different ability levels.

Awareness of coaching resources.

Aware of specific knowledge of professional development materials, literature, and resources that can be used to support development of subject or pedagogical knowledge and better understanding how to teach.

Knowledge of the practice of coaching.

Coaching strategies and structures, such as how to use pre and post observations or on-the-spot coaching; the role of questioning and effective strategies; how to use resources of teaching practice (curriculum materials, student work, scripts of classroom dialogue, etc.); and the pro’s and con’s of demonstration lessons and coaching sessions.

All specify a requirement of the coach/teacher, however, athletes have been shown to have different preferences and different responses to coach behaviour (Reiman, 2007) and in complex social and interpersonal settings, individual differences are sure to play an important role (Smith and Smoll, 2007). However, not all people are the same, nor are circumstances and contexts, and consequently a ‘one size fits all’ approach will not work for all learners and in all situations (Amorose, 2007). Moreover, Jonassen (1999; 235) suggests possible ideas “by starting the learners with the tasks they know how to perform and gradually add task difficulty until they are able to perform” therefore facilitates learning in both coach and learner encouraging decision making roles. There are four components which influence: the coach, the athlete, knowledge and the learning environment. Focusing on these statements further and the literature researched indicate many influential factors one in particular being feedback which the following section discusses.

Indeed, all coaching is based upon some theory about how we learn with behaviourism strongly informs coaching, resulting in an instructional approach that emphasises the use of feedback and rewarding behaviour. Feedback from coaches is an essential aspect of learning. Whereby coaches use feedback to encourage pupils to respond to their own learning by discovering where they are now in relation to where they would like to be, and to determine how to do better next time (Hargreaves, 2005).

Fundamentally feedback can be used as a tool to support and enhance learning (Ofsted, 2008) in both education and coaching practice. More recently, it has become the source of heated debates and has seen a dramatic increase in the amount of literature relating to feedback and in particular operant conditioning approach (Skinner, 1958) which is based on the well established principles of individual learning that behaviour is a function of its consequences. Although some citations are dated in this section however; it is still relevant today as there are many expectations and implications which are placed on coaches and teachers to provide meaningful support and feedback to enhance learning.

It’s believed by Smoll and Smith (1989) that coaches must have extensive task knowledge so that they can issue proper instruction about desired behaviours and reinforce individuals when they do well. However, findings by Komaki et al (1989) illustrate the need for consistency in verbal reinforcement and feedback to initiate an increase in the frequency of desirable behaviours and decrease the frequency of undesirable behaviours. Thus, according to Mayer (1983) can elaborate and expand on learners knowledge, building on existing cognitive schema (Mayer, 1983), this can be reinforced by way of feedback.

There are, however further expectations placed on teachers. Piaget’s work is concerned with the expansion of knowledge and understanding, with ways in which new information is dealt with by learners. However, Pritchard (2009) has identified concern in the amount of time coaches have available to give sufficient feedback, more so with coaching and teaching in groups rather than one on one. Although Boud (1999) suggests that when pupils take responsibility of their own learning this will allow them to deepen their understanding.

Not only does insufficient time have implications but a message (feedback) can also have the potential to be misinterpreted. It is generally accepted that certain feedback might be taken personally by pupils, and lead to defensiveness and loss in confidence. ‘We judge too much and too powerfully, not realising the extent to which pupils experience our power over them’ (Boud, 1999; 43). Self-esteem, it is believed, is affected by receiving negative or unexpected feedback. Research by Young (2000) suggests, however, considerations should be made from the opposite perspective: it is the student’s level of self-esteem that affects the messages they receive—both positive and negative. Those with low self-esteem tend to view all feedback as a judgement of ability, whilst those with high self-esteem do not. Indicating certain implications which could severe interpersonal problems

Certainly, teachers and coaches if they are truly person centered should be continually open to learning and how their athletes/students learn and achieve effectively as shown throughout this essay, however there are so many areas and this essay has only covered a few. It might be valuable that by creating the best possible atmosphere for learning and performance, coaches and teachers can and would be less concerned about a certain coaching style or behaviour and more concerned about whether whatever they do impairs or facilitates learning. In this sense, receptivity, flexibility and differentiated responses in coaches and teachers are likely to maximize the outcome (Cain, 1989). In reality, the teacher or coach has a role to play in identifying and addressing certain problems and assisting, deconstruct knowledge relating to aspects of sporting performance (Potrac and Cassidy, 2006). Finally, this then provides the learner with the personal and informational resources for learning (Cain 1989), giving a unique opportunity to make significant changes in a person life.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a reflection and example of such a structured session using an approach whereby learners work out solutions to tactical problems themselves with the coach facilitating their learning.

In the UK there are thousands of individuals who are qualified coaches because of the availability of coaching courses. However, research into coaching have shown that coaching courses only act as a starting point, with coaches in Jones et al.’s (2004) review points to the fact that the immensity of learning actually occurs through experience. Thus this alone does not guarantee capability this is elaborated in these words:

‘It is not enough just to do, and neither is it enough just to think … Learning from experience must involve linking the doing and the thinking’ Gibbs (1988; 9).

The process of reflection is linked between doing and thinking (Martens, 1997; Gibbs, 1988) moreover, Bandura believes “People not only gain understanding through reflection, they evaluate and alter their own thinking” (1986; 62). Reflection has its origins in Schon’s (1983) work, where he defined a reflective conversation as the following cycle: appreciation; experimentation and evaluation. Later, other reflective models were put forward. Johns’ (1995) model consists of 26 questions that the coach must ask themselves, whereas Gibbs’ (1988) model consists of six. This reflection will use the Gibbs’ model to reflect upon a situation that arose during one of my coaching practices. The basis for this is because it’s uncomplicated and allows a beginner coach like myself to follow, whereas Johns’ tends to be more complex decision-making (Johns, 1995).

Before moving on to the process of reflection, it’s important to note that this paper will take a pedagogical approach. Watkins and Mortimer describe pedagogy as ‘any conscious activity by one person designed to improve learning in another’ (1999; 3). With coaching being recently reconceptualised as a pedagogy (Cassidy et al., 2004), it is important for coaches to ensure learners are facilitating in their learning, so rather than just coaching a certain method, they also teach when this skill should be applied. Therefore, I will reflect upon a coaching experience of my own, using Gibbs’ (1988) model, to access whether learners were given the possibility to progress in their learning.

Description

I decided to coach a basketball session, focusing on shooting techniques and positioning. The games for understanding (TGfU) approach (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982) was used opposed to the more traditional coaching/teaching model. Teachers in the traditional model teach skills first and tactics later. As Light and Fawns (2003) have articulated, ‘knowing the game’ is to play it and demonstrate knowledge-in-action (Schon , 1983). Advocates of the TGfU model endorse tactics first, while skills are introduced afterwards (Bradley, 2004; Turner et al, 2001). So basically, what to do comes before how to do it. A mini game was introduced at the beginning of the session along with a brief explanation of certain rules required to give shape to the game and determine the variety of tactics and skills required for a successful performance. The session was going well with players participating with enthusiasm by contributing to certain questions then furthering their decisions. However, after a while I ran out of certain ideas for further progressions.

Feelings

Having sensed with apprehension that some learners were getting uninterested and even slowed down and eventually stopped playing. Research has suggested this is because players can lack challenges and so therefore their intrinsic motivation to participate decreases (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Conversely feeling the pressure to make a change or how to put in challenges to be successful in their performance, dismay started to set in as I didn’t have a further plan.

Evaluation

The TGfU approach was effective in increasing enthusiasm because it was fun. This was backed up by Griffin et al (1995) who said that the TGfU approach may be more enjoyable for players than traditional technique drills; are, and so they’re more motivated to participate. Also, by probing the players to answer questions about faults in their technique, I was also facilitating the development of players’ critical thinking and decision-making skills; two important cognitive skills (Kirk and MacPhail, 2002). However, when the session started to become less interesting I was unable to make certain changes due to a lack of experience of different activities. There was also concerned in stopping and re-starting the game as research also suggested that learners feel this interrupt the flow of the game (Lieberman, 2008).

Analysis

I’d realised that in the early stages learners were going through a learning process. The game allowed them to obtain physical skills and techniques, whilst the questions and communication with peers facilitated their cognitive development (Kirk & MacPhail, 2002). However, being unable to enforce new activities the learners’ learning process began to even out. This is believed to be because of a lack of challenge denting their motivation to continue (Ryan & Deci, 2000), thus decreasing or stopping participation would further the opportunity to learn.

Conclusion

I felt I had developed well through this session but was always looking at ways to improve through listening, reading and reflection. Thinking over my lesson, I’d realised that there were certain ‘blind spots’ in my coaching. Although the tasks enabled the players to learn, success by progressing further questioning enabled decision-making skills and communicating with each other to solve meticulous problems. Therefore, incorporating a cognitive based learning approach; where learners were required to solve realistic problems (Dolmans et al., 2005). In relation, structured scenarios where players would need to decide whether it was best to shoot, which pass to use and dribbling techniques and enticing communication amongst their team to score or win. It was also vital that learners understood why they were carrying out and practising certain drills. If players understand why they were doing something, their motivation to change their practice in order to improve their skills and team play could then be improved. Therefore encouraging players to question and communicate the varying drills and by asking what it is going to be useful; for what reason.

Action Plan

Games have an essential cognitive dimension that has been to some extent limited by the traditional coaching/teaching model (Light, 2002; Light and Fawns, 2001). The TGfU approach utilises open ended questioning however it is believed to be more time-consuming in the early stages and errors are likely to be a plenty (Kroll, 2004; Prawat, 1992) but giving learners greater ownership of decision-making process would enable them to think for themselves in a game that is largely based on making appropriate decisions. Therefore, when planning future sessions I will account for various problems that may arise and the activities that I’ll put into practice to solve them (e.g. how and when to modify the games, when to stop play and question, when to bring players out of the game for individual questioning etc.) Finally the issue being the use of open ended questioning with learners. Such questioning would also enable students to make a cognitive leap, particularly when teaching invasion game strategies (Butler, 1997).

To conclude, the process of reflection has allowed me to notice that my session had both positive and negative aspects. The positive aspect was that the TGfU approach was effective and enjoyable (Griffin et al., 1995), but the negative aspect was after a while, my session became tedious. Gibbs’ (1988) model also made me question why certain things happened, with me putting this down to challenges for the learners. Finally, Gibbs’ model really assisted me in thinking what I could do in the future. After reading Schempp et al.’s (2006) literature on certain planning, I realise that I could create certain plans for the different problems that can arise during teaching.

Classroom Teacher Children

What Characteristic patterns of classroom discourse are apparent in the passage below?

Context: This discourse takes place in a first-grade classroom in the USA, where the children are approximately 6 years old. The teacher has been reading from a book on hurricanes and tornados.

1. Manuel: Uh, if tornados go to the Antarctica, what the penguin gonna do?

2. Teacher: Oh, you know what*…

3. Male Child: They could go under water.

4. Teacher: Could they go under water? What kind of protection could a penguin have?

5. Bernardo: If there’s enemies // if there’s enemies, how could a penguin go underneath the water if there’s enemies?

6. Teacher: Oh, he wouldn’t want to go underneath the water would he? Well, who’s his enemy?

7. Children: The seal.

8. Teacher: The seals, yeah. Good thinking, questioner, yeah.

9. Children: [several students speaking at once]

10. Teacher: Alright, Manuel had his hand up first. He asked a really important question. He said, ‘well, what can a penguin do if he knows that a tornado is coming’? Wasn’t that your question?

11. Bernardo: No, that was mine.

12. Teacher: Well, together you were kind of talking about it. Now listen. That’s a really good question. Now let’s try to the question…

13. Teacher: Now, I’m going to go over and get a book. In fact… Alejandro, no, Manuel, you go over and get the Emperor penguin book. The one from National Geographic on the table over there. (Adapted from the Shuart-Faris and Bloome, 2004, p. 106).

From their beginnings children grow up learning language. This complex learning process is often taken for granted, as babies absorb and begin responding to the language which surrounds them. Bancroft (2007) suggests that these early language developments take place primarily between the dyad, in other words the child and his/her main caregiver (p.14). As children get older they become exposed to, and learn from, a much wider group of people and this helps to develop their ability to use language effectively. While the development of language skills is an on-going process, the children in the example of classroom discourse above have clearly already developed many of the skills essential in spoken language. These children can conform to the basic rules of conversation, such as turn taking and responding to prompts, recognising the teacher as being the initiator and themselves as respondents. They have also already developed enough comprehension of vocabulary to be able to participate in the discourse and have enough language knowledge to behave appropriately within the context of a classroom discussion.

At approximately six years of age, these children appear to have already developed some of the skills which Crystal (1995) identified as essential acquisitions for young language learners; an extensive vocabulary, with words such as ‘enemies’ and ‘underneath’ along with comprehension of words such as ‘protection’, and knowledge and use of grammatical structure, such as the sentence formation shown in lines one, three, five and eleven (cited in Bancroft, 2007, p. 5). This discourse, according to Crystal’s (1995) theory, is a reasonably representative example, as he claims that at least three quarters of all grammar is understood by most children by the time they first attend school (cited in Bancroft, 2007, p.5).

Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) were the first linguists to describe the structural element of classroom talk, otherwise known as Initiation-Response-Feedback exchange or IRF (cited in Mercer, 2007, p.122). Mercer (2007) explains that IRF exchanges between teacher and pupil are considered to be standard interaction, with the teacher asking questions and the pupil(s) responding (p.122). As a result of their research, Wills (1983) and Edwards (1992) concluded that children quickly become familiar with the use of IRF within the structure of classroom discourse, and will automatically begin to participate in it (cited in Mercer, 2007, p.124). In the transcript above we can see clear examples of IRF; in both lines 4 and 6 the teacher asks direct questions to their pupils. In the first IRF exchange the teacher asks two questions and while the first was a closed question which could be answered by one ‘correct’ answer, by following it immediately with an open question, it would seem that the teacher was attempting to make the children consider the subject before prompting a discussion. In the second IRF exchange, seen on line 6, the teacher again asks two questions at once, these however are both quite closed questions which indeed are followed by all of the children answering together with the correct answer of ‘the seal’.

The most common form of IRF, consisting of closed questions being asked, has received criticism from educational researchers such as Dillon (1988) and Wood (1992) who feel that little opportunity is given for pupils to develop their ability to reason, argue and explain using language (cited in Mercer, 2007, p.123). Mercer (2007) however argues that, by including open questions in these exchanges, IRF can be used positively to shape pupils awareness and help them gain deeper understanding. He concludes that, while he accepts criticisms of IRF, caution must be taken in simply associating language structures, or verbs used in questions, with language functions, the act of asking a question, as what is ultimately more revealing is looking at the context in which these exchanges occur (p.124). A good example of this is a recording on the U211 DVD (2007) of a teacher speaking to secondary school students about a project they were participating in. As we are able to hear this discourse we can assess the use of tone, intonation and stress patterns, along with the language structure and language function to give a much clearer idea as to the effectiveness of IRF. Throughout this IRF exchange the teacher is encouraging the students to share, and expand on, information about their project, using open questions along with informal, supportive and friendly intonation (Unit 20). Without the ability to hear the classroom discourse exchange in our question, we should acknowledge that we can only make limited judgements as to the mode of IRF used.

One aspect of classroom discourse which is not present in our example is that of specialised technical terms. Children in education will inevitably encounter these terms, as Mercer (2007) explains, which come from specific vocabularies of the different subjects within their curriculum. The fact that technical terms are lacking from our example could be due to the age of the children, as pupils will progressively become exposed to, and begin to use, these terms as they go through their education. Mercer notes that the use of this language can be confusing for pupils and easily misinterpreted, with children reliant upon the teachers skill in helping to learn and understand them (p.127).

In our discourse example a teacher is present and is initiating, shaping and controlling the conversation. Mercer (2007) however comments on how school based language interaction between teachers and pupils differs greatly to that between pupils only. He suggests that pupils working in groups or pairs without the presence of a teacher tend to make extended contributions to the conversation, are more willing to share knowledge, offer explanations and express uncertainty, probably due to their shared status (p.131). Teachers undoubtedly play an important role in the education of children, however we should consider whether more pupils in our example would have shared their knowledge if they had been discussing the topic without the teachers presence. We can see on lines 7 and 9 more than one child talking at once, firstly to provide an answer to a closed question and secondly in inaudible speech, but besides these there are only two children who offer answers in this, admittedly small section, of discourse.

While researching the topic of classroom discourse, Halliday (1985) stressed the importance of a child’s understanding and use of the distinctive register of written English (cited in Mercer, 2007, p.139). Halliday’s theory of functional linguistics was the basis of the development of the genre approach, which recognised that language needed to be used in different ways dependent upon the context or medium for which it was being used (Maybin, cited in Mercer, 2007, p.140). In other words, as Mercer (2007) explains, children need to learn education ground rules, or conventions, in order to recognise and utilize language effectively (p.138). These ground rules include learning specialised words, patterns of classroom interactions and the differences between spoken language and written texts (DVD, Unit 20). Mercer (2007) also acknowledges that rather than these ground rules being directly taught, children will learn them through their teacher’s example and feedback (p.139). In our example we have no written comparison for the transcribed spoken language, and it is therefore difficult to assess just how different the language would be if the children had been writing about tornados rather than discussing them. Maybin (1994) suggests that ‘written genres tend to be more condensed and abstract’ (cited in Mercer, 2007, p.139). In line 5 of our example we can see an example of this, with Bernardo possibly speaking while still determining what it is that he wants to say. Had he been asked to write his question, we would be unlikely to see any evidence of the false start or repetition of the words ‘if there’s enemies’ which we see in his speech, as the ground rules of written language require the thought process to be completed prior to writing.

One of the most important points about our example, as mentioned earlier, is with only a written transcript of the conversation it is difficult to be able to fully analyse the discourse. Intonation, rate of speech and facial expressions, also known as paralinguistic features, play an important role in spoken language (Mayor, 2007, p.71), and without knowledge of this we cannot be sure of the rapport between the teacher and their students. We can see clear evidence of IRF in our example, but what we cannot gauge is the extent to which the teacher was engaging and encouraging the pupils. What is clear is that the complete process of learning is extensive, with children developing unspoken rules of language alongside the curriculum. Learning, by example and through the feedback, the ground rules of language – the construction of different forms of language, specialised technical terms and discourse patterns – is just as important as learning specific set information, as without it children would grow up unable to communicate effectively.

REFERENCES

(2007) ‘English as a classroom language’in Resource and Reference Materials 1, The Open University, p.25 – 30.

An A-Z of English, U211, DVD 2.

Bancroft, D., with contributions from Gillen, J., (2007) ‘English as a first language’, N. Mercer, J. Swann and B. Mayor, Using English, London, Routledge/The Open University, p.5 – 36.

Mayor, B., (2007) ‘English in the repertoire’, N. Mercer, J. Swann and B. Mayor, Using English, London, Routledge/The Open University, p.43 – 72.

Mercer, N., with contributions from Barnes, D., (2007) ‘English as a classroom language’, N. Mercer, J. Swann and B. Mayor, Using English, London, Routledge/The Open University, p.117 – 142.

Classroom Management
Introduction

Classroom management is a term that refers to the techniques and skills that teachers use to keep students organized, focused, on task, orderly, attentive, and academic productive, during class. When teachers implement the classroom management strategies effectively, they minimize the behaviors that obstruct learning for both individual students and group of students while maximizing behaviors that enhance or facilitate learning. A lack of classroom management is also a major factor that makes teachers leave their profession within their first year. I am facing some challenges with the students that I teach. I have developed an appropriate solution and action plan that I would follow to achieve it. I have learnt several things from my research that would help me in my future classroom management.

PROBLEM: CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT

As a primary school teacher who is on placement, am faced with several issues regarding disorderly and disruptive behavior from my student such as talking, getting up from their chairs to walk to other students desks without permission, disobedience, aggressive behavior and refusal to finish assigned task or school work. My inability to control their behavior them has led to my lack of teaching them properly as required. The first reason for this issue is that this is because of my inexperience since this is my first role with a school setting of dealing with different children. Secondly, it is due to an underprivileged family background that most of the children come from. For example, some of them are from single parent family, other are living in extreme poverty conditions, and some parents are not concerned with their children education. Lastly, this is because of the different student’s ability to grasp information, For example lack of attention.

EVALUATION RELATED TO MY SOLUTION

To solve the above problems, I have realized that I need to implement a classroom management component. This is because the environment in which the students learn in is very important, and can create a learning atmosphere. Secondly, my behavior towards the students, how I interact and treat them is a concern on how they would act. I would develop a level of dominance in the class, through body language in a different situation, eye contact with the students, for example, when affirming an action to them. In addition, I should develop a positive attitude towards the students in my class, encouraging them to participate in class activities, treating all students fairly and equally.

The other important thing is to express my expectations from them. For example, how they should act in class, at the beginning of the lesson I clearly tell them what I expect from them at the end of the lesson. In addition, how they should relate to one another and ultimately make agreements with them on different issues in class that they should do and not do. We agree with them the repercussions when they do not follow the agreements we have set together. I would prepare different learning skills and lessons to be able to incorporate the student’s interest instead of relying only on my scheme of work. I would also get involved with what the students go through outside the class. This would include learning more about their homes, if they are in need, are they from divided homes, language barriers between them and me, and lastly handle students with special needs carefully.

ACTION PLAN
Room Arrangement

When the students enter the class, they are hit with exciting colors on the walls, with windows lighting reflecting on the different things on the wall, as they walk to their big circle table. They can look at their colleagues as they are facing each other. When they look at the wall they see arts, maps, famous people, and student work all portrayed in different posters that are colorful around the class. No work is in white paint. From my desk that is also in the circle, I will start the lesson. The students will get out their books and colorful pens to note today’s lesson. I believe the classroom set up would have a significant effect on the student and the environment would make them think discuss, and reflect on the lesson. The set up would help me walk around the class and look at what they are doing and their sitting arrangement will make them be able to interact with one another making room for discussions. The student work on the wall will help them feel part of the class. Classroom Rules

The best rule I would have will be a class is a place of learning, and we should all respect each other. If I respect them and they respect each other and me, I believe this would create a safe environment for learning. I would allow the students to eat and drink in class as long as they dispose of their waste correctly. However, I will notify them from the beginning that the privilege withdrawal things get out of control. I would create a class constitution if the behavior of the students were inconsistent. I will involve the students in making the rules, and allow them to discuss which ones to be in the constitution. I believe that involving them would make it a must for them to obey, and they will not fight back on the consequences of not obeying. I would make them write the final copy and hang it in class. To add on I would give them a copy to take to their parents to read, sign, and then return to school. This would help make the parents involved in what we are trying to do in class. In addition, I will be giving the students a newsletter monthly to take to their parents describing what we are doing in class. I believe involving the parents in their children schoolwork will make them support their children at home with any issue arising.

I also want to create an environment whereby there is a good student teacher relationship with my class. This is so because my students are from different backgrounds, and want to create an atmosphere where they feel they are equal to each other by the way I treat them. I do not want to assume their capability in education by the way they look or act. I do not want their background difference to affect communication in class. I believe this is the foundation of most behavioral problems begin. Therefore, I would like to create an environment whereby I accept by students as unique people with different cultures that I can relate, respect, and like them. In addition, be able to communicate and listen to them. I want my student to be able to relate their life experiences in our class exercises, teaching them to appreciate and celebrate cultural differences. I want to have an open forum class meetings whereby we discuss what is working or not for us in class. In addition, then implement the suggestions and ideas we have discussed. Am interested in finding out what the students are thinking of, and converting the environment to their liking as much as possible. This would make the student feel part and in control of their learning. In the case of a consistent misbehavior, I would ask the student to meet me after class. I would start by praising him on what he is doing well in class and explain to him how his behavior is interfering with the class. In addition, I would advise them on what to do to stop the behavior. In a class if they persist I would isolate them to seat alone at the back, if they persist I would call their parents to come to school and then we discuss the three of us. I believe in involving the parents in disciplining the child but disagreeing with sending the students at home. Class Procedures

I want to develop consistency with the procedures I use in class. For example, I will be putting the class program on the blackboard for them to copy when they come to class, use assignments sometimes to engage them in their writing skills. In addition, I will use interactive notebooks for them to do all their homework and class work in them. I would staple loose assignments to the notebooks this would help them when revising for exams. I would them stamp every student book that has done the homework. I would then collect the books after every two weeks to grade them. The stamping is to make the students finish the assignment before the two weeks. The stamping is just a motivation for them to do the homework on time before the grading day. I will assist those who are not understanding with the home and class work. I will also grade their class participation in class. This would make them participate in various class activities. Encouraging all students

Bill Rogers has different techniques on classroom management starting with preventing to positive management and ending with consequences. This is a very humane and logical approach to handling students. He gives strategies that teachers can use to work with the students for both of them control how the student’s behavior, instead of a teacher being authoritative, strict, and disciplinarian. Rogers’s first plan shows techniques to use to prevent problems dealing with discipline. Secondly, he distinguishes responsibilities from rights claiming that they need to balance. Under the rights, Rogers’s majors on how the students have a right to learn, feel safe, respected, and handled with dignity. I believe at the beginning of the term students be told their rights and explained to what they should do to have them. It is significant vital for the students to feel emotionally and physically safe for a good learning atmosphere to be established. Teachers should emphasize on how they treat each other, with full of respect and no calling each other names.

Still at the establishment stage, he emphasizes on teachers consistent in establishing rules for the class. I agree with the rule because it would create accountability for the student concerned. However, if the problem persists force should be used to correct the child. Establishing attention is a preventive technique. Teachers should not speak over the noise. I agree because there is a particular place in class where I stand and the students keep quiet.

Rogers talk about positive correction as a way to view the correction. His emphasis on address what a student should do instead of majoring on the problem. He should just state it and leave to give the student the right to choose to control their behaviors and not doing things just to please the teacher or other students. This has helped because when I find a student out of line, I tell them to stop and walk away, giving the student room to correct the mistake. Rogers’s deals with consequences by assisting the student find a connection between outcome and behavior. He insists that the consequence should be reasonable and related. I agree with the point because it gives the students a chance to decide about their own behavior. This would strengthen the teacher student relationship because the student feel fairly treated per the mistake done.

Conclusion

I have learnt that classroom management is a key component in any educational setting. I will use it to create a good environment for learning and to make my student feel safe participating. It does not mean punishing the behavior, but it involves setting up the right tone in class, preventing bad behaviors and encouraging a good relationship with the students, while encouraging them to do well and setting high expectations for them. I believe it is possible to create the environment that would limit the behavior problems from the start in my classroom.

References

Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. (2003). Classroom management that works research-based strategies for every teacher. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Whitaker, T. (2003). What great principals do differently: fifteen things that matter most. Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye on Education.

Canter, L., & Canter, M. (2001). Assertive discipline: positive behavior management for today’s classroom (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Canter & Associates.

Abu Nemrah, M. (2006). Classroom Management and Organization. 2nd Edition. Amman: Dar Yafa.

To what extent has childhood been viewed as a social and cultural process rather than a ‘natural process’? – Illustrate your discussion with reference to Book 1, Chapter 1, ‘Children and development’.

Childhood is such a fundamental and integral part of humanity that on first considerations, we may take it for granted as an entirely natural process. The biological journey of maturation is a universal shared experience. Yet even if childhood is recognised only in these limited biological terms, it is still influenced by social factors i.e. the health and life choices of the mother during pregnancy. In the civilised world, there are very few who would be prepared to argue that childhood should be viewed as an entirely natural process. Contemporary developmental theorists recognise the child as an active agent whom is developing both physically and psychologically; the individual experience of childhood is dependent upon how they interact with their environment and how that society understands their specific nature and needs. The attitudes to children and views of childhood vary dramatically between different periods in history and different cultures, and are also actively evolving within our own culture; therefore it is, currently, more accurate to view childhood as a social and cultural process rather than a natural one:

“The immaturity of children is a biological fact but the ways in which that immaturity is understood is a fact of culture….childhood is ….constructed and reconstructed both for and by children” (James and Prout, 1997, p.15)

Woodhead (2005) illustrates that historically, throughout Western culture, childhood has been viewed as both a natural process and as a social and cultural process. It has also been viewed as an interactive process between the two. These changeable and evolving attitudes confirm James and Prout’s assertion that “childhood is constructed and reconstructed”. By comparing and contrasting the origins of the four main Psychological perspectives of Child Development and acknowledging their legacies to modern day practices, I intend to conclude that childhood has probably been viewed to a greater extent as a social and cultural process than it has a natural process.

It has been proposed that ‘childhood’ is in itself a recent invention. Philippe Aries (1962) is chiefly accredited with underlining the socially constructed character of childhood. He studied the history of literature and paintings and concluded that in mediaeval times childhood didn’t exist. Obviously younger members of the species existed but they were not granted any special or distinctive status. Once weaned, they were thrust into adult society. Aries claimed that the awareness of children’s distinctive nature did not emerge until the end of the fifteenth century. This can de illustrated in the emergence and gradual rise of schooling and paediatrics.

Aries has been criticised for making general conclusions which rely on limited sources. The largest group of children would have been the poor, and they would not have been represented. However the broad framework of his argument (the socially constructed nature of childhood) is the foundation of subsequent studies:

“The idea of childhood must be seen as a particular cultural phrasing of the early part of the life course, historically and politically contingent and subject to change”. (James and James, 2001)

There are four main perspectives of child development. These theories stem from three opposing philosophies which attempt to define the essential nature of humanity as embodied in the newborn child. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) believed children to be inherently sinful. He believed that development should be shaped by control and discipline. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) believed children to be inherently innocent; his supporters advocate that development is shaped by following children’s natural stages. The theories of Hobbes and Rousseau are classified as nativist theories; maintaining that childhood is a natural process. John Locke (1632-1704) didn’t view children as either inherently sinful or innocent, but rather a ‘tabua rasa’ (blank slate) to be written on by experience; those influenced by him maintain the chief factor of development is experience. Locke’s Theory is classified as empiricist; advocating that childhood is a social and cultural process. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) believed children to be born with mental structures specifically designed to interpret information from the environment; the essence of development being interaction. Kant sets the tone for the ‘transactional models’ of development; not viewing childhood as exclusively a natural or exclusively a social process, but a combination of the two.

Thomas Hobbes believed that all human beings were born with original sin, therefore all children were born evil and had to be ‘saved’. The prime factors of development were control and discipline. He was an important influence to the formation of the Methodist church. The theory that children were inherently sinful was very desirable and easily identifiable from an Armenian perspective; people believed that children learned obedience to God through obedience to their parents. Childhood was a time of strict parenting and harsh discipline:

“Severe beatings of children in the name of discipline were common occurrences. Heaven was sometimes described to children in Sunday school as “a place where children are never beaten”. (Newman and Smith, 1999)

This view was apparent in the early nineteenth century in Hannah More’s evangelical writings on child rearing. She too argued that it was a fundamental error to view children as inherently innocent and it should be down to society to curb their evil dispositions. The omnipresence of God and Satan in every person’s life was an unchallenged premise:

“The hard line view of infants as limbs of Satan persisted throughout the eighteenth century”. (Ezell, M.J.M, 1984)

This harsh and unsentimental view of children was not just religiously, but also demographically and economically motivated. Infant mortalities were extremely high; between twenty and fifty percent of babies died within their first year. Many parents referred to their child as “it” until they reached an age when survival was probable. Although it is problematic to speculate, it seems plausible that parents were consciously detached from their children as a coping mechanism, should they not survive into adulthood.

Although Hobbes advocated a nativist perspective on the essential nature of children, the religious attitudes which he and his contemporaries would have taken for granted as truth are now dormant in the majority of Western societies (apart from some remaining puritan cultures). Any who did share the popular religious view would not have been recorded. This validates James and Prouts assertion that childhood is “constructed and reconstructed”. Hobbesian views of childhood did not unfold naturally, but were constructed through social discourse.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed the exact opposite to Hobbes; that children are not inherently sinful, but are inherently innocent, and would develop naturally in positive ways if allowed to do so. He referred to children as ‘noble savages’, this romantic notion supposes that all humanity is born pure and good until corrupted by civilisation. The environment does not have a positive, but has a negative affect on development:

“Everything is good in leaving the hands of the Creator of Things; everything degenerates at the hands of man”. (Rousseau, 1762)

During the eighteenth century, views of childhood began to change; children were seen as innocent and in need of protection, (not unlike the way we see them today) consequently though, they were also viewed as weak and susceptible to temptation. Along with the notion of protection came the notion of discipline, as parents taught their children to avoid the enticements of their social world. Until the late 1800s, child labour was commonly practiced and accepted. It is reported that up to half of all workers in northern factories were children under the age of eleven. Children worked as long and as hard as adults. Because of their small size, they were sometimes given difficult and hazardous jobs, like cleaning out the insides of narrow factory chimneys. In poor urban families, parents often forced their children to engage in scavenging and street peddling. Rousseau’s observations were not surprising given that the desire to protect children was coupled with their seemingly inevitable exploitation. Although chiefly belonging to the realms of Romanticism, Rousseau’s theory did have practical psychological applications. He is attributed with presenting the first truly developmental account of childhood, through his emphasis on maturation and stages of development. His book; “Emile” (On Education)(1762) suggests children should be allowed an ‘Age of Nature’ covering the period from birth to twelve years. This should be a time in which children be allowed to play and have their natural innocence respected.

It is Rousseau’s emphasis in allowing the child to indulge their natural stages of development which is his legacy to child development. Fredrich Froebel (1782-1852): the pioneer of the kindergarten movement and designer of toy building blocks shared Rousseau’s vision:

“The child, the boy, man indeed should know no other endeavour but to be at every stage of development wholly what this stage calls for” (Froebel 1885).

The idea of natural stages of development sets the tone for contemporary teaching templates by setting guidelines for what is considered ‘developmentally appropriate’ practice, especially the balance of play and teaching within early years education.

Although Rousseau’s legacy can be illustrated in modern day views of childhood, it is his practical advice about nurturing the Childs natural development, and not his nativist perspective which persists.

John Locke’s theory contrasts both Hobbes and Rousseau’s. He didn’t believe that children were born inherently evil or innocent, but rather a blank slate. He saw the character of childhood as extremely malleable; experience being the sole factor of development. He recommended parents as tutors, responsible for providing the right environment and offering moral guidance in which to shape and nurture their children into mature, rational adults. Locke was the pioneer of the Educationalist movement. His essay,” Some thoughts concerning education” (1693)asserts that; “a Childs mind must be educated before he is instructed”. Although some of his critics accused Locke of “despiritulising” childhood, his theory permeated throughout society:

“The root of all corruption is poor Education” (Osborne London Journal, 1732.)

Locke’s theories echo contemporary debates concerning modern family values. The infamous ‘Back to Basics’ conservative campaign of the early 1990’s suggested that a breakdown in traditional family values was responsible for a degenerating Britain. In May 2002, Patricia Amos was jailed for sixty days because of her daughter’s persistent truancy. Most recently, in response to a spate of teenage shootings in East London in February 2007, leader of the opposition; David Cameron controversially proposed that absent fathers are responsible for an emerging class of feral children. These attitudes don’t assume that children are passive receivers of their environment as Locke believed, but do demonstrate the huge onus of social responsibility he proposed.

Immanuel Kant viewed the key influence on development to be interaction. He agreed with Locke that experience plays a crucial role in learning but argued that knowledge could not arise from what is taken in by the senses alone. Kant acknowledges the child as an active agent in their own development. He deems it unreasonable to assume that children are just passive receivers of external stimuli or blind followers of a pre-determined biological pattern. The precipitator of development becomes the continuous interaction between the two. Both nature and the environment are equally significant.

Kant creates the framework for the transactional models of development which assume the child to be an active autonomous agent in their own development and attempt to explain this relationship of cause and effect that they have with their environment. This is the most popular start point for modern child development theories, such as social constructivist theories.

The religiously dictated views of Hobbes and Romanticism motivated views of Rousseau are unconvincing to a modern audience. Their legacies are derivative of their child rearing advice and not their rigid perspectives. James and Prouts assertion that “childhood is constructed and reconstructed is convincing enough to dispel these solely nativist theories. Locke’s emphasis on education (although not to the extent he proposed) is echoed by today’s politicians. It seems reasonable to assume that the real character of childhood is an interactive process between the two as proposed by Kant. . In the civilised world, the onus of social responsibility to our children has always been great and is growing. Underlining the socially constructed character of childhood has had a great influence on our attitudes; therefore childhood has probably been viewed to a greater extent as a social and cultural process than it has been viewed as a ‘natural process’.

Toughest Sport on Dirt

Bull riding is an extreme sport with serious life threatening risks but have little restriction in the safety equipment that is needed to protect these athletes. Hockey, football, and even baseball all have been mandated to wear safety helmet to protect them from injury. For newer extreme sports, like snowboarding and skateboarding, the use of a helmet is rarely debated anymore. “Every time out of the chute, bull riders face danger as real as the horns, hoofs and hard heads of bulls that can weigh a ton or more.”(usatoday) Professional bull riders should meet the same safety gear requirements as any other contact sport. Trying to hold on to the rope and not be tossed like a rag doll on a back of a bull for eight seconds is more dangerous than playing hockey or football, in which these sports require helmets.

When it comes to helmets, this little piece of foam and plastic can save a bull riders life. Just training for this sport can be disastrous The nature of this sport is brutal and is not biased. Any rider can be hurt. Although helmets are fairly new and maybe uncomfortable head and spinal injuries can be prevented with their use. No athlete in any sport can stand repeated concussions. In bull riding there are three major times when head injuries can occur. A bull rider can be jerked tossed forward and slam his head on a bulls horns. If the rider reaches eight second dismounting can be hazardous. They could get their hand tied up in the rope that is around the bull and be stomped while trying to get the rider loose. A rider can be violently thrown in the air and dropped to the hard dirt. It is unpredictable how their head is going to land and absorb the shock of the impact. It is common sense that we use our brain for thinking and day to day body functions, without it we would just be in a vegetative state Since we do all our thinking with our brains and our brains are housed in our heads, we should do everything we can to protect this valuable asset. Wearing a helmet should become mandatory soon. It only makes sense to protect something as delicate and vulnerable as one’s head. “Rodeo, a sport in which the cowboy hat is as much an icon as a bucking bronco, has been reluctant to require its riders to wear helmets.”(Brown) Lee Akin experienced the consequences’ fist hand of not wearing a helmet. “When a bull weighing nearly a ton stepped on Lee Akin’s head one year ago at an Alabama rodeo, doctors didn’t think the four-time PBR finalist would live.” (Godfrey) Another professional bull rider, Jerome Davis, met his fate in the fall of 1997.

He crashed into the bull. Davis was jerked back and hit his head against the animal. He was knocked unconscious and fell to the ground head first. The impact caused a fracture/dislocation of the seventh vertebrae at the base of his neck. The sixth vertebrae exploded and shattered. He was paralyzed from the neck down.( Hollen)

When it comes to injuries…

A study of nearly 2,000 professional rodeo events between 1981 and 2005 found that half of all injuries occurred during bull riding. Knee and shoulder injuries are most common, according to Downey, but “most alarming” are the head injuries. Concussions account for nearly 9 percent of all bull riding injuries, he notes.( Rueters)

Bull riders cannot miss an event even if their injuries are minor but need time to heal. When a bull rider gets injured and cannot compete, he falls down in his rankings, risking his title and income. So knowing that, they continue to compete with concussions and other broken or dislocated body parts. As for the cowboys who do wear a helmet “longevity seems to be a common theme” ( Geupel)

We know the cowboy hat holds great traditions of bull riders. No doubt this symbol is very meaningful to all those who live this life. Before the event ride, after the ride and at all other times, is when the cowboy hat can be worn. Let’s not lose our heads and start our children on the right foot with using a helmet from day one.

Professional Issues: Learning Behavior

Abstract

This essay explores ways in which children can learn to behave appropriately in school, and so in society. The main aim was to critically analyse strategies which schools and individuals (teachers, support staff and children) use to manage behavior and to consider how behavior management might (or might not) lead to children learning generally appropriate behavior. For this purpose, information was gathered through a case-study report and through analysis of materials presented in books, course materials and professional publications.

The results of this study show aspects of value in the many different models of behavior management currently in use. They also reveal several key deficiencies. More importantly, the need for an integrated approach (involving school, home and the wider community) when applying behavioral policy is emphasised; these conclusions were supported by evidence from case-studies and from my own teaching experience.

Reflecting wider concerns in society about the behavior of young people, the DFES has identified behavior management as one of its key policy areas. Each head-teacher is expected to have a system in place which:

Promotes self-discipline and proper regard for authority among students
Encourages good behavior and respect for others
Ensures students’ standard of behavior is acceptable
Regulates students’ conduct

(DFES, 2007)

Such a system, however, is necessarily only “part of the story”. Pupils’ behavior is influenced by a myriad of factors, including their interactions with staff, parents and wider society, their own personalities, their health problems and their learning environment (Fuller et al, 1994). Croll et.al (1985) stated that “the majority of teachers consider ‘home background’ to be the most significant factor in ‘problem behavior”. School policy cannot and does not aim to control all of these factors, rather it aims to provide a framework in which teachers, parents, support staff and students can work to eliminate “problem” behavior and promote positive relationships.

There is great debate in the literature about the methods and final aims of achieving acceptable behavior standards in schools. Initially at least, behavior management is a simple requirement of effective teaching, in that behavior that disrupts the learning process conflicts with the basic aims of the teacher. How far, and how effectively, school discipline affects pupils’ behavior in wider society is unclear – and some researchers have argued that societal discipline is de facto the responsibility of all areas of society, and not just the education system.

This paper critically examines a variety of different behavioral theories and policies, taken from the literature and from my own experience in teaching, and attempts to summarise the evidence supporting and undermining each case. Analysis in each case is based on two main criteria:

Does the policy provide effective behavior control for classroom management?
Does the policy influence extra-curricular behavior?

This work is supported by reference to a case-study and to other relevant classroom experience, and concludes with a summary of the information gained.

Section 1: Behavior in Schools: Theory and Practice

This area of education is extensively referenced in the literature, but there are few summary documents that compare and contrast different approaches. This section provides critical analysis of some current policies and theories, and highlights the general importance of the results of each analysis. For clarity, work is divided in to that which focuses on behavior management, and that which focuses on developing responsibility.

Policies that focus on Behavior Management

-modifying behavior through regulation and discipline.

The Work of B F Skinner (1974, 1976)

The psychologist B F Skinner is credited with creating the first comprehensive theory of educational behavior management, based on the rewarding of positive behavior and the punishment of negative behavior. Skinner based his work on his broader theory that human behavior is determined by “positive reinforcement”, and adopted this idea to account for the more controlled environment of the classroom.

Fundamentally, Skinner’s approach requires a set of clear and agreed classroom rules, and an associated rewards and punishments system. Breaking of a rule is recognised by application of a punishment, and particularly good work is reinforced by a reward. The nature of rewards and punishments varies with school, age group and teacher, but the former can include awarding stickers, merit slips and small prizes and the latter can include the imposition of extra work, detentions and so on. Psychologically, Skinner’s system is a form of ‘operant conditioning’, in which the teacher gives almost constant feedback to students in order to help them modify their behavior step-by-step.

This theory (and derived theories and policies) account for a large proportion of currently operating behavior management systems in schools. Bigge (1976) and others have recorded observations that seem to support the use of Skinner’s system, and in my experience, the rewarding of positive behavior generally encourages subsequent good behavior in the classroom. I observed a classic example of this in a Midland’s secondary school, where a child (B) had difficulty in completing work in his mathematics lessons, and as a result, was frequently disruptive and ill-mannered. The classroom teacher reached an agreement with B that, if he concentrated on his work, asked for assistance when he needed it and did not misbehave, he would be awarded a merit slip for each successful lesson. Because of previous behavioral problems, B had never before been awarded merits, and adopted an enthusiastic approach to managing his behavior in order to achieve this.

It will be noted that in this example, the teacher did not strictly follow Skinner’s formula in that B’s negative behavior was not punished. One problem linked with the negative reinforcement approach is that it can lead pupils to associate negativity with particular classroom situations – especially when misbehavior stems from deeper problems and is not simply malicious. The case study in section 2 provides a clear example of this occurring. The classroom teacher must use their judgement to decide on the appropriate course of action in individual cases.

Particular caution in applying negative feedback is necessary when faced with attention-seeking behavior, where it may feed a child’s desire for attention and therefore be counter-productive. During a recent science lesson, a pupil (C) attempted to interrupt a class discussion that I was leading with irrelevant and attention-seeking remarks. As these remarks were not loud or rude, I decided to simply ignore this behavior, and concentrate on positively reinforcing the cooperative responses of other pupils. Within a very short time, C realised that her behavior was not going to be commented on, and joined in the discussion – allowing me to positively reinforce her contributions. The source material for this paper, “Behavior Management in Primary Classrooms”, comments on the use of ‘planned ignoring’ in primary schools: “This technique works for minimal off-task behavior that is designed to get teacher’s attention, such as rocking, tapping a pencil, annoying hand waving, handling objects, combing hair, etc”.

I believe that positive reinforcement is generally more successful that negative deterrence, as the positive approach rewards a pupil’s own choice to behave, whereas the negative response is often seen as the teacher’s imposition of ‘rules’ on a pupil. This conclusion is reinforced by Wragg (1993), and by “behavior management”, where it is stated “It is important to underline that an over-emphasis on negative behavior destroys constructive atmosphere in the classroom”. That having been said, there are instances where negative reinforcement is necessary: punishment for bullying and direct rudeness and disruption can act as a deterrent to other members of the class, as well as establishing the teacher’s authority. Several authors (Tauber, 1988 and Gunter, 1997) defend the careful use of negative reinforcement, particularly in the case of students with specific learning disabilities.

In terms of classroom management, then, Skinner’s work can be useful and practical if applied intelligently to some situations. But how far does it go towards positively modifying a pupil’s behavior in society?

By encouraging positive behavior (i.e. in response to a prescribed code) and making pupils aware that disobedience will result in punishment, the policy can be said to introduce the idea of community responsibility. Aspects of positive reinforcement can be found in wider society, which strengthens Skinner’s original theory. However, the simplistic system necessitated by classroom needs does not directly compare with anything that children will encounter in wider life: positive actions are not always rewarded, and negative ones sometimes go unpunished. The main problem with adopting this policy is that it makes little or no allowance for pupil input, which makes it seem distant from their everyday lives. The reward and punishment system becomes an integral part of the school routine, but is “left at the school gate” in the same way that uniform rules are not seen as applying outside of the classroom.

b) Developments of Skinner’s work.

Many refinements to the original theory have been suggested in professional literature. Some of the most important are summarised below:

-Butcher (2001) assessed Skinner’s contribution to education, and discussed its integration in to other, more recent work. She states that “some contemporary educators might object to using rewards and punishments to shape behavior”, but asserts that, with the support of teachers who are willing to assess the individual discipline situation, such an approach is still useful.

-Jack (1996) investigated the implementation of a number of different classroom management strategies (including Skinner’s), and found that differences in teachers’ approaches had a defining effect on the success of a strategy.

-Emmer (1980) investigated the importance of the first few weeks of the school year in establishing a positive classroom management stance, and highlighted “the central role of rule setting” in successful teaching: this aspect of Skinner’s theory had not previously been comprehensively reviewed.

-BATPAC (Wheldall et.al, 1985), or the “Behavioral Approach to Teaching Primary Aged Children” is a model developed from Skinner’s work by researchers at Birmingham University.

I have had experience of implementing this scheme, as my LEA (Nottinghamshire) adopted it as a supporting training measure between 2001 and 2004. The guidance leaflet for the course states that BATPAC (and the secondary equivalent, BATSAC) form “a rather behaviorist approach, emphasizing the now-familiar Praise and Reward approach of positive teaching, intended for use by trained tutors only”(NCC, 2004). BATPAC is intended to be a tool for experienced teachers to further their classroom management skills, and not a stand-alone solution. This is probably due to the fact that it does not provide solutions for dealing with anything but mildly bad behavior, although it does provide an updated version of Skinners Behaviorist Approach that makes use of internet an other ICT resources.

-“Building a Better-Behaved School” (Galvin et.al, 1989) is another model that builds on behaviorist beginnings. The authors state that the impact of a good behavior policy “largely comes through being clear, teaching appropriate behavior and giving positive feedback when pupils are behaving appropriately”. It is an extension of Skinner in that it focuses on actually teaching positive behavior, instead of just rewarding it. Galvin’s model is the first that attempts to deal with the pupil’s need to learn about appropriate behavior, and therefore starts to meet the second of the criteria mentioned in this paper’s introduction, “influencing extra-curricula behavior”. However, there is little feedback available as to the reception that this model has received, and further work is necessary before it can be recommended as a positive development.

This small selection of published work is an indicator of the extent and success that Behavior Modification models have met with in recent years. However, there are a number of criticisms that can be made of Skinner’s original work, and therefore of the models derived from it.

The chief criticism is that the behaviorist model assumes that pupils act as “units”; that is, that they will all respond to punishment or praise in the same way. This is obviously not the case, and is an important flaw; hence the earlier comments about teachers needing to adopt the system to meet individual needs.

The problem with this is that individual teachers also vary in how they apply behavior policy, which can lead to inconsistencies within a school environment. There is little else as destructive to a co-ordinated policy as inconsistency, as neither pupils or staff have a firm base mark for determining what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior. During my first year of teaching, I ran a mathematics support class as part of a primary school’s numeracy strategy. After two weeks, I was asked to meet with a class teacher, and on discussing our approaches to behavior management, it transpired that the class teacher insisted on silence during written work, whilst I encouraged on-task talk as a form of peer-led learning. It was obviously unfair to the class in question that the definition of “acceptable behavior” changed between classrooms, but such variation is a simple reality in everyday schooling.

Thus, whilst the work of Skinner and other behaviorists is a useful part of an integrated classroom management strategy, it cannot be considered comprehensive. Because of its limitations, other researchers have developed alternative approaches to behavior policy, with a focus on the broader personal development of the student rather than on responding to behavior ‘as it happens’. The next section discusses some of these alternative approaches.

Policies that focus on Developing Responsibility

-developing a system of behavior through experience and personal growth.

Assertive Management

One of the oldest alternative approaches that developed from the Behavior Management model is the Assertive Management theory advocated by the Canters (1976). Whilst accepting the idea of positive and negative reinforcement as tools for teaching, this theory advocates “teaching pupils to accept the consequences of their actions in a form of rewards and punishments”. In other words, teachers reinforce their use of behavior management by explaining why a particular behavior is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. A school psychology handbook sums up the Canter’s approach as “ based on the findings that effective teachers are assertive teachers who can express their classroom expectations clearly and firmly and take appropriate action should pupils not meet expectations”. (Dosani, 2007).

The major development that assertive management incorporates is the provision of a stated link between a pupil’s behavior and its consequences – a vital step towards encouraging young people to develop a responsible approach to behavior in wider society.

As with previous theories, however, individual teachers will vary in their application of this behavior management tool, which could lead to inconsistencies within a school.

A further development, examined in the next paragraph, attempts to remedy this by proposing an assertive management policy that is school-wide.

Positive Assertive Management

This approach is similar in practice to assertive management, but with the important difference that it involves pupils in the decision-making process: the school behavior policy is discussed, agreed and modified in response to pupil’s ideas.

The benefits of this approach are twofold: firstly, pupils gain a clear understanding of the aims of the school behavior policy by linking rules to reasons. Secondly, and more broadly, Positive Assertive Management imitates wider society’s use of ‘rules’: the people they affect have an input in to their formation and implementation. Tassell (2001) states that, under this system, “Pupils have to learn that when they have freedom to choose what they want to do, they have to accept responsibility for that choice and the ensuing consequences.”

Positive Assertive Management can perhaps best be summed up by stating that, whereas earlier theories taught children how to behave, this theory teaches them why to behave, and thus is more likely to be applicable in their wider lives.

In terms of staff and timetable requirements, this behavior policy is more demanding than alternatives, and it requires a co-ordinated approach on behalf of the school management team. There is also the question of the extent to which pupils should be allowed to influence school policy and discipline: this will obviously vary with the age and maturity of the pupils involved.

This first section has not been an attempt to cover all the many possible models of classroom behavior management in use today. Rather, it has provided an overview of two of the main theoretical approaches, and has investigated developments therein.

The next section looks at the implementation of behavior management policies on a practical level, and again assesses their potential to influence pupils’ wider behavior.

Section 2: Empirical Experience and Evidence

As stated in the introduction, every LEA and each school is expected to maintain a behavior policy, designed to integrate all staff in to a common approach to classroom management. The key aspects of such a policy are:

Decision-making: The head-teacher is ultimately responsible for the policy, and thus will maintain overall control. Heads of subject and the senior management / governing team will also have a prominent role to play. There must also be scope for feedback from staff, pupils and parents.
Rules and Sanctions: These must be defined in advance so that both teachers and pupils know where they stand.
Role delegation: This includes defining the role of teachers and assistants in a learning situation, and also describing the responsibilities of wider staff.

As Rogers (2000) noted: “Effective behavior management is essential to the smooth running of a school and in the creation of an environment where everyone’s rights

and responsibilities are addressed. A balance between fundamental rights and responsibilities is at the heart of behavior management”.

a) Example of a Classroom management policy

In my current school (a large secondary in the Midlands), the head-teacher encourages development and discussion of behavior policy by nominating a different member of the senior management team to lead “classroom management” every year, whilst still maintaining overall control to ensure continuity. New members of staff are given a training session that defines their roles within the policy. Individual classroom teachers are allowed to decide the extent to which teaching assistants and trainees will assist them in this area, and provide a written statement to the head explaining their decision.

On a basic level, behavior in each lesson is monitored by a system of ‘Rewards’ ( R’s) and ‘Consequences’ (C’s). Each student has a diary with a small space for every lesson of the school year. If the lesson has progressed well, they are permitted to write a small ‘R’ in the relevant space. In the case of misbehavior, there is a defined system of consequences, graded for severity, which will be similarly recorded:

C: Recorded in the diary discussed with form teacher later

C1: 5-minute break detention.

C2: 30-minute lunchtime detention

C3: After school detention: parents informed

C4: Withdrawal from lessons, parents informed and invited to school.

Posters detailing the “R’s and C’s” system are prominently displayed in all classrooms.

The school also adopts a “positive reinforcement” system to recognise good behavior, with a school-wide merits system, linked to a reward scheme (e.g. 10 merits in a term = a free school trip).

Although merely a brief introduction, this summary gives an idea of how aspects of many different theories, as well as the ideas of many relevant staff, can be collated in to a school behavior policy.

Example of classroom behavior management

This paper was written with reference to a case-study, involving a Child (A) with behavioral problems.

A shows attention-seeking behavior in the classroom environment, which observation suggests may stem from difficulties with the understanding of written and spoken instructions, and feelings of insecurity owing to these difficulties. The study details the response of the teaching assistant supporting A, who uses a combination of techniques (notably positive reinforcement and planned ignoring) to manage difficult situations.

Of particular interest are the assistant’s comments regarding the general school behavior policy. The negative reinforcement applied by the class teacher in response to A’s behavior is seen as destructive rather than constructive, a conclusion supported by Wragg (1993)

The failure of communication within the school and between the school and parents is also recognised; child A’s behavior problems are reoccurring because of a lack of parental support: in such a situation, school policy does not modify behavior, merely punishes it. The case study is a useful illustration of the point that a management system can achieve no long-term changes in pupil behavior without the support of other staff and parents. The writer concludes that “The majority [of parents in this school] show little responsibility towards developing good behavior and positive attitudes in their children, making the effective management of behavior extremely difficult”.

Summary

It is unlikely that there will ever be a “universal” school behavior management policy, owing to the vast differences that individuals (both staff and students) bring to the system. However, some degree of common theoretical underpinning is necessary in a nationalised education system, and the work of behaviorists and other classroom management researchers provides a number of potentially useful tools for school policy-makers.

The work of Skinner, and of subsequent researchers, has provided useful background information pertinent to classroom management, but practical experience and training are a necessary part of successfully implementing any policy or model.

Conclusions

Given the brevity of this study, any conclusions reached can not be said to be conclusive, rather they are indicative of broad trends. From the research carried out during this paper’s completion, it can be concluded that:

Behavior management is an integrated process, and must involve input from all relevant groups if it is to be successful.
The extent to which schools can influence the wider behavior of their pupils depends on the degree of internal management consistency, the level of pupil involvement and the cooperation of parents.
Theoretical behavior models require intelligent adaptation by practitioners to ensure that behavior management policies produce the best possible results for all concerned.

Fundamentally, successful behavior management relies on the recognition that pupils are individuals, and must be treated as such. It is the responsibility of the classroom teacher and their support staff to intelligently apply their schools’ behavior policy to the benefit of all in their learning environment.

“More important than the curriculum is the question of the methods of teaching and the spirit in which the teaching is given” – Bertrand Russell.

Bibliography

Bigge, M (1976): “Learning theories for teachers”. Harper & Row. Chapters 1 and 2.

Blandford, S (1998 ): “Managing Discipline in Schools” Routledge Falmer, Chapter 8.

Butcher, K (2001): “Exploring the foundations of middle-school classroom management”. Childhood Education, 78 (2), 84 – 90.

Canter and Canter (1976): “Assertive Discipline”. Canter & Associates (Publisher), 2001.

Cohen, J [et.al] (1993): “Handbook of School-Based Interventions: Resolving Student Problems and Promoting Healthy Educational Environments”. Jossey Bass Wiley, Page 3.

Croll, P [et.al] (1985): “One in Five: The Assessment and Incidence of Special Educational Needs”.

DFES (2007): “Behavior and Discipline in Schools”. Retrieved on 10/07/07 from: www.parentscentre.gov.uk/behaviouranddiscipline/behaviouranddisciplineinschool

Dosani, S (2007): “Managing a Challenging Class”. Buckinghamshire Schools Educational Psychology Service, Vol 5, Page 1.

Emmer, E (1980):“Effective Classroom Management at the Beginning of the School Year”. 80 (5), 219 – 231.

Fuller, B [et.al] (1994): “Raising School Effects whilst ignoring culture?”. Review of Educational Research, 64 (1), 119 – 157.

Galvin, P [et.al] (1990): “Building a Better-Behaved School”.

Logman.

Gunter, P (1997): “Negative Reinforcement in Classrooms”. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20 (3), 249 – 264.

Jack, S (1996): “An analysis of the relationship of teachers’ reported use of classroom management strategies on types of classroom interactions”. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6 (1), 67 – 87.

NCC Course Handout (2004): “Nottinghamshire Behavior Support Plan, 2001 – 2004”. Appendix A-2.

Rathvon, N (2003):“Effective School Interventions: Strategies for Enhancing Academic Achievement and Social Competence”. Brunner-Routledge.

Rockwell, S (2006):“You can’t make me! From Chaos to Cooperation in the Elementary Classroom”. Sage Publications, Chapter 1.

Skinner, B (1974): “About Behaviorism”. Random House.

Tassell, 2001 “Classroom Management”. Retrieved on 10/07/07 from: http://www.brains.org/classroom_management.htm

Tauber, R (1988): “Overcoming Misunderstanding about the Concept of Negative Reinforcement.”. Teaching of Psychology, 15 (3), 152 – 3.

Wheldall, K [et.al] (1985): “The Behavioral approach to teaching package (BATPACK)”. Positive Products.

Wolfgang, C (2001):“Solving discipline and classroom management problems”. John Wiley & Sons.

Wragg, E (1993): “Primary Teaching Skills”. Pages 18 – 37 and 58 – 88. Routledge.

In this assignment, I will be examining the ways that teachers manage the behaviour of their classes in a manner that encourages motivation. I will look at how difficulties in class are dealt with by observing lessons in low attaining sets. By observing lessons in low attaining sets I hope to see a range of different difficulties being dealt with such as the levels of confidence, resilience of the students and what techniques teachers use to engage their pupils which I may not find as easy to observe in the higher attaining sets. As well as this, by limiting myself to observing similarly attaining sets I hope to be able to compare the lesson observations more easily.

I will be reviewing existing literature around this topic before observing several lessons to find out whether my findings are congruent with the existing literature or not and attempt to draw conclusions from what I find that might benefit my own practice.

In my literature review I will look at the areas of motivation and behaviour management separately before drawing the ideas together with the use of pertinent sources to apply to low attaining sets and the ways in which a teacher might best motivate and encourage their class to learn. Then, using an existing observation form focusing on classroom management I will make notes on both teacher and student actions, dispositions and other classroom events.

Behaviour management
Teacher Strategies

Methods of managing classroom behaviour has been moving away from punitive in recent years and more towards positive behavioural strategies (Mitchell & Bradshaw, 2013). Mitchell and Bradshaw (2013) found that the positive reinforcement from the teacher fostered a constructive and supportive classroom environment for the students which Oxley (2015) adds to when she talks about building relationships between students and staff which she posits is highly important to have in regards to behaviour management with more challenging students.

Whilst Department for Education. (2016) advises that it is within the rights of a teacher to impose sanctions on students for misbehaving in school, Oxley (2015) suggests that the most effective strategies are those that include the student in decisions made about behaviour management as opposed to a decision imposed purely by the teacher on the student. Oxley (2015) believes that subsequent punishments may in fact cause more problems than they solve leading to a never-ending cycle of misbehaving and punishment. Oxley (2015) argues that sanctions are a form of extrinsic motivation to change student behaviour yet it is intrinsic motivation which is far more likely to lead to long term benefit which is a point that Murayama, Pekrun & Lichtenfield (2013) also agree with, going on to saying that while extrinsic motivation, which could be sanctions or rewards for the students, may have an initial impact but it is intrinsic motivation that leads to long term benefit. Along a similar vein, Reeve et al. (2004) found that extrinsic incentives may essentially circumvent students’ inner motives, potentially acting detrimentally to existing intrinsic motivation, when coupled with pressuring language.

Setting

Hallum and Ireson (2007) found in their study of teachers’ opinions that there was strong agreement with the idea that setting groups made behaviour management easier. Furthermore, when compared with another strong agreement with the opinion that a different approach is necessary when teaching the less able pupils compared to the more able. Some potential reasons for this could be that the level that these lessons are being pitched at is suitable to more students in turn keeping them engaged. According to Reeve et al. (2004) engagement is a predictor of achievement which also matches with the results of a study run on 15-year-old students using eye tracking software (Sajka & Rosiek, 2015). An argument that they put forward was that part of the reason that the lower attaining students scored lower was due to them not being engaged with the work, based on their eye positions and movements throughout.

All together this implies that there could be difficulty with engaging the whole class of students in a mixed ability group which, as stated by Hallum and Ireson (2007), heavily relies on teacher skill in order to be a successful lesson. It is also worth being aware that in the study run by Hallum and Ireson (2007) it was teacher responses that were tallied and as such is entirely self-reported opinion based which means that it may not be the most reliable source or appropriate to use beyond inferring teacher opinions.

Lower attaining groups

Some teachers report that behaviour for engagement can be more of an issue in low attaining groups (Hallam & Ireson, 2005). By looking at the findings of Reeve et al. (2004) which states that student engagement is directly relatable to consequent achievement. Seifert (2004) discusses the self-worth theory of achievement which states that some students may be attempting to protect their own self-worth and suggests that some students may be failure avoidant which can inhibit the willingness to attempt work and can result in negative statements about themselves as well as less sophisticated strategy usage (Dweck, 1986).

The statistical analysis performed by Sund (2009) on a group of more than 80000 Swedish high school students found that lower attaining students performed better when placed with higher achieving students whereas the higher achieving students were observed to have had no significant difference.

Motivation in the classroom

Murayama et al. (2013) defines motivation as a process which instigates and sustains a goal directed activity. Murayama et al. (2013) goes on to conclude that motivation is key when looking at pupils’ academic growth.

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Reeve et al. (2004) performed a study where teachers were encouraged to try to support student independence in learning as a method to building motivation. Extrinsic motivation was to be minimised and instead the students were encouraged to seek out the answer more independently relying on more intrinsic motivation which led to more engagement by the students. Seifert (2004) believes that students who are efficacious – such as they were being encouraged to be in the study by Reeve et al. (2004) – are more likely to have positive attributes such as being strategic, self-regulating as well as being more metacognitive which he argues may increase confidence in their own work. Additionally, Seifert (2004) when referencing Dweck (1986) mentions that some students who are not displaying self-efficacy may display failure avoidance which can act to sap motivation to try and is indicative of low levels of resilience.

The effect of confidence on motivation

Dweck (1986) found that the level of student expectation of good future results and attainment were not always correlated. This means that just because a student is confident it does not mean that they will necessarily achieve higher results in fact when directly comparing high and low confidence students Dweck found that the lower confidence students performed better than the high confidence ones. In opposition to this, Sheldrake, Mujtaba and Reiss (2015) posit that overconfidence may still be a positive trait as this may indicate a greater level of resilience in students. Sheldrake et al. (2015) go on to explain that in their findings the level of student confidence was significantly associated with student GCSE maths grades as well as how likely they were to take Mathematics at A level.

In a test on motivation using eye tracking equipment, Sajka and Rosiek (2015) found that those who underperformed versus those classed as “gifted” (Sajka & Rosiek, 2015) spent significantly less time looking at the questions which they took as meaning that the underperforming students were less motivated which could mean that some may have been less confident and were acting in a failure avoidance fashion.

Observed motivation across subsections

Several obvious factors exist that can affect levels of motivation from one group to another. Oyserman (2013) informs us that in their studies they found that for some students from lower income backgrounds education can be affected by identity based motivation. Oyserman (2013) goes on to explain this as students from low income backgrounds can stereotype their own academic ability based on the achievements of others in their peer groups which may lead to a situation where succeeding at school is not congruent with the self-identities that they are forming as they go through adolescence, looking at their future adult selves (Oyserman, 2013). Elmore and Oyserman (2012) discusses when activities feel identity congruent. They argue that when an activity feels identity congruent to a student then any difficulties engaging in the task lead to said task appearing more important making any effort invested valuable, the task is not pointless or impossible. This was demonstrated in studies run by Destin and Oyserman (2010) on secondary students, of whom all participants were aged between 11 and 13, when they found that students with aspirations for future careers that were education dependent as opposed to education independent put more effort into their schoolwork which overall resulted in better results for them.

In a different study that aimed to affect the identity based motivation of a group of 12-13-year-old girls and boys Elmore and Oyserman (2012) showed boys’ and girls’ graphs showing graduation success for either their own gender or no gender identified at all. This study resulted in the students expressing more academic goals which Elmore and Oyserman (2012) postulate is down to a more school focused self-identity which, if correct and representative, shows the malleability of pupils’ self-identity at this age. This showed the students displaying some identity congruence (Elmore & Oyserman, 2012). Despite this the study conducted by Sheldrake et al. (2015) showed that in general girls had less confidence than their male counterparts which was not displayed in results at GCSE or A Level.

Conclusions

I believe that the main point to take from this literature review is that the link between behaviour management and motivation is all about engagement. That through positive reinforcement for decent behaviour, developing positive relationships with the students in the class and encouraging student autonomy in lessons to encourage intrinsic motivation as methods of behaviour management the teacher is well on their way to establishing engagement and motivation from their class. Moreover, having a motivated and engaged class leads to better results in the long run.

As well as this, low levels of motivation and engagement can lead to behaviour issues. Identity based motivation can be very detrimental to students in lower attaining sets and perhaps is the reason why, when placed with higher attaining students, the lower attaining performs better. The presence of higher attaining students in that set and thus presence in that peer group may alter the lower attaining students’ self-view. Alternatively, it could also be very beneficial when looking to progress students and help them to become more aspirational. When students do not see a good reason to do the work then it can seem pointless which can demotivate them which is why it is so important to frame work in a way that lets them see that time spent attempting the work is time is productive and beneficial to them and will be so for them again later in life.

While extrinsic motivation does have a place in the classroom it is most effective when used positively, for instance in praise and to boost student confidence. When it comes to confidence it seems that higher confidence is a positive trait as it can imply greater resilience in students but at the same time does not always indicate that a student is attaining higher.

Introduction

The observations that I will be assessing and comparing to the literature review took place in a Hampshire 11-16 mixed comprehensive school. It has a lower than National average number of pupil premium students but a higher than average number of students from service families, owing to the adjacency of an RAF airbase. The number of maths grades A*-C was 86% (The Robert Mays School, 2015) which is significantly higher than the National average of 63% (The Guardian, 2015). All mathematics classes in this school are setted from the time they arrive.

In this section I will attempt to synthesise and assess these observations along with the findings of the literature review with the aim of improving my practice. Observation One was taken by Teacher A for Class A; Observation Two was taken by Teacher B for Class B and Observation 3 was taken by Teacher C for Class C.

Assessment

The presence of a behaviour policy such that is recommended by the government (Department for Education, 2016) was evident across these observations in details such as classroom organisation in the availability of equipment should students be unprepared as well as the use of both praise and sanctions in all lessons observed.

Since all of the classes that I observed were setted the benefit found by Sund (2009) of having a mix of higher attaining students in the class along with lower attaining students to increase performance of the lower attaining was not possible to observe. However, the teachers may have profited from finding these classes easier to teach as opposed to mixed ability groups (Hallum & Ireson, 2005) potentially allowing them to put more time during lessons into teaching and engaging more students on an individual basis. Hallum and Ireson (2005) also found that in mixed classes a lot of time had to be spent in advance in preparing more differentiated resources meaning that time was potentially being saved both in and out of the classroom. Alternatively, as Hallum and Ireson (2005) took in teacher opinions this may be subject to some level of inaccuracy.

Additionally, while identity based motivation (Destin & Oyserman, 2010) could be beneficial in assessing these classes and would certainly have an impact on motivation in these lessons, without having taken this information before the lessons I observed and using it to inform my observation, it has limited value. It could be argued that a broad overview of the class demographics could be made based on the pupil premium information for the school (The Robert Mays School, 2015) but this may not have been representative of the individual classes that I observed.

In Observation 3 there was a student who volunteered an answer in front of the class. Whereupon he got the answer wrong he began behaving in a negative manner eventually receiving sanctions for his now disruptive behaviour. I think that it is possible that in getting the answer wrong the student’s confidence dropped, demotivating the student leading him to become disengaged with the lesson. When compared with what Sheldrake et al. (2015) says about how a high level of confidence can be indicative of greater resilience, I posit that in this case the opposite was in effect here and it was this student’s low level of resilience that led to his disengagement and ultimately his behaviour.

A point might be made here that the students intrinsic motivation to find the answer had diminished leading to disengagement. The student became continuously more and more disruptive to the lesson whereupon the teacher began to apply extrinsic motivation in the form of sanctions. This concurs with what was posited by Oxley (2015) in that students can end up in negative cycles of punishments and further behaviour issues as well as what Murayama et al. (2013) says about how extrinsic motivation can be short lived which again was what was observed in the lesson. The use of sanctions in this case did not result in the student re-engaging for any length of time before becoming disruptive again. Although, it could have been that the student was being influenced by other stimuli that I was not aware of.

What Reeve et al. (2004) states about how engagement leads to more positive behaviour can be seen by comparing Observations 1 and 2 to Observation 3 where the two former lessons had greater engagement throughout resulting in the better behaviour of these classes. One way in which they were different to the third observed lesson was in the questioning. Both teachers A and B would engage with students through questioning more, expecting longer answers and staying with the students when they were incorrect whereas Teacher C would move on to another student when an incorrect answer was given which I have previously postulated was linked to the disengagement of that student.

In viewing each class only once, judging the level of intrinsic motivation in the students was difficult to quantify. But, from the questioning displayed by teachers A and B in their lessons it seems that the phrasing they used was encouraging students to think about the problems and the solutions as opposed to being told how to find it.

The engagement of classes A and B was certainly higher than in Class C which I believe is partly down to the transitions. Class C had a more continuous task through the whole lesson allowing a more leisurely pace whereas in Class B the teacher had very quick transitions keeping momentum and maintaining engagement. This higher pace of work could have been keeping students engaged by giving them a feeling of progression through the lesson which Sheldrake et al. (2015) says can be the case but adds that it requires teachers to know the current attainment of their classes well. That being said Sheldrake et al. (2015) also sees benefit in a slower pace of lesson like the lesson taken by Teacher C stating that it is more of a mastery approach.

Oxley (2015) relates that choice and autonomy are key in building motivation which I believe I observed in Observation 3 when the teacher made the class aware that there was another sheet available. This availability of new work sparked the class into either going up to get more work or going back to the sheet they were already working on. I suggest that a potential explanation for this is that the students were given autonomy over whether to continue on what they were doing or collect the new sheet resulting in them feeling more motivated to continue with the task.

The research suggests that knowing the reason why they are learning something, understanding how it might be a useful skill to have in their future lives is of benefit to many students (Elmore & Oyserman, 2012). This is seen in interactions between Teacher C when a disengaged student who was challenged on not working asked the teacher when they would ever use this in the future to which the teacher responded with a real-world example. This appeared to resonate with the student re-engaging them. I believe that after this was said the topic gained value in the students eyes and as such would be intrinsic motivation guiding this student rather than extrinsic. Yet, it is possible that the student simply saw that the teacher was not backing down to the challenging and so simply opted to continue working to remove himself from the conversation. If this were the case then it would have been extrinsic motivation which Murayama et al. (2013) describes as being the more fickle of the two.

I observed very little self-efficacy being displayed by the students in these observed lessons which may or may not be indicative of the types of lessons that lower attaining sets generally receive. However, further study would be required to find out whether this was representative in any way.

While intrinsic motivation did seem to be more influential over student motivation it was, at times, difficult to differentiate between whether it was intrinsic or extrinsic motivation that was motivating a student’s actions. A different form of study would likely be necessary in order to observe this.

From this assignment, there are several implications that I will take into my own practice. When planning lessons in the future I will strive to allow students more freedom in lessons encouraging their autonomy. By doing this, I hope to increase their engagement in lessons and the learning process as I am now far more aware of the effect low engagement can have on the outcome of a lesson.

As well as this I now have a greater appreciation for how my students need to understand why they are learning something and not see the learning process as pointless. I had previously been unaware of how influential identity based motivation could be on students and can see previous lessons I have taken where some students had stopped seeing learning in that lesson as congruent with what they will need to know.

When it comes to behaviour management I have come to reconsider some of my views. I can see that when a student misbehaves they need to be corrected on that behaviour to progress from it. That it is very easy for the student to enter into a cycle of punishment and reaction that simply will not benefit them and instead need help to correct the behaviour.

References

Department for Education. (2016). Behaviour and discipline in schools: Advice for headteachers and

school staff. Retrieved 25 November, 2016, from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/488034/Behaviour_and_Discipline_in_Schools_-_A_guide_for_headteachers_and_School_Staff.pdf

Destin, M., & Oyserman, D. (2010). Incentivizing education: Seeing schoolwork as an[JH1] investment, not

a chore. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 846-849.

Dweck, C S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-

1048.

Elmore, K C., & Oyserman, D. (2012). If ‘we’ can succeed, ‘I’ can too: Identity-based motivation and

gender in the classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(3), 176-185.

Hallam, S., & Ireson, J. (2005). Secondary school teachers’ pedagogic practices when teaching mixed

and structured ability classes. Research Papers in Education, 20(1), 3-24.

Mitchell, M., & Bradshaw, C. (2009). Examining classroom influences on student perceptions of

school climate: The role of classroom management and exclusionary discipline strategies.

Journal of School Psychology, 51(5), 599-610.

Murayama, K., Pekrun, R., & Lichtenfield, S. (2013). Predicting long-term growth in students’

mathematics achievement: The unique contributions of motivation and cognitive strategies.

Child Development, 84(4), 1475-1490.

Niemi, R., Kumpulainen, K., Lipponen, L., & Hilppo, J. (2015). Pupils’ perspectives on the lived

pedagogy of the classroom. Education 313, 43(6), 681-697.

Oxley, L. (2015). Do schools need lessons in motivation?. The Psychologist, 28(19), 722-723.

Oyserman, D. (2013). Not just any path: Implications of identity-based motivation for disparities in

school outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 33(4), 179-190.

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by

increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147-170.

Sajka, M., & Rosiek, R. (2015, March). Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of the European Society for

Research in Mathematics Education. Solving a problem by different students with different mathematical abilities: A comparative study using eye-tracking, Prague, Czech Republic. Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01288030/document

Seifert, T. (2004). Understanding student motivation. Educational Research, 46(2), 137-149.

Sheldrake, R., Mujtaba, T., & Reiss, M. (2015). Students’ intentions to study non-compulsory

mathematics: the importance of how good you think you are. British Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 462-488.

Sund, K. (2009). Estimating peer effects in Swedish high school using school, teacher, and student

fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 28(3), 329-336.

The Guardian. (2015). The Guardian. Retrieved 12 December, 2016, from

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/aug/20/gcses-results-2015-english-pass-rate-rises-jump-a-c-grades

The Robert Mays School. (2015). Pupil premium report – September 2015. Retrieved December 12,

2016, from The Robert Mays School, http://www.rmays.org/wp-

content/uploads/2015/10/PupilPremiumReport2015.pdf

Observation 1

Y8Set 4Period 6/616/11/16Class ATeacher A

What happens when…

Your comment(s)

Pupils enter the classroom? What are the established procedures?

Teacher greeting by the door. Students sit and take their book out and attempt starter on the board.

A lesson begins? How does the teacher establish attention?

Calling to attention not raising voice. Several keep talking but are individually called to attention by teacher still not raising voice.

The teacher leads a discussion from the front? How does he/she ensure attention and participation?

Leading discussion from the front. Asking students to explain why on their answers. Some struggling to put thoughts into full sentences.

The teacher gives out instructions?

Asks “I need you to..” when giving instructions.

Pupils carry out a task – how does the teacher ensure that they remain on task?

By asking questions to students every few minutes ensuring they stay on task.

The teacher provides an important explanation – how do they ensure that pupils have listened and understood?

A lot of AfL with whiteboards.

The teacher manage the transitions between different parts of the lessons?

Quickly throwing a new question to the class before asking someone to answer it.

Pupils are asked to work in small groups/pairs? How does the teacher ensure they talk about the work?

Working in silence as were disruptive earlier.

When a pupil doesn’t stay on task?

Asks student “please” first time.

Speaks to student and explains what they should be doing in work and behaviour.

Pupils are asked to write things down when some do not have a pen/book/paper?

Get equipment from neighbour.

A pupil behaves inappropriately?

Class warning. Individual students names on board.

There is an interruption from someone at the door?

Student being moved into this class (x2). Teacher waits for quiet after some laughter.

A pupil doesn’t understand?

Scaffolding, leading questions.

A pupil makes a mistake/answers a question incorrectly?

Talks through it with student until they get it and asked why to ensure understanding.

The lesson ends? How does the teacher ensure an orderly dismissal?

Tidying away before the bell with students collecting MWB and pens.”Not leaving until silence”

(adapted from Richard Johnstone: Communicative Interaction : A Guide for Teachers, CILT, 1989)

Note down examples of:

Teacher using verbal praise and encouragement (note down the actual words)

“Good”

Teacher using positive body language (smiling, leaning forward etc)

Smiling at correct answers when shown on MWB during AfL.

Teacher using tone/volume of voice

Level tone throughout.

Quiet voice when talking one on one.

Teacher moving round the classroom or standing still. When do they do this, what are they doing whilst doing this, is there any purpose to the movement?

Students started arguing loudly across centre table when teacher left room to deal with student from another class. When they came back in they walked into the middle of the argument and went from one to the other calmly asking each to be quiet which was successful. One claimed not to have done anything, teacher said “I haven’t accused you of anything, I’m asking you to be quiet now”.

Teacher giving out tangible rewards e.g. merit points or equivalent

Names in board (positive as well as negative). Far more positive.

Teacher writing positive and encouraging comments in pupils’ exercise books

Observation 2

Y10Set 3Period 5/617/11/16 Class BTeacher B

What happens when aˆ¦

Your comment(s)

Pupils enter the classroom? What are the established procedures?

Greet at door. Individually told to copy down the starter.

A lesson begins? How does the teacher establish attention?

Stood and waited. Class was expecting it so a class routine.

The teacher leads a discussion from the front? How does he/she ensure attention and participation?

Asking questions expecting an answer and engagement in the lesson. Sometimes students wrong, given choice to move on or try again.

The teacher gives out instructions?

Starter and examples. All tasks on board as well as said out loud.

Pupils carry out a task – how does the teacher ensure that they remain on task?

Circulating.

The teacher provides an important explanation – how do they ensure that pupil shave listened and understood?

Asks if students need the help then goes through on whiteboard. Leaves worked answer there.

The teacher manage the transitions between different parts of the lessons?

The means and style by which material is delivered to a learner depends upon a number of factors, not least of which are the traditions of the environment in which they are being presented. The aim of this essay is to explore both behaviourist and humanist approaches to learning and whether there is a place for the latter in a military environment.

The behaviourist approach to learning is traditionally used in both military and school environments: it was the main theory from the 1940s to the 1970s. The ideas that give it its foundation are the experiments that were conducted by Ivan Pavlov; these experiments enabled him to influence the behaviour of dogs with the use of external stimuli – an example of this is salivation at the sound of a bell in anticipation of the arrival of food. This was labelled ‘Classical Conditioning’. It was argued that this sort of conditioning plays a big part in human learning, particularly with regard to physiological functioning (i.e. salivation at the sound of a bell) or emotion (i.e. fears and phobias).

James Watson embraced these ideas and was the first to use the term ‘behaviourism’. He believed that it was vital, in order to understand human behaviour and therefore learning, for one to adopt a scientifically measurable approach. He argued that all human behaviour is governed by conditioned responses and as such can be controlled and modified to suit any given purpose. He even went as far as to say that he could train any child to fulfil any job in society as long as he was healthy, as he believed that “ there is nothing from within to develop” (1928).

Both Watson and Pavlov thought “that the simultaneous occurrence of events is sufficient to bring about learning” and is “ordinarily referred to as the contiguity explanation” (Lefrancois 1994). In other words, the sound of a bell will induce salivation in dogs in anticipation of receiving food, once one is associated with the other; the salivation will occur at the sound of a bell after a while, even if there is no food given to the animal. Thorndike saw this in a different way believing that the effect of the response led learning to occur (termed the Law of Effect). He argued that a learner would repeat responses that brought positive results and that behaviour would be modified through a process of trial and error. This idea is what is known as the reinforcement approach which was further developed by B.F.Skinner. He stated that when reinforcement of any response occurs, it will be repeated and that this can enable control to be gained over people. These reinforcements can either be positive or negative – reward or punishment. He fully explored the relationship between responses and reinforcement and concluded that reinforcement brought about learning. This view is referred to as operant conditioning. Skinner contended that for learning to be effective it needed to be tackled in small stages, it needed to be logical/sequential, it needed to be based on prior knowledge, that the desired behaviour needed to be rewarded regularly in the initial stages and that reinforcement of the required or desired behaviour should happen immediately that it occurs. “…Skinner urges educators to focus on reinforcing student success rather than punishing student failure” and that “…reinforcement for appropriate responses is consistent and immediate, and learned behaviours are maintained by intermittent reinforcement schedules” (Ormrod 2004).

As we can see, there is no place for feelings and individual thoughts in behaviourist theory. It is only concerned with what can be observed and it contends that evidence gathered through experiments indicates that there are a number of principles which can be applied to learning and that if these were adopted, the process would be made easier. They are the Law of Effect, the Law of Contiguity, the Law of Exercise (repeating an action or behaviour) and the Law of Reinforcement.

The problem with this is that behaviourism provides only a very limited and mechanistic or mechanical way of looking at the process of learning, which is far too simple. It takes little to no account of the learner as an individual and assumes that the learner is passive and has no exercise of free will; it does not allow for differences in individuals and it can be manipulative if the provider wishes to use it in this way.

By contrast, humanist thinkers such as Maslow and Rogers asked themselves what is it that makes us human. They approached their studies from a completely different angle and looked upon humanity as innately positive, as opposed to previous ideas which apparently painted life in a very dower and pessimistic manner. Rather than concentrating their studies on those who are suffering form illness, they looked at the behaviour of healthy people –“when you select out for careful study very fine and healthy people…you get a very different view of mankind” (Maslow 1971). The humanist approach encourages people to exercise free will in their lives, allowing them to be individuals in their own right and to highlight everything that is positive about them. This enables any given individual to have the opportunity to achieve their maximum possible potential in whatever they choose to do. They contend that purely scientific methods of studying behaviour are inadequate in assessing any human being (Chapter 6 The Humanistic Approach).

Maslow presented his studies in the form of a ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ which indicates that all humans work towards satisfying or attaining their perceived needs “as a ladder of human achievement that must be climbed” (Trigg 2004). This is laid out in the form of a pyramid with each type of need building from the other while being closely interwoven with each other. At the base is the Physiological type which includes basic needs like air, food, water, shelter and sleep; the next type is Safety or Security which is concerned with stability and a feeling of being protected from harm; this leads on to the type which encompasses Belonging and Love which covers relationships with our family and our peers; the fourth level is that of Esteem which deals with issues of achievement, recognition and respect. Maslow separated these and grouped them together and termed them ‘deficiency needs’ or ‘D-motives’ stressing that a lack of fulfilment in an area will cause a person to act to remedy the problem. He felt that the pyramid was the best way to represent this system as people seemed to challenge themselves to achieve and work their way through the types to achieve their full potential; their motivation was to get better and reach their needs leading onto the next level, similar to the way in which a person who is learning a musical instrument will strive hard to achieve the next grade or a computer gamer will keep trying until he achieves the next level.

The final type of needs are called ‘growth needs’, ‘being needs’ or ‘B-motives’ by Maslow. Once the initial needs described above are met, the need for the development within the individual becomes the prime driving force. This is described as Self Actualisation within the pyramid: subsequent versions of the hierarchy included more complex subdivisions within this type of need which serve to break down the areas of personal achievement into smaller categories. Maslow (1968) describes this growth as “…a rewarding and exciting process…” which continues to increase as the person develops throughout their life.

Rogers holds similar views to Maslow when looking at the concept of self actualisation. He believes that humans are able to push themselves to achieve their full potential and that each and every person is unique in their ideas about themselves. They hold their own image of themselves in their minds in terms of how they see themselves, how much value they perceive themselves as having and how they would like to develop in the future. “Whether one calls it a growth tendency, a drive towards self-actualisation, or a forward-moving directional tendency, it is the mainspring of life… it is the urge to expand, extend, become autonomous, develop, mature…” (Rogers 1961). He believed that every individual has the ability to solve their own problems and that his role as a therapist was one of being some kind of ‘facilitator’ to aid the individuals thought processes and progress towards resolving their issues. Each ‘facilitator’ needs to display honesty, empathy and respect towards those whom he is trying to help. This environment is controlled by the individual who is being helped and Rogers believed that this was the only environment in which genuine learning could take place.

Rogers went on to apply these principles to education. ‘Student centred learning’ enables individuals to take responsibility for their learning; the way that the teacher interacts with their class is crucial in the development of an environment that will encourage learning to take place: “…the facilitation of learning rests upon certain attitudinal qualities which exist in the personal relationship between the facilitator and learner” (Rogers 1969). They need to ensure that there are sufficient resources in place to aid the students, that they themselves are prepared to be a living resource and that they are prepared to act as a learner themselves within the classroom. As an idea, this is an alien concept to many teachers, even today. The idea of not being at the head of the class, dictating the direction that the learning is taking is frightening to a good number of educators. The traditional approach to teaching is being firmly challenged here with members of the profession being asked to look at their methods, critically appraise them and react accordingly. The focus in this environment is the student not the teacher and it is “a system of providing learning which has the student at its heart” (Brandes and Ginnis 1986). Rogers (1984) sums this supportive environment up by commenting that “person centred education is much like my rose garden – it needs a caring environment to sustain its beauty.”

This sort of approach in the classroom can be very effective as long as both the staff and the pupils enter into the process wholeheartedly. There are many different activities that can focus on the student as an individual in order to allow them to develop and grow as individuals and learn from each other. Initially it is important for the group to set out ground rules so that every individual is aware of how the process works and to ensure that all of the group feel comfortable with the approach that is being taken. These ground rules can include things like not interrupting or talking over the top of someone when they are speaking, thus encouraging every individual to have respect for the others. Once the group have agreed to these ground rules, every activity can be approached with individuals having the same expectations of each other. It is important to note that if there are any new arrivals to the group, these need revisiting to ensure that the newcomer also feels a sense of ownership for them.

Group activities where everyone has the opportunity to learn are extremely valuable; examples that I have used are mind mapping (brainstorming), problem solving, open discussion and the circle. The great strength of the circle is that everyone can see and hear everyone else; each person, including the facilitator is on the same level and can physically be regarded as being the same – a listener and a learner. The topic of discussion or the theme that is being addressed can then be opened up to the group; each person has the opportunity to speak if they wish to, with the way that this is organised being decided prior to the circle forming. Sometimes hands up can be used, at other times one person in the group can be placed as a chairperson or even a pencil case or ruler could be passed from the person who is speaking to the next person to speak. This way of organising the group allows each person to feel that they can contribute if they wish to and quieter people can also be involved by the facilitator in order to broaden their horizons. It also encourages students to listen to and take notice of the views of others even if they ultimately reject them as not being for them. It encourages people to be open with each other without fear of being laughed at, shouted down or humiliated because of what they think or say. It does take a while to get used to this system of learning but it has huge benefits for all those who are open to it. It allows the student to appreciate and develop their own views through consideration of others, broadening their outlook in the process. I have heard the expression ‘Oh, I hadn’t thought of it like that’ during circle time on many occasions.

Circle time can also be used to feedback from small group discussions and research that has been undertaken outside the classroom. Role plays are another excellent way of finding out what a small group have understood about a particular topic, through the content of their offering to the rest of the class. Not only does this allow the students to express themselves in their own way but it also encourages different styles of learners to flourish in the classroom and further encourages students to learn from one another.

Clearly the teacher or facilitator needs to be comfortable with this process as it is taking place and retain their authority within the classroom. This is a difficult balance to find and is one which some people find it almost impossible to do. Within the traditional school environment this sort of approach is unheard of due to the seemingly unstructured and undisciplined way of tackling any work. Military establishments may have the same views due to the highly disciplined nature of what the soldiers are trained to do. However, the question remains as to whether this sort of humanistic approach can work in that environment.

It would seem that whether the approach would work would depend upon the nature of what the learner was attempting to learn and where he is attempting to learn it. The military have traditionally relied upon the behaviourist model as it best suits their purpose. The instructors can employ both positive and negative reinforcement to train the soldiers to do what they have to in the field of battle or ‘theatre of war’. Soldiers do not have time to think about how to reload a weapon or whether it is right to fire when they are in the middle of a battle zone. The way that they are taught reflects the arena in which they will have to perform their set tasks; reloading a weapon today is far easier than it was in the days of muskets, but soldiers still have to be disciplined and keep their heads in difficult pressurised situations. Being taught in a mechanised fashion will help them as tasks will become second nature due to the consistent repetition that has taken place on the training ground. My father could still tell me how to strip down, clean, oil and rebuild his weapon in every detail some 20 years after having left the armed forces. This can also be said of manoeuvres that are vital to the survival of a unit of men. They are ‘drummed’ into the minds of the soldiers so that they are become an automatic reaction to a given stimulus. This could ultimately save their lives and the lives of those around them. An example of this is the reaction to a very loud bang in a public house one day while I was enjoying a drink with my two brothers in law, both then in the Army; they had just returned from Northern Ireland when this incident happened. The loud bang went off and I looked around to find them both on the floor tight up against the skirting boards on opposite sides of the room. This was a conditioned response to the loud bang and was as a result of their extensive survival and battle training. Much of military training cannot afford to concern itself with the individual needs of each of the soldiers – it must simplify the learning so that the whole reacts (as far as possible) in a predicable way. In short, when an order is given it is obeyed immediately, without fail.

There would however seem to be a place for the humanistic approach within the modern military environment too. Within the confines of a classroom, when conducting classes which are concerned with basic skills such as literacy, numeracy and IT there may well be an opportunity to utilise this type of learning strategy. Everyone likes their opinion to be taken notice of, to feel that they are contributing and to be listened to. Those who are undertaking officer training are required to problem solve – this can be done using this different approach and will allow the learner to express themselves as they are doing so. Individuals need to be given the opportunity to develop themselves to the best of their ability and this needs to be facilitated in all environments of learning, including the military. There is a place for freedom of expression, in the right place at the right time. It would seem that there would need to be strong leadership in order that these sorts of methods could be introduced and continue to be used in a military environment, as their implementation would involve a change in long held and established practises. There also needs to be an acknowledgement “that traditional training approaches, which place an emphasis on replication or imitative learning, are unsuited to fostering the longer term individual and organisational development outcomes required by a significantly changed operational environment” (Thomas 2006). Catering for the individual strengths and needs of individual soldiers can foster a greater sense of loyalty in them and an even greater motivation to succeed not only for themselves but their fellow men. This is particularly important in this rapidly changing modern technological world.

In the modern military environment, there would seem to be a place for both the traditional behaviourist and the humanist approaches to learning. Given that all those involved understand that certain situations require different methods of teaching to be employed and accept that from the outset, there is no reason why both cannot be employed. All soldiers understand the need to obey orders and that certain tasks will need to be done like an automaton in order for them to be successful in what they do. It is essential that there is also an acknowledgement that there is a place for people to want to achieve the best that they can within their environment as an individual, as well as for the collective. As Rogers (1980) explains “the actualising tendency can be thwarted or warped, but cannot be destroyed without destroying the organism.” It is also important to note that “…with this self-actualisation, individuals can engender life long learning…” (Kiel 1999).

There are many differing ways that people learn and it is up to different organisations to adopt the method or methods that are best suited to bring them success in their field. That does not negate the need however, for all providers to reflect upon and modify their methods to best effect from time to time. The military have hundreds of years to tradition to fall back on, but need to ‘move with the times’ and accept that the humanist approach in certain areas of their educational provision can be of benefit to both individuals and the military as a whole.

Bibliography

Chapter 6 The Humanistic Approach

Brandes, D. & Ginnis, P. 1986 A Guide to Student-Centred Learning Oxford: Basil Blackwood

Lefrancois, G.R. 1994 from Tutor notes Behaviourist Theories of Learning

Maslow, A. 1971 The Farther Reaches of Human Nature New York: Viking

Maslow, A. 1968 Towards a Psychology of Being (2^nd Ed) New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold

Ormrod, J.E. 2004 Human Learning (4^th Ed) from Tutor notes Behaviourist Theories of Learning

Rogers, C.R.R. 1961 On Becoming a Person Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Rogers, C.R.R. 1969 Freedom to Learn Columbus, Ohio: Charles E Merrill Publishing

Rogers, C.R.R. 1980 A Way of Being Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Watson, J.B. 1928 The Psychological Care of Infant and Child from Tutor notes Behaviourist Theories of Learning

Rogers, C.R.R. 1984 from Frieberg, H.J. 1999 Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming: Lessons Learned Alexandria Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Kiel, J.M. 1999 Reshaping Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to Reflect Todays Educational and Managerial Philosophies Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 26

Thomas, K 2006 Leadership Development in the Military: Bridging Theory and Practice International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 6(2-4)

Trigg, A.B. 2004 Deriving the Engel Curve: Pierre Bordieu and the Social Critique of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Review of Social Economy, Vol.62

Behaviour Children Mainstream

Exploring Difference and Diversity

As a Teacher of Additional Support Needs in a secondary school in North East Scotland I intend to investigate Difference and Diversity and the move from Special Educational Needs to Additional Support Needs and Inclusion. How it affects my own practice and that of my school.

Having been a mainstream secondary school teacher for 14 years before becoming an Additional Support Needs teacher, I have learnt from experience and listening to colleagues, that behaviour seems to play a major part in the inclusive classroom. Colleagues have commented in the past that they don’t mind those children with ‘Special Needs’, it is those with behavioural difficulties which cause the problems. This train of thought is corroborated by Paul Croll and Moses (2000). They interviewed Head Teachers from both Special Schools and Mainstream, and LEA Officers.

‘The view that children whose behaviour challenged the mainstream should be in separate provision was a widespread one:

“We cannot cope with EBD [emotional and behavioural difficulties] children in the mainstream.” (Primary Head)

“I am very committed to integration in principle, but it is very difficult to have disturbed children in mainstream schools.” (Primary Head)

“Some emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children make too great demands on staff. It’s not fair on other children.” (Primary Head) (Croll and Moses 2000, p6)

Also, cited by J Allan (1999, p10), Armstrong and Galloway have noted a tendency of teachers to reconstruct children with emotional or behavioural difficulties as ‘disturbed’ (1994:179), with the implication that these are outside the responsibilities of mainstream classroom teachers.

It is for this reason I intend to look at the behaviour of a small group of first year pupils in my classroom, and try to put into place some strategies to help reduce the frequency of unwanted behaviours, which hopefully, will go some way in promoting inclusion within my classroom practice and thus enabling them to access more mainstream classes in the future.

The unwanted behaviour could stem from a number of factors including their home life, environmental influences, peer pressure, personality, self confidence and self esteem, to name but a few; which will be discussed later.

When considering difference and diversity, many people think of stereotypes, such as, cultural diversity, gender differences etc. The problem with a stereotype however, is that no one individual conforms to it exactly, and yet, in the educational institute it is individuals that we are dealing with therefore, we place the emphasis on exploration of individual differences, and not stereotypes.

Do these differences really mean that some children and young people are uneducable and have to be segregated and placed in special schools? Previous trains of thought were that those with ‘special needs’ would be better off in special schools. By placing them in such institutes, the education of the rest would not be hindered.

According to Thomas and Loxley (2007) one of the first Special Schools in the UK was The School of Instruction for the Blind, in Liverpool 1791, also mentioned in The Warnock Report (p8). During the Nineteenth Century Special Schools were established for the blind, deaf and dumb children. During the 20^th Century Special Schools grew in number until they catered for around 2% of the school population.

In the early part of the century people with learning difficulties were referred to as feebleminded, imbeciles and idiots.

Many of the special schools were started by voluntary organizations for pupils with specific disabilities. They were seen as more helpful and less intimidating to students with disabilities.

‘The term special educational needs began to come into use in the late 1960s as a result of increasing dissatisfaction with the terminology used in the Handicapped Pupils and School Health Service Regulations (1945), which classified handicapped children into ten categories according to their main handicap. There was, moreover, an increasing awareness of the frequency of learning and other difficulties affecting children’s progress and adjustment in ordinary schools’. (Ronald Gulliford, (Ed) 1992 p1)

Before the Warnock Report it was commonly believed that special educational needs stressed that the deficits were from within the child. This came from a medical or psychological point of view which implied that the individual was in some way ‘in deficit’. The requirement for special educational provision was related to the concept of disability of mind or body. The 1944 Education Act defined 11 forms of disability but did not include groups of children who were considered to be uneducable due to the extent of their handicap. Disabilities were described in medical terms except for educational sub-normality and maladjustment which were more difficult to clarify, suggesting that there was a cut-off point between normal and abnormal. In 1970 legislation was introduced which stated that local education authorities had to make special educational provision for all types of disability, but this did not specify whether it should be in separate schools or classes. This resulted in special education being considered as that which only took place in special schools. (Sally Beveridge 1999)

The Warnock committee was set up to review the provision for children with mental and physical disabilities and produced the report in 1978. It promoted a wide range of special needs, rather than discrete categories and helped to form the basis of the 1981 Education Act’s policies on special educational needs (SEN), which introduced a different approach to the definition of children with SEN:

‘A child will have a special educational need if s/he has a learning difficulty requiring special educational provision. The ‘learning difficulty’ includes not only physical and mental disabilities, but also any kind of learning difficulty experienced by a child, provided that it is significantly greater than that of the majority of children of the same age’. (1981 Education Act, p1)

The Act stated that the education of children with SEN should be carried out in ordinary schools where possible. The Act emphasized an approach that is in favour of inclusion and integration, rather than separation and isolation. This approach recommended that children with special needs should be treated as individuals, and that the child should have a learning support teacher with them in the classroom, rather than being taken out of the class.

Since the Warnock report and the 1981 Education Act, legislation has been gradually catching up with the recommendations.

The most recent legislation is The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, in which the term ‘Special Educational Needs’ has been replaced with ‘Additional Support for Learning’.

The Act states that ‘A child or young person has additional support needs for whatever reason, the child or young person is, or is likely to be, unable without the provision of additional support to benefit from school education provided or to be provided for the child or young person. In relation to a prescribed pre-school child, a child of school age or a young person receiving school education, provision which is additional to, or otherwise different from, the educational provision made generally for children or, as the case may be, young persons of the same age in schools (other than special schools) under the management of the education authority for the area to which the child or young person belongs.’ (Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, p1)

This definition seems to be similar as in the 1981 Education Act previously mentioned, although the Education (Scotland) Act 1981 did not mention that the ‘learning difficulty’ included physical and mental disabilities, as did the Act in England.

Does this mean there are no real changes in policy? Is everything exactly the same as before but with a different name?

The Additional Support for Learning Act introduced a new framework for supporting children and young people. The Education (Scotland) Act 1981 required education authorities to make a generalprovision in their areas to meet such needs. The 2004 Act requires education authorities to make adequate and well-organized provision for additional support as is required by the child or young person with additional support needs’.

This goes further than making a general provision, such as special schools. The education authority has a duty to provide the necessary additional support to every individual child or young person who needs it to benefit from education. It also has to identify children and young people with additional support needs and to review their continuing needs and the sufficiency of steps taken to meet them. Staff and resources from within the particular schools attended by these children or young people have a role in enabling an education authority to fulfill these duties, as do staff and resources from its own services and from other agencies. (Focusing on Inclusion, p7)

Children may need additional support for a wide variety of reasons. A child’s education could be affected by issues resulting from:

learning environment
inflexible curricular arrangements
inappropriate approaches to learning and teaching
more able children
children with English as an additional language
family circumstances
homelessness
parental drug or alcohol misuse
children who are parents
children who are carers
children looked after by the local authority
disability or health need
motor or sensory impairment
specific language impairment
autistic spectrum disorder
learning difficulties
ADHD
depression or other mental health problems
social and emotional factors
children who are being bullied
children who are suffering racial discrimination
children who are bullying
children with behavioural difficulties (Govan Law Centre, internet source)

This is far from being a complete list and does not mean that every child fitting one of the above categories necessarily has additional support needs. This will depend on the amount and type of support required by the individual child.

There are many more factors that are now considered under The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 compared with the previous Act. Children with English as an additional language are now included whereas previously they were not, they were not viewed as having special needs, but they are now recognized as needing support to access the curriculum.

Also, parents now have the right to:

Ask their child’s education authority to find out whether your child has additional support needs.
Request a specific type of assessment and/or examination for your child when their education authority is proposing to formally identify whether they have additional support needs.
Receive information or advice about a child’s additional support needs. (Enquire 2006)

All local authorities should have policies in place to ensure they are abiding by the act. The authority in which I work has various policies and guidelines in place, including:

Policies

Access to Education for Pupils with Disabilities/Additional Support Needs Strategy 2005-08
Race Equality Policy and Strategy 2005-08
Sensory Support Service Quality Assurance Policy
Additional Support Needs Policy Framework.

Policies – Under Development

Disability Equality Scheme

Guidelines

Guidance on the Education of Looked After Children and Young People
Improving Access to the School Environment & to Communication for Parents and Visitors.
How good is our Educational Psychology Service – Draft Snapshot.
Improving Physical Access to Education.
Riding for Pupils with Additional Support Needs.
Safety and Good Practice on Education Excursions.
Supporting Pupil’s access to the curriculum using ICT (ASPECTS).
Swimming for Pupils with Additional Support Needs.

Guidelines – Under Development

Autism Support.
English as an Additional Language.
Integrated Assessment Framework – Draft Operational Guidelines
Motor Coordination Difficulties.
Sensory Support Service Guidelines.

The Additional Support Needs Policy Framework was produced in January 2007 as 6

Pathways to Policy booklets and the principles behind the policy are printed in each booklet:

‘The Additional Support Needs Policy Framework and the Pathways to Policy Pack for Supporting Children’s and Young People’s learning ensure that all children and young people are provided with the necessary support to help them work towards achieving their full potential with respect to their personality, talents and mental and physical abilities. It promotes collaborative working among all those supporting children and young people’.

In September 2005 HM Inspectorate of Education was asked by Scottish Ministers to monitor and evaluate the consistency, effectiveness and efficiency of education authorities in implementing the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and to ensure that procedures for implementation were in line with the duties of the Act 2004 and the associated Code of Practice.

In 2007 HMIE produced the Report on the implementation of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004.

The report states that most authorities were effective in ensuring that their procedures for implementing the Act were in line with the duties of the Act and the associated Code of Practice. The most effective had built on existing good practice and developed joint strategic approaches with other agencies to meet the needs of children and young people with additional support needs. However, authorities varied in their effectiveness in implementing the key requirements of the Act. (HMIE 2007)

The report provided guidelines for improvement and was made available to schools in February 2008, to enable them to evaluate their implementation and effectiveness of current legislation; the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and Inclusion.

Following this report some schools including the school, in which I work, are holding CPD sessions for staff on the implementation of the Act and Inclusion, and ways forward.

Inclusion is not a new phenomenon, it has been recommended in educational legislation since the Warnock Report in 1978. In fact it has been spoke about during the 1960’s,

As cited by Josephine Jenkinson, Dunn’s (1968) argument against segregated special education and in favour of integration was that advances in the development of individualized, self-paced curricula in regular education would allow students with disabilities to be accommodated in the regular class, if they were provided with a programme designed by a specialist teacher to meet their needs and in which they could progress at their own pace. Integration could be made possible by radical departures in school organization, involving a greater emphasis on team teaching, ungraded classes and flexible groupings. (Jenkinson, 1996. p 15-16)

This implies that there should be a change in the curriculum and how it is delivered, to meet the needs of all pupils, and that specialist teachers should be working with classroom teachers to plan and deliver the curriculum.

Historically “integration” was the term used in the 1980s, but this came to be seen as placing disabled children in a mainstream setting, without providing the support they required and allowing them to be there as long as they were able to fit into the existing systems and cultures. It is now acknowledged that the inclusion of disabled, and children with additional needs, involves going much further, and changing the policies, practices and attitudes within the school.

The Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education provides the following definitions of inclusion in education, from the Index for Inclusion in education (Booth and Ainscow 2002), also cited by Thomas and Vaughan 2004 (p183):

Valuing all students and staff equally.
Increasing the participation of students in, and reducing their exclusion from, the cultures, curricula and communities of local schools.
Restructuring the cultures, policies and practices in schools so that they respond to the diversity of students in the locality.
Reducing barriers to learning and participation for all students, not only those with impairments or those who are categorized as `having special educational needs’.
Learning from attempts to overcome barriers to the access and participation of particular students to make changes for the benefit of students more widely.
Viewing the difference between students as resources to support learning, rather than as problems to be overcome.
Acknowledging the right of students to an education in their locality.
Improving schools for staff as well as for students.
Emphasizing the role of schools in building community and developing values, as well as in increasing achievement.
Fostering mutually sustaining relationships between schools and communities.
Recognizing that inclusion in education is one aspect of inclusion in society. (Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, internet source)

Why do we need inclusion?

Whatever their disability or learning difficulty children have a part to play in society after school. An early start in mainstream playgroups or nursery schools, followed by education in ordinary schools and colleges, is the best preparation for an integrated life. Education is part of, not separate from, the rest of children’s lives. Disabled children can be educated in mainstream schools with appropriate support.

As discussed by Ainscow (1999), Inclusion is a feature of the Salamanca Statement which was agreed by 92 governments and 25 international organizations in 1994.

‘The statement argues that regular schools with an inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all’.( Ainscow 1999, p74)

Cited by Thomas and Vaughan (2007), Rustemier argues that segregated schooling breaches all four principles underpinning the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. These principles are:

Non-discrimination (Article 2) – all children should enjoy all rights without discrimination and on the basis of equality of opportunity;
The best interests of the child (Article3);
The right to life, survival and development (Article 6) – development is meant in its broadest sense, including physical health but also mental, emotional, cognitive, social and cultural, and ‘to the maximum extent possible’; and
The views of the child (Article 12) – children have the right to be heard and to have their views taken seriously in matters affecting them.

Rustemier goes on to argue that inclusion has come to mean almost everything but the elimination of exclusion. And that the current education system excludes and segregates large numbers of children from mainstream education because of learning difficulty, disability, and behaviour, despite claiming to have inclusion as its goal. (Thomas and Vaughan, 2004, p 23-24).

Joe Whittaker discusses, in an article which appeared in the Greater Manchester of Disabled People’s Magazine ‘Coalition’, the damage he believes is inflicted on disabled children and their local communities by a system of special schooling and segregation. He further argues that inclusive education will be prevented from being implemented in any meaningful way whilst this system continues.

‘Over the last 50 years different governments have told us that we are moving towards “integration”, where disabled children and non-disabled children work together in the same school and where everyone has equal opportunities. However, simultaneously the same governments have stated that there will always be a need for some children to go to segregated special schools, and legislation was introduced to ensure this would happen’. (Joe Whittaker 2001: pp. 12-16) [See appendix1]

Despite the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the growing number of people in favour of Inclusive mainstream schools and the closure of Special Schools, Government statistics show that there has been an increase in the number of Independent Special Schools in Scotland over the past few years. The number of publicly funded special schools in individual areas of Scotland has also changed. Some areas such as east Ayrshire show an increase while others show a decrease in the number of special schools. There has been a significant increase in pupils with Additional Support Needs attending both Primary and Secondary mainstream schools. There has also been an increase in the number of pupils with IEP’S attending mainstream secondary schools. [See tables1, 2: appendix 2]

There are many reasons why secondary pupils are deemed to need additional support in school. According to the statistics there are 1,816 pupils with Social, emotional and behavioural difficulty; 1,403 of these being boys and only 413 girls. The statistics show that there are significantly more boys with additional support needs than girls. [See table4, appendix 2]

A Scottish Executive National Statistics Publication gives the following information, along with the statistic tables in appendix 2:

Special schools

There were 34 independent special schools in 2004, compared to 33 schools in 2003, and 32 in 2002.
There were 1,132 pupils in independent special schools in 2004, an increase of eight per cent over 2003.
There were 334 teachers (FTE) in independent special schools in 2004, a 17 per cent increase from 2003. There were 3.4 pupils per teacher in 2004, a decrease from 3.7 in 2003.

Special Educational Needs

There were 1,349 pupils with a Record of Needs and/or an Individualised Educational Programme. This is an increase of 105 (eight per cent) from 2003. The largest categories of main difficulty of learning were social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (22.6 per 1,000 pupils) and specific learning difficulties in language and/or mathematics – including dyslexia (6.7 per 1,000 pupils). (Scottish Executive, Internet Source)

Why is it that there seems to be more boys than girls identified as requiring Additional Needs?

One reason could be that boys are seen as more boisterous than girls, thus reported as having behaviour problems, another reason could be that more assessments of boys have been carried out, compared to girls; resulting in an increase of incidences and prevalence. There is also the general assumption that girls mature more quickly than boys.

Cited in ‘A study of children and young people who present challenging behaviour’ – literature review, Cole et al (1998) (1999) established that there were ten to twelve times more boys than girls in English EBD schools and over three times as many boys as girls in PRUs (Pupil Referral Units). This creates very real difficulties in ensuring that girls have a suitable peer group if they attend a ‘mixed’ EBD school (see also Cruddas and Haddock, 2001). Egelund and Hansen (2000) noted a 5:1 boy:girl ratio in segregated provision in Denmark. In Scotland, Lloyd and O’Regan (1999) report that over 80% of the pupils in specialist provision for SEBD are boys. Fortin and Bigras (1997), note that boys heavily outnumber girls in Canadian literature on EBD. (Ofsted 2005)

This literature review was commissioned by Ofsted as part of a large-scale survey to inform the report ‘Managing challenging behaviour’. Ofsted commissioned the University of Birmingham to carry out this research to inform subsequent fieldwork, and gives the assumption that the Gender imbalance is International, and Social Emotional and Behaviour difficulties is one of the categories that creates the most problems. In November 2002 BBC News Online reported Schools in England were identifying more boys than girls as needing special help with their education.

‘New statistics on the gender of those with special needs reveal for the first time that 64% are boys and 36% girls. The gender gap is even wider in the most severe cases – those with formal “statements” of need: 72% are boys and 28% girls. Experts say the reasons are unclear but that – controversially – a large factor might be teachers’ perceptions of what constitutes problematic behaviour’.

It was also reported that children with special educational needs are being turned away from schools because of fears that they could affect their position in exam league tables. Children with’ special needs’ account for almost nine-tenths of permanent exclusions from primary schools, and six-tenths of those from secondary schools. Almost five times as many boys as girls are excluded from school. This corroborates Rustemier’s argument that the education system excludes large numbers of children, especially those deemed to have ‘special needs’.

The report stated that girls and boys are more or less equally likely to have physical disabilities, but boys are far more likely than girls to have specific learning difficulties, autistic disorders or emotional or behavioural problems.

Medical reasons were discussed, and Richard Byers, an SEN expert in Cambridge University’s faculty of education, was quoted as saying that some forms of special need – notably autism – were diagnosed much more often in boys than in girls. More and more cases of autism were being identified, so more boys were said to have SEN. But there was a bigger, “greyer” aspect to the issue, especially where children in mainstream schools were identified as having social, emotional or behavioural difficulties – again, many more of them boys.

Florid felt that we identify one kind of social, emotional or behavioural difficulty which tends to be in boys more often than girls.” This might be that for all kinds of social and cultural reasons teachers perceived boys to be more problematic than girls. So there was an over-identification of boys with SEN – and probably an under-identification of girls’ needs. The Department for Education was quoted as saying that there appears to be some evidence that professionals, including teachers, are likely to identify boys as having SEN particularly in relation to behaviour.”

The BBC also reported that the editor of The Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, Lani Florian, said the gender gap might be as high as 10 to one in the case of emotional and behavioural problems. People had put forward various theories, to do with genes and hormones, for instance – but none had been conclusive. “It has been said that the classroom is just a friendlier environment for girls – but that’s just a theory too,” Dr Florian said. “We really don’t know.” (Gary Eason, BBC News online 2002)

This report has been discussed by various people on a GTC forum as summarized by Allan Witherington – (efacilitator)

Many of the contributors have offered observations from their own experiences in the classroom that confirm the often described differences in attitude, learning style and attainment between boys and girls. Boys were said to be noisier and to lose interest more quickly, whereas girls were quieter, more reflective and better able to deal with written tasks. No-one contested the fact that the gender gap is real. A persistent theme was the need for teachers to deliver lessons offering a variety of learning experiences to cater for the different learning styles of all those in the class’. This was said to be ‘a tall order’. When discussing the quote from a DfES spokesperson as saying, “There appears to be some evidence that professionals, including teachers, are likely to identify boys as having SEN particularly in relation to behaviour.” The question was asked “are they suggesting that the perceptions of the professionals are incorrect? Are we just missing the special needs of girls because they are less obvious”? There seemed to be no answer to this! (GTC forum, internet source) As well as the gender issue, and it being reported that boys are more likely to be identified with Autism and EBD, according to the previously mentioned statistics table 4 (appendix 2), in 2006 there were 19 reasons for support for secondary pupils with Additional support needs compared with The 1944 Education Act which defined eleven categories of disability.

Perhaps the more recent Government Policies and initiatives have contributed to the increase! With the concept of Inclusion there are now more children and young people identified with additional needs attending mainstream schools whereas in previous years they would have been segregated into special schools, the additional rights of the parents could mean that more parents are requesting assessments for their children if they think there is a problem, resulting in more children needing additional support. There are many other reasons which were not previously recognized as Special Educational Needs such as some family circumstances, bullying etc.