Over my years of work I have had to report on many and varied incidences of behaviour management. The following report is an evaluation of a recent incident where the teacher involved asked for guidance on prosocial behaviours. An incident occurred between a kindergarten teacher and one of her children in the class. It was reported to me that the child often “misbehaved” during free play on the Friday before lunch and the teacher had tried on numerous occasions to discipline the child often keeping him in at lunch time. The report below critically evaluated the strategies associated with the incident between the child and teacher by identifying and evaluating the behaviour management strategies implemented. The report then goes on to describe and provide an alternative approach that would have been more effective in guiding the child’s prosocial behaviour.
Evaluation of the strategies used in the incident
Observing the incident between the child and teacher it was clear that the teacher used a punishment disciplinary approach. This approach sits in with James Dobson’s punishment discipline theory and Skinners behaviour modification theory (Edwards, 2008). Dobson felt children needed to learn to submit to authority and that the role of the teacher was to control their behaviour. Skinner advocated tight control and the manipulation of children’s behaviours, he believed that disruptions were certain if their behaviour was not regulated and controlled (Edwards, 2008). The one positive aspect in this incident was that the teacher immediately addressed the behaviour issue, however in using a punishment disciplinary approach it then impacted very negatively on the child, the teacher and the class.
One of the negative aspects in using this approach implied that the child wilfully engaged in wrongdoing (Gartrell, 2011). The teacher then publicly labelled him as naughty and it became an emotional reprimand when she inferred that he needed to be like the other children or no-one would want to play with him and as Ormrod (2011) states “verbal reprimands are only effective when they are immediate, brief and unemotional. Because the reprimand was neither brief nor unemotional the child was then seen to act out as he had been labelled. Children will do this because they often internalise negative comments, seeing themselves as they are labelled (Gartrell, 2011; Ormrod, 2011). Using this method the teacher saw discipline as way of teaching the child a lesson however for the child it turned out to be one of humiliation and not much else, which then prompted the child to behaviour in the manner in which he had been labelled (Watson, 2003).
The teacher then tried to finish the punishment by keeping the child in at lunch time however she utilised the time ineffectively as she made the child sit at his desk in complete silence while she went on with some work. The teacher needed to make it clear to the child what was happening and the behaviour that was being addressed and then followed-up with him about what behaviours were expected (Rogers, 2011). She also needed to find out why it was during this time only that he acted out; perhaps there was an underlying reason for the misbehaviour (Gartell, 2011).
An Alternative Approach
In this incident rather than viewing what had happened in terms of misbehaviour, an alternative approach would be to understand that the child is still learning to develop his interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, and he will make mistakes as he acquires them (Gartrell, 2011). The child appeared to have an unmet desire to explore his environment and engage in relationships and activities, because these needs were unmet his mistaken behaviour was triggered (Gartrell, 2011). It also appeared that he was deliberately misbehaving just on this day and time to avoid going out at lunch time and this issue needed to be explored.
An alternative response to this incident could have been to try to see what his triggers were such as was he trying to gain attention, exercise power or express frustration (Dreikurs & Dinkmeyer, 2003). The teacher needed to acknowledge the child by addressing him directly and then inviting him to join the children on the mat playing with the mobile, in doing this it could have resolved the issue straight away and not have led to the child destroying the building that the children were constructing. If this approach did not work and the child still acted out by destroying the building then the teacher should have taken him aside and talked with him privately, in doing this it would have allowed the child to learn to manage his emotions, to understand his behaviour and how his behaviour made the other children feel. The talk would need to acknowledge the child’s feelings - which is, it’s alright to feel frustrated and upset; but that it is not alright to destroy what his fellow classmates have spent so much time making (Gartrell, 2008). The teacher then needed to ask the child to come to the mat and clean up the mess. Gartrell (2011) provides the opinion that teachers who use the guidance approach will support children’s competence, worth and belonging, this will then drive them toward development and growth, which then results in all of their basic needs being met, this relates to the Hierarchy of Needs model by Maslow (as cited in Berk, 2006).
Further to this talk would be a talk with child about why he only acts out during this time on this day, try to find the underlying issue so it can be resolved and also to let the child know that if he does need help and support his teacher will be there for him.
Bibliography
Berk, L. (2006). Child Development (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Burts, D., Schmidt, H., Durham, R., Charlesworth, R., & Hart, C. (2007). Impact of the Developmental Appropriateness of Teacher Guidance Strategies on Kindergarten Children's Interpersonal Relations. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21(3), 290. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Driekurs, R. & Dinkmeyer, D. (2003). Encouraging Children to Learn. Illinois: Prentice Hall.
Edwards, C. (2008). Classroom Discipline & Management (5th edition). N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gartrell, D. (2008). Comprehensive Guidance. YC: Young Children, 63(1), 44-45. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Gartrell, D. (2011). A guidance approach for the encouraging classroom (5th edition). Washington, DC: Thomson/National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Glasser, W. (2011). Choice Theory in the Classroom. NY: Harper Collins.
Hearron, P. F., & Hildebrand, V. (2009). Guiding Young Children (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Krause, K., Bochner, S., Duchesne, S. & McMaugh, A. (2010). Educational Psychology for Learning and Teaching (3rd edition). Victoria: Cengage Learning Australia.
Marion, M. (2011). Theoretical foundations of child guidance. In Guidance of young children. (8th ed., pp. 27-55). Boston, MA: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Ormrod, J. E. (2011). Educational psychology: Developing learners (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Rogers, B. (2011). Classroom Behaviour. (3rd edition). London: SAGE.
Watson, M. (2003). Attachment Theory and challenging behaviours: Reconstructing the nature of relationships. Young Children, 58(4), 12-20.
Evaluation of the strategies used in the incident
Observing the incident between the child and teacher it was clear that the teacher used a punishment disciplinary approach. This approach sits in with James Dobson’s punishment discipline theory and Skinners behaviour modification theory (Edwards, 2008). Dobson felt children needed to learn to submit to authority and that the role of the teacher was to control their behaviour. Skinner advocated tight control and the manipulation of children’s behaviours, he believed that disruptions were certain if their behaviour was not regulated and controlled (Edwards, 2008). The one positive aspect in this incident was that the teacher immediately addressed the behaviour issue, however in using a punishment disciplinary approach it then impacted very negatively on the child, the teacher and the class.
One of the negative aspects in using this approach implied that the child wilfully engaged in wrongdoing (Gartrell, 2011). The teacher then publicly labelled him as naughty and it became an emotional reprimand when she inferred that he needed to be like the other children or no-one would want to play with him and as Ormrod (2011) states “verbal reprimands are only effective when they are immediate, brief and unemotional. Because the reprimand was neither brief nor unemotional the child was then seen to act out as he had been labelled. Children will do this because they often internalise negative comments, seeing themselves as they are labelled (Gartrell, 2011; Ormrod, 2011). Using this method the teacher saw discipline as way of teaching the child a lesson however for the child it turned out to be one of humiliation and not much else, which then prompted the child to behaviour in the manner in which he had been labelled (Watson, 2003).
The teacher then tried to finish the punishment by keeping the child in at lunch time however she utilised the time ineffectively as she made the child sit at his desk in complete silence while she went on with some work. The teacher needed to make it clear to the child what was happening and the behaviour that was being addressed and then followed-up with him about what behaviours were expected (Rogers, 2011). She also needed to find out why it was during this time only that he acted out; perhaps there was an underlying reason for the misbehaviour (Gartell, 2011).
An Alternative Approach
In this incident rather than viewing what had happened in terms of misbehaviour, an alternative approach would be to understand that the child is still learning to develop his interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, and he will make mistakes as he acquires them (Gartrell, 2011). The child appeared to have an unmet desire to explore his environment and engage in relationships and activities, because these needs were unmet his mistaken behaviour was triggered (Gartrell, 2011). It also appeared that he was deliberately misbehaving just on this day and time to avoid going out at lunch time and this issue needed to be explored.
An alternative response to this incident could have been to try to see what his triggers were such as was he trying to gain attention, exercise power or express frustration (Dreikurs & Dinkmeyer, 2003). The teacher needed to acknowledge the child by addressing him directly and then inviting him to join the children on the mat playing with the mobile, in doing this it could have resolved the issue straight away and not have led to the child destroying the building that the children were constructing. If this approach did not work and the child still acted out by destroying the building then the teacher should have taken him aside and talked with him privately, in doing this it would have allowed the child to learn to manage his emotions, to understand his behaviour and how his behaviour made the other children feel. The talk would need to acknowledge the child’s feelings - which is, it’s alright to feel frustrated and upset; but that it is not alright to destroy what his fellow classmates have spent so much time making (Gartrell, 2008). The teacher then needed to ask the child to come to the mat and clean up the mess. Gartrell (2011) provides the opinion that teachers who use the guidance approach will support children’s competence, worth and belonging, this will then drive them toward development and growth, which then results in all of their basic needs being met, this relates to the Hierarchy of Needs model by Maslow (as cited in Berk, 2006).
Further to this talk would be a talk with child about why he only acts out during this time on this day, try to find the underlying issue so it can be resolved and also to let the child know that if he does need help and support his teacher will be there for him.
Bibliography
Berk, L. (2006). Child Development (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Burts, D., Schmidt, H., Durham, R., Charlesworth, R., & Hart, C. (2007). Impact of the Developmental Appropriateness of Teacher Guidance Strategies on Kindergarten Children's Interpersonal Relations. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21(3), 290. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Driekurs, R. & Dinkmeyer, D. (2003). Encouraging Children to Learn. Illinois: Prentice Hall.
Edwards, C. (2008). Classroom Discipline & Management (5th edition). N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gartrell, D. (2008). Comprehensive Guidance. YC: Young Children, 63(1), 44-45. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Gartrell, D. (2011). A guidance approach for the encouraging classroom (5th edition). Washington, DC: Thomson/National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Glasser, W. (2011). Choice Theory in the Classroom. NY: Harper Collins.
Hearron, P. F., & Hildebrand, V. (2009). Guiding Young Children (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Krause, K., Bochner, S., Duchesne, S. & McMaugh, A. (2010). Educational Psychology for Learning and Teaching (3rd edition). Victoria: Cengage Learning Australia.
Marion, M. (2011). Theoretical foundations of child guidance. In Guidance of young children. (8th ed., pp. 27-55). Boston, MA: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Ormrod, J. E. (2011). Educational psychology: Developing learners (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Rogers, B. (2011). Classroom Behaviour. (3rd edition). London: SAGE.
Watson, M. (2003). Attachment Theory and challenging behaviours: Reconstructing the nature of relationships. Young Children, 58(4), 12-20.
RSS Feed