eds333dissertation.files.wordpress.com · Web viewCONTENTS. CHAPTER 1. Introduction. 1. 1.1 Local...
Transcript of eds333dissertation.files.wordpress.com · Web viewCONTENTS. CHAPTER 1. Introduction. 1. 1.1 Local...
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
Introduction 1
1.1 Local Context 1
1.2 Topic & Rationale 2
1.3 Research Aims 3
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review 4
2.1 Historical Context 4
2.2 Challenging Behaviour 4
2.3 Restorative Justice 7
2.4 Solution Focused Thinking 9
2.5 Shut Up, Move On (SUMO) 11
2.6 Informal Education. 12
CHAPTER 3
Research Design 14
3.1 Paradigm 14
3.2 Methodology 14
3.3 Ethics 15
3.4 Sampling 17
3.5 Data Collection 17
3.6 Quantitative Data 18
Observations 18
3.7 Qualitative Data 19
Questionnaires 20
Interviews 21
Students Work 21
CHAPTER 4
Presentation of Findings 23
4.1 Student 1 23
4.2 Student 2 25
4.3 Student 3 27
4.4 Student 4 29
4.5 Student 5 31
4.6 Student 6 33
CHAPTER 5
Analysis & Discussion 36
5.1 Attendance 36
5.2 Consequences 37
5.3 On Task in Lessons 38
5.4 Students Work 39
5.5 Interviews with Students 40
5.6 The Remaining Students 41
CHAPTER 6
Conclusion 45
References 47
Appendices 54
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Student 1 Observation Data Before
Figure 2 – Student 1 Observation Data After
Figure 3 – Student 2 Observation Data Before
Figure 4 – Student 2 Observation Data After
Figure 5 – Student 3 Observation Data Before
Figure 6 – Student 3 Observation Data After
Figure 7 – Student 4 Observation Data Before
Figure 8 – Student 4 Observation Data After
Figure 9 – Student 5 Observation Data Before
Figure 10 – Student 5 Observation Data After
Figure 11 – Student 6 Observation Data Before
Figure 12 – Student 6 Observation Data After
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Collective Group Attendance
Table 2 – Collective Group Consequences
Table 3 – Collective Group On Task Data
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1:1 Local Context
The school in which this research was undertaken is a large comprehensive
secondary school situated on the outskirts of a large town within an urban
community. There are approximately twelve hundred students currently on
roll aged between eleven and sixteen. The school follows the statutory
requirements of the National Curriculum (NC) at key stage three (KS3) and
four (KS4) although where possible, aim to extend education beyond the
strict limits of the NC by providing a wide range of educational experiences
that enriches and extends their abilities and understanding. The school ethos
“Challenging all to succeed” suggests they have an inclusive vision that
promotes high personal achievement and academic attainment. The school’s
recent Ofsted inspection reported::
A culture of high expectations underpins the school’s work ……………
enabling all students to be ‘the best they can be’.
This was regarded as being the most important observation inspectors made
about the school’s practices. This effective practice can be particularly
witnessed within the school’s Social Inclusion Unit (SIU) where my role is
based. Although placed in the same category as a teaching assistant, my
role is far more extensive, my daily practice is to manage the Referral Room
within the SIU necessitating a wide range of behaviour management skills.
3
Whether they have been sent out of a lesson or they are completing a day in
isolation all students are monitored and if patterns of behaviour arise then the
SIU will intervene using various methods.
1:2 Topic & Rationale
Managing the referral room at the school, I am able to recognise clear
patterns in behaviour through the amount of times a student is sent out of a
lesson or is placed in isolation. My colleagues and I had growing concerns
about a cohort of year seven boys who regularly received consequences for
poor behaviour and appeared to be disengaged with their learning. Their
poor choices resulted in either their removal from lesson and a subsequent
after school detention or a day in isolation in line with the school’s Behaviour
for Learning (BfL) policy (appendix 1).
Previous interventions conducted by myself and other staff members (such
as Restorative Justice (RJ)) had not been successful, mainly due to students
becoming over familiar with the approach. Therefore it was considered
necessary to put together a personalised intervention program to try and
improve their behaviour and attitude to learning. As all previous interventions
were delivered individually it was decided that trialing a group intervention
would be the next step. Therefore, I wanted to monitor the progress of these
students to see if personalising their interventions was effective and if so,
sustainable.
I consider this investigation to be of professional value to those working in the
school and to my professional development. It will provide an opportunity for
4
in-depth analysis and has the potential to bring about improvements in both
school policy and practice.
1:3 Research Aims
The research aimed to systematically explore the effectiveness of a
personalised intervention program to see whether it could improve a group of
year seven students behaviour and attitude to learning.
When selecting suitable research questions, Flick (2011) emphasises that
the questions should involve choices about what exactly you will be studying
and also what you will be dismissing from your study. With this in mind, I
composed the following research questions:
Are personalised interventions effective in improving behaviour over a
period of time?
Are positive effects of interventions sustainable or are further
repeated interventions required?
Furthermore, the objectives of the research were to:
analyse student data in order to ascertain whether there had been a
reduction in the amount of consequences the students received
Investigate whether any improvements can be maintained by the
students into year eight or whether further intervention is needed.
5
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
2.1 Historical Context
The Elton Report was commissioned by the government in 1988 after a
media protest that teachers were being physically attacked by students and
that discipline within schools was deteriorating (Pollard, 2005). Once
completed, the report highlighted that challenging behaviour within schools is
a complex problem of which there are no simple solutions however, the
report advised that schools should clearly define boundaries of behaviour as
well as ensuring that teachers apply principles of good classroom
management. Furthermore, a key recommendation was that Head Teachers
should, in consultation with governors, develop whole school behaviour
policies that can be easily comprehended by staff, parents and students
(DES 1989). Similarly, the Steer Report (DCSF, 2009b) recommended that
schools should provide behaviour management training for all staff and
ensure that newly qualified teachers are equipped with skills that enable
them to deal with challenging behaviour
2.2 Challenging Behaviour
Numerous definitions of challenging behaviour, within literature, either relate
to challenging behaviour as a direct result of a learning disability, or to
challenging behaviour that is displayed in the classroom. The Elton Report
(1989) defined challenging behaviour within a school setting as specifically
being;
6
“any form of behaviour that cause concern to teachers. It can range
from talking in class and not settling to work, to verbal and physical abuse,
destruction of property and bullying”. (cited in Reid & Morgan 2012, p.56).
However it is suggested that the term ‘challenging behaviour’ is difficult to
define explicitly as it is dependent on a number of varying factors that are
often interrelated (Kyriacou, 2001; Rogers, 2004; Bentham, 2006; Leaman,
2009). (Mukherji, 2001; Capel et al, 2004; Cowley, 2010) believe there is a
vast difference in thought when exploring suggested causes of challenging
behaviour. Cooper (1993, p.9) proposes that difficult behaviours are a result
of a complex ‘interaction between contextual factors and aspects which the
individual brings to the situation’. Farrell (1995, p.3) implies that two of the
main factors are the home and school environment stating that they are often
the greatest influence in ‘shaping the social and emotional adjustment of
children’. Dowling (2010) agrees these factors but also suggests that physical
factors can contribute to the cause of challenging behaviour. She mentions
that a lack of sleep can lead children to become restless and overactive and
minimal exercise can interfere with the acquisition of new knowledge.
Applebaum (2008) believes that today’s teachers are coming into regular
contact with students with challenging behaviour and suggests that there are
increasing expectations for teachers to expand the quality of their
approaches when managing these students. Le Messurier (2010) shares this
view but interestingly highlights that the expectations often come from the
students as challenging confrontations within a classroom setting can put the
7
teacher’s reaction under close scrutiny of the class. Consequently, the
reaction is dependent on the outcome which supports Messurier’s belief that
challenging students are ‘reliant on intelligent, poised educators who can
speak quietly or privately to them when reprimanding, who give time for
responses and can cleverly sidestep until the heat of the moment subsides’,
(Messurier, 2010, p. 104).
When promoting effective teaching practice, teachers are often encouraged
to make a specific distinction between factors outside of the classroom and
factors that operate within the classroom (Muijs & Reynolds, 2011; Kyriacou,
2001). Axup and Gersch (2008) highlight that there is a need for teachers to
develop a greater understanding of what causes their reactions to student
misbehaviour, prior to attempting to manage it. Without this
acknowledgement or recognition they believe that student misbehaviour can
be detrimental to a teacher’s self-belief, classroom environment and affect
the confidence that parents and students should have in a teacher’s ability.
When referring specifically to students of a secondary school age, Rogers
(2007) thinks that it is essential for students to learn that every behaviour has
consequential outcomes, both positive and negative, and that these
outcomes can affect the rights of others. He emphasises this point by making
a parallel between school and society explaining that schools need to provide
understanding and experience of consequences because this signifies a
reality in society which also has rules, procedures, consequences and
punishments.
8
However, for some students, the traditional methods used to manage
behaviour are not always effective which has led to the development of
Learning Support Units (LSU’s), a government strategy that aims to promote
inclusion within schools by working with students who may be vulnerable,
disaffected or display behavioural problems (Tilstone & Rose, 2003;
McSherry, 2004).
Williams & Pritchard (2006) considers inclusive working practices to be a
central part of meeting the needs of young people and developing their
enjoyment of school. Similarly Howard (2006) advises that a comprehensive
LSU should cater for a wide range of students needs by providing
individualised programmes. However, The Department for Education & Skills
(DFES, 2002) acknowledges that interventions provided by an LSU may not
have an immediate effect or be easily measured. Some of the interventions
that are delivered by LSU’s will be discussed in the remainder of this
literature review.
2.3 Restorative Justice
Restorative Justice (RJ) is an approach more commonly used within the
Criminal Justice System, it emphasises repairing harm caused by criminal
behaviour and places importance on the needs of victims and the
accountability of offenders (Restorative Justice Council 2013). Essentially, it
provides all parties directly affected by the offence, including members of the
community, an opportunity to come together and resolve collectively how to
deal with the offence, its consequences and implications for the future
(Crawford & Newburn, 2003).
9
Wright (1999) refers to RJ as being an innovative approach as it puts
repairing harm done to people and relationships over and above the need for
allocating blame and distributing punishment. Furthermore Thames Valley
Partnership (2013) implies that RJ is a popular approach with both victims
and offenders and is often viewed as a powerful catalyst for change.
The approach was adapted and introduced into schools in the mid-1990’s to
tackle a number of different behaviours ranging from persistent disruption in
class to assaults and bullying (Calhoun, 2000; Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001;
Rigby, 2002; Elliott & Gordon, 2005).
Pranis (2001, cited in Elliott & Gordon 2005, p.28) explains that two key
elements of the restorative process are listening and storytelling stating their
importance in relation to empowerment. Furthermore, she suggests that in
order for people to feel respected and connected they need to communicate
their stories and be listened to claiming that ‘listening to someone’s story is a
way of empowering them, of validating their intrinsic worth as a human
being’. Similarly, although within a school context, McNeely et al (2002)
proposes that feeling connected, especially to the school community, can
increase pro-social behaviour and reduce anti-social behaviour.
When discussing challenges relating to the implementation of RJ into schools
Hopkins (2002) advises that one of the main challenges can be a shortage of
time, mainly time available within the school day to deal with situations
restoratively but also time available for training. Hogan (2003) agrees that
setting up RJ conferences is time consuming but also considers another
challenge to be actually getting the conference to take place, noting that
10
participants have the right to withdraw. Similarly, Earle (cited in, Bateman &
Pitts 2004) when referring to RJ as an approach to Youth Justice advises that
often the participation of the victims in conferences can be low which can
hinder the approach. Additionally, Dugmore & Pickford (2006) warn that RJ
can be an emotive and anxiety-provoking event and therefore advocate
preparation and support as being key requirements if the meeting is to be
successful.
2.4 Solution Focused Thinking
Solution Focused Brief Therapy, otherwise known as Solution Focused
Thinking (SFT) is an approach that enables people to seek ways to create
the life that they desire by focusing on; solutions rather than problems, the
future as opposed to the past and people’s resources rather than their
deficits. (BRIEF, 2008).
As SFT focuses on the future and promotes the achievement of individual
potential it is considered to be well suited to education related services. The
United Kingdom Association for Solution Focused Practice supports this
consideration by stating that the techniques of the approach ‘can play a vital
role in enhancing the learning and the behaviour of young people’.
Additionally, through focusing on what the student wants and recognising
what they are already good at, they believe it ‘creates a ready means of
building collaboration with even the most reluctant of students’. SFT also
allows parents not to feel blamed for their children’s problems, making it an
approach that is adaptable irrespective of the initial problem (UKASFP,
2011).
11
Including the home in solution finding and involving parents is reflected in the
Special Educational Needs code of Practice (2009),
‘if they feel confident that schools and professionals actively involve
them, take account of their wishes, feelings and unique perspectives on their
children’s development, then the work of those schools and professionals
can be more effective’ (cited in DfE, 2013, p.11).
Ajmal (2001, p. 11) favours this approach as he believe SFT ‘is a way of
looking at the world, at situations and at people that is associated with
change and with hope’. Conversely, Kelly et al (2008, p.22) highlight that
amongst educators SFT is sometimes viewed as being ‘excessively
optimistic and ‘too easy’. In addition to this they advise that resistance can
often be an issue as sometimes students can be ‘in denial’ about their
problem and therefore refuse to participate.
A specific feature of the SFT approach is ‘rating scales’ (DfES, 2005)
although simplistic they can be incredibly effective if the descriptors at each
end are explicit and relevant. This approach is recommended to monitor
students future behaviour as measuring changes can encourage further
changes, which makes using rating scales a highly visual aid and a valuable
tool in order to illustrate progress. In addition, discussing the scales would
reaffirm a student’s positive behaviour and benefit them by helping to
maintain focus on their preferred future and next steps in learning. Hook et al
(2006, p.37) refers to rating scales as being a safe process, noting that the
measurement will always be correct as it is based upon the persons own
‘internal representation’.
12
2.5 Shut Up, Move On (SUMO)
SUMO (2010) is an approach created by Paul McGee that aims to equip
people with skills that enable them to make positive choices, overcome
challenges and achieve success in their lives. It was initially created as a
self-help book for individuals seeking empowerment however, the success of
the book led to the expansion of the approach through presentations,
seminars and workshops amongst private, public and charitable sectors. The
approach was adapted for use in schools to help pupils develop their
emotional literacy which supports personal, social, health and economic
(PSHE) education and Social & Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL).
Renamed ‘Stop, Understand & Move On’, it was originally piloted in five
secondary schools and according to the website the program’s success is
‘unequivocal’ and is shown via the feedback they receive. In support of this
claim they have listed some twenty schools that have deemed the approach
to be successful in their setting. It could be argued that their claim of success
is valid as the approach has also been delivered in primary schools, pupil
referral units and youth organisations such as ‘Connexions’ and ‘Prospects’
(SUMO4Schools). An article published in the TES (2009) confirms that
SUMO is being used by Connexions and Prospects in an attempt to keep ‘at
risk’ pupils in education however it does not contain any statistical
information.
Hodgkinson, the teacher that developed SUMO4Primary testifies that the
phrases used to emphasise the principles of SUMO have ‘quickly caught on
with pupils’ and states that the approach has been very well received by the
children and the parents. (TES, 2009).
13
Rogers (2004), when discussing practical approaches to discipline, believes
that teachers should guide students to own and accept responsibility for their
behaviour and suggests that this cannot be done through traditional
controlling methods which supports the fundamental principles of what
SUMO aims to achieve.
However, although SUMO is being used in practice there does not appear to
be a wide range of literature written about it which highlights a gap in the
research as to its effectiveness. This could possibly be because it is a
relatively new concept, although the minimal amount of literature found was
very much in support of it. As a result of the positive impact of the
programme the school opted to use SUMO as the intervention approach to
try and target the students’ challenging behaviour.
2.6 Informal Education
Another approach is informal education or informal learning, Gerber et al
(cited in Eshach, 2006, p. 117) define informal learning as ‘the sum of
activities that comprise the time individuals are not in the formal classroom in
the presence of a teacher’. Similarly informal education is defined by The
Dictionary of Education (2013) as;
‘learning which takes place without structured teaching, or learning
undertaken in a setting which promotes self-directed learning’.
Mahoney (cited in Richardson & Wolfe, 2001, p.17) argues that informal
education is an approach that can be used in any context as it involves
building relationships and understanding the young people you are working
with. They suggest the characteristics of an informal educator would be
14
someone who is approachable, friendly, open to talk to and has a good
sense of humour. Crosby (cited in Richardson & Wolfe, 2001, p. 54) suggests
that an informal educator’s purpose is to work in a way that encourages
young people to use their experiences as opportunities for learning about
themselves and others.
Eshach (2006) further suggests that informal learning relates to situations in
life that occur spontaneously. An example would be within the family or local
area and these can be reflected in what the individual is reading, watching
and listening to as well as in their hobbies and social life. Taylor & Anderson
(2006) highlight that a challenge of informal education is that participation is
often voluntary and learners can come and go at their choosing.
15
CHAPTER 3
Research Design
3.1 Paradigm
Schostak (2002, p.6) comments that everyone has a specific way of viewing
the world and refers to this as being a ‘paradigm’. Bassey (1999) describes a
research paradigm as a system of coherent ideas regarding the nature of the
world and purpose of researchers which, if followed, will form the pattern of
their thinking and reinforce their research actions. The ‘interpretative
paradigm’ of research allows for the exploration of perspectives and the
development of insights into situations (Bassey, 1999; Wellington, 2000;
Fichtman-Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2009). More specifically, Hatch (2002,
p.180) suggests that:
‘interpretation is about giving meaning to data. It’s about making sense
of social situations by generating explanations for what’s going on within
them’.
Bassey (1999, p.46) acknowledges that interpretive research ‘may offer
possibilities, but no certainties, as to what may be the outcome of future
events’. Therefore, as this study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a
personalised intervention, the interpretive paradigm of research is considered
to be the most appropriate.
3. 2 Methodology
A case study is an approach to educational research that Robson (2002,
p.178) defines as;
16
‘a strategy for doing research which involves an empirical investigation
of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using
multiple sources of evidence’. (Robson, 2002, P. 178).
Arthur et al (2012, p.102) suggest that the purpose of a case study is to
‘explore a phenomenon about which not much is known’ and highlight that
what qualifies as a ‘case’ within research can be varied. Examples of cases
they discuss are individuals, groups, organisations or projects within an
organisation.
Yin (2009) advocates that case studies have the ability to answer why and
how questions and therefore have the potential to evaluate or explain why a
particular programme did or did not work. Consequently a case study is the
ideal approach to evaluate the effectiveness of the personalised intervention
programme.
3.3 Ethics
I sought consent from the Assistant Head Teacher by outlining the aims and
objectives of my research (see declaration).
Blaxter et al (2006) advocate that recognising the complexity and various
facets of ethical issues is of paramount importance and believe that one of
the key principles of research ethics is being clear about the nature of the
agreement you have entered into with your research subjects.
As it is part of my normal practice to intervene with problematic students’
formal consent was not required to implement and monitor the intervention.
However, openness and honesty were conveyed via a cover letter to parents
outlining explicit details of the intervention together with the option to contact
17
the school with any queries or concerns (appendix 2). In addition to this I
sought assent from the students in terms of their agreement to take part in
the intervention willingly after clearly explaining the purpose of it, noting the
key principal highlighted by Blaxter et al (2006).
The British Educational Research Association (BERA, 2011) suggests that
‘honesty and openness should characterize the relationship between
researchers and participants’. In the case of the selected students all twelve
of them provided me with their assent to participate in the intervention.
Furthermore, it is my obligation as a practitioner to ensure the students are
treated with respect, not only to ensure professional conduct but also in
relation to part of the rationale of the intervention which is to model good
behavior. Woolley, (cited in Cole 2008, p.99) insinuates that ‘unless we
model the values that we espouse in the classroom in all our professional
relationships, we will fail to provide an affective education for our children’.
Another ethical issue that required consideration was the removal of the
chosen students from their lessons. Although a possible impact would be
they missed out on learning the value of the intervention would outweigh
them attending their normal lessons. Furthermore, the withdrawal of the
students can be ethically justified as I ensured that they did not miss anything
valuable such as core subjects and assessments by discussing the individual
lessons with their teacher.
Finally, for the purpose of this case study the school will remain confidential
and to ensure anonymity, the selected students will be represented by a
number and any data collected that relates to them or any other participants
18
will be held in the strictest of confidence. The data will be kept on a password
protected computer any notes will be kept off-site in a secure place.
3.4 Sampling
Cohen et al (2007, p.100) believe that;
‘the quality of a piece of research not only stands or falls by the
appropriateness of methodology and instrumentation but also by the
suitability of the sampling strategy that has been adopted’.
With this in mind I opted for a ‘non-probability’ sample (Cohen et al, 2007, p.
113) to target a particular group of students that were repeatedly receiving
consequences for poor behaviour. The exact strategy I used was ‘purposive
sampling’ (Cohen et al, 2007, p. 114) as I carefully selected the individual
students for a specific purpose. This was done by running a report via the
schools Behaviour Watch (BW) system, of which I have access to, which
determined the size of the sample as it identified twelve key offending
students (appendix 3).
3.5 Data Collection
Costley et al (2010, p. 92) advise that the methods you choose to collect data
should be ‘methodologically coherent, practically and ethically feasible, and
capable of providing the type of information you need’.
Reflecting on this recommendation I decided that a combination of
quantitative and qualitative data would be the most suitable data to collect as
it would support my findings when attempting to answer my research
questions and allow a deeper exploration into individual students. Cresswell
19
(2012, p.22) terms the use of both data as a ‘mixed method design’ and
advocates that it can provide a better understanding of a research problem
than if one set of data was used in isolation.
3.6 Quantitative Data
The quantitative data I collected was in the form of observations, attendance
records, reports gathered from the schools BW system and students
individual Behaviour for Learning (BFL) records. The data was used to
identify the amount of consequences the students were receiving prior to and
post the intervention in order to measure the outcome of the intervention and
whether any improvements had been made.
Observations
Robson (2002) highlights that what people do may differ from what they say
they do and therefore suggests that observation provides an opportunity to
look at everyday behaviour that otherwise may be expected or overlooked.
Cohen et al (2007, p.397) discusses ‘structured’ and ‘unstructured’
approaches to observation. Structured observation will know beforehand
what it is examining and have observation categories decided prior to the
observation taking place. Whereas unstructured observation will be unclear
as to what is to be examined and therefore need to observe what is
happening before deciding on its significance in relation to the research.
Bryman (2008, p.257) discusses two specific types of observation:
‘participant’ and ‘non-participant’. Participant observation is where the
observer engages in the activities they are trying to observe with the other
participants being unaware of their involvement and it is usually unstructured.
20
Whereas with non-participant observation the observer is detached from the
activities as well as the group and it is more likely to be structured or
systematic.
It was decided for the purpose of this research that non-participant
observations would be the most suitable and they were carried out prior to
the intervention in order to establish the types of behaviour students were
displaying in lessons. A structured observation schedule was created that
specifically noted behaviours referred to as challenging or disruptive in the
aforementioned literature review as well as recording when the pupil was on
task (appendix 4). Walliman & Buckler (2008) emphasise that documents
used to record observational information need to be consistent from one
observation to another as this can guarantee that the same information is
recorded for the same purpose, specifically to compare. Therefore the layout
of the observation schedule will allow for an effective analysis of findings.
The main aims of the observations were to identify the key individual issues
so that they could be highlighted to the students in order to help them make
future improvements and ultimately recognise why they were receiving
consequences. Observations were also carried out at the end of the
intervention to ascertain whether the types of behaviour had reduced
following the intervention.
3.7 Qualitative Data
The qualitative data I collected was in the form of questionnaires, interviews
and students’ work. Walliman & Buckler (2008) note that observations can
21
capture events as they happen in a natural setting, this allows the researcher
to better understand how events unfold.
Questionnaires
Tymms (cited in Arthur et el, 2012, p.23-232) suggests there are four reasons
for using questionnaires and lists them as being ‘exploratory work’;
‘describing a population’; ‘outcomes or controls in studies’ and ‘feedback’. He
explains that collecting information via a questionnaire during the ‘exploratory
stage’ could help to start to define a problem and further explains that
feedback questionnaires are ‘often intended for formative purposes, so that
better experiences may be experienced next time round’. With this in mind
and to support the aims of my study the questionnaires were completed prior
to the intervention and again at the end.
When devising the student questionnaires I aimed to make them as short and
simple as possible but with predominantly open questions as opposed to
closed (appendix 5). This choice was made to elicit as much information from
the students as possible with regards to their feelings, behaviour and attitude
to learning.
Bryman (2008, p. 232) considers open questions to be advantageous as he
states that they allow the respondents to ‘answer in their own terms’ and
therefore can be useful for exploring areas in which the researcher has
limited knowledge, although he also notes that open questions require
greater effort from respondents which could be a potential disadvantage.
I chose to include a rating scale, otherwise known as a ‘likert scale’ (Bryman,
2008, p.146) within the questionnaire to measure the students attitudes and
22
feelings towards their behaviour, the benefits of which are discussed in SFT
section of the literature review.
Interviews
Bryman (2008) explains that interviews are a flexible and adaptable way of
eliciting information and notes that there are many different types of research
interview. When discussing a ‘semi-structured’ interview he explains that they
will have predetermined questions, but they can be changed to suit the
interviewees based upon the interviewer’s perception of what is appropriate
at the time. Therefore it was decided that semi-structured interviews would
be the most suitable as they would be conducted with both the students and
the year team leader.
Robson (2002, p. 270) particularly advocates the use of ‘post intervention’
interviews as a way of incorporating participants’ perspectives into research
findings, but cautions that they can be time consuming for both the
interviewee and interviewer, due to notes needing to be written up or
recordings transcribed.
Cohen et al (2007, p.365) warns that transcriptions can lose data from the
original interview, filtering out important contextual factors, highlighting the
problem that ‘it becomes solely a record of data rather than a record of a
social encounter’.
Students Work
Students were asked to complete a presentation entitled ‘all about me’
(appendix 6) to give them the opportunity to focus on positive aspects of their
23
lives. This activity was considered important as it counter balanced the
negative reasons as to why the intervention was needed initially.
3.8 Reliability & Validity
Bell (2010, p.120) defines reliability as being ‘the extent to which a test or
procedure produces similar results under constant conditions on all
occasions’ in comparison she refers to validity as being a complex concept
and states that ‘it tells us whether an item measures or describes what it is
supposed to measure or describe’.
Where possible the research methods have been triangulated in an attempt
to ensure the validity of the results, Cohen et al (2007, p. 141) define
triangulation as ‘the use of two or more methods of data collection in the
study of some aspect of human behaviour’ and note that it is used to gain a
greater depth and breadth of evidence and understanding. Evidence
collected from the observations will be qualitatively enhanced by
questionnaire completion and followed by interviews with the students’ and
their year team leader.
24
CHAPTER 4
Presentation of Findings
In this chapter, I will present the findings of individual student’s data prior to
the intervention and after the intervention had been completed.
4.1 Student One
Prior to the intervention student 1’s attendance was 96.43% and he had been
late a total of five times in that term (appendix 7). When observing him in a
lesson student 1 only spent 34% of the time on task, the rest of the time he
lacked concentration and spent equal time either talking or distracting other
pupils.
33%
20%13%
13%
7%3% 3% 7%
Student 1 ON TASK INATTENTIVE SHOUTINGTALKING DISTRACTING OTHER PUPILS DISTRACTING TEACHERPUPILS WAITING OUT OF ROOM ARGUINGOUT OF SEAT
Figure 1 - Student 1 Observation Data Before
Moreover, he had been sent out twenty five lessons for disrupting teaching
and learning and sat eleven days in isolation for poor behaviour (appendix 8).
25
When filling in his pre-intervention questionnaire student 1 was asked to rate
his behaviour on a scale of 1-10. Having just heard how many times he was
sent out of a lesson last term he placed himself between one and two stating
“I can’t really put myself anywhere else can I?”. When asked what he hoped
to achieve by the end of the intervention he wrote “not getting any C3’s”
(appendix 9).
After the intervention student 1’s attendance was 100% and he had only
been late three times (appendix 10). When observing him in a lesson student
1 spent 67% of the time on task, 20% of the time talking and only 10%
lacking in concentration.
67%
10%
20%3%
Student 1ON TASK INATTENTIVE SHOUTINGTALKING DISTRACTING OTHER PUPILS DISTRACTING TEACHERPUPILS WAITING OUT OF ROOM ARGUINGOUT OF SEAT
Figure 2 - Student 1 Observation Data After
He had only been sent out of four lessons for disrupting teaching and
learning and only sat one day in isolation for poor behaviour (appendix 11).
26
When filling in his post-intervention questionnaire student 1 was asked to rate
his behaviour again. This time he rated himself a seven and said “what did I
put before because I think I was probably a one but now I’m definitely a
seven”. When asked if he had achieved what he hoped to by the end of the
intervention he wrote “yes because I followed and listened to all the rules”
(appendix 12).
4.2 Student Two
Prior to the intervention student 2’s attendance was 96.43% and he had been
late a total of eight times in that term (appendix 13). When observing him in a
lesson student 2 only spent 30% of the time on task, the rest of the time he
was talking, lacking in concentration and spent an equal amount of time out
of his seat and distracting other pupils.
30%
20%23%
10%
3%3% 10%
Student 2ON TASK INATTENTIVE SHOUTINGTALKING DISTRACTING OTHER PUPILS DISTRACTING TEACHERPUPILS WAITING OUT OF ROOM ARGUINGOUT OF SEAT
Figure 3 - Student 2 Observation Data Before
Moreover, he had been sent out twenty one lessons for disrupting teaching
and learning and sat six days in isolation for poor behaviour (appendix 14).
27
When filling in his pre-intervention questionnaire student 2 was asked to rate
his behaviour on a scale of 1-10. He initially rated himself an eight but then
said “no, in my dreams that’s where I would like to be”. He then rated himself
a five and said “this is where I wish I was”. He finally rated himself a three
and a four stating “I have to be honest”. When asked what he hoped to
achieve by the end of the intervention he wrote “don’t get C3’s” (appendix
15).
After the intervention student 2’s attendance was 91.18% and he had only
been late five times (appendix 16). When observing him in a lesson student 2
spent over three quarters of the time on task, and the rest of the time talking.
77%
20%3%
Student 2ON TASK INATTENTIVE SHOUTINGTALKING DISTRACTING OTHER PUPILS DISTRACTING TEACHERPUPILS WAITING OUT OF ROOM ARGUINGOUT OF SEAT
Figure 4 - Student 2 Observation Data After
He had only been sent out of one lesson for disrupting teaching and learning
and had not sat any days in isolation for poor behaviour (appendix 17).
28
When filling in his post-intervention questionnaire student 2 was asked to rate
his behaviour again. This time he rated himself a seven and said “I’m much
better now aren’t I Miss?”.When asked if he had achieved what he hoped to
by the end of the intervention he wrote “yes I’ve stopped getting C3’s,
listening, not chatting back” (appendix 18).
4.3 Student Three
Prior to the intervention student 3’s attendance was 89.29% and he had been
late a total of fourteen times in that term (appendix 19). When observing him
in a lesson student 3 was only on task 20% of the time, the rest of the time
he lacked concentration, spent equal time either talking or distracting other
pupils and 16% was spent arguing and shouting.
20%
20%
3%
17%
17%
13% 10%
Student 3ON TASK INATTENTIVE SHOUTINGTALKING DISTRACTING OTHER PUPILS DISTRACTING TEACHERPUPILS WAITING OUT OF ROOM ARGUINGOUT OF SEAT
Figure 5 - Student 3 Observation Data Before
Moreover, he had been sent out twenty two lessons for disrupting teaching
and learning and sat thirteen days in isolation for poor behaviour (appendix
20).
29
When filling in his pre-intervention questionnaire student 3 was asked to rate
his behaviour on a scale of 1-10. Reflecting on how many times he was sent
out of a lesson last term he placed himself between two and three stating “I
can’t believe how many lessons I got sent”. When asked what he hoped to
achieve by the end of the intervention he wrote “being better behaved and
not in C3” (appendix 21).
After the intervention student 3’s attendance was 86.76% and he had only
been late three times (appendix 22). When observing him in a lesson student
3 spent 60% of the time on task, 20% talking and the rest of the time either
lacking concentration or distracting other pupils.
60%
10%
20%
7% 3%
Student 3ON TASK INATTENTIVE SHOUTINGTALKING DISTRACTING OTHER PUPILS DISTRACTING TEACHERPUPILS WAITING OUT OF ROOM ARGUINGOUT OF SEAT
Figure 6 - Student 3 Observation Data After
He had only been sent out of seven lessons for disrupting teaching and
learning and sat four days in isolation for poor behaviour (appendix 23).
30
When filling in his post-intervention questionnaire student 3 was asked to rate
his behaviour again. He rated himself between a six and a seven and said
“well nobody’s perfect all the time”. When asked if he had achieved what he
hoped to by the end of the intervention he said “yes” and wrote “by listening
and trying not to be loud” (appendix 24).
4.4 Student Four
Prior to the intervention student 4’s attendance was 92.86% and his
timekeeping was excellent with no late marks recorded (appendix 25). When
observing him in a lesson student 4 spent 33% of the time on task, the rest of
the time he lacked concentration, was talking, distracting other pupils and
spent 10% of the time arguing and shouting.
33%
27%3%
17%
10% 7% 3%
Student 4ON TASK INATTENTIVE SHOUTINGTALKING DISTRACTING OTHER PUPILS DISTRACTING TEACHERPUPILS WAITING OUT OF ROOM ARGUINGOUT OF SEAT
Figure 7 - Student 4 Observation Data Before
Furthermore he had been sent out of seventeen lessons for disrupting
teaching and learning and sat eleven days in isolation for poor behaviour
(appendix 26).
31
When filling in his pre-intervention questionnaire student 4 was asked to rate
his behaviour on a scale of 1-10. He initially rated himself a seven stating
“that’s what I could be if I tried Miss”. He then rated himself a three and said
“but I reckon I’m here at the moment”. When asked what he hoped to achieve
by the end of the intervention he wrote “to be good get good education”
(appendix 27).
After the intervention student 4’s attendance was 91.18% and his
timekeeping was still excellent with no late marks recorded (appendix 28).
When observing him in a lesson student 4 spent 63% of the time on task,
17% talking and the rest of the time lacking concentration, getting out of his
seat or distracting other pupils.
63%10%
17%3% 7%
Student 4ON TASK INATTENTIVE SHOUTINGTALKING DISTRACTING OTHER PUPILS DISTRACTING TEACHERPUPILS WAITING OUT OF ROOM ARGUINGOUT OF SEAT
Figure 8 - Student 4 Observation Data After
He had only been sent out of seven lessons for disrupting teaching and
learning and sat six days in isolation for poor behaviour (appendix 29).
32
When filling in his post-intervention questionnaire student 4 was asked to rate
his behaviour again. He rated himself a seven stating “I could still try harder
look what happened on the last day”. When asked if he had achieved what
he hoped to by the end of the intervention he wrote “yes because 6 weeks,
last day not good” (appendix 30). Unfortunately student 4 had to sit a day in
isolation for swearing at a teacher.
4.5 Student Five
Prior to the intervention student 5’s attendance was 100% and had only been
late twice in that term (appendix 31). When observing him in a lesson,
student 5 spent nearly half the lesson on task, nearly a quarter of his time
was spent talking, the rest of his time was spent lacking in concentration and
distracting other pupils.
48%
14%
24%
10% 3%
Student 5ON TASK INATTENTIVE SHOUTINGTALKING DISTRACTING OTHER PUPILS DISTRACTING TEACHERPUPILS WAITING OUT OF ROOM ARGUINGOUT OF SEAT
Figure 9 - Student 5 Observation Data Before
Furthermore he had been sent out of fifteen lessons for disrupting teaching
and learning and sat two days in isolation for poor behaviour (appendix 32).
33
When filling in his pre-intervention questionnaire student 5 was asked to rate
his behaviour on a scale of 1-10. He immediately rated himself a three saying
“I know I’m bad at the moment”. When asked what he hoped to achieve by
the end of the intervention he wrote “good behaviour and get on with my
work” (appendix 33).
After the intervention student 5’s attendance was 97.06% and he had not
been late once (appendix 34). When observing him in a lesson student 5
spent 64% of the time on task, an equal amount of time was spent lacking
concentration and talking, the rest of the time spent varied due to the student
needing help from the teacher.
63%10%
10%
3%3% 3% 7%
Student 5ON TASK INATTENTIVE SHOUTINGTALKING DISTRACTING OTHER PUPILS DISTRACTING TEACHERPUPILS WAITING OUT OF ROOM ARGUINGOUT OF SEAT
Figure 10 - Student 5 Observation Data After
He had only been sent out of two lessons for disrupting teaching and learning
and had not sat any days in isolation for poor behaviour (appendix 35).
34
When filling in his post-intervention questionnaire student 5 was asked to rate
his behaviour again. He rated himself a seven and said “I’m doing so much
better now”. When asked if he had achieved what he hoped to by the end of
the intervention he said “yes” and wrote “learnt that if I do good we get good
things” (appendix 36).
4.6 Student Six
Prior to the intervention student 6’s attendance was 85.71% and he had been
late a total of four times in that term (appendix 37). When observing him in a
lesson student 6 spent 64% of the time on task, he only lacked concentration
for 20% of the time and 6% was spent equally distracting other pupils or the
teacher and getting out of his seat.
63%
20%
7%3% 3% 3%
Student 6ON TASK INATTENTIVE SHOUTINGTALKING DISTRACTING OTHER PUPILS DISTRACTING TEACHERPUPILS WAITING OUT OF ROOM ARGUINGOUT OF SEAT
Figure 11 - Student 6 Observation Data Before
Furthermore, he had only been sent out of six lessons for disrupting teaching
and learning and sat three days in isolation for poor behaviour (appendix 38).
35
When filling in his pre-intervention questionnaire student 6 was asked to rate
his behaviour on a scale of 1-10. He was initially confused by the rating scale
and rated himself a four and a nine, he said “a nine is what I want to be Miss
but I’m probably a four”. After a further explanation of what to do student 6
circled two numbers again, this time three and six stating “actually I’m
probably a three because of my swearing and I’ll only get to a six if I don’t
stop”. When asked what he hoped to achieve by the end of the intervention
he wrote “behaviour and C3’s because I swearing and fighting” (appendix
39).
After the intervention student 6’s attendance was 92.65% but he had been
late eight times (appendix 40). When observing him in a lesson student 6
spent nearly three quarters of the time on task and the rest of the time talking
36
and getting out of his seat.
73%
20% 7%
Student 6ON TASK INATTENTIVE SHOUTINGTALKING DISTRACTING OTHER PUPILS DISTRACTING TEACHERPUPILS WAITING OUT OF ROOM ARGUINGOUT OF SEAT
Figure 12 - Student 6 Observation Data After
He had not been sent out of any lessons for disrupting teaching and learning,
neither had he sat any days in isolation for poor behaviour (appendix 41).
37
When filling in his post-intervention questionnaire student 6 was asked to rate
his behaviour again. He immediately rated himself a ten and took great pride
in circling it three times stating “I’m that now because I haven’t got sent or
nothing”. When asked if he had achieved what he hoped to by the end of the
intervention he wrote “yes because I listened and stayed calm” (appendix
42).
CHAPTER 5
Analysis & Discussion
38
Previously I reflected upon the findings of my research whereas I will now
explore the results in further detail:- examining the broader implications
making comparisons to the research aims and the aforementioned literature.
5.1 Attendance
Before After Difference
Student 1 96.43% 100% 3.57%
Student 2 96.43% 91.18% 5.25%
Student 3 89.29% 86.76% 2.53%
Student 4 92.86% 91.18% 1.68%
Student 5 100% 97.06% 2.94%
Student 6 85.71% 92.65% 6.94%
Table 1 - Collective Group Attendance
Of the six students that completed the intervention, four of the students’
attendance figures decreased however, this was as a result of absence days
either through illness or for other authorised circumstances (student had a
funeral to attend). For the students whose attendance increased, it could be
argued that the progress they made during the intervention had resulted in
them feeling more positive about school and therefore wanting to attend
school more frequently. Or it could be as Williams & Pritchard (2006)
suggested that an inclusive working practice, such as the personalised
intervention, met the needs of the students and, as a result, developed their
enjoyment of school (chapter 2, section 2.2).
5.2 Consequences
39
Before After Improvement
Student 1 25 4 84%
Student 2 21 1 95%
Student 3 22 7 68%
Student 4 17 7 58%
Student 5 15 2 86%
Student 6 6 0 100%
Table 2 - Collective Group Consequences
All of the students significantly reduced the amount of times they were sent
out of lessons during the intervention. A plausible suggestion could be that as
the students knew their participation in the team building activities were
dependent upon their behaviour, they were motivated by this reward and as a
result displayed good behaviour to guarantee attendance. Skinner (cited in
Jacques & Hyland, 2007, p78) refers to this as ‘Operant Conditioning’ which
uses extrinsic motivators, such as the team building activities, to reward
desired behaviour in the hope that it is repeated. This was evident in the
majority of the students as none of them missed a team building activity.
However, Amabile (cited in Jacques & Hyland, 2007, p79) cautions the use of
too many extrinsic motivators and over rewarding challenging students,
suggesting that it can eliminate the desired behaviour instead of reinforcing it.
5.3 On Task in Lessons
Before After Improvement
Student 1 34% 67% 33%
Student 2 30% 77% 47%
40
Student 3 20% 60% 40%
Student 4 33% 63% 30%
Student 5 48% 64% 16%
Student 6 64% 73% 9%
Table 3 - Collective Group On Task Data
All of the students significantly increased the time they spent on task within
lessons which could reflect a transformation in the students’ attitudes to their
learning. A tentative claim could be made that the students were no longer
entering lessons that they had previously been sent out of in a negative way
which relates to what Cooper (1993) said about the aspects that an individual
may bring to a situation (chapter 2, section 2.2). Similarly Farrell (1995)
implied that the school environment was one of the main influences that
shaped a child’s social and emotional adjustment (chapter 2, section 2.2)
therefore it could be argued that, as the students were receiving support from
one of their main influences, it enabled them to adjust their behaviour to
being more positive. Furthermore, the additional exercise the students took
part in through the team building activities could be a reasonable suggestion
as to why their focus in lessons increased which would support what Dowling
(2010) said about minimal exercise interfering with their acquisition of
knowledge (chapter 2, section 2.2). However, it could also be conceivable
that there was a demonstration of the ‘Hawthorne Effect’ at work (cited in
Jamison, 2006, p.27) whereby the students improved or modified their
behaviour in response to the fact that they were being observed.
41
5.4 Students’ Work
Further reflecting on a possible transformation of attitude, within their ‘all
about me’ presentations, some of the comments made by the students about
their ambitions and how the intervention helped them were:
“I would like to achieve good grades with maybe 2 or 3 over a C or B”(appendix 43)
“I would like to achieve my goal not to get C3’s and be a role model to new year seven who come to
the school” (appendix 44)
“My C3’s have gone down MAJORLY. I’m going down the right road. I am in much more of my
lessons” (appendix 45)
“I’m a different person. I have not got a C3 in about 2 or 3 weeks” (appendix 46)
“I’ve improved on lowering my C3. I’ve improved the most in Spanish. My ambitions to get good
GCSE exam results” (appendix 47)
(Student 6 did not want their work to be included)
Tentative claims could be made that the use of informal education within this
activity enabled the practitioners to better understand the students and build
relationships with them as Mahoney suggests (cited in Richardson & Wolfe,
2001) (chapter 2, section 2.6) which could of contributed to the students
positive attitudes about their future. The activity gave the students the
opportunity to use their experience of the intervention to learn more about
themselves which is what Crosby (cited in Richardson & Wolfe, 2001)
(chapter 2, section 2.6) suggests is the purpose of an informal educator.
Furthermore, reflecting on my contribution to the intervention it could be
argued that the tacit way in which the students were approached and the
support that was provided reinforced the informal education approach.
42
Moreover, the fact that the students view me as a non-authoritative figure
could be as legitimate and as effective as formal education.
5.5 Interviews with Students’
To further evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, a focus group was
held with the students six months later to elicit their thoughts on the
intervention as a whole (appendix 48). When I asked them what they could
remember some of their responses were:
“We went on loads of trips and we did the SUMO thingy where we did the change your t-shirt thingy and every monday periods 1 or 5 we met up with you to see how we got on”
“We used to like get good things if you do good things in school and you didn’t get to go on the trips if you don’t do good things”
“we went on a stinky farm and he ate worms and I didn’t get a C3 for ages”
When I asked them what they remembered about SUMO their responses
were:
“stop, understand, move on”
“it taught us ways to calm down”
“I can remember doing the change your t-shirt thingy and like the thing of a list of our needs and
remember the beach ball thingy”
“that’s what I remember too”
Tentative claims could be made that the introduction of SUMO as a new
approach really resonated with the students as they were able to remember
some of the key principles of the approach and use them as a way to
manage their emotions and behaviour. This would support what Hodgkinson
said about the phrases catching on with pupils and the approach being
received well by them (chapter 2, section 2.5). However, it could be argued
that the students only remembered the phrases because they were
memorable and not the actual underlying principle behind them.
43
When asked what they had learnt some of their responses were:
“a way to calm ourself and not have a go at the teachers”
“I got more respect from the teachers”
“ if I was in a situation where I was like really angry and I didn’t know what to do like whether to like just not say anything or like shout I learnt how to calm down and talk about it after”
“I learnt to be nice and um I don’t know, I can’t think”
When I asked them if the intervention helped them some of their responses
were:
“yeah, I stopped getting C3’s”
“yeah it does because if we don’t get any C3’s we get good stuff”
“Because I learnt how to call the teachers names without actually saying something, just to say it in
your head”
Reflecting on the students overall responses it could be implied that they
found the personalised intervention beneficial as they were able to improve
their behaviour and alter their attitudes, but as the DFES (2002) mention, the
effect of an intervention provided by an LSU may not have an immediate
effect or be easily measured (chapter 2, section 2.2) it could be said that the
effectiveness of the intervention would need to be measured over a longer
period of time.
5.6 The Remaining Students
At this point it is important to note that we began the intervention with twelve
students, the reasons as to why the other six students did not complete the
intervention will now be examined. To summarise:
Student 7 – was permanently excluded in week two of the intervention
following a physical attack on another student.
44
Students 8 & 9 – were removed from the intervention in week two &
three after receiving three strikes for continued poor behaviour.
Student 10 - was also removed from the intervention in week three
after receiving three strikes for continued poor behaviour and for
showing no signs of improvement in relation to the amount of
consequences he was getting.
Students 11 & 12 – did not always attend the intervention, their
participation was irregular and as result they did not achieve the full
benefit of it.
The reason as to why student 7 did not complete the intervention is
conclusive. Unfortunately the reasons as to why students 8, 9 & 10 did not
complete it were unexplored due to time constraints. However, student 8’s
parents later elected to have him home educated, a plausible suggestion
could be that student 8 was aware of this and therefore did not want to
commit fully to the intervention. Student 9’s behaviour continued to
deteriorate and despite further intervention he was permanently excluded.
Student 10 was later transferred to another school by his parents, a possible
suggestion for the lack of improvement could be that student 10 was no
longer concerned about the amount of consequences he was receiving as he
knew he would get a fresh start at his new school.
Regrettably the reasons as to why students 11 & 12 did not always attend the
intervention were also unable to be determined due to time constraints. It is
appropriate to note that their participation in the intervention was voluntary
which Taylor & Anderson (2006) highlighted as a challenge of informal
education (chapter 2, section 2.6). However I think that both students would
45
have benefitted from an informal conversation and possibly some
encouragement to remain involved in the intervention. It could be argued that
perhaps we as practitioners were placing too much importance on the
students who had the highest amount of consequences and not distributing
our efforts equally.
When I asked the six students that completed the intervention why they
thought the other students did not complete it some of their responses were:
“too many C3’s still and fights ”
“exclusions”
“I think because they didn’t concentrate and um a few of them smoke so they were getting really under pressure, it’s like peer pressure ennit though. also we are all a big group of mates and we are all naughty so it was like hard enough not talking to people that you don’t even like but talking to your mates whilst they are all around you it’s a bit, I don’t know”
“because they was naughty, fighting, smoking, back chatting and getting excluded”
" I don’t think they understood that like if they did good things then like they would get a reward for it
so like they just didn’t think about it that way so they just thought there’s no point in actually trying
cos they’re not gunna get anything out of it”
“I just reckon they didn’t care”
(appendix 48 )
Interestingly, when I asked the year team leader the same question during an
interview one of her responses was:
“Possibly peer pressure because certainly some of them felt that they had let down the group down
when they were unable to go on one of the team building sessions due to some of them getting a C3
that week and also when they were asked to leave the group” (appendix 49).
The correlation of this opinion with one of the student’s opinions could
suggest that although the intervention was positive for some it could have
46
been negative for the others due the pressure being applied by their peers to
improve. However, although it was disappointing that they failed to complete
the intervention, it could also be proposed that it was a necessary process for
the students to go through which supports Rogers’ (2007) view that students
need to learn the consequential outcomes of their behaviour, whether
positive or negative and acknowledge that they can affect the rights of others
(chapter 2, section 2.2).
47
CHAPTER 6
Conclusion
The main aim of this research was to explore the effectiveness of a
personalised intervention program to see whether it could improve a group of
year seven students behaviour and attitude to learning. It was hoped that the
research would discover whether personalised interventions were effective in
improving behaviour over a period of time and if there were any positive
effects, to see if they were sustainable or whether further interventions would
be required.
A relatively new approach referred to as SUMO was included in the
intervention as all previous approaches used with the students had been
unsuccessful. Additionally the use of informal education and team building
exercises aided the personalisation of this intervention.
The data shows that there was a vast reduction in the amount of
consequences the students received during and after the intervention as well
as considerable improvements in their attitude in and out of the classroom.
Although the evidence suggests that the personalised intervention was
effective for those students who completed it, it appeared to be ineffective for
the students who did not complete it, therefore the outcome of whether it was
truly effective or not could be inconclusive. It is important to note that as the
vast majority of evidence gathered from this case study was qualitative it is
also open to questions of interpretation and bias.
48
While I predicted the outcomes of each student to vary, I had not expected to
finish the intervention with only six students, this could be largely due to an
element of naivety or as a result of being a novice researcher. Incidentally
the staff made it explicit that participation in the team building activities had to
be collective, it could be suggested that this decision caused an unexpected
amount of peer pressure, which may have created a feeling of segregation
and consequently made it more difficult for relationships to be built between
students and staff. Taking this in to consideration, an implication for future
interventions would be that this rule was not imposed.
With regards to the research question ‘are positive effects of interventions
sustainable or are further interventions required?’ due to time constraints and
lack of staff we were unable to ascertain whether any improvements were
transferred by the students into year eight, therefore this question remains
unanswered. Future interventions would need to be amended to take account
of this and lengthened to include follow ups at regular intervals, something
that was suggested by the year team leader as an area of improvement.
Although the literature highlighted a gap in SUMO’s effectiveness as an
approach, having conducted the research and analysed the results, I believe
it contributed to the overall success of the intervention which is in
concurrence with the majority of literature that was found regarding SUMO.
49
References
Ajmal, Y. (2001) Solutions in Schools, Creative Applications of Solution Focused
Brief Thinking with Young People and Adults, London: BT Press.
Applbaum, M. (2008) How to Handle the Hard to Handle Student, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Arthur, J., Waring, M., Coe, R., and Hedges, L.V. (2012) Research Methods &
Methodologies in Education. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Axup, T. & Gersch, I. (2008) ‘The impact of challenging students behaviour upon
teachers’ lives in a secondary school: teacher’s perceptions’, British Journal of
Special Education 35 (3) EBSCO.
Bassey, M. (1999) Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Bateman, T. & Pitts, J. (2004) The RHP Companion to Youth Justice. Lyme Regis:
Russell House Publishing.
Bell, J. (2010) Doing Your Research Project, A guide for first-time researchers in
education, health and social science, 5th Edn, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Bentham, S. (2006) A Teaching Assistant’s guide to Child Development and
Psychology in the classroom, London: RoutledgeFalmer.
BERA (2011) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, London: British
Educational Research Association.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (2006) How to Research, 3rd Edn, Berkshire:
Open University Press.
50
BRIEF (2008) Available at: http://www.brief.org.uk/view.php?item_id=108 (Accessed
March 2013).
Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods, 3rd Edn, Oxford: University Press.
Calhoun, A. (2000) Calgary Community Conferencing School Component 1999-
2000: A Year in Review. Available at:http://calgarycommunity
conferencing.com/?page_id=11(Accessed March 2013).
Cameron, L. & Thorsborne, M. (2000) ‘Restorative Justice and School Discipline:
Mutually Exclusive?’, in H. Strang & J. Braithwaite, Restorative Justice and Civil
Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (pp.180-194).
Capel, S., Leask, M., & Turner, T. (2004) Starting to Teach in the Secondary School:
A companion for the newly qualified teacher, 2nd Edn. Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007) Research Methods in Education, 6th
Edn, London: Routledge.
Cole, M. (2008) Professional Attributes and Practice, Meeting the QTS Standards 4,
London: Routledge.
Cooper, P. (1993) Effective Schools for Disaffected Students. London:
Routledge.
Costley, C., Elliott, G., and Gibbs, P. (2010) Doing Work Based Research,
Approaches to Enquiry for Insider-Researchers, London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Cowley, S. (2010) Getting The Buggars To Behave, 4th Edn, London: Continuum.
Crawford, A. & Newburn, T. (2003) Youth Offending and Restorative Justice:
Implementing Reform in Youth Justice. Cullompton:Willan.
51
Cresswell, J.W. (2012) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 4th Edn, London: Pearson.
DCSF (2009b) Learning Behaviour: Lessons Learned A Review of Behaviour
Standards and Practices in our Schools. Nottingham: DCSF Publications.
DES (1989) Discipline in Schools, Report of the Committee of Enquiry, Chaired by
Lord Elton, London: HMSO.
DfE (2013) Available at: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/
publicationDetail/Page1/DCSF-00639-2008 (Accessed March 2013).
DfES, (2002). Good Practice Guidelines for Learning Support Units. Nottingham:
DfES.
DfES, (2005) Primary National Strategy, Focusing on Solutions: a positive approach
to improving behaviour, Unknown.
Dictionary of Education (2013) Available at: http://www.dictionaryofeducation.
co.uk/i/i/blog (Accessed March 2013).
Dowling, M. (2010) Young Children’s Personal, Social & Emotional Development, 3rd
Edn, London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Dugmore, P. & Pickford, J. (2006) Youth Justice and Social Work. Exeter: Learning
Matters Ltd.
Elliott, E. & Gordon, R.M. (2005) New Directions in Restorative Justice:
Issues, Practice, evaluation. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Eshach, H. (2006) Science Literacy in Primary Schools and Pre-Schools. The
Netherlands: Springer.
52
Farrell, P. (1995) Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. London: The
Falmer Press.
Fichtman-Dana, N. & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009) The Reflective Educator’s Guide to
Classroom Research: Learning to Teach and Teaching to Learn through Practitioner
Inquiry. London: Sage Ltd.
Flick, U. (2011) Introducing Research Methodology, A Beginner’s Guide to Doing a
Research Project. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Hatch, J.A. (2002) Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Hogan, C. (2003) Practical Facilitation: A Toolkit of Techniques. London:
Kogan Page.
Hook, P., McPhail, I., & Vass, A. (2006) Coaching & Reflecting: a pocketful of
practical skills and strategies for improving performance and raising attainment at
every level in school. Hampshire: Teachers’ Pocketbooks.
Hopkins, B. (2002) ‘Restorative Justice in Schools’, Support for Learning 17 (3).
EBSCO.
Howard, P. (2006) East Sussex Learning Support Units Good Practice Guidance
Available at: https://czone.eastsussex.gov.uk/School
management/administration/attendancebehaviour/behavioursupport/Documents/
East%20Sussex%20LSU%20Guidance.pdf (Accessed March, 2013).
Jacques, K. & Hyland, R. (2003) Professional Studies: Primary Phase (2nd Edition),
Wiltshire: Learning Matters.
Jamison, J. (2006) Research Methods in Psychology for High School Students,
Lincoln: iUniverse.
53
Kelly, M.S., Kim, J.S., & Franklin, C. (2008) Solution-Focused Brief Therapy in
Schools: A 360-Degree View of Research & Practice. Oxford: University Press.
Kyriacou, C. (2001) Effective Teaching in Schools: Theory & Practice, 2nd Edn.
Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
Leaman, L. (2009) Managing Very Challenging Behaviour, 2nd Edn. London:
Continuum.
Le Messurier, M. (2010) Teaching Tough Kids, Oxon: Routledge.
McNeely, C.A., Nonnemaker, J.M. & Blum, R.W. (2002) ‘Promoting School
Connectedness: Evidence for the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health’,
Journal of School Health, 72 (4) EBSCO.
McSherry, J. (2004) Learning Support Units: Principles, Practice and Evaluation.
London, David Fulton.
Muijs, D. & Reynolds, D. (2011) Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice, London:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Mukherji, P. (2001) Understanding Children’s Challenging Behaviour. Cheltenham:
Nelson Thornes Ltd.
Pollard, A. (2005) Reflective Teaching, 2nd Edn, London: Continuum.
Reid, K. & Morgan, N.S. (2012) Tackling Behaviour in your Primary School.
Oxon: Routledge.
Restorative Justice Council (2013) Available at: http://www.restorativejustice
.org.uk/what_is_restorative_justice/ (Accessed March 2013).
Richardson, L.D & Wolfe, M. (2001) Principles and Practice of Informal Education:
Learning Through Life, London: RoutledgeFalmer.
54
Rigby, K. (2002) New Perspectives on Bullying. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and
Practitioner-Researchers, 2nd Edn, Oxford: Blackwell.
Rogers, B. (2004) How to manage children’s challenging behaviour. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing.
Rogers, B. (2004) The language of Discipline: A practical approach to effective
classroom management, 2nd Edn, Tavistock: Northcote House Publishers.
Rogers, B. (2007) Behaviour Management: A Whole School Approach, 2nd Edn,
London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Schostak, J. (2002) Understanding, Designing & Conducting Qualitative Research in
Education: framing the project. Buckingham: Open University Press.
SUMO (2010) Available at: http://www.thesumoguy.com/ (Accessed March 2013)
SUMO4Schools (2010) Available at: http://secondary.sumo4schools.com/
default.aspx (Accessed March 2013).
Taylor, H.F. & Anderson, M.L. (2006) Sociology Understanding a Diverse Society,
4th Edn, London: Thompson Wadsworth.
TES (2009) Available at: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?Storycode=
6025125 (Accessed March 2013).
TES (2009) Available at: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=
6020384 (Accessed March 2013).
Thames Valley Partnership (2013) Available at: http://www.thamesvalley
partnership.org/ccc/work/restorative-justice/tvrjs (Accessed March 2013).
55
Tilstone, C. & Rose, R. (2003) Strategies to Promote Inclusive Practice.
London:RoutledgeFalmer.
UKASFP. (2011) Available at: http://www.ukasfp.co.uk/cms-pages/about-sfp.cfm?
pageID=154. (Accessed March 2013).
Walliman, N. & Buckler, S. (2008) Your Dissertation in Education, London: Sage
Publications.
Wellington, J. (2000) Educational Research: Contemporary Issues and Practical
Approaches. London: Continuum.
Williams, R. & Pritchard, C. (2006) Breaking the Cycle of Educational Alienation: A
Multiprofessional Approach. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Wright, M. (1999) Restoring Respect for Justice. Winchester: Waterside
Press.
Yin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th Edn, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
56
Appendix
Appendix 1 – Behaviour for Learning Policy
Appendix 2 – Letter to Parents
Appendix 3 – Top 20 Behaviour Watch Report
Appendix 4 – Observation Schedule
Appendix 5 – Student Questionnaires
Appendix 6 – All About Me
Appendix 7 – Student 1 Attendance Before
Appendix 8 – Student 1 Consequences Before
Appendix 9 – Student 1 Questionnaire Before
Appendix 10 – Student 1 Attendance After
Appendix 11 – Student 1 Consequences After
Appendix 12 – Student 1 Questionnaire After
Appendix 13 – Student 2 Attendance Before
Appendix 14 – Student 2 Consequences Before
Appendix 15 – Student 2 Questionnaire Before
Appendix 16 – Student 2 Attendance After
Appendix 17 – Student 2 Consequences After
Appendix 18 – Student 2 Questionnaire After
Appendix 19 – Student 3 Attendance Before
Appendix 20 – Student 3 Consequences Before
Appendix 21 – Student 3 Questionnaire Before
Appendix 22 – Student 3 Attendance After
Appendix 23 – Student 3 Consequences After
Appendix 24 – Student 3 Questionnaire After
Appendix 25 – Student 4 Attendance Before
57
Appendix 26 – Student 4 Consequences Before
Appendix 27 – Student 4 Questionnaire Before
Appendix 28 – Student 4 Attendance After
Appendix 29 – Student 4 Consequences After
Appendix 30 – Student 4 Questionnaire After
Appendix 31 – Student 5 Attendance Before
Appendix 32 – Student 5 Consequences Before
Appendix 33 – Student 5 Questionnaire Before
Appendix 34 – Student 5 Attendance After
Appendix 35 – Student 5 Consequences After
Appendix 36 – Student 5 Questionnaire After
Appendix 37 – Student 6 Attendance Before
Appendix 38 – Student 6 Consequences Before
Appendix 39 – Student 6 Questionnaire Before
Appendix 40 – Student 6 Attendance After
Appendix 41 – Student 6 Consequences After
Appendix 42 – Student 6 Questionnaire After
Appendix 43 – Student 1 Work
Appendix 44 – Student 2 Work
Appendix 45 – Student 3 Work
Appendix 46 – Student 4 Work
Appendix 47 – Student 5 Work
Appendix 48 – Focus Group Transcript
Appendix 49 – Year Team Leader Interview Transcript
58