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











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


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%



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


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%



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


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


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%



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


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%



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


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%



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


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%



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


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%



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


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%



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


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


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%



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


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%



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


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














57


















Appendix 43 – Student 1 Work





Appendix 48 – Focus Group Transcript

Appendix 49 – Year Team Leader Interview Transcript

58

eds333dissertation.files.wordpress.com · Web viewCONTENTS. CHAPTER 1. Introduction. 1. 1.1 Local...

Documents

Transcript of eds333dissertation.files.wordpress.com · Web viewCONTENTS. CHAPTER 1. Introduction. 1. 1.1 Local...