Students Behaviour in Different Contexts - Essay Example

Behaviour Introduction There is a looming crisis faced by and educators, ranging from disruptions, aggression and academic failure (Rogers, 2011). Children with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties (BESD’s) always present specific challenges in the school and classroom and many teachers struggle to deal with these challenges. Students with behaviour problems are actually at risk of having multiple problems in their academic, social and daily lives (Wearmouth, Glynn and Berryman, 2005). They are more likely to experience behaviour problems such as dropping out of school before completing high school, being suspended or expelled, commit crimes and have strained relationships with parents and siblings. Perhaps this phenomenon justifies the famous quote, “student’s behaviour in schools does not occur in a vacuum” (Wearmouth 2005, p. 111). This paper will comment on Wearmouth’s quote to help understand student’s behaviour in different contexts. Discussion Students’ behaviour has elicited mixed reactions among education experts especially with regards to their unusual and unbecoming behaviour (Rogers, 2011). The SEN code of practise has defined children who demonstrate behavioural, emotional and social difficulties as; withdrawn and isolated, disruptive and disturbing, hyperactive and lack concentration, immature social skills, those with challenging behaviour arising from special needs, those with anxiety and those with depression and school phobias (Clough, Philip and Francis, 2002). However, behaviour is considered as BESD only when it shows a persistent pattern across a range of subjects and activities. Behavioural, Social and Emotional Difficulties (BESD) are included under the Special Education Needs (SEN) (Eccleston and Hayes, 2009). They refer to an individual’s incapability to show academic progress and the capacity for social and emotional adaptation in a variety of settings. Behaviour that is good to fit is the one considered fit for a particular setting while the poor to fit behaviour is the one that is not suitable for a particular environment. Challenging behaviour in students may indicate a range of contextual issues which emanate from the family, community, school classroom, peer group, teachers or the individual student. Behaviour difficulties are displayed through two different expressions which are internalising behaviour or externalising behaviour (Etherington, 2012). The internalising behaviour category includes adopting age inappropriate behaviour and being socially withdrawn while the externalising behaviours includes over aggression towards people and objects, shouting inappropriately, lying, disruptive behaviour, bullying, destruction of property and violence. Students with internalising behaviour problems display problems in language, communication, social behaviour, self esteem, self regulation and attention. Students with special education needs have a seven times higher chance of exhibiting poor to fit behaviour than those without (Clough, Philip and Francis, 2002). Student behaviours can be classified into two major categories namely positive and negative behaviours. (Ayers, Clarke and Murray, 2000) observed that positive behaviours are the admirable behaviours that develop in the school through the support of the teachers and classmates. When school administrators clearly communicate their expectations to the students, then they are bound to develop positive behaviours. On the other hand, negligence and ignorance at school can lead to the development of negative behaviour (Wearmouth, 2013). Often, such students require certain modifications to the curriculum or classroom environment so as to maximize their levels of achievement. Psychologists have come up with various conflicting theories to explain some of the behaviours portrayed by such students. For the sake of this discussion, I will look at four of the major perspectives. The psychodynamic approach looks at how an individual’s current behaviour is associated with the states that relate directly to early life unresolved experiences (Faber and Mazlish, 2010). When children are fixated at an earlier stage, they are unable to form trusting social and personal relationship with significant others. Attachment to school is the degree of commitment and engagement to school activities (Bowen, Clark and Jenson, 2014). Students with a strong feeling of attachment actually believes that success in school is worthwhile in the present and future while those with weak attachment portray signs of indifference or hostility toward teachers and are sceptic about the value education will add into their lives. Weak attachment is not usually a characteristic of mental health difficulties, delinquency or even social deviance but is actually a problem on its own that can lead to student’s disaffection and social alienation (Canter, 2009). The interventions based on this approach are focused on establishing ego- strengthening relationships which enables the student to form attachments with others thus gaining a sense of self worth and independence. The common factor is the development of interpersonal relationships which enable the student to develop a positive self image and self acceptance. Behavioural approaches are basically concerned with how external factors influence and shape behaviour. The interventions are based on training the individual to behave in desirable ways through rewards and sanctions. Its major disadvantage is that it focuses on surface behaviour which may lead to neglect and masking the intra psychic problem (Wearmouth, 2013). The therapy is based on understanding how behaviour can be an involuntary response to external stimuli. The desired behaviour is thus encouraged while extinguishing the undesired behaviour by manipulating the stimuli which precedes the target behaviour and the consequences which follow. Humanistic approaches focus on how self concept is created through social and interpersonal relationships. The interventions emphasize the value of unconditional positive regard, empathy and honesty in relationships (Porter, 2006). The key features of humanistic approach are; empathy, unconditional positive regard and honesty (Roffney, 2011). Humanistic approach is a non directive approach and the teacher should avoid offering explicit advice on how the student should behave but instead allow them to reveal their own ways of thinking and feelings, take ownership and thus make their own decisions. The advantage of this approach is that it promotes emotional literacy in the following ways; encouraging pupils to talk openly about their feelings thus helping them build on their vocabulary, using oral literature (songs, stories, poetry) to explore students feelings and using art (pictures, drawings, paintings) to explore the students feelings (Hooper, 2012). The eco- systemic approach involves adapting systemic family therapy interventions for use in schools. A systemic therapy is concerned with the patterns of interactions within and between groups of people (Alastair and Fiona, 2009). It focuses on the provision that human beings exists and depends on social systems and an individual’s needs are subordinate to the needs of the major system. People’s identities and social emotional functioning is therefore shaped by the functions they are supposed to perform to sustain the system (Dupper, 2010). Therapeutic intervention is required when students show social- emotional dysfunction in the ways they engage with a particular system. Teachers and school staff are supposed to decide on which intervention or combination of interventions that will most effectively work for an individual student at a specific school setting. (Alastair and Fiona, 2009) observed that challenging behaviour can take various definitions and forms, depending on the circumstances, although certain benchmarks qualify behaviour to be termed as either challenging or negative. In this case, any unbecoming behaviour is a challenge that school administrators need to address. However, the meaning of challenging behaviour is not universal and its definition changes from one community and culture to the other. Schools thus have unique behavioural expectations which form the basis for expelling or suspending students (Ayers, Clarke, and Murray, 2000). It is thus important to consider the behavioural triggers that make students behave the way they do. Such behavioural triggers can help understand the causes of different challenging conditions and the steps to be taken to help in the growth of positive behaviour. Although students generally behave differently under various circumstances, behavioural triggers are known to prompt some of these challenging (Grossman and Grossman, 2003). This means that both students and teachers can trigger either positive or challenging behaviours in students. The primary trigger factor is the family status the student lives in. It has been noted that students from single parent families are more likely to portray challenging behaviour as compared to students living with both parents. Instability in the family can lead to various forms of challenging behaviour which range from mental retardation, mental illness, anxiety and restlessness (Hooper, 2012). From time immemorial, a common response to problem behaviour in schools has been punishments such as detention, suspension or expulsion from the school. (Hooper, 2012) observed that these reactive approaches only serve as short term solutions to the problem. They are generally ineffective in producing long-term reduction of the problem behaviour, generalization of behaviour change or acquisition of appropriate replacement behaviour (Etherington, 2012). It is always advisable for those providing behaviour strategies to begin from the preventative and positive strategies. Multiple behavioural interventions can be used successfully to reduce challenging behaviour in students. However one of the challenges in designing and using effective interventions for students with problem behaviour is the highly variable individual response to interventions. In order to plan an effective intervention, one should not only consider the problem behaviours and the intervention strategies available (Fabel and Mazlish, 2010). Before commencing any process to correct student behaviours, a Functional Behavioural Assessment (FBA) is necessary so as to establish the triggers of such behaviour and embark on the best approach to correct it. Functional Behavioural Assessment was developed to deal with students who express extreme behaviours that border mental disorders (Lever, 2011). One way of minimising disruptive behaviour in order to attain inclusion of all students in a classroom set up is trying to understand the source of behaviour using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs pyramid. The pyramid has a list of eight needs which are placed in a hierarchical manner (McDonnel, 2015). They are; Biological and physiological needs at the base (food, shelter, warmth, air, sex), safety needs (protection, security, order, stability), love and belongingness which includes family affection and other relationships, esteem needs (achievement, status, responsibility, reputation), cognitive needs (knowledge, meaning, self awareness), aesthetic needs (beauty, balance), self actualization (personal growth, self fulfilment) and transcendence needs (helping others to self actualise) (Alastair and Fiona, 2009). His theory suggests that the basic physiological needs at the base of the pyramid must be first met so that the individual can have the motivation to achieve the needs that are higher up the pyramid. In children, if the basic needs are not met, the individual will have feelings of anxiety and stress and his behaviour will be dominated by deficiency motivation (striving to achieve the basic needs). Survival strategies will thus dominate such students and behaviour and learning on the other hand suffer (Hudson, Pavel and Bjorn, 2010). Student voice initiatives aims at involving learners in making sound decisions about the educational provisions offered to them. Involving students includes more than simply getting their opinions in that their voice should also have an effect (Czerniawski, 2012). There are four elements of student voice which are; space in that children must be given the opportunity to express their views, voice where children are facilitated to express their views, audience where the view of the child must be listened to and influence which is the assumption that the view must be acted upon as appropriate (Jeroen and Veugelers, 2014). Student voice initiatives uphold the view that students deserve to have their opinions respected and taken seriously on matters pertaining the decisions that will affect their learning (Fielding, 2012). The value of student voice in contributing to school improvement initiatives is very important. Active student participation in education affairs is a product of six interconnected points which are; debates about the nature of childhood, attention to children rights as expressed through international conventions, promotion of democracy in schools, preparation for future active citizenship, emergence of the notion of education as an economic good and claims that students can make valuable contributions to school improvement as key participants in the learning process (Fielding, 2012). In this way, students participate in a dialogue which improve the capacity of the school to become a vibrant learning community and also enhances adults understanding about how young people learn, understand their learning and how they can take responsibility for their learning (Ruddock and Fielding, 2006). There are six forms of interaction between adults and students within schools which are; 1. Students as data source where the staff utilise information about student progress and well being. In this case, the teacher is committed to pay attention to student voices through the targets agreed upon (Fielding, 2012). 2. Students as active respondents where the staffs invite and encourage student dialogue and discussion so as to deepen their learning and enhance the professional decisions they make. 3. Students as co- enquirers increase where there is a general increase in the teachers and student involvement and partnership in matters of agreed significance and importance to both parties. 4. A student as knowledge creator is where the students have a voice in leadership and initiative roles although partnership and dialogue with teachers remain the dominant ways of working. 5. Where students are joint authors, there is a full collaborative partnership between students and the staff. There is a mutual responsibility of responsive action between teachers and students (Jeroen and Veugelers, 2014). 6. Intergenerational learning as lived democracy is where there is a joint commitment for the common good of both parties and there is an equal sharing of power and responsibility. The issue of democracy in schools is viewed as more than a collaborative mechanism where students and teachers agree on common aspirations, take action and hold each other to account and revise or renew their commitments (Fielding, 2012). It is a way of living and learning together in the three mutually conditioning commitments to freedom, equality and community. In the classroom set up, a democratic fellowship will encourage a teacher to go beyond instilling knowledge in students through learning to more areas in the curriculum in both school and non school settings. The concept of resilience is used to mean the study of factors such as personal qualities and protective mechanisms associated with successful adaptation of students, which includes the achievement of academic and social competence in people with prolonged exposure to high risk environments (Roffney, 2011). Positive outcome in the face of adverse situations are known to be influenced by the social realm of a student including the family, school and community at large. Resilience is a dynamic process that occurs in a context which is the result of the person’s interaction with his/ her environment. Social contexts such as the home, community, schools and classrooms are known to provide protection to the students who are at risk and eventually direct their development towards positive and healthy pathways (Cefai and Cavioni, 2013). Schools provide a continuing context for cognitive and social emotional development. Example, when the development of children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds and those with parental social pathology is studied, most of these children are found not to develop social, emotional and behavioural difficulties despite the negative experiences they are exposed to on a daily basis. This is attributed to the children’s successful adaptation to both individual and social factors such as promotion of social connectedness and achievement (Dupper, 2010). There are three key school qualities which are found to promote positive academic and social outcomes. They are; 1. Caring relationships between pupils and teachers are based on teacher concern, care, respect and support (Roffney, 2011). Some of the processes underlying such relationship are unconditional love, compassion, listening, patience, basic trust and safety. 2. High expectations from the teachers for the students to do well, which is enhanced through teacher practise which is usually child centred, using their own strengths and interest and tapping their intrinsic motivation for learning. 3. Students meaningful involvement and responsibility with opportunities for expressing their opinions, making choices, solving problems and working with and helping others in a caring and healthy environment (Roffney, 2011). These processes are supposed to be implemented in schools and classrooms and should be tampered according to the needs of the particular contexts they are implemented. Approaches that promote resilience could be more effective when integrated as part of the daily curriculum rather than being presented as an on off package (Lever, 2011). With the school being one of the systems in a student world which serve as protective context for his/ her healthy development, it actually needs to collaborate closely with families, communities and social organizations for the healthy social and academic development of students. Parents are instrumental for the passing of morals and important life skills to the children. The family is the basic unit of socialization and so if students do not receive the attention they need from the parents, they will not develop as wholesome individuals (Gobel, 2008). If students spend little or no time with their parents, they are likely to develop antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour is the one which is contrary to the known prevailing norms which dictate social conduct (Dupper, 2010). This may be expressed as bullying, truancy and laziness due to lack of responsibility. This implies that parental guidance is vital in students’ behavioural development both at home and in school. In addition to government intervention in schools, parents are supposed to receive the necessary skills that will enable them to deal with their school going children in an efficient manner. Education programmes will enable parents to know the behaviour triggers and consequently choose the best approach for dealing with such behaviours (Warmouth, Richmond, Glynn & Berryman, 2014). Children who portray challenging behaviours at school may extend the same behaviours at home and it is necessary that they receive enough attention and care so that they can develop positive behaviour. The purpose of the document ‘Department of Education 2014, Mental Health and Behaviour in Schools’ is to help teachers to better identify the underlying mental health problems in students. This will ensure students with unmet mental health needs will get the help they need in earlier stages before it is too late. It will also help teachers to spot students who behave badly without having any cognitive problems (Simson and Straus, 2003). The document was created by the Department of Education in consultation with school head teachers, mental health professionals and the Department of Health. Schools are allowed to use student questionnaires, teacher training toolkits and mental health factsheets so as to help identify and tackle potential issues. Some of the guidelines provided to the schools so that they can provide stable environment for the students are; clear bullying and behaviour policies, working with parents and students, introducing peer mentoring systems and discussing mental health issues as part of the curriculum (Porter, 2006). Conclusion Owing to the prevalence of behavioural problems among students in schools, it is necessary for teachers, parents and the government to work together in alleviating challenging behaviour among students. In addition, intervention will bring a favourable environment in schools so that students with behavioural problems will not interfere with the activities of their classmates (Roffney, 2011). With an increasing number of students with BESD in schools, there is a great need to increase awareness and training around issues surrounding behaviour and consequently adopt effective interventions in the classroom. References Alastair, M. and Fiona, C. 2009. Disruptive behaviour within the classroom: An ecosystemic view of pupil behaviour. Glasgow: University of Glasgow. Ayers, H., Clarke, D. and Murray, A. 2000. Perspectives on behaviour: A practical guide to effective interventions for teachers. London: David Fulton. Bowen, J. M., Clark, E. and Jenson, W. R. 2004. School based interventions for students with behaviour problems. New York: Springer. Canter, L. 2009. Assertive discipline (4th ed). California: Solution Tree Publishers. Cefai, C. and Cavioni, V. 2013. Social and emotional education in primary school: Integrating theory and research into practice. London: Springer. Clough, G., Philip, G. and Francis, Y. 2002. Emotional and behavioural difficulties (2nd edition). New York, Sage publishers. Czerniawski, G. 2012. Student voice by numbers. Research in secondary teacher education. 2(1): 14-18. Dupper, D. 2010. A new model of school discipline engaging students and preventing behaviour problems. New York: Oxford University Press. Ecclestone, K. and Hayes, D. 2009. The dangerous rise of therapeutic education. Abbingdon: Routledge. Etherington, N. 2012. Gardening for children with autistic spectrum disorders and special education needs. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Faber, A. and Mazlish, E. 2010. How to talk so kids will listen and listen so kids will talk. New York: Piccadily Press. Fielding, M. 2012. Beyond student voice: Patterns of partnership and the demands of deep democracy. University of London, institute of education. 10 (5): 45-65. Gobel, P. 2008. Student off-task behaviour and motivation in the call classroom. International journal of pedagogies and learning. 4 (4): 4-18. Grossman, H. and Grossman, H. 2003. Classroom behaviour management for diverse and inclusive schools. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Hooper, C. 2012. Child and adolescent mental health: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Taylor & Francis. Hudson, B., Pavel, Z. and Bjorn, A. 2010. Advancing quality cultures for teacher education in europe: Tensions and opportunities. Stockholm: Umea university. Jeroen, B. and Veugelers, W. 2014. Why we need to involve our students in curriculum design. Academic jounal. 16(1): 10-35. Lever, C. 2011. Understanding challenging behaviour in inclusive classrooms. London: Longman Publishers. McDonnel, K. 2015. Behaviour: Putting theory into practise. Special education needs journal. 20(5): 1-20. Porter, L. 2006. Behaviour in schools. Maidenhead: OU Press. Roffney, S. 2011. Positive relationships: Evidence based practise across the world. Dordrecht: Springer. Rogers, B. 2011. Classroom behaviour. London: Sage Publishers. Ruddock, J. and Fielding, M. 2006. Student voice and the perils of popularity. Education review. 58(2): 219-231. Wearmouth, J. 2013. Inclusion and behaviour management in schools: Issues and Challenges. Hoboken: Tylor & Francis. Wearmouth, J., Glynn, T. and Berryman, M. 2005. Perspectives on student behaviour in schools. Abbingdon: Routledge. Wearmouth, J., Richmond, R., Glynn, T. and Berryman, M. 2014. Understanding behaviour in schools: A diversity approach. London: Hobbken Tylor and Francis. Read More