The Perceptions of Young Children towards the Technique of Social Isolation - Essay Example

INTRODUCTION This paper is a critique of the article by Readdick and Chapman about the perceptions of young children towards the technique of social isolation called “time-out” that is used by parents and kindergarten teachers to punish children for undesirable behaviour. This paper critiques the article from multiple perspectives that include analyses of the problem statement, critique of the literature review and data collection and results among other things. The title of the article is well suited to the contents of the study though the term “time-out” could have been used in parentheses to indicate the nature of specific usage and not in the general sense of the term that is used in everyday usage. The term refers to the punishment of young children in this case and hence the title could have been a bit wordier without sounding verbose. PROBLEM STATEMENT ANALYSIS In this section, I analyse the problem statement and definition of the issue that the article deals with. The problem statement can be expressed as follows: Though there have been studies’ detailing the effects of “time-out” as a punitive measure, there has been little focus on the perceptions of the children themselves on the measure as a tool to punish bad behaviour and inculcate good behaviour. The purpose of the article is to conduct a survey among the target population of children older than two or three years and study the children’s attitudes towards this form of punishment and whether it acts as a deterrent or do the children perceive it as just another punishment. As discussed in the section on literature review, the problem statement is consistent with the literature review. To take one instance, the article quotes studies by Betz (1994) about how the “time-out” does not teach desirable behaviour and the popularity of the technique as evidenced in the study by Webber and Scheuermann (1991). The other sources that the authors use to justify their focus on this specific problem statement are the ones by Dobson (1978) and Twiford (1984) who extol the virtues of “time-out”. The problem statement is not reformulated and the concluding remarks by the authors are about how further research needs to take place to validate their preliminary findings. Further, there is no discussion on limitations that the study has and though the scope is defined, it is more of a methodological approach to the problem statement by using surveys as a method of arriving at the results rather than a clear definition of what is in scope and what is out of scope. The point here is that the article is an attempt to find out “how children feel about time-out” and hence the boundaries do not need to be defined as the problem statement and the subsequent methodology defines itself. REVIEW OF LITERATURE In this section, I analyse the literature review that has been done by the author. The article is extensively referenced and explanations are given for all the research terms that the author uses to make the points about the research problem are explained clearly. The studies are mostly up-to-date and relevant to the issue being discussed. Some of the studies that are reviewed have been done a few years before the article was published. However, this does not detract from the fact that the literature review is well organised and the relevance of the studies to the research problem is well established. The perceptions of “time-out” and its effects on the behaviour have been studied by a number of researchers albeit each with a different slant. For instance, Harris (1985) and Sachs (1973) have extensively studied the reasons for why “time-out” is employed as a punitive measure; there are few studies on how the children feel about this form of punishment. Hence, the author’s contention regarding the dearth of literature has been made well and the reason for undertaking this kind of study has been established clearly. This leads us to the next question about whether the studies have been examined critically. The answer to this is that the article is a bit short in length for a full fledged analysis and hence the authors stop short of critical analysis and merely restate the findings from the different studies. A mitigating factor is the article’s emphasis on methodology and results obtained from the survey as opposed to relying on other people’s works to make their points. RESEARCH DESIGN ANALYSIS If we analyse the research design that is being used in the article, we find that the research design describes the sample well and is indicative of the type of sample that is chosen which corresponds to the “single group pre-test post-test” design that is also called the pre-experimental design. The population and the sample are described in a concise manner though the authors could have used a broader sample as the conclusions that they reach and the problem statement that they started with are a bit broad from the point of view of the research design that has been selected. The methodology used is rigorous and stands up to scrutiny by peer reviewers who may like to test the hypothesis as well as the results using sample populations that they design. The description of the methodology is adequate though the number of research questions that the authors seek to answer is a bit too many compared to the rest of the study where they are concise and to the point. The criticism here is not on the way in which the research questions have been formulated but on the way in which the research questions could have been pared down or included within the others in order to provide a succinct research question to be answered. The reliability of the results and the margin of error is something that the authors have provided in the study as the sample was drawn from a demographic group which might have preferences other than stated ones. This is the difference between stated and revealed preferences that affect all samples used in surveys and particularly in the case of this sample, these aspects have to be taken care of. DATA ANALYSIS The surveys that the authors have carried out and the interpretation of the data to arrive at the results is probably the strong point of the article. The article makes good use of the methods of data collection and the sample is drawn in a consistent manner with that of the target population which is “single group” in nature and can be considered pre-experimental in the research design formulation. The sample used for the study is widely dispersed to take care of statistical rigour in the analysis. Further, the demographics of the sample used fall into specific categories and can be used to justify the experimental methods that the authors have used. The tables and figures are used well and portray the results of the survey in a concise and lucid manner without distracting the reader from the purpose of the survey or the results that are derived from it. The statistical regression techniques used are a good support to the research questions that are sought to be answered as they provide the quantitative basis to the qualitative questions that are being sought to be answered. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section analyses the conclusions made in the article from a critical perspective. The authors do a good job in summarising the conclusions from the results of the survey that they undertook. The authors reach the conclusion that the practice of “time-out” may lead to punitive consequences rather than instructional ones. This means that when time-out is ordered for young children, they may take it as sign of punishment rather than an inducement for good behaviour. This conclusion is an added result to the initial problem statement that had to do with how young children perceived the “time-out” method. If we look at the conclusions, it is bit two sided in nature as on one hand, the authors seem to generalise the conclusions beyond the target sample of the children who have been surveyed. As the authors note, the practice of time-out may seem to be viewed more as a punishment and this conclusion is applied to the practice in general and not restricted to the sample that the authors surveyed. On the other hand, the authors call for more research to be done on this issue when they state that “systematic, fine-grained observations of caregiver application of time out procedures over time, and documentation of children’s attendant responses to, and feelings about, time out, are needed to confirm these preliminary and potentially disturbing findings.” (Readdick 365-370). What the above quotation from the article signifies is that the authors acknowledge the wide ranging observations that they are making and call for a “granular” study of the topic to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of the issue. CONCLUSION The article is an important contribution to the existing literature on how young children respond to both incentives and punitive measures. There have been a number of studies on this topic as the pre-school stage is the stage where the caregivers have to be adequately trained in order for the children to have a pleasant experience. If the children are traumatised in this stage, it leaves permanent scars on their psyche that leads to adult disorders. In conclusion, the article is worth the effort to read and critique and it has given me important insights as well as helped relate the concepts that I have learnt in class with that of the ones that the article purports to highlight. References Betz, C. (1994). Beyond time-out: Tips from a teacher. Young Children, 49, 10-14. Dobson, F. (1978). How to discipline- with love: From crib to college. New York: Rawson Associates Publishers. Gartrell, D. (1995). Misbehaviour or mistaken behaviour? Young Children, 50, 27-35. Miller, D. E. (1986). The management of misbehaviour by seclusion. Residential Treatment for children and youth, 4, 63-73. Sachs, D. A. (1973). The efficacy of time-out procedures in a variety of behavioural Problems. Journal of Behaviour therapy and experimental psychology, 4, 237-242. Twiford, J.R. (1984). Managing Children’s behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall Read More