Children who show signs of challenging behaviour may experience stress. These children may have a low self esteem; they do not value themselves and therefore do not care about anything. Docking (2002) suggests that high self esteem appears to be a consequence of successfully meeting challenges. This can originate from unrealistic expectations, pressure to live up to a reputation, or from difficult home circumstances. This small scale study endeavours to identify what behaviour goes beyond the ‘normal’ range and addresses the effect of behaviour problems on the Early Years staff within the school. The children targeted within this small scale study are those who present challenging behaviour problems on a regular basis (everyday), and who are at risk of being unable to develop effective skills unless the problems are identified and resolved.
Children may be regarded as challenging/disruptive if they do not match up to the standards that are expected of them when they are in the school setting. Practitioners may have an unrealistic expectation of children. Varma, (1993), suggests that “as far as teachers were concerned, disruption was what happened when a pupil did not observe the rules that were in force at any given moment”. This finding informed the research method being chosen. It influenced the question design within the research questionnaire. This is supported by research carried out by Ayers, Clarke and Murray (1995) who explored the reasons for children’s disruptive behaviour. They found a strong link between pupil behaviour and teacher expectation. Teachers, who expected, demanded and praised high standards of behaviour experienced less disruptions. Another finding was that the teachers who carefully matched the work set to children’s capabilities actually minimised the disruptive behaviours that had risen from frustration and failure. The research found that teachers who stereotyped children and treated the pupils as disruptive, rather that the behaviour, were thought to encourage children to behave as though they were that type of child. Cooper (1995) in his research found that poor staff/pupil relationships often led to pastoral care being interpreted as punitive by the children concerned. One of his recommendations was that staff should praise children as often as possible any good behaviour rather than punishing them for disruptive incidents. This of course sounds good in theory by in practice can be sometimes difficult. Some pupils have more disruptive incidents that good ones therefore resulting in staff finding this difficult.
Research conducted by Blatchford (1982), Croll and Moses (1985), and Elton (1989), all suggest that children’s previous experiences are associated with their behaviour in school. The researcher of this study agrees with this finding. She agrees that children’s previous experiences are associated with their behaviour in school because a child who has a good experience will behave well and if they have had a bad experience then they might misbehave.
One of the most influential behaviourists was B.F. Skinner. He was one of the most well-known psychologists in the world. In 1953 in his book ‘Science and Human Behaviour’ he made a critique of psychoanalytic procedures and he defined a reconceptualisation of learning principles. This made people think about the methods for changing behaviour not just in schools but also in hospitals and outpatient facilities. Skinner stated that,
“Behaviour has not been accepted as a subject matter in its own right, but only as an indication of something wrong somewhere else ……. The behavioural manifestations are merely symptoms. ……. This has encouraged the therapist to avoid specifying the behaviour to be corrected or showing why it is advantageous or dangerous. By suggesting a single cause for multiple disorders, it has implied a uniformity which is not found in the data” (Skinner, 1953).
Skinners rules for training are briefly stated as:
- reinforce the desired behaviour as quickly and as frequently as
possible.
- shape the behaviour in the desired way through a series of small steps.
- reinforce as far as possible by reward rather that by punishing.
It has been suggested that the major proportion of a child’s behaviour is learned, maintained and regulated by its effects upon the natural environment and the feedback it receives with regards to these consequences. This is supported by Rogers (2004) who states that behaviour is learned as well as conditioned. If we accept that ‘conditioning’ leads to challenging behaviour. That behaviour has been learnt – even if the genesis of that learning is forgotten by the child.
Where a child has ‘learnt’ poor, inadequate, inappropriate and dysfunctional patterns of behaviour, teachers work with the child to directly teach new, appropriate self-coping behaviours that will strengthen a positive sense of self and learning and relationships at school. All children want to belong: it is a central social need, Erickson, 1970; Dreikurs et al, 1982 and Maslow, 1972 (Cited in Rogers 2004). Wadsworth (1978) suggests that “children can only learn through direct instruction. The teacher must teach the child”. Montessori subscribed to this philosophy. She said that,
“If we wish to obtain obedience for a small child, we must teach him how to co-ordinate the natural evolution of his voluntary movements ……. so that he can carry them out in harmonious fashion” (Montessori, 1991).
It could be argued that many of the problems of control that arise in the classroom are direct consequence of the way in which teachers act and react towards the children concerned. Wragg (1993) indicates that,
“the majority of classroom problems are relatively simple “stop talking” variety but taken together are wearing for the teacher …… they can be a strain on the teacher and can certainly interfere with learning, they are not necessarily a threat to the teacher’s professional position” (Docking 2002).
What may be a problem to one teacher may be a minor irritation to another or simply a sign of a child’s boisterous high spirits. It is important to acknowledge possible reasons behind children’s behaviour before putting strategies in place to alter it.
Behaviour modification is a process in which some observable behaviour is changed by the systematic application of techniques that are based on learning theory and experimental research. Givner, (1974) suggests that “behaviour modification is not a magical technique; it is a system that gives you some of the best tools now available with which to teach …… modifying behaviour is not easy, but it can be done”. Teachers who adopt the behavioural approach concern themselves with what a child actually does, that is, their behaviour, rather than speculation about unconscious motives of the processes underlying their behaviour. The behavioural approach is objective and is concerned with the observable facts.
Wheldall et al (1984) state that for the most part, and certainly for practical purposes, behaviour is learned. What people do is assumed to have been learned as a result of the individual interacting with his environment, rather than being inherited from birth. This does not exclude the effects of genetic inheritance but that behavioural psychologists do believe that anyone can be taught anything given time.
The basic model embodying the crucial elements of the behavioural approach to teaching is known as the three term analysis of behaviour or the ABC model.
A refers to the antecedent condition. This is the context in which behaviour occurs or what is happening in that environment prior to behaviour occurring.
B refers to the behaviour itself. It is what a child is actually doing in real physical terms.
C refers to the consequence of the behaviour. It is what happens to the child after they behave in a certain way.
The consequence of behaviour may be described as “rewarding” or “punishing”. Skinner believes that ‘behaviour is shaped and maintained by its consequences’. This consequence can be positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement or punishment (Gross, 2005). Rewarding consequences are positive reinforces. While both positive and negative reinforcement strengthen behaviour they both work in different ways. Skinner suggests that positive reinforcement involve presenting something pleasurable (Gross, 2005). Within a school this simply could be giving the child free time (golden time) or giving them the choice from a selection of activities. Negative reinforcement involves the removal or avoidance of some ‘aversive’ (literally ‘painful’) state of affairs (such as electric shock). As this is a research project within a school this would never happen. Within schools they adopt the positive reinforcement and consequences. Wheldall and Merrett, (1984) state that “behaviours followed by positive reinforces are likely to increase in frequency”. Behaviours followed by punishments tend to decrease in frequency whilst neutral consequences have no effect. Terminating a punishment can also be reinforcing and is often used to increase the desired behaviours.
Another important aspect of Skinner’s work is concerned with the effects on behaviour of how frequently and how regular reinforcements are presented. Skinner (1957) identified five major schedules of reinforcements. These are continuous reinforcement, fixed interval, variable interval, fixed ratio and variable ratio (Gross, 2005).
If you want a child to behave in a certain way more frequently that he/she normally does, then it is important that he/she is positively reinforced every time he/she behaves as you want him/her to. This is known as continuous reinforcement. Reinforcements after a set amount of time or after a certain amount of responses is known as a fixed ratio or fixed interval. Variable ratio is where the number of necessary correct responses is constantly altered. Reinforcements made once every fixed number of minutes is known as fixed interval. The reinforcement at fixed intervals can only be carried out if there has been at least one correct response during that time. The final is the variable interval. This is where the time between the reinforcements is varied (Davenport, 1994). The variable interval is at random intervals it is unpredictable.
Positive forms of teacher attention such as praise are valued by most children. If a teacher ignores behaviours they do not want that behaviour is likely to occur less frequently. However this is not always the case as some children just crave attention. This attention could be something small or something big or explosive. This behaviour is known as attention seeking behaviour. If a child exhibits a desired behaviour that the teacher wishes to increase for example paying attention or listening, they might walk over to the child and praise him/her whilst they are paying attention of listening, this will reinforce the good behaviour that the teacher requires. The most advantageous time for administering reinforces is immediately after the desired behaviour is carried out.
One of the easiest ways of establishing a behaviour that is desirable is to model it. Showing children what is required of them is the most straightforward way of establishing behaviour. Within the early years setting this could be done through role play. According to Wilkins (1989) role play is an excellent way of teaching a child new behaviours or trying to change a behaviour that already exists. Various researchers such as Bandura (1969), Broden et al (1970), Henderson et al (1975) and O’Conner (1962, 1972) have documented that modelling is essential to change behaviour.
Albert Bandura (1977) challenged the work of Skinner who claimed that reinforcements and punishments automatically strengthen and weaken behaviour. Bandura stated that ‘reinforcement serves principally as an informative and motivational operation rather than as a mechanical response strengthener’. Bandura’s (1977, 1986, and 1997) early work was grounded in the behavioural principles of both reinforcement and punishment. He believed that the traditional behavioural views were accurate but incomplete because they only gave a partial explanation of learning. In his early work (1965) preschool children saw a film of a model kicking and punching an inflatable “Bobo” doll. One group saw the model rewards for its behaviour. Another group saw the model punished and another group saw no consequence. When the children were left in the room with the “Bobo” doll they modelled the same behaviour that they had previously seen. This demonstrated that the children had learned the behaviour (Woolfolk 2004). This also supports the earlier view that the researcher made, that behaviour is learned.
Woolfolk (2004) suggests that it is often difficult to provide positive consequences for all the students who deserve them. She goes on to suggest that a token reinforcement system can help solve the problem. A token economy is a behavioural modification technique that was first used in mental institutions to reinforce and establish desirable behaviours in their patients. Nowadays it is used in schools to help shape children’s behaviour (Maycock, accessed online 5/4/2006). The tokens could be points, checks, holes punched in card, chips, play money or anything that can be easily identified as the student’s property. These tokens can then be exchanged for a reward (Woolfolk, 2004). It depends on the age of the child as to what the rewards could be. If it is a young child then it could be a small toy, free time in the classroom, a special job or some other privilege. When a token is introduced initially then tokens should be given out on a fairly continuous schedule and exchanged for rewards regularly. Once the system is established and is working then the tokens should be distributed on an intermittent schedule. This could be that the tokens are collected over a longer period of time and the exchanged for a reward. A disadvantage of this method is that it might be viewed as bribery. The researcher disagrees with this. She thinks that using a token reinforcement as a way of shaping behaviour will help shape it quicker. The tokens do not need to be exchanged for things that are expensive it could merely be free time which does not cost anything.
After having consulted these identified texts the research question and its associated aims became clearer. The author agrees with those texts that emphasise the link between environment and learning. This has become a major theme within the research. It facilitated a methodology designed to explore this link. This chapter has addressed some of the many complex issues surrounding inappropriate and challenging behaviour in young children within the Early Years environment. The review of the literature will inform the analysis of data in the data presentation, analysis and conclusion and provide pointers to suggest ways forward for the Early Years staff in the conclusion.
Experience has shown that children of all ages require clearly defined parameters for managing themselves in school. An analysis of classroom practice and the identification of children who may now, or in the future, present us with a problem, provide a starting point for action. We need to recognise that we can influence behaviour by being clear about our own values, and reach an agreement with our colleagues, probably through the establishment of a whole school approach to behaviour management. This could be through the revision of the schools behaviour policy or a new behaviour policy which states clearly that rewards and positive reinforcement are paramount and vital to building a better classroom environment. This point links to one of the fundamental research aims of this project.
Research Approaches and Data Collection
This small scale study investigates whether the use of rewards and positive reinforcements reduce the incidents of challenging behaviour. A sharing of information is envisaged in this small scale cyclical study. In this way the study is based on the action research model with a senior practitioner as the researcher. Bell, (2005), states that an important feature of action research is that when the investigation is finished and the findings have been considered by all participants, the job is still not finished. It is hoped that from carrying out this small scale study that new procedures will be implemented and that they will continue to be reviewed and improved so therefore this study will not be finalised it will continue to be developed. Action research seeks the answers or solutions to a specific problem or question. The goal is to improve practice, to change something (Hittleman and Simon, 1992). This is in agreement with Macleod-Brundenell, (2004), who states that it has often been used to review current practice and to introduce and implement new practices, a curriculum and professional development strategy.
A qualitative approach has been used for data collection in order to develop an insight into, and an understanding of the rewards systems and positive reinforcement strategies that are used as well as the perception of the Early Years staff. Bell, (2005), suggests that qualitative perspectives are concerned to understand individuals and their perceptions, understanding and explanations of the world. As this small scale study seeks the views of the Early Years staff a statistical, non scientific approach would be inappropriate in this study, which seeks the experiences and views of the Early Years staff. However some quantitative methods of data analysis have been used. Some generalisation will be possible from the analysis and will be reflected in the conclusion.
Bell, J. (2005), states that surveys aim to obtain information from a representative sample of the population that can be generalised to the whole population. The main focus of this study takes the form of a survey carried out on an identified group, which is representative of a larger population. Data has been gathered using questionnaires and observation techniques.
It is considered that the survey is an appropriate method, using questionnaires as the tool for data collection. This method is likely to be more effective than others in content, execution and analysis. The majority of the information required could be accessed through a structured questionnaire. In order to triangulate and to produce a balanced study, observations and using relevant literature were also used.
The selection of questionnaires as a method of data collection was justified in the planning stages, using set criteria. Opie, (2004) states that the justification for using questionnaires… is that there is no more reliable and valid method which could be used. For the study to move on and change practice the researcher would find it useful to know what strategies for positive reinforcements and the reward systems used within the Early Years environment. The source of this questionnaire was to find out what rewards systems and positive reinforcement strategies were used within the Early Years environment.
A group of respondents was specifically selected for the sample as being appropriate to the needs of the study. Initially the questionnaire was going to be distributed to eleven practitioners. This was reconsidered because the researcher had not taken other adults in the classroom settings into consideration initially for example students. It was thought by the researcher that this would not be representative of all schools within the geographical area of Hartlepool. Twenty questionnaires were sent out which included the other adults, this increased the validity of the research because it took into account all of the respondents within the identified school. The structure and the format of the questionnaire were carefully planned using the literature search, literature about research methods and from personal experience. The literature consulted about questionnaires was Bell, (2005), Cohen and Manion, (1994), Green (2000), Opie, (2004) and Gray, (2004). Consideration for analysis was also made at this stage, and a decision not to use statistics beyond an elementary level was made. A variety of structures were considered, and a balance was aimed for, that offered variety of responses, but also provided rigour and consistency. It was designed to be user friendly, avoid ambiguity and complexity.
The amounts of questions on the questionnaire were limited because of the amount of paper work teachers and support staff has to complete as part of the working role. It was felt that if the questionnaire has lots of questions the respondents would not fill them in or not answer them as fully as they can because of time pressures. This is in agreement with Green, (2000), who suggests that keeping your questionnaire as short as possible to encourage people to complete it fully. A lengthy questionnaire can be very off putting.
Elements of closed questions were included with the respondent answering yes or no. With the closed questions only allowing the respondent to answer yes or no they were followed by an open question asking the respondent to explain why? Open questions sought information and opinion which the closed questions prohibited. The informality of the structure was designed to encourage respondents to describe experiences and give opinions. Informed opinion was considered to be a major aspect of this survey. The sequence of the questions was structured as to lead the respondent into the survey gently.
Bell (2005), suggests that all data gathering instruments should be piloted to test how long it takes to complete and to check the questions and instructions are clear. In this small scale study a draft of the questionnaire was piloted. With limited time for this small scale study the first draft of the questionnaire was sent to Ewan Ingleby a lecturer at the University of Teesside. He answered the questions on the questionnaire and other questions relating to how he filled the questionnaire in. He told the researcher how long it took to complete it, if the instructions were clear or ambiguous. He told the researcher if he objected to answering any of the questions and why, if in his opinion anything had been omitted and whether the layout of the questionnaire was clear and attractive. He was also given the opportunity to add his own comments; this was in accordance with Bell, (2005). Analysis and redrafting of the questionnaire ensured after the pilot. The order of the initial questions on the questionnaire was inappropriate in places. The questionnaire did not flow. The questionnaire did not state specifically enough where to place answers or if the respondent had to tick or circle the answer. Twenty copies of the re-drafted updated questionnaire were distributed to Early Years Practitioners in a mainstream primary school within an identified area. It was not considered necessary to use incentives in order to maximise responses, as it was an area that the school had identified as needing attention. The response rate for this small scale study was 90%. This rate of returns is higher than that suggested by Cohen and Manion’s (1994) range of returns. They suggest that a well planned postal survey should obtain at least 40% response rate, and with judicious use of reminders, a 70% to 80% response rate is possible.
Initially a letter was sent to the head teacher asking her for permission to distribute questionnaires to her Early Years Practitioners (see appendix 2). A reminder was sent to the school to remind respondents to return their questionnaires if they had not already done so. Confidentiality was assured to the respondents. This was in agreement with Opie, (2004), who suggests that ‘usually, informants involved in research projects are offered assurances of confidentiality and anonymity. Presentation of the data from opinion-type questions had proved difficult. The researcher’s interpretation of the opinions was needed. The researcher categorized the opinions under general heading which meant that analysis was possible. The unstructured response ensures that the respondents have the freedom to give his/her own answers as fully as he/she chooses... Data yielded in unstructured response is more difficult to code and quantify than data in the structured response (Cohen and Manion, 1994).
The survey could have been extended to more schools. This would have enhanced the validity of the research but time constraints in this small scale study prevented this. Judging by the responses to the questions on the survey it is clear that although some answers were similar, most answered the questions using their own personal views.
The respondents were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality, as suggested by Opie, (2004), in the covering letter for the questionnaire (see appendix 4). The disadvantage of anonymity is that there is no opportunity for the researcher to discuss the answers that the respondents answered.
The researcher spent lots of time on the questionnaire design. The reason for this was that the researcher wanted to get it right and gain the maximum information from the respondents. A poor questionnaire gives limited information. Respondents would not want to complete the questionnaire if they thought that it had just been thrown together. This is in agreement with Bell, (2005), who states that recipients need to be encouraged to read and to answer the questions and may be put off by a scruffy document that has been hastily prepared.
Walliman, (2004), states that questionnaires can be a relatively economic research method. The questionnaires were disturbed by hand and collected by hand from the school. There were no cost involved with the distribution and the collection of the questionnaires. A specific time limit for collection of the questionnaires was also stated; this enabled the time factor to be as minimal as possible. The questionnaires were used to investigate whether the use of rewards and positive reinforcements reduces the incidents of challenging behaviour.
Observations are another of the data collection methods used to collect data. Again the use of observations as a method of data collection was also justified in the planning stage of the research. A variety of observation techniques were considered. It was decided that the narrative observation techniques would be the best one for this small scale study. A narrative observation is a written account of what the observer sees (Sharman et al 2004). It was thought that the researcher would have the freedom to write down exactly what she sees.
Observations were chosen because they allow the researcher to see the rewards and positive reinforcement strategies being used in practice rather than being told that they are used by the practitioners themselves. For the purpose of this study, it is considered that direct observations is more reliable that what people say because you can see what is happening first hand. Participant observations of three children in different classes have been attempted. In the planning stages it was initially suggested that six children would be observed but time constraints and the researcher’s working commitments meant that this was not possible. If there was a bigger time scale this would have been possible. Participant observations involve working alongside people in order to observe their social environment to explore how it changes their ideas and behaviour (Gray, 2004). Children who are known to the researcher, and who had shown signs of challenging behaviour in the recent past were selected. Narrative observations of the targeted children were carried out at various times. Time constraints meant that the observations were limited. It is thought that the study would benefit more from carrying out observations over a longer period.
To test for reliability in a small scale study it should be possible to duplicate the results if carried out by another researcher using similar methods. Reliability is the extent to which a test or procedure produces similar results under constant conditions on all occasions (Bell, 2005). The researcher considered the factual questions in the survey to be reliable. However questions which asked the respondents for their opinions could be deemed unreliable because the respondent may have just watched a television programme, read an article relevant to questions asked prior to answering question or had a particular trying day. Bell, (2005) suggests that they are ways of checking reliability such as ‘tests and re-tests’. It is deemed unnecessary to test and retest in this small scale study because reliability can be claimed through the construction of the questionnaire and the pilot of the questionnaire. The researcher has sought to optimise reliability by following the above criteria.
MacLeod-Brundenell (2004), suggests that in qualitative research, a valuable means of ensuring validity is through the use of triangulation. With triangulation data is gathered and cross checked with other data collected from other sources. The researcher has used questionnaires and observations which are primary data as well as documents which are secondary data to triangulate the research. Initially in the planning stage the researcher was going to triangulate the research through observations, questionnaires and follow up interviews. After sending out the questionnaires it was felt by the researcher that they had the necessary information required and therefore the follow up interviews were unnecessary.
Data Presentation, Analysis and Conclusion
“Data collected by means of questionnaires, interviews, diaries or by other methods mean very little until they are analysed and evaluated” (Bell, 2005).
In this section the main research findings are going to be presented. The experiences and views of staff in a local school and observations of children who have presented the school with challenging behaviour form a major part of the study. The aim of this section is to present a summary of the data in appropriate forms, and to offer an analysis and interpretation of that data. For the purpose of this independent practice project the questionnaire questions will be referred to as Qq and the observations will be referred to as Ob. A blank copy of the questionnaire can be found in appendix 4 and the observation reports can be found in appendix 5.
Questionnaires were used as the main part of data collection. The questionnaire was designed to gain information about the rewards and positive reinforcement strategies that are used within a local school and for the practitioners to express their opinions about these strategies and whether in their opinion, these systems are effective. The questionnaires were designed so that they could be filled in anonymously, therefore, giving the respondents the freedom to answer the questionnaires as honestly as they could as they would not be able to be identified. Twenty questionnaires were distributed but only eighteen (90%) were returned therefore the analysis of data is based on the returned questionnaires. Observations were used as a research method to validate and support data from the survey and to provide additional information. As a researcher it is important to understand that for the purpose of this study, the observations can only provide a ‘snapshot’. Therefore a true picture of the children being observed may not have emerged. Time limitations reduced the contribution this method makes to the findings. However, the observations of the children provide an insight into the challenging behaviours they exhibit and whether the staff use rewards and positive reinforcements on these children. Eight participant observations were carried out over nine weeks on three different aged children.
Qq1 and Qq2 sought to identify which reward systems and positive reinforcement strategies are used within the early years setting. This question would help to clarify one of the aims of the study which was to identify what reward systems and positive reinforcement used within the early years setting and if the setting is using the same or different ones. The intention of this question was to help respondents to start thinking about the subject by providing suggestions of rewards and reinforcements they were most likely to have used.
Figure 1. Reward Systems used in the early years setting.
Figure 2. Positive Reinforcement Strategies used in the early years setting.
From looking at this data, it is clear that the early years staff use a variety of different reward systems. Most of the respondents ticked more than one response, hence the percentage scores not tallying. Of the eighteen respondents, it is clear that 94% of staff used stickers, 78% used point charts, and 72% used stamps as part of their reward systems (see figure 1). 100% of the staff said that they also used other forms of rewards as part of their system. Figure 3 shows other forms of rewards that are used within the early years setting. From looking at all of these results it is clear that all of the staff used some form of praise. It is evident that most staff uses stickers, point’s charts or stamps as their reward systems although some of the staff also used other forms of rewards. The researcher observed stamps being used within the early years setting (as seen in ob3 and ob7).
Figure 3. Other rewards and positive reinforcement strategies used in the early years setting.
Looking at the positive reinforcement strategies that are used within the setting (see figure 2), it is clear to see that 89% of staff used smile, 100% used praise and 67% highlighted children’s good behaviour. 39% of the staff also used other forms of positive reinforcement with their children. Again most respondents ticked more than one option therefore the percentage scores do not tally. Giving children a special job or responsibility and giving them coins could be seen as a reward rather that of a positive reinforcement strategy (as seen in figure 3).
In summary, it is clear from looking at the data that the members of staff use very similar forms of reward and reinforcement strategies although some of the staff uses their individual systems. This could be from previous experiences or personal preference. However, Roffey and O’Reirdan (2001) state that ‘when adults in schools have different approaches and expectations this will be confusing to the child who gets mixed messages about what is expected in school’. A consistent approach to using rewards and positive reinforcements would therefore give children an insight into what is expected.
Qq3 was designed firstly to find out whether the members of staff used the rewards and reinforcements consistently and secondly their opinions on why they did or did not. Several ways of wording this question were devised and trialled, initially the question was two separate questions but after piloting and careful consideration the final question was decided upon. The question was not ambiguous as all of the respondents were able to answer it. The responses were similar in some parts therefore suggesting that the question was straight forward.
There were eighteen responses (100%) to this question. It is clear that most staff (94%) uses the reward systems and positive reinforcement strategies consistently and 6% do not use reward systems and positive reinforcement strategies consistently. This however, equates only to one member of staff who said she does not use these consistently. From observing children within the early years setting it could not be seen as conclusive or inconclusive as to whether these are used consistently. This could be because of several reasons. The time of the day that the observations took place, the researcher may have started observing just after children were rewards or praised or finished the observations before this happened. The fact that some members of staff were working with groups of children and that the researcher was specifically observing certain children who may not have been working with an adult. With members of staff working with small groups of children they may not see other children who are working away from the group behaving well. This is not to say that children are not rewarded or praised in this setting but with more time to complete the observations this may have become apparent.
Figure 4. Use of rewards and reinforcements consistently.
The second part to this question asked the respondents why they did or did not use rewards and positive reinforcement’s strategies consistently. Seventeen respondents said that they did use these consistently (see figure 5). Two of these respondents did not answer the question, so for the second part of this question fifteen responses were analysed. As the questionnaires were answered anonymously, there was no way of asking these respondents why they did not answer the question. It can only be suggested that this may have been because they may have filled the questionnaire in on their break and did not have time to think about why or they may have been called away to do something else.
Of the other fifteen respondents, four said that they used rewards and positive reinforcements to encourage good behaviour, four said to promote a positive attitude, two said because children like them and three said they use them because children need to know rules and consequences, they need boundaries. Two of the fifteen replies to this question were rejected as it was considered they had not been answered as intended. One respondent said that they do not use rewards and positive reinforcements consistently. They said the reason for this is that they forget, that the pressures of fitting in the whole curriculum and the pace of lessons means that they are not given at the required time to reinforce the behaviour.
In summary all of the staff apart from one member said that they used rewards and positive reinforcements consistently. It could be assumed that the respondents feel that it is an important part of the classroom. Praising children and giving them rewards helps to control their behaviour and promote the behaviours the respondents require. Mukherji (2001) states that “research has shown that if discipline is applied inconsistently, the inappropriate behaviour may actually be strengthened”. If everyone works together as part of a team them that will send out a message of exactly what they expect.
Qq4 gave the respondents the opportunity to describe their own experiences of challenging behaviour within the early years setting. Most respondents described more than one type of behaviour in their answers, thus initially making presentation difficult. The 18 responses were examined and tallied to match descriptive statements which corresponded closely to one of those already used. Initially it was thought that each respondent had experienced different form of challenging behaviour but after looking at the way the respondents had worded their responses it was clear that they could be categorised in to challenging behaviours (see figure 5). A certain amount of judgement in interpretation was therefore necessary. Although the question was quite clear it was difficult to ascertain how frequently these behaviours that are being described occurred and how many children exhibited these behaviours. The question therefore could have been extended or another question asked. The question could have been asked simply by asking the respondents three simple questions, for example,
“What examples of challenging behaviour have you experienced”?
“How frequent do the children exhibit these behaviours”?
“How many children exhibit these behaviours”?
By having these questions the researcher would have been able to see exactly the extent of how frequent challenging behaviour occurred and how many children exhibited challenging behaviour and enhance the validity and reliability of the study.
The most mentioned challenging behaviour that was identified was physical aggression to other children as seen in figure 5. This is consistent with the findings from the Elton Committee (Elton, 1989, p238). However, the Elton Committee sought the views of secondary school teachers only. There was no information in the report that looks at the views of primary school teacher’s experiences. Behaviours that have been identified could be put into categorise of serious and not serious. Although the challenging behaviour in the not serious category such as not listening, not sitting still and poor concentration may be regarded as trivial because it can be dealt with easily, it is the amount of times these behaviours happen that is considered to be a problem within the classroom. The researcher’s observations showed a child pushing another child in ob4. However, this does not show that it is a major problem as it was only observed on one occasion.
This section has shown quite clear that the question was answered as intended. The introduction of other questions would have shown the researcher the extent of the behaviours that are being described, how many children exhibit these behaviours and how often they are seen? It has been shown that the most common form of challenging behaviour experienced was physical aggression to other children. This point will be discussed further when analysing Qq5.
Figure 5. Challenging behaviour experienced by respondents.
Qq5 sought to identify the single most common form of challenging behaviour that has been experienced within the early years setting. This would give the researcher the opportunity to see if there is a wide range of different challenging behaviours happening or a selection of the same behaviours experienced by the respondents. Qq5 is supported by the finding of the observations.
Figure 6. Most common form of challenging behaviour.
From looking at figure 5 it is clear that physical aggression to children was the highest ranked form of challenging behaviour. However, figure 6 shows that although physical aggression to other children does happen there are more common forms of challenging behaviour within the early years environment. This was evident in the eight observations as physical aggression only happened once. The most common form of challenging behaviour is refusal to carry out tasks/instruction closely followed by not listening. It is important to remember that these finding are from one school only and extending the research to other schools may have provided different results. This questionnaire did not ask the respondents how many children showed signs of the challenging behaviours previously mentioned. Therefore, it is difficult ascertain whether it is one child or more than one child who contribute to the difficulties experienced within the classroom. From analysing the observations of the children it is clear that some of the challenging behaviours mentioned in the questionnaires where exhibited in some form. The observations of the children who exhibited signs of challenging behaviour supported the finding that the most common form of challenging behaviour was refusal to carry out a task/instruction. This was evident on 4 out of 8 occasions (see ob2, ob3, ob4 and ob5). However the majority of the behaviour exhibited were destructive behaviour and ignoring the teacher and refusing to follow their instructions. The destructive behaviour was either to the other children or to the resources. From observing the children it was clear that the majority of the children exhibited destructive behaviour. These children often refused to carry out a task or instruction such as ‘sit on the carpet’ or ‘tidy up’. When these children were praised and given a reward their behaviour improved initially, however, after a while they reverted back to the destructive behaviour. The children seemed to work better when they were participating in a structured activity and with adult support. When the children were left to choose an activity the destructive behaviour began. From this analysis it is clear that more structured activities are required, however, it is not always possible for the members of staff to work with all of the children, they need to work between the groups. In ob7 it stated that Child C who is four years old and in the nursery setting did not want a stamp, he wanted a sticker. The teacher however told the researcher that she alternated the rewards she gives out each day. She suggested that Child C only likes to receive the stickers. It is clear that Child C does retaliate when he cannot get his own way; however, he needs to learn that he cannot always have a sticker. He needs to follow the nursery rules.
In summary destructive behaviour was observed as a common form of challenging behaviour and refusal to carry out tasks or instructions was the most common forms of challenging behaviour that the respondents experienced. The reason for this cannot be ascertained from the questionnaire because they were completed anonymously, therefore, follow up interviews could not be followed up to identify why this was the most common form of challenging behaviour, this would have enhanced the validity of the research.
Qq6 first sought to identify whether the respondents felt that the use of rewards and positive reinforcements worked for the children who had shown signs of challenging behaviour and secondly why in their opinion this did or did not work. 83% of the respondents said that they did feel that these worked for children who showed signs of challenging behaviour. 17% of the respondents said that they do not work (see figure 7). Some of the responses to why they do or do not work are: “Yes because it gives them positive encouragement and reinforces good
behaviour”.
“Positive reinforcement can help children’s self esteem and shows the
children that good behaviour gets rewards (stickers – praise)”.
“For most children with challenging behaviour it controls their behaviour to
an extent (when you have found the correct system) but it doesn’t stop it”.
As you can see from the three comments above there is a mixed reaction to whether using rewards and positive reinforcement’s works or not. Again, it is difficult to ascertain why the respondents state these views. It could be assumed that the 15 respondents who felt that it did work had, had good experiences with dealing with challenging behaviour. In contrast the other 3 respondents may have had negative experiences of dealing with challenging behaviour. The challenging behaviours may be mild and not very problematic or the respondents may have had negative experiences and very problematic challenging behaviour.
Figure 7. Does using rewards and positive reinforcement work for children who show signs of challenging behaviour?
Figure 8 below shows the opinions of the respondents as to why they use rewards and positive reinforcements. Of the eighteen respondents four said that they use it consistently because children like to receive rewards and reinforcements. Four said that they use them because it shows children some guidelines of what to expect. It shows the children that if they behave in the correct way, the way the teacher requires, they get rewarded. Three respondents said that it controls the children’s challenging behaviour and three respondents also said that it helps to promote children’s self esteem. It could be suggested that the respondent’s view is that if the children feel good about themselves then they will behave accordingly. One of the respondents said that rewards and reinforcements are important to children. This point could be linked to a child’s self esteem. Three respondents said that although rewards and reinforcements work for most children some of the children still misbehave especially those who exhibit signs of challenging behaviour.
Figure 8. Opinions of respondents regarding challenging behaviour.
Results from the questionnaire show that the respondents do feel that the rewards and positive reinforcements work for children who show signs of challenging behaviour because it gives them guidelines (they know what to expect) and that children like to receive rewards and praise therefore they behave appropriately. Questions could be asked as to whether giving rewards and positive reinforcements because the children like receiving them is a valid reason to use them. There is no evidence to show that because children like to receive them they will produce the required behaviour. This could therefore form another research project to find the answer to the question. Having consistency is vital therefore a suggestion could be that all of the classrooms display the guidelines which clearly state the rewards and reinforcement strategies and sanctions. This again would help the members of staff be clear about what is expected of them as well as displaying what is expected of the children within the early years setting.
The majority of the children who exhibited challenging behaviour would benefit from opportunities to experience the benefits of a simple reward and sanctions programme. Achievable and meaningful ‘rules’ need to be explained to these children and their peers, and discussed collectively. Circle time would provide an excellent medium to help these children to develop the strategies. Initially it is recommended that these children are given instant rewards that would encourage them to conform to the expected behaviours that the early years setting requires. Skinner described this as a ‘continuous reinforcement schedule’. The rewards can be gradually withdrawn, which is known as an ‘interval schedule’, so that they are not instant rewards but given at the different intervals so that the routine can be disrupted as little as possible. These have been mention earlier in the literature review.
It is not known by the researcher whether any of the children who exhibit signs of challenging behaviour have any medical conditions which may affect them. With more time the researcher could have explored this area which may have helped to identify whether this was a cause for the children’s challenging behaviour.
Time constraints hindered the amount of time the researcher had to observe the children and look into their backgrounds. The observations were mainly carried out on the same day of the week when for example Child D was participating in the art lesson and Child A was participating in maths. Carrying out observations on different days of the week and different times of the day would have help the researcher create a bigger picture of the behaviours within the early years setting and help with the validity of the research.
Conclusion
Conclusions can be drawn from this research on two levels – personal and professional. In personal terms the results were slightly disappointing because they are inconclusive. However on a more professional level the research gives insight into the rewards and positive reinforcement strategies used within the early years setting and provide a wealth of ideas suitable for in in-service training and policy writing. After looking at the data that was gathered and discussed above the main findings that the researcher found are:
- Challenging behaviour has become more of an issue in the Early Years Setting.
- Children need encouragement if they are to comply with behavioural expectations.
As a practitioner of six years, the researcher’s view is that challenging behaviour has become more of an issue in the early years setting. This independent practice project gave the researcher the opportunity to explore this. This view is supported by other practitioners and from observing children. Although challenging behaviour has been a problem within schools for many years it is only over the last few years that the problem has become more of an issue. It is possible that many of the challenging behaviours described above would not have been classed as challenging behaviour before. It is in the opinion of the respondents as to what they view challenging behaviour as. The challenging behaviours described by one of the respondents are not necessarily the same as another respondent. It could therefore be assumed that a whole school definition of what challenging behaviour is, is required this would clarify the point for practitioners. With recent literature from the Ofsted mentioned in the literature review it is apparent that the issue is becoming more of a problem. In the Osted (2005) report called ‘Managing Challenging Behaviour’ it is stated that ‘Lack of agreed definitions of what constitutes challenging behaviour makes it difficult to gauge the full extent of it’.
18 out of 20 questionnaires emphasised the need for ‘encouragement’ if children are to follow ‘role models’. These echoes the findings of Bandura (1986), who states that ‘modelling, when applied deliberately, can be an effective and efficient means of teaching new behaviours’ (Woolfolk, 2004). From observing the children who exhibited challenging behaviour it was clear that they were not encouraged to comply with the behavioural expectations that were required of them? As these children exhibit challenging behaviour it is difficult for the practitioners to reward and praise the children because they are more often observed doing something that is not expected of them rather than something that the practitioners expect. The observations completed within the early years setting also support this point. It is possible that these children have been labelled as ‘naughty’ or ‘bad’ children from an early age and this label has stuck with the children throughout their school life, therefore, they may feel that they have to live up to the label. If these children are not getting encouragement then their self esteem will become a low self esteem because they view themselves in a bad light. A smile or a reward (sticker) can help to boost the self esteem and help children to feel good about them.
The overall aim of this study was carried out in order to discover the answer to three questions. The first was to find out what rewards and positive reinforcements were used within the early years setting and from carrying out the research the researcher found out that the majority of them were stickers, stamps and points charts with some respondents using their own personal rewards. Smiles, praise and highlighting other children’s good behaviour were also used as positive reinforcement strategies.
The second part of this research was to analyse the advantages and disadvantages of using rewards, positive reinforcements and token economy. There were pros and cons about using these mentioned earlier in the literature review.
The final part was to critically assess the effect of using rewards and positive reinforcements in reducing the amount of incidents of challenging behaviour. This part was more difficult than first thought. Not enough observations were carried out to assess this part as fully intended. The observations carried out showed the children exhibiting some of the challenging behaviour and being given rewards and positive reinforcements were possible and were appropriate. However not enough rewards and positive reinforcements were seen to answer the question fully. Therefore, more observations would enhance the findings.
It is clear that from the responses provided by the respondents filling in the questionnaire, they are already using rewards and reinforcements, although some are not used consistently. The respondents showed that they are committed to using these strategies and the majority of them feel that they do work for children who exhibit signs of challenging behaviour.
It could therefore be concluded that rewards and positive reinforcement strategies do work for the majority of children who exhibit signs of challenging behaviour. However for it to work with every child who exhibits signs of challenging behaviour more work needs to be done with each individual child to see what works for them as an individual. Finding the cause of each child’s challenging behaviour will help practitioners to understand why the child does what they do and how to help the children.
Recommendations
While trying to discover whether rewards and positive reinforcements work for children who exhibit signs of challenging behaviour, the researcher had the opportunity to find out the following information:
- What reward were used in the early years setting
- What positive reinforcement strategies were used in the early years setting
- Whether these were used consistently
- The types of challenging behaviour experienced by the early years staff
From the analysis of the data that has been collected several recommendations have been made.
- A whole school definition of challenging behaviour should be discussed and approved by all of the staff so that everyone knows what challenging behaviour is.
- To work together as a team to ensure the rewards and positive reinforcements are used consistently.
- Encourage the children and explain exactly what is expected from them as soon as they enter the early years setting.
- To continue using the main rewards and positive reinforcements that have been identified in this research project.
- Start with instant rewards to get the desired behaviour then gradually withdraw it so that the rewards are given at different intervals.
- Try and get the balance right between the amounts of time the adults work with groups of children. Try to make more time to observe free play/choice.
By putting these recommendations into practice the action research cycle will begin again with the analysis of the above. Therefore the cycle is never finished once a research project is. The cycle always need to be reviewed and analysed.
Reference List
Books
Abbot, L., and Rodger, R., (1994), Quality Education in the Early Years. London: Open University Press.
Ayers, H., Clarke, D., and Murray, A., (1995), Perspectives on Behaviour: A Practical Guide to Effective Intervention for Teachers. London: David Fulton.
Bandura, A., (1969), Principles of Behaviour Modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bell, J., (2005), 4th Edition, Doing Your Research Project, A Guide for First-time Researchers in Education, Health and Social Science. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L., (1994), 4th Edition, Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.
Cooper, P., Smith, C., and Upton, G., (1995), Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties – Theory to Practice. London: Routledge.
Croll, P. and Moses, D., (1985), One in Five. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Davenport, G.C., (1994), 2nd Edition, An Introduction to Child Development. London: Collins Education.
Docking, J., (2002), 3rd Edition, Managing Behaviour in the Primary School. London: David Fulton Publishers.
DFEE., (1989) Discipline in Schools – A Report of the Committee of Enquiry chaired by Lord Elton. London: HMSO.
DFEE., (1994), The Education of Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. (Circular 9/94), London: DFEE.
Givner, A., (1974), A Handbook of Behaviour Modification for the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
Gray, D., (2004), Doing Research in the Real World. London: SAGE Publications.
Green, S., (2000), Research Methods in Health, Social and Early Years Care. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes.
Gross, R., (2005), 5th Edition, Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. London: Hodder Arnold.
Hittleman, D.R., and Simon, A.J., (1992), Interpreting Educational Research, an Introduction for Consumers of Research. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
MacLeod-Brundenell, I., (2004), Advanced Early Years Care and Education, for levels 4 and 5. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers.
Montessori, M., (1991), The Discovery of the Child. Oxford: Clio Press Ltd.
Mukherji, P., (2001), Understanding Children’s Challenging Behaviour. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
Ofsted, (2005), Managing Challenging Behaviour. London: Ofsted
Opie, C., (2004), Doing Educational Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Roffey, S., and O’Reirdan, T., (2001) 2nd Edition, Young Children and Classroom Behaviour Needs, Perspectives and Strategies. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Rogers, B., (1998), You Know the Fair Rule and More. London: Pitman Publishing.
Rogers, B., (2004), (Ed), How to Manage Children’s Challenging Behaviour. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Sharman, C., Cross, W., and Vennis, D., (2004), 3rd Edition, A Practical Guide Observing Children. London: Continuum.
Skinner, B.F., (1953), Science and Human Behaviour. New York: Macmillan.
Varma, V., (Ed), (1993), Coping with Unhappy Children. London: Cassell.
Visser, J., (2000), Managing Behaviour in Classrooms. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Wadsworth, B.J., (1978), Piaget for the classroom teacher. New York: Longman.
Walliman, N., (2004), 2nd Edition, Your Research Project, A step by step guide for first time researchers. London: SAGE Publications.
Wheldall, K. and Merrett, F., (1984), Positive Teaching: The Behavioural Approach. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Wilkins, R., (1989), Behaviour Problems in Children, Orthodox and Paradox in Therapy. Oxford: Heinemann Nursing.
Woolfolk, A., (2004), 9th Edition, Educational Psychology. London: Pearson Education
.
Wragg, E.C., (1993), Primary Teaching Skills. London: Routledge.
Journals
Blatchford, P., Battle, S., and Mays, J., (1982), The First Transition – Home to School. National Foundation for Educational Research.
Broden, M., Bruce, C., Mitchell, M.A., Carter, V., and Hall, R.V., (1970), Effects of Teacher Attention on Attending Behaviour of Two Boys at Adjacent Desks. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 3, 199-203.
Henderson, R.W., Swanson, R., and Zimmerman, B.J., (1975), Inquiry Response Induction in Preschool Children Through Televised Modelling. Developmental Psychology, 11, 523-524.
O’Conner, R.D., (1972), Relative Efficiency of Modelling, Shaping and the Combined Procedures for Modification of Social Withdrawal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 79, 327-334.
Wheldall, K. and Merrett, F.E., (1988), Which Classroom Behaviours do Primary School Teachers Say They Find Most Troublesome. Educational Review 40 (1) 13-17.
Websites
Maycock, D., (2006), How to Use a Token Economy to Shape Your Child’s Behaviour. Accessed online 5/4/2006