teachers ways of seeing their approaches ...student behaviour in preparatory (prep) classrooms in...
TRANSCRIPT
TEACHERS’ WAYS OF SEEING THEIR
APPROACHES WITH STUDENT
BEHAVIOUR IN THE PREPARATORY YEAR
Suzy Tamone
B.Teach (EC), B.Ed, M.Ed (SGC)
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
2018
Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year i
Keywords
Behaviour, approaches, students, ways of seeing, conceptions, experience,
phenomenography, Prep, Preparatory year.
ii Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year
Abstract
This PhD study researched teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with
student behaviour in Preparatory (Prep) classrooms in Queensland State schools. Prep
was introduced to Queensland’s education system in 2007, and is now recognized as
the first formal year of schooling for children aged 4.5 - 6.5 years of age. Since this
reform, Prep teachers have been required to accommodate a more explicit, standards-
based curriculum, resulting in challenges with implementing pedagogical approaches
that uphold early childhood philosophical ideals (Gaedtke, 2010). Additionally, this
reform has included the mandated adoption of school-wide policies, processes and
approaches for student behaviour in Prep. Using a phenomenographic approach and
variation theory with individual interviews (n=21), this study sought to reveal Prep
teachers’ conceptions of their approaches with student behaviour. More specifically,
it aimed to identify what Prep teachers do when they approach student behaviour, and
to describe variation in their ways of seeing (or conceptualizing) approaches with
student behaviour. The results of this study show that Prep teachers’ approaches with
student behaviour are experienced in both fragmented and holistic ways. This study
adds important in-depth perspectives to the body of literature on teacher professional
development with regard to supporting student behaviour in the early years of school.
Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year iii
Table of Contents
Keywords .................................................................................................................................. i
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... vii
Statement of Original Authorship ......................................................................................... viii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. ix
Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .....................................................................................................................3
1.2 Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................6
1.3 Context ..........................................................................................................................12
1.4 Purposes ........................................................................................................................13
1.5 Significance and Scope .................................................................................................13
1.6 Thesis Outline ...............................................................................................................15
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................... 17
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................17
2.2 The Australian Educational Context .............................................................................19
2.3 School Behaviour Policy ..............................................................................................25
2.4 The Preparatory Year in Queensland ............................................................................30
2.5 Student Behaviour and the Preparatory Year ...............................................................34
2.6 Behaviour Approaches and Theories ............................................................................38
2.7 Curriculum, Pedagogy and Student Behaviour .............................................................57
2.8 Student Motivation, Engagement and Student Behaviour ............................................60
2.9 Teachers’ Perceptions, Beliefs and Attitudes Toward Student Behaviour ...................65
2.10 Teacher Professional Development and Learning on Behaviour Approaches .............70
2.11 Chapter Summary .........................................................................................................73
Chapter 3: Methodology .................................................................................... 75
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................75
3.2 Overview of Phenomenography ...................................................................................76
3.3 Coming to Terms with Phenomenography ...................................................................79
3.4 Rationale for Phenomenography ..................................................................................84
3.5 Ontological and Epistemological Basis of Phenomenography .....................................90
3.6 First and Second Order Perspective ..............................................................................95
3.7 Phenomenography and Variation Theory .....................................................................96
iv Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year
3.8 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 97
3.9 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 106
3.10 Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................... 128
Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................ 129
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 129
4.2 Categories of Description ........................................................................................... 130
4.3 Analysis of Variation ................................................................................................. 160
4.4 Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................... 162
Chapter 5: Discussion ...................................................................................... 165
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 165
5.2 The Prep Year as a Foundation Year ......................................................................... 166
5.3 Teachers’ Approaches with Student Behaviour - An Overview of the Categories .... 169
5.4 Fragmented and Holistic Ways of Seeing Approaches with Student Behaviour ....... 172
5.5 Discussion of Categories ............................................................................................ 173
5.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 224
Chapter 6: Conclusion ..................................................................................... 225
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 225
6.2 Implications for Student Behaviour Policy ................................................................ 225
6.3 Implications for Students and Teachers ..................................................................... 229
6.4 Implications for Initial and Continuing Teacher Education ....................................... 234
6.5 Contribution to the Phenomenographic Research Methodology ............................... 238
6.6 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 240
6.7 Strengths of the Study ................................................................................................ 246
6.8 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................. 248
6.9 Future Research Opportunities ................................................................................... 250
6.10 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 252
Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 255
Appendices .............................................................................................................. 291
Appendix A QUT Ethics Application Approval ................................................................. 291
Appendix B Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE) Approval
Letter .................................................................................................................................... 292
Appendix C Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form ........................................... 293
Appendix D Interview Script .............................................................................................. 294
Appendix E Permission Email ............................................................................................. 295
Appendix F Recruitment Email ............................................................................................ 296
Appendix G P-3 Discussion List Recruitment Email .......................................................... 297
Appendix H DETE Recruitment Email Document ............................................................. 298
Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year v
Appendix I Interview Schedule............................................................................................299
vi Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Student disciplinary absences (SDAs) in Queensland Government
schools by year (data from Queensland Government, 2017a). .................... 35
Figure 3.1. A way of experiencing (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 309). ....................... 78
Figure 3.2. Trigwell’s (1999) phenomenography defined using points of
departure (p.77). ........................................................................................... 89
Figure 3.3. Analysis of transcript excerpt. ............................................................... 109
Figure 3.4. Analysis theme: Student compliance. ................................................... 111
Figure 3.5. Analysis theme: Students’ intrinsic motivation. .................................... 112
Figure 3.6. Preliminary category: Engaging to learn. .............................................. 117
Figure 3.7. Preliminary category: Learning to engage. ........................................... 119
Figure 3.8. Preliminary category: Towards independent engagement with
learning. ...................................................................................................... 119
Figure 3.9. Long table data analysis process. .......................................................... 120
Figure 3.10. The five categories. ............................................................................. 124
Figure 3.11. Analysis of ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour ......... 125
Figure 4.1. Category1: Not engaging. ...................................................................... 132
Figure 4.2.Category 2: Engaging to learn. ............................................................... 137
Figure 4.3. Category 3: Adapting to engage. ........................................................... 143
Figure 4.4. Category 4: Learning to engage. ........................................................... 150
Figure 4.5. Category 5: Towards independent engagement. ................................... 154
Figure 4.6. Analysis of variation. ............................................................................ 161
Figure 5.1. The Department of Education and Training’s (2015) teacher
reflection framework on the use of a balance of pedagogical
approaches (p.5). ........................................................................................ 219
Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year vii
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Demographic details of study participants (n=21) .................................. 102
Table 3.2 Dimensions of variation .......................................................................... 126
Table 4.1 Analysis of variance and invariance ....................................................... 162
viii Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best
of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or
written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature:
Date: 20th May, 2018
QUT Verified Signature
Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year ix
Acknowledgements
First and foremost I would like to acknowledge my wonderful supervision team,
Associate Professor Kerryann Walsh, Dr Lyndal O’Gorman and Dr Leanne Croswell,
for their expert guidance, patience, support and feedback. I am so thankful to have had
their wise counsel on my side. I would also like to acknowledge academics from
Gothenburg University for sharing their knowledge of phenomenography and
variation theory with me. I would like to acknowledge Niklas Pramling and Ingrid
Pramling Samuelsson whose advice contributed positively to the design of this study
and Ference Marton who provided me with clarification on variation theory and its
application to phenomenographic research. Most importantly, I thank Åke Ingerman
who so generously gave of his time to help me understand the phenomenographic
theoretical framework and skilfully mentored me throughout the analysis stage of my
study. The rich conversations we had have contributed to my enduring passion for
phenomenography.
I would like to acknowledge Cara Fletcher and Pacific Solutions for assisting with
transcription. I also acknowledge the services of professional editor Dr Jo Carr, who
provided copyediting and proofreading services, according to the guidelines laid out
in the university-endorsed national ‘Guidelines for editing research theses’. I thank Dr
Emma Caukill and Greg Roads for their assistance with formatting and Gillian
Harrison for her help with Endnote.
I would like to acknowledge my ‘village’ who sustained me throughout this seven
year-long process. In particular I thank Barbara Green-Roads for her friendship,
unwavering support and quiche dinners. I would like to acknowledge my family for
allowing me this time to wallow in my research. I thank my gorgeous girls, Peggy,
Esther and Mabel for their encouragement, and my loving husband Michael for
tolerating my cognitive absences. I also thank my parents, Janette and Trevor for
instilling in me a love of learning and always believing in me.
I would like to acknowledge the Department of Education and Training for approving
this study and thank the school Principals for allowing me to conduct this study on
site. Finally, I would like to thank the participants of this study, the amazing Prep
x Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year
teachers, for their involvement in this project and for so honestly sharing their
experiences with approaching student behaviour with me. Let their voices be heard!
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Worldwide there is a paucity of research that seeks to understand teachers’
experiences with student behaviour in the early years of school. In Australia, generally,
and in Queensland in particular, we know little about teachers’ practices with student
behaviour in early years classrooms and about how they conceptualise their
approaches. This is important because without this knowledge we cannot fully
comprehend student behaviour as a phenomenon, or develop strategies, approaches, or
professional learning which will effectively meet the needs of teachers who have the
challenging task of supporting student behaviour in classrooms. This study addresses
this significant gap in the research literature by eliciting accounts of teachers’
experiences with student behaviour. It seeks to understand how teachers conceptualise
their approaches with student behaviour in their daily teaching. In so doing it
contributes to the bodies of literature on student behaviour and teaching in the early
years generally and in Queensland’s’ Preparatory (Prep) year in particular.
Some previous research has sought to elicit teacher views and perceptions of
student behaviour in classrooms (Alter, Walker, & Landers, 2013; Arbuckle & Little,
2004; Axup & Gersch, 2008; Belt & Belt, 2017; Grieve, 2009; Kyriacou & Ortega
Martín, 2010; McCready & Soloway, 2010; Ravet, 2007b; Roache & Lewis, 2011b;
Rosas & West, 2009; Sandholtz, 2011; Shen et al., 2009; Sullivan, Johnson, Owens,
& Conway, 2014; Tillery, Varjas, Meyers, & Collins, 2010). Studies have also
examined student behaviours that teachers find most concerning (Alter et al., 2013;
Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Clunies-Ross, Little, & Kienhuis, 2008; Sullivan et al., 2014).
Many studies have exposed the effect of disruptive student behaviour on teacher stress,
well-being and confidence (Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Rosas
& West, 2009; Tillery et al., 2010) and others have reported a lack of shared meaning
on behaviour between students and teachers (McCready & Soloway, 2010; Ravet,
2007b). Many of these studies have relied on quantitative methodologies employing
teacher surveys and questionnaires. Others have used mixed methods, utilizing
interviews and observations in combination with teacher surveys or questionnaires.
Studies, especially those examining the lack of shared meaning on student behaviour
between students and teachers, are mainly qualitative (McCready & Soloway, 2010;
2 Chapter 1: Introduction
Ravet, 2007b). However, little empirical research exists on teachers’ approaches with
student behaviour, especially in the early years of school.
The study of student behaviour has gained momentum over the years. Teachers
continue to find classroom management challenging (Alter et al., 2013; Arbuckle &
Little, 2004; Axup & Gersch, 2008; Butler & Monda-Amaya, 2016; Clunies-Ross et
al., 2008; McCready & Soloway, 2010), and what is theoretically understood as quality
practice in supporting student behaviour is not always consistently reflected in
classrooms (Dunlap et al., 2006; Sullivan et al., 2014). In a study on teacher
perceptions of behaviour management and intervention strategies, researchers found
that teachers did not have a clear understanding of models or systems for preventing
and intervening in student behaviour (Tillery et al., 2010). To determine the
perceptions of 20 participants teaching in the kindergarten and first grade across five
schools in a largely rural school system in South-eastern America, Tillery et al.’s
(2010) study used a grounded theory approach, with in-depth qualitative interviews.
In this study, teachers commonly stated that their teacher training was sorely lacking
with regard to behaviour management and they felt it had to be learned on the job.
Tillery et al. (2010) suggested that on-the-job learning of behaviour management
approaches may contribute to recycling of ineffective practices and traditional
perspectives. These findings demonstrate the importance of developing further in-
depth understandings of how teachers conceptualise their approaches with student
behaviour in their daily teaching, so that preservice and inservice teacher professional
learning can better prepare teachers for this work.
This current study utilised the qualitative methodology of phenomenography to
report on teacher conceptions of or ways of seeing their approaches with student
behaviour. The methodology of phenomenography aims to gain understandings from
exploring and analysing the lived experience of participants (Bowden, 2000b;
Dall'Alba et al., 1989; Marton, 1981, 2015; Marton & Booth, 1997; Svensson, 1997).
The methodology of phenomenography has been specifically selected for this study
due to the lack of empirical research that exists in the current literature concerning
teachers’ experiences and understandings of their approaches with student behaviour
in classrooms. Phenomenography has seldom been used to explore teacher experiences
of their approaches with student behaviour in the early years of school. Therefore this
thesis presents an opportunity to explore how teachers approach student behaviour in
Chapter 1: Introduction 3
the context of their daily teaching and how they conceptualise and understand their
practice. Literature and research on phenomenography will be further discussed in
Chapter 3 in which the research design that addresses the research aims will be
presented.
This chapter will now provide an orientation to the background of the study; a
definition of key terms; description of the research context and the research purpose;
and the significance of this research topic.
1.1 BACKGROUND
Student behaviour has long been an enduring and serious problem within
teaching. Teachers have found student behaviour challenging to deal with. At the time
this study was first considered, the Australian Education Union published the National
Educator Survey 2008 Results: Public Release Summary (Australian Education Union,
2008a), which showed that beginning teachers in Australia rated behaviour
management as their second highest concern, with workload being the first. In
addition, many teachers, including preservice teachers, beginning teachers, and
experienced teachers, have felt ill-prepared to support student behaviour in the
classroom (Axup & Gersch, 2008; Jackson, Simoncini, & Davidson, 2013; McKenzie,
Weldon, Rowley, Murphy, & McMillan, 2014). The literature suggests that teachers
appear to form most of their behaviour approaches and strategies ‘on the go’ or through
‘experience’, and it seems there is little time or professional support available to assist
teachers in their day-to-day experiences with students’ behaviour (Arbuckle & Little,
2004; Buchanan, 2010; McCready & Soloway, 2010).
At the time of this study, student behaviour had also featured frequently in the
mass media, with much debate generated over the most effective or appropriate
behaviour approaches (Chilcott, 2011a). For example, in 2011 news reports called
attention to the ‘out of control’ behaviour of Queensland’s Prep year students, with
online blogs showing a diverse range of views about who was responsible for this
behaviour and what should be done. This “out-of-control” student behaviour centred
on increased reports of the “physical abuse” of teachers by Prep year students
(Chilcott, 2011b, para 1 & 6). The Queensland Teachers Union blamed the parents for
these out-of-control students, while online community responses suggest the blame
should be shared by teachers, students and/or the educational system (Chilcott, 2011a,
4 Chapter 1: Introduction
2011c). Within these fervent discussions, teachers’ voices remained largely unheard.
This absence of voice provided somewhat of a catalyst for this study, which begins
from the position that teachers have a voice. It sets out to ensure that the voices of
teachers are expressed and that their experiences and practices with student behaviour
in the Preparatory year are understood through a phenomenographic lens.
There are myriad influences on student behaviour. These include educational
policies, guidelines and curriculum documents. In Australia at a national level, the Safe
Schools Framework: All Australian Schools are Safe, Supportive and Respectful
Teaching and Learning Communities that Promote Student Wellbeing (Standing
Council on School Education and Early Childhood [SCSEEC], 2013) has provided a
vision for safe and supportive school communities which encompass principles to
promote student well-being and respectful relationships. In Queensland, the Code of
School Behaviour: Better Behaviour, Better Learning (Department of Education
Training and Employment, 2006) and the Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students
(Department of Education and Training, 2014b) have been developed to assist
teachers, schools and school communities to understand and articulate the
responsibilities and approaches that should support student behaviour in schools.
These policies have a significant influence on teacher practices. Queensland
government schools are free to adapt the Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students
(Department of Education and Training, 2014b) with input from teachers, parents and
students, and then all are expected to comply with what is decided.
In recent years a nation-wide, major reform to Australian education has been
implemented, namely the Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum Assessment
and Reporting Authority, 2016a). This reform has influenced the way teachers support
student behaviour. The Queensland Department of Education and Training developed
a State-based resource to support the implementation of the Australian Curriculum,
known as Curriculum into the Classroom or C2C. The Australian Curriculum was
developed as an outcomes-based, explicit curriculum and, at the time of this study, the
wide-spread use of the C2C had resulted in government schools favouring whole-class
teaching and direct-instruction teaching methods, even in the first year of school
(Department of Education and Training, 2015b). This challenged early years teachers’
philosophical notions and meant that Prep teachers working with children aged 4-6
years in particular were engaged in continually adapting their pedagogy to
Chapter 1: Introduction 5
accommodate the constraints of the curriculum in order to meet the developmental,
social and emotional needs of their students (Department of Education and Training,
2015b; Gaedtke, 2010). In response to these challenges, the Department of Education
and Training (2015b) introduced a significant policy movement called Age-
appropriate pedagogies. The reform sought to address the whole-class teaching and
direct instruction approaches that were a result of the C2C implementation and instead
to promote a range and balance of teaching approaches that maximize children’s
engagement with learning.
Queensland Prep teachers have long understood the value of the pedagogy of
play in early learning and have catered for this in their teaching, as promoted in the
Early Years Curriculum Guidelines (Queensland Studies Authority [QSA], 2006), the
Queensland-based curriculum framework that was developed and written specifically
for the implementation of the Prep year, to support teachers to plan, teach, assess and
report on children’s learning. The Early Years Curriculum Guidelines advocated for
teachers to plan for extended periods of play in the early years of school. Play has,
importantly, been acknowledged as effective in developing students’ oral language,
thinking processes and social competence, all of which are foundational for successful
outcomes in school (QSA, 2006). Hyson and Taylor (2011) state that play promotes
prosocial skills, which is important, as the development of these skills plays a powerful
role in facilitating students’ positive classroom behaviour. The introduction of the
Australian Curriculum created issues for many Prep teachers as it gradually
superseded the Early Years Curriculum Guidelines and teachers grappled with
implementing the heavy content expectations of the Australian Curriculum and the
explicit nature of the C2C units of work alongside pedagogies that they knew best
supported children’s social and emotional development (Department of Education and
Training, 2015b).
My particular interest in undertaking this study emerged from my work as an
early years teacher, my Master of Education studies in the field of School Guidance
and Counselling, and my work as a sessional academic in the School of Early
Childhood and Inclusive Education at Queensland University of Technology (QUT).
My own insatiable curiosity about student behaviour has led me down this research
path. As an early career teacher, I was confronted in my work with challenging student
behaviour across a range of settings. This led me to study School Guidance and
6 Chapter 1: Introduction
Counselling as I wanted to gain deeper understandings of approaches that supported
student behaviour, to understand their associated theoretical underpinnings, and to
implement approaches that would fit harmoniously with my early childhood
philosophy.
As a sessional academic at QUT, my need to understand more about student
behaviour approaches was again illuminated as I witnessed the struggles of preservice
teachers grappling with developing understandings about behaviour theories and
approaches, and putting all this into practice. From my time spent in schools
supporting preservice students and subsequent discussions with supervising teachers
around the difficulties students experienced approaching student behaviour in practice,
I noted that many did not seem to be able to say exactly what drives their practice in
terms of behaviour theories. Additionally teachers seemed to have limited access to a
narrow range of information and professional learning opportunities on behaviour
approaches with which to develop their understandings of the varied approaches and
their theoretical underpinnings. Although education systems focus their teacher
professional learning opportunities on specific packaged programs and approaches
which they feel best suit their goals and which reflect current educational trends, many
other approaches exist that may enhance teacher practices with student behaviour and
promote positive student outcomes. As a starting point then, this study set out to
investigate variation in teachers’ approaches with student behaviour.
Before progressing, however, it is necessary to clearly define several terms that
are linked to this research topic. Key terms will be defined and will provide an
orientation to important ideas around student behaviour, approaches with behaviour
and, specifically, early childhood education.
1.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS
For the purpose of this study it is important to define several terms. These terms
include: (i) early childhood; (ii) student behaviour; and (iii) approaches to behaviour.
Early Childhood
First, early childhood will be defined. The early childhood years are those
recognised as being between the ages of birth and 8 years (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009;
Council of Australian Governments [COAG], 2008; Fleer et al., 2006; Morgan, 2007;
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO], 2016).
Chapter 1: Introduction 7
This period of early life experiences is universally recognised as an important and
rapid period of development. A focus on child development is what makes early
childhood education fundamentally unique (Berk, 2006). Child development
knowledge is recognised as foundational to the professional knowledge required for
early childhood educators to work effectively in the field.
From a different perspective, Rogoff (2003), a United States researcher on the
cultural aspects of learning, has argued that child development should always be
understood in light of cultural and community experiences. This broader
communitarian perspective has come to be seen as an alternative to narrow and
individual child development perspectives. Fleer et al. (2006) advocated for a shift to
a new worldview that can account, in more inclusive ways, for the cultural-historical
development of children. Hence, the term early childhood must be understood in its
complexity, recognising the dynamic and transformative characteristics of children,
culture and early childhood settings rather than the normative constraints of lock-step
age and stage views (Fleer et al., 2006).
Early Childhood Australia’s (ECA) (2016) Code of Ethics acknowledges the
shift in understanding to more balanced contemporary perspectives, stating that socio-
cultural theories have illuminated the importance of children’s social contexts to their
learning and development. Families and communities play a vital part in children’s
learning and development and children in turn influence their family and community.
Theoretical perspectives shape how this specific period of childhood is viewed and
defined. For the purpose of this study, the early childhood years are considered beyond
a developmental stage, to a more complex and dynamic interaction between young
children, their families, cultures, and communities.
Student Behaviour
Second, definitions of behaviour will be provided. Bergner (2011) argues that
there is little consensus in the psychological literature over the term ‘behaviour’, and
suggests elements common to such a definition to include: “observable overt” actions,
“verbal behaviour” and “physical movements” (p.147). Thinking about behaviour in
relation to students though requires deeper inspection. Glasser (1998) asserts that
behaviour is inherently and profoundly connected to human needs, “from birth, our
behaviour is always our best attempt at the time to do what we believe will best satisfy
one or more of our needs” (p.47).
8 Chapter 1: Introduction
These definitions suggest that behaviour is an action: something students ‘do’;
however, for this study an even more nuanced definition is required. A routine
database search using the search term student behaviour inevitably reveals a plethora
of literature that reports on approaches and programs to reduce negative behaviour or
increase positive behaviour. These search results suggests that behaviour is perceived
as something troubling and something that requires attention and/ or intervention.
The selection of a single term to describe behaviour in this study is not an easy
one, as behaviour can be interpreted and labelled in many ways, depending on
individuals’ perceptions and prior experiences (Porter, 2006, 2014; Ravet, 2007b).
Many terms have been used in the literature to describe student behaviour; such as,
disengaged, disruptive, inappropriate, misbehaviour, challenging and off-task.
Inappropriate behaviour, misbehaviour, unacceptable behaviour or problem
behaviour (Department of Education Training and Employment, 2006, 2013;
Education Queensland, 2007a). These terms are used to explain actions that are
considered to be contextually inappropriate and which disrupt learning, violate the
rights of others and challenge social standards.
Terms that describe student behaviour as oppositional or disruptive suggest that
behaviour is something that a child ‘does’ in a purposeful way. For example, the term
misbehaviour implies wrongdoing by a child and invites moral labelling (Gartrell,
2014). Such terms can be viewed as arising from some kind of deficit within the child.
The terms favoured by guidance advocates such as Dan Gartrell are mistaken
behaviour or challenging behaviour. Gartrell (2014) argues that such terms encourage
teachers to view behaviour from a more positive ‘enabling’ perspective, and thus to
see students as competent and thereby decrease their own harmful judgements of
students.
Writers such as Ravet (2007a) and Sullivan et al. (2014) suggest disruptive or
disengaged behaviour and productive or unproductive behaviour respectively as the
preferred terms to describe student behaviour in classrooms, due to their association
with the curriculum, teaching and learning. That is, if children are not effectively
engaged in learning (i.e. they are disruptive, disengaged or unproductive), their
opportunities to develop key curriculum concepts may be missed (Domínguez,
Vitiello, Fuccillo, Greenfield, & Bulotsky-Shearer, 2011). A snowballing effect on
Chapter 1: Introduction 9
peers may occur, meaning that other children who are impacted by these behaviours
may also have their learning compromised (L. Overton & Sullivan, 2008).
Disruptive and disengaged behaviours are those reported as most troublesome
by teachers (Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Sullivan et al., 2014).
Such behaviours range from passive behaviours, such as daydreaming and
inattentiveness, to active behaviours such as calling out, walking around the classroom
and physically or verbally hindering other children. Shumate and Wills (2010) provide
definitions of disruptive and off-task behaviours. Disruptive behaviours are behaviours
that interfere with learning, impede instructional delivery, or both. Off-task behaviours
include not attending to or participating in instructional activities as requested by the
teacher (Shumate & Wills, 2010). These types of behaviours are noted as common
occurrences in classrooms. Empirical studies have shown that in any given classroom
at any given time between ten and 66 per cent of children may be off task or disengaged
(Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Domínguez et al., 2011; Powell, McIntyre, & Rightmyer,
2006; Willms, 2003).
In this study, the terms that are used to talk about student behaviour will be those
used by the teacher participants themselves as they discuss their experiences with
student behaviour and the approaches they use. Staying true to teachers’ experiences
is important, so as to develop conceptions (or ways of seeing) that remain as close as
possible to their lived experience.
Behaviour Approaches
Third, behaviour approaches will be defined. Definitions also pull apart terms
associated with specific behaviour approaches adopted in schools. Terms such as
classroom management, discipline, guidance and behaviour support are frequently
used in the literature. One such term, discipline, requires teachers to ensure that
classrooms are safe environments where learning can take place. Oftentimes this is
referred to as maintaining classroom discipline. For example, internationally
acclaimed behaviour, leadership and discipline management expert Bill Rogers
(Rogers & McPherson, 2009) stated that good school discipline has several functions
including:
10 Chapter 1: Introduction
provision of a safe, relational context whereby teachers teach
responsible and cooperative behaviour through explanation and
discussion with students;
teaching good behaviour and discipline with dignity;
preventing disruptive behaviour; and
protecting the rights of all.
Dreikurs, Cassel and Dreikurs Ferguson (2004) and Rogers and McPherson
(2009) stated that discipline is primarily concerned with enabling students to be aware
of their own behaviour. John Dewey’s view on Interest and Discipline in Democracy
and Education suggests that disciplined people are those who are considerate of their
actions and undertake them deliberately (Dewey, 2007). In addition, Dewey suggested
that discipline leads a child ‘to think’ rather than ‘to act’ in a way desired by an adult
(Dewey, 2007). The responsibility for student behaviour in Dewey’s approach rests
with teachers as they guide their students’ awareness and development of prosocial
behaviour.
Classroom or behaviour management are terms which are frequently found in
writing about student behaviour approaches for classroom teachers. Kohn (2006)
stated that the term management originated from the business world and was framed
around the control and direction of employees. Walker, Shea, and Bauer (2007)
defined behaviour management as being those interventions and actions in which
teachers engage to enhance the likelihood that children will develop effective,
productive and socially acceptable behaviours. The premise of classroom or behaviour
management seems to centre then on teachers’ responsibilities through their actions to
control student behaviour. Sue Cowley (2010) in the book Getting the Buggers to
Behave acknowledged that with a badly-behaved class it is difficult for teachers to do
their job and enjoy it. She suggested that teachers need to learn, develop and possess
a range of techniques and strategies to manage classroom behaviour. She talked about
the importance of teachers asserting themselves in the classroom and the necessity of
delivering sanctions in the form of time outs and detentions to students when rules
were violated. Perusal of a range of other literature that employs the term behaviour
management further confirms the application of behavioural techniques, strategies and
procedures in an effort to manage behaviour (Bullock & Brownhill, 2011; Hook, 2014;
Chapter 1: Introduction 11
Martella, Newlson, & Marchand-Martella, 2003; Scrivener & Thornbury, 2012;
Walker et al., 2007; Wardle, 2012).
A guidance approach to behaviour is a relatively new term pertaining to the
positive and democratic guidance of children’s behaviour, including the teaching of
social and emotional skills in all facets of early childhood classrooms (Fields, Perry,
& Fields, 2010; Gartrell, 2014; Marion, 2007; Miller, 2007; Porter, 2004, 2006, 2014).
The guidance approach was pioneered by those from the fields of developmental
psychology (Gartrell, 2014). Those promulgating a guidance approach reject use of
the term discipline due to its perceived inference of punishment (Gartrell, 2014). A
guidance approach sees a shift away from the idea of teachers controlling student
behaviour to teachers empowering students to manage their own behaviour.
Importantly for this study, the Queensland Department of Education and
Training, the government education authority in the State in which this study is set,
currently favours the terms Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) and Positive Behaviour
for Learning (PBL) when referring to steps taken by educators to support students in
meeting expectations of appropriate behaviour in schools or classroom settings
(Department of Education and Training, 2016g; 2007a). The Department states that
PBS “uses preventative, teaching and reinforcement-based strategies to achieve
meaningful and durable behaviour outcomes” (Department of Education and Training,
2015c, para 1). A more contemporary approach to PBS and PBL favours intentional
teaching of behaviours and fits with the more egalitarian or democratic approaches
with student behaviour. However, theoretically the origins of PBS and PBL are
authoritarian in nature (Porter, 2006).
For the purpose of this thesis, it is important to consider the way terms are used
to describe student behaviour and behaviour approaches as these can, in turn, impact
the ways in which teachers view student behaviour and how behaviour approaches are
selected and implemented in classrooms (Porter, 2006). The terms pertaining to
behaviour approaches used in this thesis will be guided by the particular teacher-
participant terms expressed during data collection. This is in line with the research
methodology of phenomenography which aims to capture the most authentic
conceptions of participants’ experience.
12 Chapter 1: Introduction
1.3 CONTEXT
The context for this study is the Preparatory (Prep) year in Queensland
government schools. The introduction of the Prep year in Queensland was a significant
reform in 2007. The Prep year has recently been recognised by the Queensland
government as the first compulsory, formal full time year of school for children aged
4.5-6.5 years in Queensland (Palaszczuk & Jones, 2016). The Prep year is equivalent
to Year 1 in England and to Kindergarten in the United States of America.
The topic of student behaviour has been heavily researched across a variety of
educational contexts. Elementary or primary schools, middle schools and high schools
have received much attention from international researchers (Alter et al., 2013; Belt &
Belt, 2017; Gillen, Wright, & Spink, 2011; Sullivan et al., 2014; Tsouloupas, Carson,
Matthews, Grawitch, & Barber, 2010). In Australia, researchers such as Arbuckle and
Little (2004), De Jong (2005), and Sullivan et al. (2014) have focused their efforts on
student behaviour in primary schools and high schools. These seem to be contexts
where teachers face particular challenges in supporting student behaviour in the
classroom.
Although studies on prior to school educational contexts such as kindergarten
and preschool centres have also become more common in the research literature
(DellaMattera, 2011; Dunlap et al., 2006; Gonzales, 2012), neglected in the Australian
context are studies which specifically aim to investigate student behaviour approaches
in the early years. In the Preparatory year in Queensland no studies to date have
explored student behaviour or teachers experiences with approaching student
behaviour. It is therefore apparent that there is a gap in the research around knowledge
of what is happening in this area. An opportunity to explore this context in this present
study has presented itself, developing (i) understandings related to student behaviour
approaches; and (ii) investigating Prep teachers’ experiences with and understanding
of this phenomenon. Eliciting these teacher conceptions will lead to increased
understandings of how teachers experience and conceptualise their approaches with
student behaviour and hopefully influence future professional learning on student
behaviour approaches.
Chapter 1: Introduction 13
1.4 PURPOSES
The aim of this study is to investigate teachers’ conceptions or ways of seeing
their behaviour approaches in the Preparatory year. It is hoped it will contribute unique
perspectives and understandings of teachers’ experiences of their practices with
student behaviour. In line with the phenomenographic methodology, this study’s focus
is on understanding the lived experience of teachers. The central research question
reflects the focus of the study and links clearly to the methodology. The research
question is:
How do teachers in the Preparatory year in Queensland government
schools experience and conceptualise their approaches with student
behaviour in the classroom?
This study set out to achieve its aim and answer the research question through
interviewing Prep teachers and engaging in phenomenographic analysis, using
Marton’s (2015) and Marton and Booth’s (1997) theoretical frameworks, which will
be discussed in detail in Chapter 3. It was intended that from this process an awareness
of how teachers understand their approaches with student behaviour would be
obtained, and in-depth knowledge of these teachers’ conceptions of their approaches
would be generated to inform future directions in the area of teacher professional
learning.
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE AND SCOPE
The study of teachers’ experiences of their practice with student behaviour is
important and timely, as teachers spend a significant amount of time on behaviour
management issues (Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Sullivan et al., 2014). Research has also
shown that student misbehaviour is positively associated with teachers’ emotional
exhaustion and is a significant stressor affecting teacher well-being (Aydin & Kaya,
2016; Karaj & Rapti, 2013; Tsouloupas et al., 2010). Additionally, in a study of 21
mid-career ex-teachers, Buchanan (2010) found that classroom discipline served as a
catalyst for teachers leaving the profession. Similarly, Goddard and Goddard (2006)
identified in a Queensland study of 121 first or second year teachers that 12% were
seriously considering leaving the profession. This research highlights the importance
for this study to focus on understanding teachers’ experiences of student behaviour in
their day-to-day teaching.
14 Chapter 1: Introduction
The study of teacher conceptions of student behaviour approaches in the Prep
year is important because there is limited knowledge on this topic with regard to how
behaviour approaches are currently practised by teachers in the classroom. Developing
this knowledge will contribute to broader understandings for the field of preservice
and inservice teacher education and more specifically early childhood education.
Studies have shown that teachers perceive themselves as strong influences on student
behaviour (McKenzie et al., 2014; Tillery et al., 2010). This finding is important and
provides a strong rationale for this study. It promotes teachers as agents of change and
positions them as powerful in supporting student behaviour.
This study, employing phenomenography as its methodology to gain teacher
conceptions on student behaviour approaches in the Prep year, fills a gap in the
literature around how behaviour is experienced by teachers in their classrooms.
Currently there is little empirical evidence on this topic and this study thus makes a
unique contribution to the research on how teachers in the Preparatory year experience
and understand their behaviour approaches.
The aim of phenomenographic research is not to describe any particular
individual’s understandings but rather to capture a range of understandings across a
particular group (Åkerlind, Bowden, & Green, 2005). In this study, it was expected
that this range or variation in understandings would engender findings with rich
description of how student behaviour was experienced by teachers in Prep classrooms
and how they understood their practice or approaches with student behaviour.
Phenomenography has not been widely used in research on this subject and its
selection as a methodology in this study is a good fit with the research question, as
phenomenography is a methodology that aims at description, analysis and
understanding of experiences (Marton, 1981). This study therefore aimed to
understand and analyse teachers’ experiences with student behaviour approaches in
the Prep year and to describe their conceptions of this phenomenon.
Typically, phenomenographic studies have a relatively small sample size of
around 20-30 participants (Åkerlind et al., 2005; Larsson & Holmström, 2007). A
larger sample size is generally not feasible for this type of study as phenomenography
lends itself to in-depth analysis. As such, it must be acknowledged that the findings of
this study have represented a point-in-time view of teachers’ conceptions of student
behaviour, as related to this particular group of participants. If the study were to be
Chapter 1: Introduction 15
repeated with a different group of teachers, in a different time or place, the findings
may well be different.
1.6 THESIS OUTLINE
To understand student behaviour approaches and set the context for this study,
it is necessary to explore current literature and research relating to the topic. Behaviour
as a concept in itself is complex. Thinking about behaviour and how it relates to
students and teaching requires investigation of a range of important ideas in order to
fully appreciate and comprehend the phenomenon. Literature which details behaviour
theory and approaches to student behaviour are presented in this study. This literature
is central to understanding behaviour and to identifying the range of ways teachers
may support student behaviour in the classroom.
This thesis has six chapters. This chapter, Chapter 1, has provided a background
to the study, defined key terms, presented the research question and discussed the
context and purpose of the study. In Chapter 2, an overview of the Australian
educational context is offered, school behaviour policy is presented, common
behaviour theories and approaches are discussed and an examination of a wide body
of literature related to student behaviour and teachers’ behaviour approaches is
provided. Chapter 3 presents the research design and theoretical framework for this
study, namely phenomenography and variation theory, and a detailed step-by-step
outline of the phenomenographic analysis. Chapter 4 presents the results of this study
of teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour by way of five
categories of description, along with an analysis of variation that highlights teachers’
conceptions and dimensions of variation (that is, the variation seen both within and
across the categories). Chapter 5 presents an in-depth discussion of each of the five
categories, with reference to the research and literature on student behaviour, policy,
curriculum and the theory behind behaviour approaches evidenced in the categories.
Finally, Chapter 6 draws conclusions about the study by way of implications from the
research and highlights its contribution to advancing knowledge of approaches with
student behaviour in the Prep year and to phenomenographic research.
Recommendations from the study findings and implications are then presented, along
with the strengths and limitations, and suggestions for future research.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 17
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This literature review examines several bodies of literature with direct relevance
to teachers’ experiences and conceptions of student behaviour and their approaches
with student behaviour. In doing so, it builds a strong argument for the importance of
researching teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour.
First, in section 2.2, the literature review describes the general current
educational landscape in Australian schools. It provides important contextual
information concerning recent reforms to the Australian educational system, with
particular reference to Queensland, and explains the impact these reforms have had on
the work of early childhood teachers. Next, in section 2.3, the literature discussing
school behaviour policy current at the time of this study is detailed. Since the
introduction and implementation of the Code of School Behaviour: Better Behaviour,
Better Learning policy in Queensland government schools in 2006, the expectations
of student behaviour have lifted, as have the subsequent responsibilities of teachers to
effectively manage classroom behaviour (Department of Education Training and
Employment, 2006). These high expectations of student behaviour extend to the
Preparatory (Prep) year, where Prep students are expected to comply with whole-
school rules and procedures.
In section 2.4, The Preparatory year in Queensland, the context for this study is
introduced. This section provides information on the inception of the Prep year and
explains the Queensland government’s motivation for implementing this first formal
year of schooling. Section 2.5 follows, explaining issues related to student behaviour
and the Preparatory year. This section reveals that since the roll-out of the Prep year,
student behaviour has been increasingly regarded as problematic (Chilcott, 2011a;
Department of Education Training and Employment, 2014). The issue of such
perceived challenging student behaviour in the Prep year and the associated negative
impact on students and teachers provided a catalyst for this study. Next, section 2.6
provides a synthesis and summary of behaviour approaches that are evidenced in many
Queensland government schools. Behaviour approaches are examined and critiqued in
an effort to understand historical and theoretical influences and applications. Benefits,
18 Chapter 2: Literature Review
challenges and limitations of the range of behaviour approaches that are commonly
implemented by classroom teachers are also presented.
Next, in section 2.7, literature is reviewed that discusses the impact of curriculum
and pedagogy on student behaviour. Research and policy in this area advocate for an
integrated approach to supporting student behaviour that includes effective teaching
strategies and attention to curriculum, which is matched to the learning needs of
students (Ministerial Council on Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth
Affairs [MCEECDYA], 2011; SCSEEC, 2013; Sullivan et al., 2014).
In section 2.8, research on student motivation, behaviour and engagement are
considered, followed by an examination of the growing body of research examining
perceptions of student behaviour. A review of research on teachers’ perceptions of
student behaviour in section 2.9 reveals the challenges teachers face supporting student
behaviour in the classroom (Alter et al., 2013; Belt & Belt, 2017; Conley, Marchant,
& Caldarella, 2014; Grieve, 2009; Kyriacou & Ortega Martín, 2010; McCready &
Soloway, 2010; Shen et al., 2009; Tsouloupas et al., 2010). This section reveals a gap
in the research in the areas of understanding the range of ways teachers approach
student behaviour and their conceptions of their approaches.
Finally in this chapter, in section 2.10, a discussion of the literature concerning
teacher professional development and training for supporting student behaviour is
presented. Managing student behaviour is widely recognised as a challenging aspect
of teaching and is noted as a growing priority in both preservice teacher education and
teacher training in Queensland (Department of Education and Training, 2011; Flower,
McKenna, & Haring, 2017; Peters, 2012; Sullivan et al., 2014; Tsouloupas et al.,
2010). A challenge and opportunity presents itself to effectively increase
understandings about how teachers experience and approach student behaviour in the
Prep year. Investigating how and why teachers approach behaviour in the way they do
will further develop professional awareness and knowledge on this topic. Identifying
teacher conceptions of behaviour approaches and particularly developing more
understandings around how Prep teachers experience, think about and respond to
behaviour are central to this project.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 19
2.2 THE AUSTRALIAN EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT
This section will outline major current national reforms to the Australian
educational system that relate to Prep settings at the time of this study, namely; (i)
Investing in the Early Years: A National Early Childhood Development Strategy
(COAG, 2009); (ii) the implementation of the Australian Curriculum (ACARA,
2016a); and (iii) the introduction of Australian Professional Standards for Teachers
(Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], 2014). For this
study it is important to review these major reforms, as they frame and shape the work
of teachers and may influence the ways they think about and approach student
behaviour in their classrooms. The Investing in the Early Years: Early Childhood
Development Strategy is reviewed first, followed by the Australian Curriculum, then
the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.
2.2.1 Investing in the Early Years
The Investing in the Early Years strategy recognised that children with a poor
start in life are more likely to face emotional, behavioural or learning difficulties
(COAG, 2009). The strategy, focusing on children in prior-to-school settings and their
transition to school, clearly identified high quality early childhood educational
programs in both before-school and school contexts as producing positive outcomes
for children. In addition, the strategy proclaimed the importance of producing an
integrated and inclusive approach to the provision of services to support children and
families. This strategy provided guidance to services in the form of information to
minimise risk factors as well as proactive early intervention delivery to ensure that all
Australian children had the best possible health and educational opportunities for the
future.
Investing in the early years is important as this delivers long-term benefits by
way of economic and social value for communities (Mustard, 2008). Heckman (2011)
stated that investment in early education for disadvantaged children “helps reduce the
achievement gap, reduce the need for special education, increase the likelihood of
healthier lifestyles, lower crime rate and reduce overall social costs” (p.5). Nores and
Barnett’s (2010) meta-analysis of early childhood interventions across 23 countries in
Europe, Asia, Africa, Central and South America found that interventions such as
education, nutrition, parenting education and income supplementation delivered
substantial benefits to children’s cognition, behaviour, health and schooling, and that
20 Chapter 2: Literature Review
these benefits were sustained over time. In the study, interventions that had an
educational component showed the highest average effect size on cognitive outcomes.
Students exhibiting challenging behaviours may evidence poor outcomes and
consequences later in life (Moore, 2006). Challenging student behaviours also have a
negative impact on the work of teachers. The Investing in the Early Years strategy
advocated for quality early childhood educational programs and effective teaching
resulting in more positive social and emotional student behaviours. The aims of this
strategy add weight to the importance of this study which focuses on student behaviour
in these crucial early years.
2.2.2 Australian Curriculum
Australia’s education system has recently undergone one of the largest reforms
of curriculum of its time. The Australian Curriculum, developed for all Australian
schools, sets out the knowledge, understanding, skills and general capabilities
identified as important for students in school contexts (ACARA, 2016a). Alongside
this, the implementation of the Early Years Learning Framework (Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR], 2009) in prior-to-school
settings has also been a corresponding major reform in early childhood education
services. This section, however, will focus on the Australian Curriculum, as it relates
specifically to the Preparatory context.
Prior to 2012, Australian States and Territories had each been responsible for
designing, delivering and supporting the implementation of curriculum and assessment
in their respective educational systems. In 2008, Australian State and Territory
Education Ministers agreed to collaborate to improve upon the educational outcomes
of all young Australians. The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young
Australians (Ministerial Council for Education Early Childhood Development and
Youth Affairs [MCEETYA], 2008) identified goals and committed to actions to
improve educational outcomes for all young Australians in a globalised economy. The
goals nominated were: (i) “Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence”; and
(ii) “All young Australians become: successful learners, confident and creative
individuals, and active and informed citizens” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 7).
The Melbourne Declaration reinforced the vital role schools play in promoting
the well-being and social and emotional development of young Australians and in
Chapter 2: Literature Review 21
ensuring social cohesion. The Declaration proposed a commitment to high quality
early childhood education, recognising the period between birth to 8 years of age as
the foundation for children’s social, emotional, physical and cognitive development.
The Declaration stated that students will develop self-worth, gain self-awareness to
manage their well-being, relate well to others and maintain healthy relationships
(MCEETYA, 2008). Importantly for this study, commitment to student well-being has
been acknowledged as central to student behaviour, with the National Safe Schools
Framework: All Australian Schools are Safe, Supportive and Respectful Teaching and
Learning Communities that Promote Student Wellbeing (SCSEEC, 2013) clearly
recognising student behaviour as supported when schools cater for the social and
emotional development of students and promote healthy relationships.
From the Melbourne Declaration came the design and implementation of the
Australian Curriculum, a national curriculum which promised a consistent approach
to learning in the 21st Century across the Australian States and Territories. The
Australian Curriculum makes clear to teachers what is to be taught across the years of
schooling, what students are to learn and the quality of learning expected of them
(ACARA, 2012). The Shape of the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2012) states that
schools are able to decide how best to deliver the curriculum, drawing upon integrated
approaches and pedagogies which meet students’ needs and interests, as well as
considering the particular school and community context. To support this notion, each
of the Australian States and Territories have retained their own curriculum authority
body, responsible for providing advice to schools on curriculum delivery, including
pedagogical and assessment recommendations.
One of the Australian Curriculum general capabilities to be integrated with the
learning (subject) areas, that of “personal and social capability”, supports the
development of student practices that include:
recognising and regulating emotions, developing empathy for others and
understanding relationships, establishing and building positive relationships,
making responsible decisions, working effectively in teams, handling
challenging situations constructively and developing leadership skills.
(ACARA, 2012, p. 17)
22 Chapter 2: Literature Review
This particular capability has clear links to student behaviour, and draws attention to
approaches teachers should adopt when supporting students’ personal and social
development.
When this study began in 2011, the development and impending implementation
of the Australian Curriculum had created tensions for early years educators
(Breathnach, O'Gorman, & Danby, 2016; Gaedtke, 2010; Sonter, 2014). Among the
tensions identified was the fact that early childhood educators found themselves
pushed and pulled in a number of uncertain directions with Queensland’s move to a
full-time Preparatory year (Breathnach et al., 2016; Hard & O'Gorman, 2007). With
further and more recent changes to the implementation of the Australian Curriculum,
early childhood teachers have expressed concerns about the push-down of the
curriculum and the challenges of catering for the diverse developmental needs of Prep
aged children under a curriculum which raises the bar concerning educational
expectations and achievement (Martyn-Jones, 2016).
The Early Years Curriculum Guidelines, the curriculum framework being
implemented alongside the Australian Curriculum at the time of this study, supported
the use of five contexts for learning for a well-planned and balanced Prep program:
play; real-life; situations; investigations; routines and transitions; and focused teaching
and learning. The investigations context for learning encouraged Prep children to
inquire, seek information, make connections and test their ideas (QSA, 2006). This
context was analogous with Gartrell’s (2014) guidance approach, where children’s
mistaken behaviour was seen as children’s attempts to investigate, test and construct
social understandings. Further, the focused teaching and learning context advocated
for teacher support of children’s individual needs as evidenced in the strengths based
model which underlies humanism (QSA, 2006).
The Early Years Curriculum Guidelines (QSA,2006) placed an emphasis on
children’s prior social and cultural understandings, constructions and learning; the
development of higher order thinking skills; and enrichment of learning through
negotiated and collaborative approaches to learning which is individually relevant,
challenging and engaging (p. 17). These understandings are important to good teaching
practice, and should shape how early years teachers approach their teaching of the
Australian Curriculum. At the time of implementation of this study, Luke (2010) stated
that the test for the Australian Curriculum would be whether it set conditions for yet
Chapter 2: Literature Review 23
another back to basics movement or whether it would succeed in delivering on matters
of intellectual demand; cultural meaning and substance; exploration of complex and
critical issues; content which represents the discipline as well as community
knowledge; the development of traditional and radical ideas, and designs and
knowledges for new economies.
Another important reform around the time of this study, and one that provided
educators with similar reservations to the introduction of the Australian Curriculum,
was the introduction in 2008 of Australia’s national testing program, the National
Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) (ACARA, 2016c).
NAPLAN tests Australian students’ skills in literacy and numeracy that are developed
over time through the school curriculum in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 (ACARA, 2016b).
ACARA stated that NAPLAN is the gauge by which schools and governments could
establish the educational outcomes of young Australians (ACARA, 2016c).
Queensland Studies Authority, the state body responsible for the implementation of
the curriculum frameworks in Queensland at the time of this study, proposed principles
for a “balanced” (p.1) national assessment regime for Australia in its draft paper
Student Assessment Regimes: Getting the Balance Right for Australia (QSA, 2009).
QSA stated that there was compelling evidence from other countries that when
accountability for educational outcomes is weighed purely on national full-cohort
testing, negative effects on teaching and student learning outweigh the positive
intentions. The paper examined evidence from the United Kingdom, United States of
America and Australia, and advocated for a more balanced assessment program where
accountability for student learning is shared by teachers, schools, schooling authorities
and government agencies (QSA, 2009).
At the time of this study, with the growing national emphasis on teacher
accountability gained from national data collection of full-cohort testing, there was a
very real threat of a narrowing of the curriculum. Teaching to the test has been one
such outcome of the national testing regime and has had grave implications for student
engagement with learning, a professed measure of teaching quality (Luke, 2010; QSA,
2009). While the development of student responsibility and children’s long term
learning outcomes are strongly advocated for in schools, the increased pressure of
testing and standards has provided teachers with less time and energy for assisting
students to develop decision making skills; and may have served to limit children’s
24 Chapter 2: Literature Review
holistic development and to constrain their long term learning (Curwin, Mendler, &
Mendler, 2008; Department of Education and Training, 2015b). This in turn may
impact on students’ behaviour and teachers’ ability to support student behaviour.
2.2.3 Australian Professional Standards for Teachers
Along with the major curriculum reforms in Australia, the Australian
Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2014) for the first time publically
defined what constitutes teaching quality. The standards provide a framework that
communicates the knowledge, practices and professional engagement that are
expected across teachers’ careers. The seven standards are sequenced according to four
career stages: (i) graduate; (ii) proficient; (iii) highly accomplished; and (iv) lead
standards. Standard 4: Create and maintain safe, inclusive and challenging learning
environments (AITSL, 2014) is significant to this study, in particular, focus areas 4.2,
creating and maintaining supportive and safe learning environments and 4.3,
managing challenging behaviour. At one end of their careers, teachers at the graduate
level for standard 4.2 are expected to manage classroom activities and provide clear
directions to students. Later in their careers, the expectation of highly accomplished
teachers is that they possess a flexible repertoire of strategies for classroom
management to ensure student engagement. Such highly accomplished teachers will
also promote student responsibility through the implementation of effective classroom
management (AITSL, 2014).
In the standards focus area 4.3, managing challenging behaviour, it is stated that
graduate teachers will demonstrate practical behaviour approaches. Proficient teachers
will address discipline issues promptly, fairly, and respectfully, and will negotiate clear
expectations with students; while highly accomplished teachers will collaborate with
colleagues to develop a flexible repertoire of behaviour management strategies. These
standards suggest that teachers will develop proficiency over time and move from
more explicit and teacher-enforced strategies for supporting student behaviour to
strategies that take into account students’ individual circumstances and needs and
support student responsibility and engagement with learning. Australian education
policies related to student behaviour, such as the National Safe Schools Framework
(MCEECDYA, 2011), also reinforce these strategies. However, individual State
policies, such as Queensland’s Code of School Behaviour (Department of Education
Chapter 2: Literature Review 25
Training and Employment, 2006), also vary in focus. This will be discussed in detail
in the next section which reviews school behaviour policies.
The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, along with contemporary
curriculum reforms, send a strong message to teachers about what skills, knowledge
and attitudes they should be demonstrating in their classrooms to support student
behaviour. These factors influence teachers and the ways that they conceptualise
approaches with student behaviour, which is a central focus of this study and represents
an important step towards understanding how teachers can best be supported to fulfil
policy and Australian Professional Standards obligations with respect to student
behaviour. This study, using the qualitative methodology of phenomenography to
elicit these understandings, has provided a comprehensive and original perspective on
how teachers in the Prep year comprehend and approach student behaviour in this time
of great change.
2.3 SCHOOL BEHAVIOUR POLICY
School behaviour policy in Australia forms the basis for school systems,
individual schools, and teacher decision-making regarding classroom and behaviour
management. Educational policy in Australia, however, has been propelled by both
national and State government political agendas and this has impacted on the work of
teachers, with flow on effects for students (Bown, 2009, 2014; Porter, 2014; Reid,
2014). The differing national and State political agendas create a lack of cohesion,
making this landscape difficult for teachers to navigate. In this section, behaviour
policy at both a national and State level is reviewed, highlighting the federated nature
of policy implementation in Australia, and in particular presenting Queensland’s
behaviour policy position as a backcloth to this study. At a federal level the guiding
policy, the National Safe Schools Framework, was endorsed in 2010 by the Australian
State and Territory Education Ministers through the then Ministerial Council for
Education Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA) and
updated by the Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood (SCSEEC)
in 2013. The aim of this framework was to provide a set of guiding principles for safe,
supportive school communities, to promote student well-being, and to promote
respectful relationships (SCSEEC, 2013).
26 Chapter 2: Literature Review
The National Safe Schools Framework espouses a whole-school approach to
safety and well-being and sets out what it denotes as a set of evidence-informed
practices to guide schools in the prevention and response to behavioural incidents,
bullying and child protection. The framework supports an inclusive approach aiming
for caring, respectful and supportive teaching and learning communities, resulting in
a reduction in harassment, aggression, violence and bullying. The National Safe
Schools Framework Resource Manual cites a positive school culture as essential, and
this is characterised by teachers modelling inclusive and respectful approaches to
behaviour rather than strategies which are based on dominance and submission
(MCEECDYA, 2011).
Central to the National Safe Schools Framework is the notion of students’
satisfaction with their learning experiences, as well as active engagement and
participation of all school community members in the creation of safe schools.
Importantly for this study, element five, Positive Behaviour Management, is
characterised by evidenced-informed positive behaviour management approaches;
recognition of positive student behaviour; consistency of approaches in schools; and
effective risk prevention (SCSEEC, 2013).
In the National Safe Schools Framework, element 6, Engagement, skill
development and safe school curriculum (SCSEEC, 2013), places a strong focus on
the enhancement of student engagement with learning, cooperative learning and peer
learning, as well as the intentional and integrated teaching of social and emotional
skills. Furthermore provisions for student ownership, decision making and student
voice, as well as partnerships with families, are strongly advocated for.
Effective practices such as school leadership, a supportive and connected school
culture, clear policies and procedures and a commitment to the provision of ongoing
professional learning are listed as approaches which will support the implementation
of the framework (SCSEEC, 2013). In addition, the National Safe Schools Framework
Resource Manual (MCEECDYA, 2011) identifies a range of evidenced-based
behaviour management approaches seen to assist the effective implementation of the
framework. Such cited strategies include: (i) positive behaviour support (PBS); (ii)
restorative practices; and (iii) the use of awards and recognition to support positive
student behaviour.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 27
The National Safe Schools Framework (SCSEEC, 2013) clearly defines the role
of schools in creating safe, supportive environments. In particular, the role of school
leadership and teachers as proactive, collaborative and positive behaviour models is
made very explicit. This contrasts with Queensland’s Code of School Behaviour
(Department of Education Training and Employment, 2006), which places the onus
for student behaviour on students and parents/ carers.
2.3.1 Queensland Policy
At State-level, in Queensland government schools policy which centres on a
safe, supportive and disciplined environment that respects individual rights is seen as
essential to effective learning. School communities use the Code of School Behaviour
(Department of Education Training and Employment, 2006) as the base policy for
providing positive support to promote high standards of behaviour and achievement as
well as clearly articulated responses and consequences for inappropriate behaviour.
Additionally, under the Queensland Public Service Commission’s (2011) Code of
Conduct, staff must maintain high standards of ethical behaviour in their decision
making and engage with the community in a manner that is consultative, respectful
and fair (The State of Queensland Public Service Commission, 2011). However, the
teacher’s role in promoting positive student behaviour and the development of a
positive school culture as a means to prevent disengaged behaviours was not addressed
in Queensland’s Code of School Behaviour, (Department of Education Training and
Employment, 2006). This shows a lack of alignment with the National Safe Schools
Framework, which emphasized the teacher’s role in supporting student behaviour
(such as modelling behaviours and creating respectful relationships with students) and
the development of a positive, caring, respectful and supportive school culture
(SCSEEC, 2013).
Under the Code of School Behaviour, Queensland government schools must
develop an approved Responsible Behaviour Plan in consultation with the school
community, to be approved by the school Parents and Citizens Committee (P&C) and
the school’s Regional Executive Director. This must be processed in a proforma
template with prescribed categories of information which arguably supports
consistency (Department of Education and Training, 2014b). In the Responsible
Behaviour Plan, schools must outline their beliefs about student learning and
behaviour. Using a three-tiered approach known as the Response to Intervention (RTI)
28 Chapter 2: Literature Review
model, schools are required to demonstrate how they will facilitate standards of
positive behaviour and respond to unacceptable behaviour. This approach originated
from the School-Wide Positive Behaviour Support model that the Department of
Education and Training had adopted at the time of this study, whereby government
schools demonstrated their whole-school provision of universal, targeted and intensive
supports, including the consequences for unacceptable behaviour (Department of
Education and Training, 2014b).
Currently in Queensland, the Department of Education and Training has two
additional policies to support the Code of School Behaviour implementation in schools,
including the Statement of Expectations for a Disciplined School Environment
(Department of Education Training and Employment, 2013) and the Safe, Supportive
and Disciplined School Environment procedure (Department of Education and
Training, 2017e). These two policies reflect the greater disciplinary powers afforded
to Principals in response to ongoing reports of ‘out of control’ student behaviour
(Chilcott, 2011a, 2011b; Langbroek, 2013). These disciplinary powers have allowed
school Principals to autonomously make decisions concerning the use of detentions,
student disciplinary absences (SDAs), community service and discipline improvement
plans to manage disruptive student behaviour.
In 2012, the Department of Education and Training for the first time introduced
a Learning and Wellbeing Framework, recognising that schooling has an impact on
students’ well-being and behaviour (Department of Education Training and
Employment, 2012). The Learning and Wellbeing Framework helps guide schools in
developing a positive learning culture and enhancing students’ social and emotional
functioning, and acknowledges that students with high well-being are more likely to
engage in appropriate behaviour. Queensland policies related to student behaviour thus
require teachers to implement a range of principles and procedures that may at times
seem contradictory in nature.
To summarise, Australian national and State behaviour policy at the time of this
study was quite varied in its approach and ideals although there was a common thread
of positive behaviour. Although the National Safe Schools Framework espoused
student engagement through constructivist approaches to teaching and learning,
Queensland policy documents de-emphasised student engagement with learning and
attention to curriculum and pedagogy (Department of Education Training and
Chapter 2: Literature Review 29
Employment, 2006; SCSEEC, 2013). The potential influence of these policies on
teachers’ practice with student behaviour will be explored in further detail in Chapter
5.
Although the influence of specific aspects of behaviour policy is unclear,
educational policy research suggests that teachers’ practice is changed by policy (Ball,
2003). United Kingdom Policy researcher Ball (2003) stated that “what it means to
teach and what it means to be a teacher are subtly but decisively changed in the
processes of reform” (p.218). Maguire, Ball, and Braun (2010) also acknowledged that
policy impacts on teachers’ practice, asserting that the standards agenda has seen a
move to a ‘behaviour for learning’ policy position where teachers’ focus is on student
achievement. This ‘student achievement’ focus has the potential to impact on the ways
teachers conceptualise their approaches with student behaviour. In the following
section, the Queensland Government’s Better Behaviour Better Learning initiative is
outlined.
2.3.2 Better Behaviour, Better Learning
This section examines the Queensland Government’s classroom management
approach, the Better Behaviour Better Learning initiative which was designed to assist
Queensland government schools to provide safe, supportive and disciplined learning
environments (Education Queensland, 2007b). As mentioned in section 2.3, initiatives
included the Code of School Behaviour and the Responsible Behaviour Plan for
Students. In 2007, professional development packages were developed, including an
online course comprising (i) Essential Skills for Classroom Management; and (ii)
Professional Development Suite of modules (Education Queensland, 2007a, 2007b).
These professional learning materials arguably shape teachers’ approaches to student
behaviour in the Prep year.
The Essential Skills for Classroom Management originally designed by
Christine Richmond, Senior Guidance Officer, Behaviour Management, was based on
the use of micro-skills described in the Behaviour Management Skill Training
Handbook (Queensland Department of Education & Richmond, 1996). In 2006, the
handbook was revised by Paul Leitch, Logan-Albert Beaudesert Behaviour Advisory
Team member, with 10 Essential Skills for good classroom management explained and
defined. The 10 Essential Skills were suggested for use within the context of a well-
planned, innovative and engaging curriculum. The core elements include setting clear
30 Chapter 2: Literature Review
expectations, acknowledging appropriate behaviour and the correction of
inappropriate behaviour (Education Queensland, 2007b). These Essential Skills are
currently implemented in Queensland government schools as a professional
development package, delivered by trained facilitators (Department of Education and
Training, 2016d).
Supporting the implementation of the Essential Skills was the Better Behaviour
Better Learning Professional Development Suite (Education Queensland, 2007a). The
Professional Development Suite acknowledged approaches to behaviour which placed
an emphasis on the management of teaching practice, the development of positive and
productive student-teacher relationships, and the careful structuring and modification
of the classroom environment. Approaches were advocated for that were preventative
in nature, that promoted student self-responsibility and attended to the teaching and
promotion of positive behaviours (Education Queensland, 2007a).
Behaviour approaches in both the Essential Skills for Classroom Management
and Professional Development Suite were grounded in behaviour support models.
Choice Theory; Restorative Justice; School Wide Positive Behaviour Support
(SWPBS); Democratic Discipline; Responsible Thinking Process; and Positive
Behaviour Leadership were models which were said to contribute to effective school-
wide behaviour support programs in Australian schools at that time (Education
Queensland, 2007a, 2007b). Behaviour Modification and Assertive Discipline are
models which have in the past (and present) contributed to behaviour management
planning; however, Education Queensland (2007a) stated they were not considered
models of best practice in Australian schools. These approaches will be detailed and
critiqued in section 2.6.1. In the following section, the literature pertaining to the Prep
year in Queensland is detailed.
2.4 THE PREPARATORY YEAR IN QUEENSLAND
The Queensland Preparatory (Prep) year is the context of this study of teachers’
ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour. This section will outline the
inception of the Prep year, and provide information about the kindergarten year, the
year which precedes Prep in Queensland. The announcement of Queensland’s
intention to trial a Preparatory year was publicised by the Queensland Government in
its Education and Training Reforms for the Future (Queensland Government, 2002).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 31
After initial trials beginning in 2003, the Preparatory year in Queensland was “rolled
out” across the State in 2007 to a half-year cohort of children as a non-compulsory
year of education prior to the start of formal primary school.
Previous to the introduction of the Prep year in Queensland, children had entered
school at Year 1, after participating in government or non-government preschools,
child care programs or home-based care arrangements, for example, family day care.
Preschool programs, staffed by qualified early childhood teachers and teacher aides,
were offered on a part-time basis; however, at the time there was a strong demand from
parents for a full-time preschool year (Hard & O'Gorman, 2007). Compared to other
States and Territories at the time, Queensland was the only State not providing full-
time, full-day programs in the year prior to Year 1 (Thorpe et al., 2005). In the report
of the Queensland Preparing for School trial in 2003/04, Thorpe and colleagues (2005)
reported that children who had attended a Preparatory year were viewed by parents
and teachers as more socially skilled and adaptive to school settings upon entering
formal school than those who had attended preschool.
After the trial in 2007, the Prep year was implemented to a full cohort of
Queensland children in all government and non-government (i.e. State, Catholic and
Independent) schools. Although preschool teachers were retained in the move from
preschool to Prep, and newly-qualified early childhood graduates were also employed,
many primary-trained teachers were also employed in the role of Prep teachers due to
the great demand for Prep teachers at the time (Department of Education Training and
Employment, 2008). With the Prep year introduced as a full-time, non-compulsory
year of school, the school starting age was increased by 6 months, bringing Queensland
into line with other Australian States (Hard & O'Gorman, 2007). Government policy
stipulated that children eligible for the Prep year in Queensland must turn five years
of age by 30 June in the year they enter the Preparatory Year (Queensland Government,
2017b). Hence Prep children are aged between 4.5-6.5 years.
In 2011 the Queensland Government announced reforms to Queensland
education in A Flying Start for Queensland Children: Queensland Government
Education White Paper (Department of Education and Training, 2011). The Prep year
was recognised as the “first year” of school (rather than the year before formal school)
in an effort to maximise attendance and advance student achievement. As such, the
policies, guidelines and regulations governing the education of Queensland school-
32 Chapter 2: Literature Review
aged children were applied to children attending Prep. In 2016, the Queensland
government formally announced that legislation had passed marking the Prep year as
a compulsory first year of schooling (The Queensland Cabinet of Ministerial
Directory, 2016).
COAG, in its National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education,
agreed to a universal access commitment, stating that by 2013 every child in Australia
will have had access to an educational program in the year before school (i.e. the year
before the Prep year), to be delivered by a four-year university-qualified early
childhood teacher (COAG, 2008). In 2010, approximately 40% of Queensland
children were enrolled in an early childhood kindergarten program delivered by a
qualified early childhood teacher (Department of Education and Training, 2011). By
2015 this increased to 95.4% of children enrolled in kindergarten programs
(Queensland Audit Office, 2016). The Queensland State Government’s target for
2020, as set out in A Flying Start for Queensland Children: Queensland Education
Government White Paper (2011) was for all Queensland children to have access to
high-quality kindergarten programs in the year before Prep, so this aim has essentially
been achieved. The decision to provide universal access to kindergarten programs was
influenced by the Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care (OECD,
2006) review of early childhood education and care (ECEC) in twenty OECD
countries, and supported by the results from the 2009 Australian Early Development
Index (AEDI) (Centre for Community Child Health, & Telethon Institute for Child
Health Research [CCCH & TICHR], 2011). The Starting Strong II: Early Childhood
Education and Care review indicated that Australia lagged behind comparable
countries in terms of access to quality early learning. The 2009 Australian Early
Development Index showed that Queensland children were more developmentally-
vulnerable than their interstate equivalents before they start school (CCCH & TICHR,
2011; Department of Education and Training, 2011).
As background to the Australian Early Development Index (AEDI), COAG
recognised a need for information about early childhood development relating to five
developmental domains:
physical health and well-being;
social competence;
Chapter 2: Literature Review 33
emotional maturity;
language and cognitive skills; and
communication skills and general knowledge (CCCH & TICHR, 2011;
COAG, 2008).
The AEDI was a national progress measure of children’s development as they
enter school. Data were collected nationally from teachers who completed a checklist
for children in their first year of full-time school. Information was collected on 97.5%
of the population of Australian five year olds. In Australia, the average age of children
at the time the AEDI checklists were completed was 5 years and 7 months.
Queensland, Western Australia, and Northern Territory children were the youngest
participants with a mean age of 5 years and 5 months (CCCH & TICHR, 2011).
In 2009, Queensland was reported to have the lowest proportion of children
enrolled in a preschool program. In 2008/2009, only 29% of Queensland children
attended a structured play-based ‘pre-prep’ or kindergarten early childhood program
(as it is now known) in the year before school. This figure was significantly lower
when compared to other States such as New South Wales, where 81.9% of children
attended a preschool program (CCCH & TICHR, 2011). In response to the AEDI
results, the Queensland government released its strategy to boost the attendance of
children in kindergarten programs. Kindergarten services located on the grounds of
government schools were introduced. As well, funding was allocated to long day care
services to deliver approved kindergarten programs (COAG, 2008; Department of
Education and Training, 2017g).
In July 2014, the AEDI programme became known as the Australian Early
Development Census (AEDC). The Australian Early Development Census National
Report 2015 (Department of Education and Training, 2016a) showed that nation-wide
in the area of social competence, the proportion of children who were developmentally
vulnerable increased from 9.5 in 2009 and 9.3% in 2012, to 9.9 % in 2015 (Department
of Education and Training, 2016a). This led to renewed commitment by COAG in the
form of the National Partnership Agreement on Universal Access to Early Childhood
Education to ensure access to affordable, quality early childhood education
programmes for all Australian children, including vulnerable and disadvantaged
children (COAG, 2016).
34 Chapter 2: Literature Review
The implementation of the Prep year, along with universal access to the
Kindergarten year, have been credited with enhancing young children’s development
and learning in Queensland (Palaszczuk & Jones, 2016). However, student behaviour
in the Prep year has proved to be a growing concern.
2.5 STUDENT BEHAVIOUR AND THE PREPARATORY YEAR
Student behaviour in the Prep year has been seen as problematic. This context is
particularly important for this study. As previously noted in section 2.3, the rights and
obligations of students, parents and staff are detailed in the Queensland’s Code of
School Behaviour (Department of Education Training and Employment, 2006). The
Code of School Behaviour does not differentiate its expectations by the age of children.
Therefore expectations for its youngest students attending the Prep year are the same
as expectations for older children. Under the code it is expected that Prep students:
participate actively in the school’s educational program;
take responsibility for their own behaviour and learning;
demonstrate respect for themselves, other members of the school
community and environment;
behave in a manner that respects the rights of others, including their right
to learn;
cooperate with staff and others in authority. (Department of Education
Training and Employment, 2006)
Just prior to this study, in 2010, there were 379 student disciplinary absences
(SDAs) and incidents in the Prep year in Queensland. This had more than doubled
from the 184 disciplinary absences recorded in 2008, with the first full cohort of Prep
students (D. Blundell, personal communication, October 5, 2011). In Queensland,
SDAs are school-applied, short-term or long-term suspensions or exclusions that
prohibit students from attending their school for a nominated period of time due to
“breach of discipline or other reasons”. These are “viewed as only one of many
strategies for addressing serious student misbehaviour” (Department of Education
Training and Employment, 2014, p. 1). During this study, the Queensland Government
has continued to track SDAs and over the past five years there has been a worrying
incline in the number of SDAs in the Prep year, as shown in Figure 2.1.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 35
Figure 2.1. Student disciplinary absences (SDAs) in Queensland Government schools by year (data
from Queensland Government, 2017a).
These data show that student behaviour in the Prep year is a growing concern,
providing further evidence of the relevance and timeliness of the present study.
At the time this study began, Prep student behaviour had captured media
attention. For example in May of 2011 a Brisbane newspaper, The Courier Mail,
published an article titled Terror Tots, stating that violent and out-of-control behaviour
among Prep students was rising. The article stated that teachers reported the main
reason for this behaviour was children being unprepared for school (Chilcott, 2011c).
The Queensland Teachers Union (QTU) agreed with this statement, attributing the
growing problem to parenting difficulties (Chilcott, 2011c). No mention was made or
discussion offered for other complex factors which may have contributed to the rise in
student disciplinary absences.
Responses to this article by the way of letters to the editor were enlightening and
reflected a multitude of views held by the community. These ranged from those in
agreement that children’s behaviour was out of control to the view that ineffective
parenting was the reason behind such behaviour. The following excerpt was
contributed by John McQueen (2011) from Redbank Plains:
WHAT sort of homes do these brats come from? Worse still, what sort of
parents have these brats got? As young as they may be, they have no place in
a civilised society. Until they can behave like human beings, they should be
forced to stay at home, where it is quite obvious from their behaviour there is
36 Chapter 2: Literature Review
no discipline, no parenting and no child care… But all these brats need is a
good, old-fashioned kick up the arse. Oh, and that goes for the parents as well.
(McQueen, 2011, para. 3)
This view of behaviour suggests further violence as a solution. Teachers are
curiously absent from this view. Other public responses laid the blame for the
behaviour with educators and education policy, such as this from Kerry Lawson (2011)
from Carina:
Laying the blame entirely at the feet of parents is a convenient excuse not to
adopt the fundamental behavioural strategies that educators are supposed to
have embraced as part of their training at university. The Inclusive Education
policy in Queensland is impressive on paper, but the discrepancy between
policy and practice is monumental. (Lawson, 2011, para. 1)
In yet another response, Louis Bradfield (2011) from Taringa added his view
regarding the nature of the Prep program and governmental agendas:
YOUR headline "Terror Tots" should have instead been "System of Terror".
Whatever happened to prep being play-based? Nowhere in the article did it
question the quality of these prep programs or the adult agendas - the payouts
from the Federal Government for increases in NAPLAN results and the
(resultant) narrowing focus on literacy and numeracy. This is more about
children and the unrealistic expectations we have of them at such a young age.
How much longer will parents allow this "regime of terror" to reign over
children? (Bradfield, 2011, para. 2)
Public opinion on student behaviour is strong, but often reduces complex factors
to simple statements such as the ones above, rather than teasing out the range of
influences on the issue. The Queensland Teachers Union’s earlier response to this
news article in essence mirrors Queensland’s Code of School Behaviour. The code
advocates for a strong emphasis on expectations (Department of Education Training
and Employment, 2006). Parents are expected to cooperate with their children’s school
and to support school staff in maintaining a respectful and safe learning environment.
Students are also expected to demonstrate respect, take responsibility for their own
learning, and cooperate with staff and other adults in authority. This is understandably
difficult for young children aged 4.5-6.5 years.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 37
It appears that the role of educators in proactively guiding behaviour or
strengthening partnerships with families to further support student behaviour has been
inferred rather than made explicit in the Code of School Behaviour document. In
addition, recognition that students in Prep bring with them a wide variety of
understandings shaped by their families, social and cultural experiences during the
early childhood years is not acknowledged in the Code of School Behaviour. In
contrast, an alternative view is present in the Early Years Learning Framework and in
the early childhood literature generally (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; DEEWR, 2009;
ECA, 2016; Fleer et al., 2006; Yahya, 2016), providing a potential mismatch between
school policy and early childhood pedagogy.
Student behaviour is shaped by many dynamic, complex and interacting factors.
It has influences that are much wider than the classroom itself. It is important that
schools acknowledge the social and cultural capital children bring with them into the
Prep year and seek to foster partnerships with families and communities in an effort to
understand their knowledge and support equitable and just outcomes for all students
(De Gioia, 2013; Yahya, 2016). This is important, due to Prep being the very first
contact children and families have with formal school in Queensland. Children arrive
at Prep with a wide variety of experiences, capabilities and dispositions that may be
shaped by attendance at prior-to-school educational programs such as kindergartens,
childcare and a wide range of other family, community and cultural experiences.
Petriwskyj, Thorpe, and Tayler (2014) argued that this diversity should be
acknowledged and appreciated in the transition prior to and in the early years of school.
Additionally the body of literature detailing self-regulation as a prime
developmental goal in the early childhood years is relevant to understanding student
behaviour. This skill is seen as vital to children’s later functioning in terms of problem
solving, attention, metacognition and in contributing to children’s success as learners
(Blair & Raver, 2015; J Montroy, Bowles, Skibbe, McClelland, & Morrison, 2016).
Central to the development of self-regulation are children’s understandings about
social behaviours. Social behaviours are influenced by family and wider community
experiences in the years prior to school. Through direct teaching from parents and
other important people in their lives, children adopt and/or reject rules about behaviour
(Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Murray, Rosanbalm, & Christopoulos, 2016; Taylor,
Conger, Robins, & Widaman, 2015). In the Prep year, teachers’ roles can therefore be
38 Chapter 2: Literature Review
seen to encompass the consideration of children’s previous experience, the
developmental status of individual children and the shaping of children’s behaviour in
partnership with parents.
In early childhood education and care, Developmentally Appropriate Practice
(Copple & Bredekamp, 2009) has contributed significantly to the view that children’s
development follows individual patterns and timing. It has been advocated that early
childhood teachers provide relevant support, intervention and guidance in the
acquisition of self-regulation and responsibility, and that “…teachers consider how to
foster such development in their interactions with each child and in their curriculum
planning” (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, p. 16). This notion is supported by the
Australian Early Years Learning Framework, with educators encouraged to support
children’s understanding of self-regulation and self-control (DEEWR, 2009). Further,
teachers’ roles in supporting children’s behaviour include monitoring, anticipating,
preventing and redirecting children’s behaviours (Gartrell, 2014; Porter, 2014;
Vijayan, Chakravarthi, & Arul Philips, 2016). Additionally, Copple and Bredekamp
(2009) stated that developmentally appropriate practice involves teachers engaging
children in the development of community rules for behaviour and responding
respectfully to children’s feelings and frustrations by guiding, resolving, and
modelling skills to assist children in solving their own problems. Thus the teachers’
roles in supporting student behaviour in the Prep year seem complex. There are many
different considerations, as detailed above, that need to be taken into account to
effectively support the behaviour of the youngest students in the Queensland school
system.
This section has identified several important points concerning public opinion
and education, and the mismatch between policy and practice in early childhood.
Importantly it has drawn a way forward for this study to research how teachers
approach student behaviour in early childhood classrooms.
2.6 BEHAVIOUR APPROACHES AND THEORIES
A diverse range of behaviour approaches may be used by teachers to manage
and support appropriate classroom behaviour. First, important Australian research
relating to teachers’ behaviour approaches is reviewed and then the specific
approaches commonly used in early childhood and primary educational settings and
Chapter 2: Literature Review 39
the theories that underpin these approaches are synthesised. This section of the
literature review is important to this study as it centres primarily on teachers’
behaviour approaches in the Prep year.
2.6.1 Behaviour Approaches
Research on student behaviour management approaches in Australia, although
limited, has been influential in generating understandings of the principles of good
behaviour practice (De Jong, 2003, 2005; Roache & Lewis, 2011a; Sullivan et al.,
2014). Australian researcher De Jong (2003) aimed to investigate what was said about
good behaviour management practice in the middle years of school. De Jong’s research
examined the literature discussing “good” behaviour practice and what teachers say
about such practice, and synthesised the views from these two sources using Miles and
Huberman's (1994) data-reduction, data-display and conclusion-drawing in the
analysis. Sixteen teachers or teacher administrators from nine government middle
schools in Western Australia were interviewed to elicit teachers’ experience and
understanding of good middle years behaviour practice (De Jong, 2003). The study
identified six themes related to successful behaviour management practice. These
included policy, school culture, educational philosophy, relationships, classroom
management and curriculum and pedagogy. These themes highlight the complex
nature of behaviour management practice.
In De Jong’s (2003) study participant views communicated the importance of
relationships, curriculum and pedagogy to good behaviour practice approaches. All
interviewees reported that their school had a whole-school behaviour management
policy. There was also evidence of the interviewees understanding that punishment
was inappropriate and ineffective in relation to young adolescents, even though
consequences were articulated in policy. Interviewees emphasised the importance of
students developing self-discipline and the use of positive reinforcement systems to
reward behaviour incrementally (De Jong, 2003). Additionally, De Jong (2003) found
that interviewees believed that successful behaviour management was dependent upon
teachers co-constructing classroom management plans that work best for particular
classes. Most teachers raised the need for capacity building and being able to manage
students more effectively in the classroom (De Jong, 2003). This may have important
implications for the provision of teacher agency within systemic and school-based
student behaviour policy and procedures, as this view suggests that teachers may value
40 Chapter 2: Literature Review
developing their own individually responsive behaviour systems rather than adopting
a whole-school approach.
More recently, researchers Roache and Lewis (2011a) and Sullivan et al. (2014)
studied the effectiveness of behaviour management strategies in Australian
classrooms. Roache and Lewis (2011a) aimed to investigate the effectiveness of
classroom management strategies from students’ perspectives. This research is novel,
as very little research has investigated student behaviours from the perspectives of
students themselves. The authors examined the responses from two interrelated
questionnaires of 1975 Melbourne students in years seven to ten, to glean their
reactions to classroom management strategies, their attitude to and interest in their
subjects, their misbehaviour levels, responsibility, connectedness and well-being. A
combination of behaviour strategies, which included discussion, hinting, involvement,
and recognition and rewards, represented the most effective classroom management
strategies that were perceived to reduce the impact and frequency of discipline and to
encourage students’ personal and communal responsibility. The strategy of
punishment failed to increase students’ reports of self-responsibility or their focus in
class, and teacher aggression had negative effects on students’ perceptions. These
findings represent an important view, that of the students who are at the coal face of
teacher-implemented behaviour approaches.
Sullivan et al. (2014), like De Jong, investigated perceptions of behaviour
management approaches; however, they did so from the perspectives of teachers. The
researchers surveyed 1380 Reception (equivalent to Prep) to year 12 teachers in South
Australia to investigate teachers’ classroom behaviour management strategies and
their perceived effectiveness. They found the most effective teacher perceived
behaviour management strategies were: following a step system, involving an
escalation of actions if behaviour did not change; reasoning with a student; and
deliberately ignoring minor disruptions or infringements. Teachers reported that
disengaged and low-level disruptive behaviours were the most challenging behaviours
to manage. Sullivan et al. (2014) found that when teachers responded to unproductive
student behaviour they utilised approaches that may not have addressed the underlying
causes of those behaviours, and proposed that teachers consider ecological factors and
focus on facilitating student engagement.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 41
While this research provides a good overview of teachers’ perceptions of the
effectiveness of their behaviour management practice, it does not provide a qualitative
in-depth understanding of how teachers experience and - importantly - understand and
comprehend the impact of their approaches on student behaviour. In addition, it is
evident that limited attention has been placed on specifically researching student
behaviour approaches in the early years of schooling in Australia, particularly with
regard to the Prep year. Investigating and identifying how approaches with student
behaviour are experienced, conceptualised and understood by teachers, particularly in
the early years of school, will address a significant gap in the current research in
Australia.
2.6.2 Behaviour Theories
In the ensuing sections, a range of behaviour approaches and their theoretical
roots will be examined, with particular attention paid to approaches which have
previously been evidenced in Queensland schools.
Behavioural experts, including researchers, practitioners and advocates, have
developed theories and ideas that have influenced thinking on how to best manage
children’s behaviour in classrooms. In Australia, Louise Porter (2006) was influential
in mapping behaviour management theories and their related approaches along a
continuum. According to Porter (2006), theories and approaches can be organised
according to the extent to which teachers and children collaborate. On one end of the
continuum are egalitarian principles favoured by those who advocate sharing power
with children, or democratic approaches as exemplified by Choice Theory (Glasser,
2001) and the guidance approach to behaviour (Gartrell, 2014; Porter, 2006). On the
other end of the continuum are authoritarian principles, where teachers apply planned
strategies and procedures to control student behaviour, as exemplified by Assertive
Discipline (Canter & Canter, 1976) and Applied Behaviour Analysis (Alberto &
Troutman, 2006; Sugai & Horner, 2002). At various points along the continuum lie
other methods, such as cognitive behaviourism (A. Ellis & Joffe-Ellis, 2011) and
Adlerian approaches (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956; Balson, 1996), utilising a
combination of authoritarian and more egalitarian principles. Porter’s (2006)
continuum is a useful way to conceptualise behaviour theories, with its focus on the
amount of control teachers use in efforts to guide behaviour in the classroom and on
the extent of collaboration that exists between teachers and students.
42 Chapter 2: Literature Review
For the purpose of this study, it is important to explore theories and approaches
that influence the design of behavioural interventions for young children in early
childhood classrooms. I have used Porter’s (2006) continuum as a point of entry into
a more detailed review of specific theories and approaches that have been commonly
used in early childhood settings and primary schools. Authoritarian approaches are
reviewed first, followed by egalitarian approaches, and then mixed approaches.
2.6.3 Authoritarian Approaches
Authoritarian forms of discipline gain student compliance through teacher
driven expectations, the application of consequences and the consistent monitoring and
evaluation of social behaviours (Sugai & Horner, 2002). Applied Behaviour Analysis
(ABA) is a commonly used authoritarian behaviour management approach. ABA has
its roots in behaviourism and has been influenced by the philosophical movement
known as positivism (Alberto & Troutman, 2006). This movement emphasised that
valid knowledge is only obtainable via objective observation.
Skinner (1974), whose work also focused on the relationship between behaviour
and its consequences, drew parallels between Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural
Selection concerning the ways species adapt to the environment, with the way an
individual adapts to a situation, as with operant conditioning, that is, the use of pleasant
and unpleasant consequences to alter behaviour (Slavin, 2009). Skinner’s (1974) work
influenced ABA with regard to the idea that phenomena must be observable in an effort
to be reliable. The efforts of Skinner and Darwin focused attention on mental processes
and led to a movement known as functionalism (Alberto & Troutman, 2006). This
progression in turn led to behaviourism, emphasising a practical, observable approach.
Elements of ABA’s approach to behaviour, such as the provision of rewards,
consequences, stimulus control and modelling have traditionally been adopted by
teachers and parents (Alberto & Troutman, 2006; Education Queensland, 2007a;
Slavin, 2009).
In 1968, Baer, Wolf and Risley laid the foundation for the application of ABA
to the study and improvement of human behaviour (as cited in Sugai & Horner, 2002).
ABA is based upon the fundamental premise that both adaptive and maladaptive
human behaviour are learned, and that behaviour that is followed by positive
consequences tends to be repeated and maintained (Alberto & Troutman, 2006).
Alberto and Troutman (2006) stated, however, that teachers need to become skilled in
Chapter 2: Literature Review 43
ABA to be able to apply these techniques in such a way that environmental and
functional relationships are established and planned. ABA involves a complex process
of observation, including the planned recording and analysis of data, functional
assessment and analysis, and a range of carefully considered and applied planned
interventions, including the application of consequences and differential
reinforcement.
ABA has been adopted in essence by many educational authorities, both
internationally and in Australia. In America, amendments to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) set Positive Behavioural Interventions and
Supports (PBIS), Functional Behavioural Assessment (FBA) and Positive Behaviour
Supports (PBS) into policy and practice in every school (Sugai & Horner, 2002). PBS
is described by Sugai and Horner (2002) as the “broad range of systemic and
individualised strategies for achieving important social and learning outcomes while
preventing problem behaviour” (p. 29). There is also a body of evidence from research
into the effectiveness of this approach in schools (Curtis, Van Horne, Robertson, &
Karvonen, 2010; Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010; Shumate & Wills, 2010). Few
other approaches to behaviour in schools have been subject to such detailed study as
ABA.
Importantly for this study, the Queensland government educational authority
currently provides support for an ABA influenced approach to behaviour in
Queensland State schools. Since 2005, more than 400 Queensland government schools
embraced School Wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS), an organisational
framework for behaviour based on the United States’ SWPBS model of ABA (Horner
et al., 2010; Maleny State School, 2017). In 2016, the Department of Education and
Training advised a change of name from SWPBS to Positive Behaviour for Learning
(PBL) (Department of Education and Training). The Department of Education and
Training’s (2014b) Responsible Plan for School Behaviour template is based on
Response to Intervention (RTI), a whole-school approach derived from ABA. RTI or
Recognition and Response (RnR) as it had been named in Queensland, is a multi-
dimensional approach to supporting student behaviour via a tiered model which caters
for whole-school behaviour support, targeted behaviour support, and intensive
behaviour support (Department of Education and Training, 2010).
44 Chapter 2: Literature Review
ABA has provided teachers with many of the ideas which currently underpin
behavioural practices in classrooms (Alberto & Troutman, 2006). However, of
particular interest for this study is the interpretation and implementation of these ideas.
For example, the use of reward systems in classrooms is clearly popular amongst
primary school teachers as a way of attempting to increase positive student behaviour
(Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Education Queensland, 2007a; Ennis, Blair, & George,
2016; Roache & Lewis, 2011a; Tillery et al., 2010). However, when relating these
teacher practice-implemented strategies to ABA theory, it is probable that many
teachers are not aware of their origins. Many teachers use behaviour approaches which
derive from elements of ABA or other behaviour theories without receiving training
on the foundational principles of this approach in order for it to be enacted effectively
in practice (Alberto & Troutman, 2006).
A focus on PBS is important for this study because of its progression to School
Wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS), now known in Queensland as Positive
Behaviour for Learning (PBL), and its growing implementation in Australian schools.
Functional Behaviour Assessment (FBA), while evidenced in some Australian schools
as an effective model of individual behaviour assessment for students requiring
targeted behaviour support, will not be discussed further at this time as its use in
classrooms by teachers is limited by the necessity for specialist help for successful
implementation. Curtis et al. (2010) state that SWPBS programs are commonly
comprised of five basic components:
a leadership team;
an overriding school-wide philosophy;
specific behavioural principles for each area of the school;
individual classroom guidelines; and
specific strategies and interventions for students who require
additional attention.
These components encompass ongoing data collection and analysis to inform
planning (Curtis et al., 2010). Numerous studies have shown that the use of Positive
Behaviour Supports (PBS) is effective in reducing students’ problem behaviour
(Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Christofferson & Callahan, 2015; Curtis et al.,
Chapter 2: Literature Review 45
2010; Horner et al., 2010; Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, & Feinberg, 2005; Mooney et
al., 2008; Stanton-Chapman, Walker, Voorhees, & Snell, 2016). Curtis et al. (2010),
reported results from a four year study of the effects from a School Wide Positive
Behaviour Support (SWPBS) program in a public K- 5 elementary school in North
Carolina, USA. The study uncovered a 40-67% decrease in behavioural referrals and
56.5% decrease in lost instructional days following implementation of SWPBS.
However, lost instructional days, out of school suspension and extended timeouts
increased in number slightly during the final year of the research. The researchers
attributed this increase to waning commitment to the program. They recommended the
continuing monitoring of data and use of student rewards in an effort to invigorate the
program. The longitudinal efficacy of SWPBS in elementary schools is yet to be
determined and there is a need to validate claims of academic achievement as a result
of the program in further research (Curtis et al., 2010).
Research critiquing SWPBS suggests that the approach is limited by the
dependence of a leadership team in establishing and maintaining the program, and by
difficulties in the maintenance and motivation of the program when staffing changes
occur (Carter, Van Norman, & Tredwell, 2011; Fallon, McCarthy, & Sanetti, 2014;
Feuerborn, Wallace, & Tyre, 2016; Flannery, Sugai, & Anderson, 2009). Carter et al.
(2011) documented the Program-Wide Positive Behaviour Support (PWPBS)
implementation process in an urban American preschool setting serving 250 children.
Although PWPBS was found to be a promising model for addressing the behavioural
needs of young children, lessons were learnt from the implementation phases.
Challenges such as establishing leadership teams, staff commitment to the program
and the need to individualize PWPBS to each school context were cited as necessary
considerations for others seeking to implement such a program (Carter et al., 2011).
In addition to these challenges, findings of another study examining teacher
perceptions of PBIS and RTI revealed that while viewing themselves as strong
influences on student behaviour, teachers lacked understanding about Positive
Behaviour Intervention Support (PBIS) and Response to Intervention (RTI), despite
receiving training (Tillery et al., 2010). This suggests that even with such an approach
being implemented across an entire educational system, there are some challenges with
teachers understanding and adopting the approach.
46 Chapter 2: Literature Review
Research shows that the effectiveness of SWPBS may be variable depending on
the school, staff commitment and resources (Feuerborn et al., 2016; Tillery et al., 2010;
Tyre & Feuerborn, 2017b). The program is labour intensive and requires a significant
long term commitment of all school staff to continually revise the program and uphold
its priorities (Carter et al., 2011). There also seems to be little voice given to students
in the delivery of the program, with children positioned as passive recipients of an
adult-driven intervention.
Current approaches to SWPBS in the literature demonstrate a ‘softening’ of the
‘hard’ behaviourist elements of the approach, such as the use of strict rewards and
punishments. Considerations such as the involvement of families and students in
decision making and behaviour assessment, along with consideration of student
demographics and the particular cultural context of the school, have seen SWPBS
adopt a more democratic flavour, as noted by Betters-Bubon, Brunner, and Kansteiner
(2016), Muscott et al. (2008) and Stansberry-Brusnahan and Neilsen-Gatti (2009).
Additionally, attention focused on the assessment of teaching and learning in SWPBS
programs has seen the model respond somewhat to the focus on standards-based
education in America (Sailor, Stowe, Turnbull, & Kleinhammer-Tramill, 2007).
Another authoritarian behaviour approach is Canter and Canter’s (1976) model
of Assertive Discipline. This classroom behaviour approach is based upon theoretical
and practical aspects of Assertion Training, a systematic approach designed to assist
individuals to express their feelings and desires and have their needs met. Canter and
Canter (1976) advocated strongly for a teacher’s right to take charge of their
classroom, to teach without disruption and to have their own needs met. They
suggested that the philosophies of Freud, Skinner, Glasser, and Gordon have been
distorted and misinterpreted by teachers, placing them in a position whereby they
question their own right to use assertive behavioural practices in the classroom, leading
to guilt, anxiety and frustration, impacting on their effectiveness. These authors argued
that assertive discipline allows teachers to increase control of their classrooms.
Assertive disciplinary practices such as providing children with firm limits,
consequences and time out, are practices that are familiar to and widely practiced by
teachers. A search of many Queensland State school Responsible Behaviour Plans
demonstrates the use of such strategies in planning for behaviour management (Albany
Creek State School, 2015; Nundah State School, 2016; Rainworth State School, 2012).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 47
Examples of the assertive style of behavioural response typical of this approach are
labelled consequences, but Kohn (2006) and Porter (2014) suggest these resemble
punishments. Consequences are teacher decided and enforced, with the main goal to
meet the teacher’s need for order.
Assertive discipline as a behaviour approach in schools has a strong teacher-
directed focus. Little emphasis is placed on students’ needs or investigation of the other
influences contributing to students’ behaviour. This approach does not consider the
possible effects of teacher-student power imbalances. It does not afford students
participatory benefits associated with shared decision making. Canter and Canter
(1976) conceded that students may not like their assertive teacher, however, they stated
that teachers should try to maximise the potential for positive teacher-student
relationships. This seems contradictory, inferring that relationships do not require
reciprocity to be effective.
Authoritarian approaches use behavioural strategies which are decided upon and
controlled by the teacher. Many of these approaches are evidenced in classrooms today
and are supported, in essence, in Queensland government schools, especially with
regard to behaviour policy and procedures. Next, egalitarian approaches to student
behaviour will be presented, followed by discussion of mixed approaches.
2.6.4 Egalitarian Approaches
Egalitarian behaviour approaches have been favoured by some educators at
different points in time (Gartrell, 2014; Gebeke, 1996; Karp & Breslin, 2001; Marion,
2007; Miller, 2007; Porter, 2014). Egalitarian approaches are those that seek to engage
students and encourage self-regulation. These approaches have been influenced by
humanism, a progressive philosophical movement that has, in turn, been influenced by
Dewey (Dewey, 2007), Montessori (Montessori, 1912) and Froebel (W. T. Harris,
1974). Dewey (2007) critiqued historic disciplinary practice, cautioning that when
students are viewed as undisciplined the fault lies with them rather than with the study
or methods of teaching. This view emphasises the important relationship between
teachers, the curriculum, and student behaviour.
Influenced by humanists, those who follow egalitarian approaches reject the
concepts of rewards and punishments and instead seek to resolve issues through
assertiveness, listening and collaboration (Gartrell, 2014). Humanists also reject the
48 Chapter 2: Literature Review
practice of analysing past history as a precursor to change. Instead the focus is on the
present, on adjusting the environment and encouraging the teaching of thinking,
behaving and acting, which results in better decision making, success, and happiness
(Zeeman, 2006).
Glasser’s (2001) Choice Theory is an example of an egalitarian approach.
Glasser (2001) stated that that living creatures do what they believe is satisfying. He
believed that a failure of schools is their refusal to acknowledge that students need to
be actively engaged in their learning and to gain some immediate satisfaction from the
work they do. Through Choice Theory, Glasser explained that behaviour is always our
best attempt to satisfy powerful forces which are built into our genetic structure,
namely love and belonging, power, freedom, fun and survival (Glasser, 2001). He
proposed that students, being driven by their needs, simply behave in a manner to fulfil
whatever needs they detect are unsatisfied. The concept of basic needs satisfaction as
reflected in Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs is embedded in Choice Theory. In
Choice Theory, motivation can be thought of as a drive to satisfy needs. Glasser
suggested that we act to meet our needs, and that all behaviour derives from this
starting point, clearly a derivative from Maslow’s work (Slavin, 2009).
Glasser (2001) identified successful classrooms as ones that incorporate teacher
collaboration with students, teacher commitment to ongoing self-reflection, and active
engagement of students in their learning. This approach differs greatly from Assertive
Discipline, as Choice Theory is concerned with the experiences of the students
themselves, a quality curriculum, and satisfying needs. Both students and teachers
have equal voice in the classroom, with decisions being collaboratively constructed;
thus reciprocal relationships are highly valued in such classrooms, Glasser (1998)
stating that our basic need to love and belong is satisfied in a teacher-fostered climate
of caring.
Although once in favour, Glasser’s approach is now less evidenced in
Queensland schools than behavioural approaches such as Positive Behaviour for
Learning (PBL). Additionally, there is a scarcity of research providing evidence of the
efficacy of Choice Theory implementation in classrooms. A recent search of one
popular education database (ERIC) using the search terms “Choice Theory” and
“behaviour” reveals one research project, a case study which investigated the use of
Choice Theory by one teacher in a year 3 classroom (J. Irvine, 2015), and studies
Chapter 2: Literature Review 49
relating to counselling students in the middle years of school (Walter, Lambie, &
Ngazimbi, 2008) and to children of prisoners (Shillingford & Edwards, 2008). This
lack of empirical evidence on the efficacy of Choice Theory in classrooms may be a
result of the gradual shift to a greater emphasis on evidence-based practice
(Department of Education and Training, 2017a).
Queensland schools currently favour more data driven, teacher-directed and
decided approaches to behaviour (Department of Education and Training, 2014a).
However, Glasser inspired approaches to guiding behaviour have enjoyed past
attention in Queensland State school classrooms (Bryer et al., 2005), with Education
Queensland providing State-wide professional development on the Glasser based
Excellence in Teaching program to teachers and school leaders. There is evidence that
some Queensland government schools still adopt this egalitarian framework as part of
their Responsible Behaviour Plan. For example, Sunshine Beach State School in
Queensland was Australia’s first Glasser Quality School. It is currently the only school
in Queensland to fully embrace the William Glasser Institute’s accreditation standards
(Sunshine Beach State School, 2017). Further investigation as to why this well-known
democratic approach has not continued to be widely adopted in Queensland schools
would be valuable, as there is no information publicly available regarding why it fell
out of favour with Queensland schools.
Another egalitarian approach that appears to have acceptance in early childhood
education and care is the guidance approach. Early childhood educators have long
asserted their independence from traditional roles and functions associated with
authoritarian behaviour approaches like classroom discipline (Gartrell, 2014; Katz,
1972; Polat, Kaya, & Akdag, 2013). Dan Gartrell’s (2014) guidance approach has
much synergy with early childhood philosophy. It promotes a developmental view of
behaviour, as well as the teaching and learning of democratic life skills.
The guidance approach is closely linked with the Developmentally Appropriate
Practice (DAP) literature (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Gartrell, 2014). The DAP
movement describes children aged 0-8 years as unique people, with varying individual
patterns for growth. In DAP, curriculum and pedagogy should be responsive to
individual differences among children’s abilities and interests (Copple & Bredekamp,
2009). The guidance approach bases behavioural strategies on children’s individual
characteristics and needs, where behaviour is tailored to meet particular children’s
50 Chapter 2: Literature Review
circumstances and requirements. Guidance approaches are viewed as collaborative,
involving both children and families in developing solutions to problems. Positive
teacher-child relations are central to the guidance approach, where teachers are
responsible for communicating respectfully with children and forging strong
reciprocal partnerships with their families (Gartrell, 2014).
In early childhood education and care discourses, developmental explanations
for behaviour have been critiqued for proposing a predictable series of fixed
developmental milestones that can be used to explain children’s behaviours; these have
their roots in Jean Piaget’s stage theory and the psychoanalytic theories of Sigmund
Freud (Alberto & Troutman, 2006). Cannella (2005) and Ryan and Grieshaber (2005)
have challenged the view of children’s lock-step developmental progressions and
raised reconceptualist and postmodernist perspectives respectively to provide an
awareness that children possess a range of knowledges that derive from diverse
contexts, cultures and social experiences. Despite such challenges to
developmentalism, Piaget viewed autonomy as a central goal of education, an idea
adopted by Gartrell in the guidance approach (2014). Gartrell found additional
relevance for the guidance approach in Piaget’s theory of cognitive development,
which proposes that children develop schemes or patterns of thinking when dealing
with objects in the world; and that they adjust and adapt these processes when
developing understandings about new objects and events (Gruber & Voneche, 1977).
Hence, in a guidance approach teachers support children’s interactions with objects
and people as they construct knowledge from these transactions. Vygotsky’s view of
children’s cognitive development and socio-cultural learning is also synonymous with
a guidance approach to behaviour, where adults scaffold, support and teach new
behaviours with the aim of increasing the children’s autonomy in their ability to
regulate their own behaviour. This is in opposition to views that support the use of
corrections or punishment to control children’s behaviour (Gartrell, 2014).
Gartrell (2014) stated that the term discipline has proved controversial due to its
close tie with the term punishment. Punishment is not a practice that is used in the
guidance approach, as the focus is on the teaching of democratic life skills in what is
promoted as an encouraging classroom. Gartrell (2014) proposed the term ‘mistaken’
behaviour when discussing children’s behaviour, stating that with the learning of new
skills and concepts, behavioural mistakes inevitably occur. Teachers see mistakes as
Chapter 2: Literature Review 51
quite appropriate when looking at children’s academic errors, providing children with
assistance and practice of skills to master these new concepts. However this same view
and support of learning is often not afforded to the social errors that children make
(Gartrell, 2014). The three levels of mistaken behaviour developed by Gartrell (2014)
have contributed a system for understanding these behaviours. These are, (i)
experimentation: where children due to their natural curiosity and lack of experience
may be involved in unintentional conflict; (ii) social influence: that is where children’s
actions (mistaken behaviours) are unintentionally reinforced by others; and (iii) strong
needs, where children’s behaviour is a reaction to difficulty or pain in their life that is
beyond their coping capacity (Gartrell, 2014).
Gartrell’s (2014) guidance approach has much synergy with early childhood
pedagogy and curriculum. The approach advocates for strategies and considerations
necessary for optimal teaching and learning in the early years, such as attention to the
classroom environment, routines, management of transitions, as well as effective
communication, conflict resolution and problem solving skills which are seen as
necessary to address mistaken behaviour. Interventions to assist crisis management in
this approach consist of, (i) being direct: describing the behaviour without labelling,
expressing displeasure without insult, and correction by direction; (ii) commanding a
choice: which includes inviting (prevention), requesting (problem solving) and
commanding (imminent crisis-level) choice making; (iii) calming and teaching: the
use of calming techniques (such as acknowledging feelings) and teaching children self-
removal; and (iv) supportive physical restraint: where as a last resort teachers use “the
passive bear hug” to help calm children in crisis and to minimise harm (to self or
others).
Gartrell (2011) promoted a shift away from time out as a punishment to a “cool-
down time” (p.151). This provides an opportunity for teachers to assist students to
settle by prompting retreat from a situation. Mediation can then be effectively
implemented. A challenge for teachers may be the lack of training in developing
appropriate communication skills, successful conflict resolution and the problem
solving skills needed for this approach. Gartrell (2014) defined the encouraging
classroom as beginning within the minds of its teachers. This may be the approach’s
largest pitfall, as it requires a shift of thinking for teachers who may be more familiar
52 Chapter 2: Literature Review
with the traditional behavioural strategies of rewarding and punishing behaviour and
the school-based behaviour policies which often support this practice.
Yet another egalitarian behaviour approach recently introduced into some
Australian schools is that of Restorative Justice (RJ). Sometimes also known as
Restorative Practices (RP), RJ is an approach to managing student behaviour that has
been adopted in some Queensland Independent schools (see for example Bethany
Lutheran Primary School, 2017; Villanova College, 2017). Thought to have first
emerged from criminal justice, RJ focuses on the harmful effects of offenders’ actions,
actively involving victims and offenders in reparation and rehabilitation (Van Ness &
Strong, 2010). Howard Zehr is known as one of the first articulators of restorative
justice theory and was one of the initial writers on the first of three key programs that
influenced the development of restorative justice. These three key programs are: (i)
victim-offender mediation; (ii) conferencing; and (iii) circles (Van Ness & Strong,
2010).
Van Ness and Strong (2010) stated that victim-offender mediation evolved from
the criminal justice system and began as a community-based program in America. Its
purpose was to impact offenders, helping them to understand the harm caused to their
victims, and to promote healing. Conferencing, based in social welfare rather than
criminal justice, emerged from New Zealand around 1989, and was introduced as an
approach to replace the Youth Court for most young offenders (Van Ness & Strong,
2010). It demonstrated some likeness with the Maori process for families taking
collective responsibility for offenders and making things right with the victim and the
victim’s family. This approach was adapted by police in Australia as an alternative to
charging young offenders with juvenile offences. In Canada, emerging around the
same time as conferencing were circles, also known as sentencing circles, community
circles, and healing circles, which drew on Aboriginal understandings of justice.
These circles promoted a sense of shared responsibility, led to a search for new options,
encouraged participation and understanding of underlying causes (Van Ness & Strong,
2010).
RJ or RP has been adapted for use in classrooms and is characterised by high
levels of teacher support, clear boundaries and collaborative problem solving. This
conversational approach to managing student behaviour focuses on fair process,
responsibility and accountability, and the repair of relationships that have been
Chapter 2: Literature Review 53
damaged (Thorsborne & Vinegrad, 2008). An RJ approach favours collaborative rule
setting in the classroom and promotes teacher development of an interesting, engaging
curriculum which is well organised and prepared (Thorsborne & Vinegrad, 2008).
Classroom conferences are a key strategy and serve to establish links between
curriculum, pedagogy and behaviour management. Like the guidance approach, RJ
rejects punishments. González (2012) and Thorsborne and Vinegrad (2008) stated that
punitive approaches such as punishing wrongdoings are often in contrast to the beliefs
and values that underpin school curricula and pedagogical practices. The notion of RJ
or RP in practice then seems complementary to early childhood pedagogy and
philosophy.
As a set of approaches, egalitarian approaches are those that seek to engage
students and encourage self-awareness and self-reflection. They aim at teaching
students the skills they need to regulate their own behaviour, engage meaningfully with
learning and interact effectively with others. These approaches contrast greatly with
the authoritarian approaches summarised in the previous section, which are more about
teachers controlling student behaviour in order to minimise classroom distractions.
This next section will examine mixed approaches to behaviour.
2.6.5 Mixed Approaches
Approaches to behaviour that mix approaches share the strengths and
weaknesses of whichever approaches are adopted. They may allow for a high degree
of adult control of behaviour but can also be child-centred, effectively teaching self-
management skills (Porter, 2006). Elements from Bandura’s (1969) social learning
theory can be seen in mixed approaches to behaviour. Observing behaviours,
modelling and self-regulated learning are seen to place students in a position of control
regarding their learning. Opportunities for students to set goals, self-evaluate, and self-
monitor, and adult reinforcement of their successes are hallmarks of Bandura’s social
learning theory as applied in classrooms (Bandura, 1969).
In a slightly different vein, Meichenbaum’s (1977) model of self-regulated
learning centres on both behavioural and cognitive principles for behavioural change.
Meichenbaum advocated for teaching students to think about their own thinking as a
way to encourage self-regulated learning. Biemiller and Meichenbaum (1992)
proposed that teachers be good observers and listeners of students’ task-directive
speech, provide students with tasks that just exceed their present abilities, and employ
54 Chapter 2: Literature Review
instructional techniques like “teacher think-alouds, labelling of student meta-cognitive
behaviour, explicit cognitive instruction with feedback, and evaluative discussions,
reciprocal teaching, scaffolding and cooperative learning” (p.77-78). Meichenbaum’s
model has influenced the cognitive behavioural approaches for the management of
behaviour in schools (Slavin, 2009).
Cognitive behaviourism has enjoyed some significant attention in schools in the
past. This has been evidenced in social cognitive training programs being made
available. These have been usually delivered in Australian schools through individual
therapy sessions conducted by guidance officers. Cognitive behaviourism aims to
correct student behaviour by retraining students’ thinking, and centres on the logical
construction of knowledge rather than the social construction of knowledge (Bertrand,
1995). Albert Ellis’s Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy (REBT), the pioneering
form of cognitive behaviour therapy, is an action-oriented approach to managing
cognitive, emotional or behavioural disturbances (The Albert Ellis Institute, 2014).
Drawn from behaviourism, REBT seeks to teach students that their emotions are
generated by their thoughts. It helps them to be aware of and to correct faulty thinking
that contributes to their emotional unease (A. Ellis & Joffe-Ellis, 2011). Cognitive
behaviourism supports the teaching of self-discipline; while the behavioural
component engages external controls in the form of encouragement and consequences
to reinforce behaviour.
Psychodynamic theories have been evidenced within the foundations of school-
based Adlerian behaviour intervention programs. Adler (as cited in Ansbacher &
Ansbacher, 1956), along with Freud (1938) and Jung (2005), were major contributors
to the development of the psychodynamic approaches to therapy. Adler’s social-
psychological and teleological view of human nature differed to Freud’s biological and
deterministic points of view (Corey, 1996). Adlerian orientation was described by
Corey (1996) as phenomenological, with an emphasis on understanding the
individual’s own beliefs and reality (Corey, 1996). A number of school counsellor led
intervention programs have been influenced by Individual Psychology and an Adlerian
approach, and claim to positively affect student academic and social effectiveness. One
such approach is called Ready to Learn (RTL), which includes an Adlerian emphasis
on the need for belonging, encouragement and the attainment of social skills. Villares,
Brigman and Peluso (2008) provided an overview of the research on Ready to Learn
Chapter 2: Literature Review 55
and reported that students who received the RTL intervention scored significantly
higher on listening comprehension and behaviour related to academic and social skills.
While RTL was purported to be an innovative evidence-based approach for
introducing critical learning and social skills to early-elementary aged students, this
approach required guidance counsellors and RTL trained teachers to implement it.
Although results had shown a positive effect, the program’s long term effectiveness
for students had not been established via comparison studies (Villares et al., 2008).
Another example of a program drawing from Adlerian theory is Student Success
Skills (SSS) (Urbina, Villares, & Mariani, 2017; Villares, Lemberger, Brigman, &
Webb, 2011; Webb, Lemberger, & Brigman, 2008). The SSS program was developed
around academic, social and self-management skill-sets and focused on goal setting
with reflection on students’ thinking and feelings (Webb et al., 2008). Optimism was
taught, with students learning to challenge pessimistic thinking, replacing unhelpful
thoughts with optimistic language. In addition, the building of cognition and memory
skills, and the ability to perform under pressure, to manage test anxiety, as well as to
build a community of caring, support and encouragement, were delivered in large and
small group interventions. This program was evaluated in a study that involved 336
fifth-grade students from one Florida school district using a pre-post quasi-
experimental cohort group study design (Mariani, Webb, Villares, & Brigman, 2015).
In this study, which examined prosocial behaviours, bullying behaviours, engagement
in school success skills, and perceptions of classroom climates, the treatment group
outperformed the comparison group of students. Results showed that the teaching of
cognitive, social and self-management skills increased students’ prosocial skills,
reduced bullying behaviour and promoted a positive classroom climate (Mariani et al.,
2015). This intervention program showed promise; however, like RTL, it required the
support of trained school counsellors to deliver the program. This in itself may limit
the scope of its effectiveness as it is dependent on appropriate funding and personnel.
Maurice Balson’s (1996) work on Understanding Classroom Behaviour was an
Adlerian approach to behaviour that was popular in Australian schools in the 1990s.
Balson (1996) believed that students are active decision makers who develop their own
personalities by their phenomenological view of experience; and that all behaviour is
purposeful and represents an attempt at meeting their present and future needs (Lyons,
Ford, & Aurthur-Kelly, 2011). Balson (1996) claimed that belonging is a key
56 Chapter 2: Literature Review
motivation for behaviour and that students’ feelings of inadequacy and fear of rejection
were a central factor in learning failure and behavioural challenges. Further, he
proposed that all behaviour has goals and that teachers need to understand and reflect
upon the goal of the behaviour in order to intervene appropriately. Balson
conceptualised the goals of student misbehaviour as: attention seeking; power;
revenge; and escape by withdrawal (Balson, 1996).
These behaviour goals, according to Balson (1996), can be understood by
teachers paying attention to their own feelings and observing how students react to
their attempts to guide their behaviour. Such an approach assumes that teachers have
the capacity to understand their emotions in the hurly burly of classroom activities;
and that they also have the ability to observe the interplay between their emotions and
student behaviour during teaching. This seemed a complex task given the expectations
of the teaching day. A clear limitation of this approach was the ability for teachers to
make errors when assessing the goals of misbehaviour. Indeed it seems that during the
identification and diagnosis of these goals, a range of teacher interpretations may have
been possible. This interpretative approach is a departure from the behaviourist
approach where teachers are to be impartial in observing students’ behaviour.
In Balson’s (1996) approach, the use of encouragement (rather than praise) and
the application of both natural and logical behavioural consequences were seen to
enhance students’ feelings of self-worth, to develop student responsibility and to foster
positive teacher-student relationships. In addition, teaching approaches aimed to
emphasise individual student success, focusing on students’ strengths and
competencies, rather than on their deficits. Whilst behaviour approaches in school such
as those advocated by Balson (1996) and Dreikurs, et al. (2004) aspired to humanism
in its preventative measures, elements of authoritarian management were evident in its
behaviourist interventions (Porter, 2006). For example, Balson’s (1996) view of
parents as major contributors to children’s misbehaviour, and of children’s motives as
being intentional, suggests a distrust which may further elevate teacher authoritarian
interventions. Neo-Adlerians also largely ignore socio-cultural and environmental
considerations to behaviour which are emphasised in the more egalitarian approaches.
2.6.6 Summary of Behaviour Approaches and Theories
In summary, authoritarian approaches suggest that behaviour rests with the child
and that we must do something to the child to change the behaviour. This differs
Chapter 2: Literature Review 57
greatly from egalitarian approaches, which emphasise the importance of relationships
and the social construction of behaviour. The latter fits well within early childhood
pedagogy, where constructivism has been a large influence in the development of
appropriate pedagogies for children in the birth to eight years period. In the next
section, we look at how pedagogy and curriculum impact on student behaviour.
2.7 CURRICULUM, PEDAGOGY AND STUDENT BEHAVIOUR
For this study it is important to discuss the interplay between curriculum,
pedagogy, student behaviour and behaviour approaches. In studying teachers’
conceptions of student behaviour and of the approaches they employ, teaching cannot
be separated from these elements. A core component of teaching is the teaching of
curriculum along with the selection of pedagogies teachers employ to enact it. Policies
state the importance of curriculum and pedagogy to the successful support of student
behaviour (SCSEEC, 2009; DEEWR, 2009; Department of Education Training and
Employment, 2006, 2012; SCSEEC, 2013).
Educational theory, research and policy have acknowledged the relationship
between curriculum, pedagogy and children’s behaviour. Teachers are required to
ensure that students are engaged in learning, and it has been widely acknowledged that
this engagement - or lack of - it affects student behaviour (Archambault,
Vandenbossche-Makombo, & Fraser, 2017; Department of Education Training and
Employment, 2006; S. Ellis & Tod, 2010; Ministerial Advisory Committee for
Educational Renewal [MACER], 2005; L. Overton & Sullivan, 2008; Ravet, 2007b;
SCSEEC, 2013; Sullivan et al., 2014).
Links between curriculum, pedagogy and student behaviour have been made by
behaviour theorists and advocates. Porter’s (2006) text on behaviour in schools, which
had been widely used as a resource in pre-service teacher education in Australia at the
time of this study, advised teachers that views about children as passive learners have
evolved to views of children as active learners and agents of and in their own learning.
From the traditional perspective of children as passive learners, the teacher’s task was
to ensure orderly behaviour as necessary for learning to occur. In contrast, an emphasis
on children as active learners placed teachers’ attention on catering for their
educational and developmental needs, recognising their unique capabilities and their
58 Chapter 2: Literature Review
role as active agents in their learning (Department of Education and Training, 2015b;
Porter, 2014).
Glasser (1998) also theorised the linkages between curriculum, pedagogy and
student behaviour, arguing that behavioural disruptions in classrooms should be
recognised as an educational issue rather than a behavioural difficulty attributed to
students. He advocated for the adjustment of teaching and learning processes to make
them more engaging for students. Glasser (1998) believed that when learning is
engaging and relevant to students’ needs and interests, with students actively involved
with teachers in the educational process, there will be little need for coercion (Glasser,
1998; L. Overton & Sullivan, 2008). Porter (2006) concurred with this stance, stating,
“…young people will both learn and desist disrupting learning when what they are
asked to learn meets their intellectual, social and emotional needs.” (Porter, 2006, p.
21)
Discussing learning and achievement, Glasser (1998) suggested that school
administrators fall into the trap of thinking that discipline problems, rather than
unsatisfying education, are the cause of low levels of achievement. He suggested that
teachers, fearing their students’ failure on testing and measure fragments, tend to
narrow the curriculum and teach to the test, rather than provide an engaging and rich
curriculum (Glasser, 1998). Similarly, the current dilemma of Prep teachers being
challenged by the constraints of the Australian Curriculum at the time of this study
meant that the development of an engaging and relevant curriculum which supports
student behaviour through engagement with learning may have been compromised.
Empirical research has also shown links between curriculum, pedagogy and
student behaviour and acknowledged that effective teachers have a considerable
impact on learning (Hattie, 2003). For example, Pakarinen et al. (2011) showed that
teachers were central to effective student learning and student engagement. In a large
study of 1268 kindergarten children and 137 kindergarten teachers from Finland a
multi-method approach was adopted to examine the role of observed classroom quality
in children’s task-avoidant behaviour and math skills. Results suggested that
kindergarten teachers should pay close attention to the quality of their language use,
provision of individualised task-specific feedback, careful scaffolding of students and
the implementation of challenging tasks and activities to support student engagement
and enthusiasm for learning (Pakarinen et al., 2011).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 59
Other research has identified the challenges associated with teachers
understanding the link between curriculum, pedagogy and student behaviour. Gore and
Parkes (2008) argued that ‘management’ is mistreated in discourses of teaching and
teacher education, deriving in part from a misunderstanding of pedagogy. Adopting a
theoretical lens provided by the work of Michel Foucault, they argued that there is a
particular conception of the ‘good teacher’ as ‘classroom manager’ which produces a
situation in which teachers are likely to desire classroom order over the creation of an
intellectually engaging learning environment. Teachers are judged to be successful by
colleagues and parents if they are good classroom managers, irrespective of whether
the learning is high or not. Thus the authors clearly saw the separation of behaviour
management from pedagogy (Gore & Parkes, 2008). Additionally Ravet’s (2007b)
study on student disengagement and Sullivan et al.’s (2014) Behaviour at School Study
(BASS) found that teachers did not acknowledge curriculum as a consideration in
relation to disengagement, further adding weight to this argument. In line with socio-
constructivist views of learning in early childhood education, which support the
relationship between curriculum, pedagogy and student behaviour, the more
egalitarian theories, such as that of Gartrell (2014) and Glasser (2001), can be
recognised as influential to behaviour approaches that support this relationship
(Education Queensland, 2007a; Millei, 2011).
Finally, policy in Queensland has also acknowledged the relationship between
curriculum, pedagogy and behaviour. For example, in Queensland, the Ministerial
Advisory Council for Educational Renewal [MACER] (2005) acknowledged that the
foundation of classroom management was effective instruction and curriculum design.
The Smart Schools, Smart Behaviour report was commissioned by the Queensland
Minister for Education and the Arts in 2005 after concerns about behaviour and
behaviour management in Queensland schools were discussed by the MACER in its
inaugural 2004 meeting. They resolved at this time to establish a Behaviour
Management Sub-Committee. Membership included teacher unions and academic,
education, wider social sciences and human services experts. Terms of reference were
developed to make recommendations to the Minister to redefine the field of behaviour
management to include ‘student achievement’ and to identify preferred practices and
principles for behaviour management in schools (MACER, 2005). The committee has
since been disbanded under a subsequent government change.
60 Chapter 2: Literature Review
In acknowledging the relationship between learning and behaviour, the
committee (2005) identified incidents ranging from minor infringements to serious
misdemeanours as likely to occur in schools due to the maturation of students and a
lack of fit between curriculum and students’ interests and experiences. The committee
were influenced by Grunseit, Weatherburn, and Donnelly’s (2005) research that
reported the probability of a student physically attacking other students at school
increasing under certain conditions, including if students spent a lot of time copying
out of textbooks or from the blackboard, if the teacher spent more time controlling the
class than teaching, if the student felt his fellow students were racist, or if the teacher
had less than five years of teaching experience. The committee (2005) importantly
acknowledged the connections between behaviour management, the management of
teaching and learning, and relationships between teachers and students in promoting
the academic, social, economic and personal benefits of education. These connections
are central also to this study.
2.8 STUDENT MOTIVATION, ENGAGEMENT AND STUDENT
BEHAVIOUR
The research on student motivation and engagement is important to this study
because of the close relationship between motivation, academic engagement and
positive student behaviour. In a study of 566 secondary students in The Netherlands,
Opdenakker, Maulana, and Den Brok (2012) sought to understand teachers’ influence
on the development of academic motivation. The study found that positive student
perceptions of their relationships with teachers were significant predictors of students’
autonomous motivation, suggesting that teachers’ relationships with students are
influential to students’ motivational engagement with their learning. Importantly for
this study, student motivation and engagement with learning was seen to decrease
levels of disruptive behaviour (Archambault et al., 2017; McKissick, Hawkins, Lentz,
Hailley, & McGuire, 2010).
First in this section (2.8.1) is a review of the literature on engagement and student
behaviour, followed by a review of the literature on motivation and student behaviour
in section 2.8.2.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 61
2.8.1 Engagement and Student Behaviour
Educational literature in the area of student engagement has revealed that a high
level of student support reduces the likelihood of problem student behaviours and
promotes engagement with learning, leading to better academic outcomes (Glasser,
1998; Quin, 2017; Rimm Kaufman, La Paro, Downer, & Pianta, 2005). High levels of
emotional and instructional support for student learning have been seen to contribute
positively to students’ academic outcomes. In a systematic review of 46 published
studies, Quin (2017) examined adolescent students’ engagement and associated school
teacher-student relationships. He found that better quality student-teacher relationships
were associated with a lower rate of disruptive student behaviour and suspensions and
with a higher rate of psychological engagement, academic achievement and
attendance.
Research has also shown that positive relationships between teachers and
students and a democratic style of teaching can support student engagement. Ravet
(2007b), who studied student, parent and teacher perceptions of classroom behaviour,
strongly emphasised that teachers’ positive approaches to relationships and styles of
teaching contribute positively to students’ willingness to engage in learning. Ravet’s
(2007b) research reported on a case study example where a teacher’s positive approach
to relationships and democratic style of teaching contributed positively to her
understanding of students, resulting in positive outcomes for disengaged students.
Effective student-teacher relationships are thus central to student engagement.
Student engagement is supported in democratic classrooms with an engaging
curriculum. Overton and Sullivan’s (2008) interpretive study in a democratic
classroom revealed that non-compliance was most often reported by students when
teachers shared less power, and when students lacked a clear, meaningful purpose to
their activities and learning. Overton and Sullivan (2008) sought the perceptions of
students and their teacher in an Australian year 4/5 classroom whilst examining
compliance. They attempted to gain insights into students’ perspectives on those
occasions when they did not comply with the teacher’s directives. It was found that
student explanations for disengagement centred on a lack of interest or boredom with
an activity. Additionally, off-task behaviour was seen by students to escalate, creating
peer conflict and power struggles between class members when clear expectations,
outcomes and deadlines were not made explicit (L. Overton & Sullivan, 2008).
62 Chapter 2: Literature Review
Overton and Sullivan (2008) found that a democratic classroom, with the teacher
implementing shared decision-making with students and enabling child choice,
provided for greater compliance and on-task behaviours.
In one of the few phenomenographic studies of teacher conceptions of student
engagement in learning, Harris (2008) uncovered a conception of behavioural
understandings. In this study of secondary teachers working in Queensland
government schools in the Central Coast District, a category emerged from the data
where having students who were ‘behaving properly’ was important to teachers. This
category centred on the perception that when students were engaged in learning, they
were no longer a management problem to the teachers. Harris (2008) stated that this
view depicted learning as teacher-prescribed and teacher-directed, where students
meet the behavioural requirements of their teachers.
Student engagement increases when teachers use positive behaviour approaches,
however teachers are more often inclined to respond negatively. As part of an
Australian study, Roache and Lewis (2011b) compared data from two interrelated
questionnaires from 3500 secondary students. They found that these students listed
punishment as the teaching strategy occurring most frequently to address challenging
behaviours in classrooms. Accordingly, students who perceived greater use of
aggressive teacher strategies felt less connected or interested in their school work. In
another Australian research study conducted in Melbourne primary schools, Clunies-
Ross et al. (2008) examined the use of proactive and reactive teaching strategies in
responding to student behaviour. Using questionnaires and teacher observation with
97 teachers, findings reported that although teachers responded to students’ academic
behaviours more positively than negatively, there was a higher than average number
of negative responses observed in relation to students’ social behaviours. This implied
that teachers used predominantly more reactive than positive strategies when
addressing challenging behaviours (Clunies-Ross et al., 2008). With research
illustrating that student on-task behaviour is shown to increase through the use of
positive management strategies, rather than disapproval or reactive strategies, it is
curious that reactive or negative responses are so often employed by teachers when
addressing these social behaviours (Garcia & Hoang, 2015; Hollingshead, Kroeger,
Altus, & Trytten, 2016; J. Overton, 2009; Ravet, 2007b).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 63
Not only are negative responses to behaviour unhelpful for student engagement,
research has also shown that less student engagement is evidenced if the teacher is
more goal focused (Hughes, Wu, & West, 2011). Hughes et al. (2011) studied
longitudinally the performance goal practices in the early elementary years of school
(from grades 2-5) in Texas, proposing that teacher instructional goal practices may
have implications for student engagement in learning. In their study, they explored the
effect of teacher-reported performance goal practices on growth trajectories for
teacher-reported behavioural engagement of students. Ratings of student behaviour
engagement for low achieving students (n=497) showed that as students moved to
classrooms with new teachers who placed less emphasis on performance-oriented goal
structures, they became more behaviourally engaged. From these findings, Hughes et
al. (2011) concluded that it was important to support teachers to increase the use of
mastery-oriented practices, such as rewarding effort, providing private performance
feedback and utilizing cooperative learning tasks for increasing behavioural
engagement (Hughes et al., 2011).
It seems from this research that teachers struggle with understanding how to
effectively support student behaviour and engagement in learning. This review of
literature adds emphasis to the need to further study and understand teachers’
approaches with student behaviour in their classrooms.
2.8.2 Motivation and Student Behaviour
Approaches to motivate student behaviour, such as rewards, stickers and charts,
can be observed in early years classrooms, implemented by teachers as a way of
generating student compliance and motivation (Moberly, Waddle, & Duff, 2005).
Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001) agreed, stating that motivational methods in
education have long delivered teaching approaches such as gold stars, tokens, best
student awards and other systems to reward behaviour. The use of rewards, however,
has been hotly debated in the literature on motivation (Doidge, 2005; Hidi, 2016;
Moberly et al., 2005). While behaviourists argue for the effectiveness of these
approaches, other researchers and progressive education writers such as Alfie Kohn
contend that extrinsic rewards serve to undermine intrinsic motivation in students
(Deci et al., 2001; Kelsey, 2011; Kohn, 2001). In a meta-analysis of 96 experimental
studies using between-group designs to compare reward subjects to non-reward
controls for four measures of intrinsic motivation, Cameron and Pierce (1994) found
64 Chapter 2: Literature Review
that the use of rewards significantly weakened intrinsic motivation. This research
reveals a theory-practice divide, where what is known as good practice is not widely
evidenced. In a more contemporary meta-analysis of 154 research articles, conference
papers, dissertations and unpublished research on intrinsic motivation and task-
performance, Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford (2014) found that extrinsic incentives are
better predictors of quantity than of quality performance. This finding has important
implications for education settings, as the development of high quality student work is
a major educational goal in schools.
Taking into account students’ learning preferences or interests and providing
students with choice, helps to motivate and engage them in learning. Gillen, Wright
and Spink’s (2011) study of 116 year 7 and 8 students in one UK middle-school found
that students were more likely to be motivated when their preferences for learning were
acknowledged. This mixed-methods study, which involved focus group interviews and
questionnaires, sought student perceptions on positive learning environments and
showed that motivation increased when students were involved in making choices, and
in particular could choose who they would work with. Similarly, Tas (2016) researched
315 Turkish sixth and seventh grade middle-school students’ perceptions of
engagement in science as related to classroom learning, environment variables and
motivational factors. Tas (2016) used the What is Happening in This Class?
questionnaire to gather students’ perceptions of the classroom learning environment
(that is, teacher support, student cohesiveness and equity) and of motivation (their self-
efficacy beliefs and achievement goals). From the data it was found that students
receiving teacher support reported high levels of cognitive, behavioural, emotional and
agentic engagement. This finding has important implications for this study, as it
positions the teachers’ role as pivotal to the successful engagement of students.
From a Vygotskian perspective, Zuckerman (2003) has articulated the
relationship between motivation and students’ engagement with learning specifically
in the early years of school. She stated that educators must seek to motivate students
through authentic learning contexts in an effort to combat boring, meaningless
learning. When children learn through active engagement with each other, teachers
gain pertinent information about individuals and groups, and student motivation for
learning is increased (Roopnarine & Johnson, 2005). Research on the relationship
between motivation, engagement and behaviour has also shown the importance of
Chapter 2: Literature Review 65
collaborative learning, explicit outcomes, student feedback in the form of positive
acknowledgement, teacher attention to academic engagement and teachers being able
to connect with children’s perspectives (Gillen et al., 2011; J. Overton, 2009; Ravet,
2007b; Sullivan et al., 2014).
The research presented in this section sheds light on the relationship between
motivation, engagement with learning and student behaviour; however it does not
specifically address teachers’ perceptions of student behaviour. The next section
addresses this body of literature.
2.9 TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS, BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES TOWARD
STUDENT BEHAVIOUR
Teachers’ views of student behaviour along with the approaches they use, are
important to this study. Many studies have focused on teacher perceptions of
disengaged or disruptive student behaviour in the classroom. Mostly these studies
centre on the difficulties teachers experience and the effect of these behaviours on
teacher well-being, classroom order and student learning. These studies provide an
important perspective: that of teachers’ everyday classroom experiences with student
behaviour. In section 2.9.1, research related to teachers’ perceptions of student
behaviour that hold implications for teacher well-being are first reviewed. In section
2.9.2, research revealing teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards student behaviour is
examined; and, finally, literature that shows a theory practice divide is reviewed in
section 2.9.3.
2.9.1 Teachers’ Well-Being
The effects of disruptive behaviour on teachers are well documented in the
literature. Teacher stress, well-being and confidence are seen to be impacted by
disruptive and disengaged student behaviour (Arbuckle & Little, 2004; De Nobile,
London, & El Baba, 2015). These disruptive behaviours have also served as a catalyst
for teachers to exit the profession (Buchanan, 2010). The findings of Clunies-Ross et
al.’s (2008) study showed that teachers perceived workload and student misbehaviour
to be the two highest sources of stress, and that teachers’ use of reactive strategies to
address behavioural disruptions was a significant predictor of stress. Additionally, in
the 2013 Staff in Australia’s Schools Study, the most commonly perceived need for
66 Chapter 2: Literature Review
professional learning expressed by early career teachers was dealing with difficult
student behaviours (McKenzie et al., 2014).
The results from four Australian studies have indicated the behaviours that
concern teachers most are those that are minor in intensity but occur frequently
(Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Crawshaw, 2015; J. Overton,
2009). Talking out of turn (TOOT) was cited by teachers as the most frequent and
troublesome behaviour, followed by hindering other children (HOC). In Ravet’s
(2007b) study, teachers reported that disengaged students were those who persistently
rejected, resisted or refused formal learning tasks, resulting in regular off-task
behaviours such as chatting, daydreaming, walking around, playing and fighting.
Both inservice and preservice teachers seem to struggle with disruptive student
behaviours and this affects teachers’ confidence. Rosas and West (2009) found that
while preservice teachers held positive beliefs about classroom management, they
indicated a low level of confidence in their ability to guide an unruly student to on-
task behaviour. Research has indicated that teacher confidence is often related to
classroom behaviour (Arbuckle & Little, 2004). Tillery et al. (2010) reported that
teachers directly viewed their competency as dependent on their ability to manage the
classroom and student behaviour. While research on teacher confidence reports that
teachers generally feel confident in managing behaviours in the classroom across a
variety of school contexts, there are also limitations to these studies due to the
predominant use of surveys to gather data (Butler & Monda-Amaya, 2016; McKenzie
et al., 2014; Ravet, 2007b; Tillery et al., 2010).
Challenging student behaviour impacts negatively on teacher-student
relationships, with implications for both student and teacher well-being. Axup and
Gersch’s (2008) small scale study of nine year-8 teachers in London, using open-ended
questionnaires, sought to elicit attitudes regarding the impact of behaviour on their
professional and personal lives. The study revealed that teachers tended to distance
themselves emotionally from students when dealing with behaviour as a ‘survival’
technique. This research suggests that teachers are not aware of students’ perceptions
and feeling states and this may serve as a barrier to creating appropriate relationships
based on mutual understandings between students and teachers, and may further
contribute to disengaged classroom behaviours and a decline in teacher well-being.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 67
2.9.2 Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes
Teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about student behaviour influence how they
approach behaviour. Research has continually reported that teachers are far more likely
to attribute student disengagement to ‘self’ factors, such as student deficits and family
background, rather than to their teaching (Grieve, 2009; Ravet, 2007b; Sullivan et al.,
2014). Teachers have made sense of behaviour using a variety of deficit models
implying that behaviour is beyond the direct influence of the classroom or the teacher
(Orsati & Causton-Theoharis, 2013). A deficit approach has been described in the
literature as a focus on what students cannot do, with teachers responding with
attempts to fix the deficit (Zakaria, Care, & Griffin, 2016).
Findings from research into teachers’ perceptions of inclusion suggest that
teachers do not consider adapting their curriculum or pedagogy to accommodate the
needs of students with behavioural difficulties. For example, Grieve (2009) found
through a two-part qualitative study on practitioners’ beliefs that many teachers
favoured the term ‘normal’ children, implying that those with social, emotional and
behavioural difficulties were in some way abnormal. Using principles from grounded
theory and aspects from phenomenology, Grieve (2009) sought to elicit teacher
attitudes towards supporting children with challenging behaviour. Findings in this
study reported that one third of all teachers felt that inclusion of students with social,
emotional or behavioural difficulties was detrimental to the education of others, and
suggested that teachers felt students had to fit the system. This is contrary to current
educational literature and policy which cites the importance of accommodating diverse
learners’ needs (Department of Education and Training, 2017c; Grieve, 2009; Orsati
& Causton-Theoharis, 2013; Petriwskyj et al., 2014).
Fundamental to teachers’ practices are their beliefs about children and their
behaviours, and their personal and professional values, and practices which are
informed by the two bodies of knowledge: discipline and education (Porter, 2006,
2014). It was timely then that this study sought to investigate teachers’ practice with
student behaviour at a deeper level, to fully comprehend what teachers do with student
behaviour in the classroom and the intentional attitude behind these practices.
68 Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.9.3 Theory-Practice Divide
Research has uncovered the fact that teachers’ beliefs may not particularly align
with their practice. Through a synthesis of the literature, it was found that teachers
struggle with implementing what is known as good practice in supporting student
behaviour. For example, building upon their previous study, Roache and Lewis
(2011b) examined views of 145 primary and 363 secondary school teachers from
Victoria, Australia, on their behaviour management styles. Findings from a
questionnaire suggested that when students misbehave, teachers become concerned
and appear to respond with a style of management that combines punishments with
aggressive and hostile behaviour. This management style was consequently seen to
escalate misbehaviour and increase student distraction (Roache & Lewis, 2011b). In a
similar vein, Sullivan et al.’s (2014) study revealed that teachers found low-level
disruptive and disengaged behaviours challenging to manage and surmised that they
often employed strategies that were not necessarily effective.
It seems that preservice teachers’ beliefs about how children learn best do not
align with their practice. DellaMattera’s (2011) qualitative study on the perceptions of
61 preservice early educators in American universities found a disconnect between
beliefs on how children best learn social skills and what adults reported they would do
to support social behaviour. Preservice teachers believed that students best learn these
social behaviours through modelling, however they believed the best way to address
social difficulties is through direct instruction. These findings suggest that teachers’
beliefs may not actually match their practice and beg further investigation.
Additionally, preservice teachers did not seem to understand the importance of pre-
schoolers experimenting with a wide range of emotions. This suggests a
misunderstanding about the role behaviour plays in the lives of children in relation to
expressing their needs and discontents (DellaMattera, 2011; Gartrell, 2014).
Research has uncovered a divide between what researchers suggest as effective
behaviour management and what is actually occurring in classrooms (Dunlap et al.,
2006; Sullivan et al., 2014). For example, Dunlap et al. (2006) presented an important
review of literature, developed through a consensus building process. This included an
analysis of the evidence pertaining to the impact, prevention and intervention of
challenging behaviour in young children. The authors argued that there was a lack of
correspondence between what is known from research about effective behavioural
Chapter 2: Literature Review 69
practices and what practices were implemented with young children with challenging
behaviour (Dunlap et al., 2006). In their quasi-experimental research Dunlap et al.
(2006) developed summary statements from the wide body of existing evidence. This
empirical work included collaboration from academics from a range of university
faculties in America, as well as other policy makers and family groups. The intention
of this study was to begin to address the theory-practice divide by formulating a strong
set of messages from the field about current knowledge, with a strong focus on both
prevention and intervention concerns (Dunlap et al., 2006).
The authors found that at a micro school level, students with severe, challenging
behaviours were seldom praised for appropriate behaviour or afforded academic
instruction, with these students often subjected to ineffective, reactive and punitive
measures. Consensus showed that the identification and provision of appropriate
services for children were also very limited (Dunlap et al., 2006). Dunlap et al. (2006)
identified future research directions to address the knowledge gaps. Intervention
research on program procedures, system components and public policies that support
the use of evidence-based practices was seen as warranted due to evidence that
indicated that the majority of research mainly centres on the variables affecting
individual children. The authors advocated for further research and the adoption of a
range of methodological approaches, including action research and multi-disciplinary
efforts (Dunlap et al., 2006).
More recently, in South Australia, Sullivan et al. (2014) used the Behaviour at
School Study Teacher Survey to probe 1380 reception to year 12 teachers’ perceptions
of the most frequently encountered student behaviours and the effectiveness of their
behaviour management strategies. Teachers reported most frequently encountering
disengaged and low-level disruptive student behaviours. Sullivan et al. (2014)
suggested that teachers most commonly used strategies of reasoning with a student and
that using a ‘step’ system may not address the underlying causes of the behaviour, that
is, the reasons for the student disengagement. The authors recommended teachers
attend to ecological factors that positively influence student engagement.
In another Australian research study conducted in Melbourne primary schools,
Clunies-Ross et al. (2008) examined the use of proactive and reactive teaching
strategies in responding to student behaviour. Using questionnaires and observations
of 97 teachers, findings reported that although teachers responded to students’
70 Chapter 2: Literature Review
academic behaviours more positively than negatively, there was a higher than average
number of negative responses observed in relation to students’ social behaviours. This
implied that teachers used predominantly more reactive than positive strategies when
addressing challenging behaviours (Clunies-Ross et al., 2008). With research
illustrating that student on-task behaviour is shown to increase through the use of
positive management strategies, rather than disapproval or reactive strategies, it is
curious that reactive or negative responses are so often employed by teachers when
addressing these social behaviours (Garcia & Hoang, 2015; Hollingshead et al., 2016;
J. Overton, 2009; Ravet, 2007b).
Despite research findings showing negative teacher responses to student
behaviour, it is evident that teachers perceive themselves as strong influences on the
development of positive student behaviour (McKenzie et al., 2014; Tillery et al.,
2010). But although teachers’ perceptions highlight their awareness of their influence,
the prevalence of the use of ineffective strategies for guiding behaviour is of concern
(McCready & Soloway, 2010; Poulou, 2009; Ravet, 2007b; Sullivan et al., 2014).
It is evident that research into teachers’ perspectives on student behaviour have
helped to develop a picture of teachers’ classroom practice with student behaviour.
What is needed now is to investigate teachers’ behaviour approaches, to develop an
enhanced understanding of effective behaviour practice and the factors contributing to
teachers’ success with behaviour approaches. This is the focus of the current study.
2.10 TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING ON
BEHAVIOUR APPROACHES
Teacher professional development and learning is essential to effective teaching
(Earl & Timperley, 2008; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Timperley, 2011, 2015).
Internationally, professional development for teachers has been seen by Villegas-
Reimers (2003) as one of the key elements to current major world-wide educational
reform. Teachers are seen as agents of change, with professional development and
learning assisting them to adapt to new knowledge and improve educational outcomes
for students (Timperley, 2011; Villegas-Reimers, 2003).
In Australia, the Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership
(AITSL) currently drives the national agenda for teacher professional development
and learning. It is responsible for promoting and leading high quality professional
Chapter 2: Literature Review 71
development for teachers and school leaders, and it states that quality of teaching is
the most significant in-school factor affecting student outcomes (AITSL, 2014, p. 1).
The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2014) recognises the
importance of ongoing professional renewal through commitment to ongoing teacher
professional development and learning activities.
At the outset of this study, the Ministerial Advisory Committee for Educational
Renewal in Queensland (2005) had recommended to the Minister of Education and the
Arts to mandate professional development for all Queensland classroom teachers on
the combination of pedagogy, curriculum and behaviour. This recommendation was
accepted by the then Department of Education and the Arts, with the implementation
of the Code of School Behaviour in 2006 and the subsequent Better Behaviour Better
Learning package being rolled out in 2007 (Department of Education Training and
Employment, 2006; Education Queensland, 2007a). Professional development
sessions for teachers on approaching student behaviour became available via their
Learning Place online learning portal; but decision-making regarding how schools
individually spent their funding in Queensland government schools has increasingly
been the responsibility of school Principals and regional offices, rather than centrally
via head office. Therefore, provision for training of Queensland government school
teachers to address the MACERs recommendation has often been limited to individual
schools that retain this as a priority (Department of Education and Training, 2011).
Thus it seems that this particular proposal from the MACER report has since been
displaced in practice. This lost opportunity for Queensland teachers to advance their
knowledge and understandings regarding the fusing of behaviour with pedagogy and
curriculum may have served to inhibit meaningful and relevant teacher learning,
leading to subsequent disengagement of students.
The importance of professional development and learning for teachers is
apparent when reviewing research on teachers’ perceptions of student behaviour.
Many teachers feel that this is one area of their teacher preparation that has not been
adequately addressed, with many beginning teachers feeling ill-prepared to manage
classrooms (Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Buchanan, 2010; DellaMattera, 2011; Rosas &
West, 2009). Tillery et al. (2010) suggested the need for more research on the
effectiveness of professional development training, noting teachers’ limited
knowledge regarding behaviour management and the lack of quality professional
72 Chapter 2: Literature Review
development around system-based initiatives. This study aims to contribute to the
knowledge base on teachers’ professional learning, generating understandings of how
Prep teachers experience student behaviour in an effort to develop awareness of the
range of ways teachers approach student behaviour that may lead to pedagogical
change.
Research has called for attention to the provision of professional development
and learning opportunities for teachers, to address their concerns around challenging
student behaviour (Marquez et al., 2016; McCready & Soloway, 2010; MACER, 2005;
Tsouloupas et al., 2010). Clunies-Ross et al. (2008) found that teachers regarded
professional development on student behaviour positively when it was delivered via
staff meetings or other school-based initiatives, rather than by experts. Teachers
desired more positive, practical classroom strategies for managing disruptive and
disengaged behaviour as well as additional practical support with regard to disruptive
student behaviour (Clunies-Ross et al., 2008). This finding is synonymous with
Timperley’s (2011) first principle for quality effective professional learning, where
professional learning is said to be best situated in the physical and social context in
which teaching takes place, and is part of a teacher inquiry and knowledge building
cycle that promotes important outcomes for students.
Teacher professional development and learning on approaching student
behaviour may increase teacher confidence and well-being. New teachers in schools
often develop feelings of isolation as they are left to manage disengaged and disruptive
behaviours with little classroom support (Ballantyne, 2005; Buchanan, 2010). Both
Ballantyne (2005) and Buchanan (2010) have reported a ‘culture of silence’, where
teachers seem unwilling to ask for support due to fears of being seen as incompetent.
Teachers who are provided with little classroom support to manage challenging
student behaviours may experience frustration, emotional exhaustion and stress.
Tsouloupas et al.’s (2010) study of 610 teachers from four school districts in America
elicited responses via an online study on the issue of teachers’ emotional regulation.
The research found that teachers who engaged in cognitive reappraisal, that is, where
they were able to reinterpret and decrease their negative emotions and behavioural
expressions by altering thoughts of potentially inducing events, experienced less
emotional exhaustion. Teachers who engaged in expressive suppression (shutting
down of emotions), however, reported more emotional exhaustion. Professional
Chapter 2: Literature Review 73
development that explores strategies such as that of cognitive appraisal and
mindfulness may serve to increase teacher efficacy regarding managing disruptive
behaviours and increase teacher well-being (McCready & Soloway, 2010; Tsouloupas
et al., 2010).
It has been found that teacher professional development related to student
behaviour which centres on helping teachers to generate context-specific solutions
positively influences classroom practice. McCready and Soloway’s (2010) two-year
interpretive research project aimed to understand 50 Canadian teachers’ perceptions
of challenging student behaviour and of the strategies they employed in addressing
these behaviours. A distinction was made in this study between technical and adaptive
problems. The authors argued that teachers should not be offered technical solutions
to behavioural problems, but rather be challenged to explore the complexities of
relationships and the social and cultural dynamics in classrooms. As such, the
development of these adaptive skills was found by teachers to be pivotal in effecting
change in the classroom. McCready and Soloway (2010) promoted a professional
development model whereby experts facilitate an inquiry approach with teachers rather
than provide solutions to problems. The generation of context specific solutions to
challenging behaviours is perceived by teachers and professional development and
learning experts as particularly favourable (McCready & Soloway, 2010; Timperley,
2011). These findings are important to this study, as school-based professional
development regarding student behaviour in Queensland currently has a focus on
equipping teachers with strategies (such as the Essential Skills), rather than following
an enquiry-based process for generating individualised responses to behaviour. This
theory-practice divide provides yet another justification for examining teachers’
approaches with student behaviour.
2.11 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter has evidenced literature across the broad areas of (i) the Australian
educational context; (ii) school behaviour policy; (iii) the Prep year in Queensland;
(iv) student behaviour and the Preparatory year; (v) behaviour theories and
approaches; (vi) pedagogy, curriculum, and student behaviour; (vii) student
motivation, engagement, and student behaviour; (viii) teachers’ perceptions, beliefs
and attitudes in relation to student behaviour; and (ix) teacher professional
development and learning.
74 Chapter 2: Literature Review
A review of the literature on teacher perceptions of student behaviour has called
for an increased emphasis on teachers’ perceptions of the interrelationship between
pedagogy, curriculum and student behaviour, particularly in the early years of
schooling in Queensland, where little current research has occurred. Research has also
indicated the necessity to further explore teachers’ actions, beliefs and values relating
to their chosen approaches to behaviour, as well as what barriers exist when enacting
their pedagogy. The theory-practice divide has also required investigation, with
attention to what teachers understand about appropriate behavioural guidance
strategies, democratic approaches and collaborative relationships with students. This
study aimed to elicit such conceptions of teachers’ approaches with student behaviour
with implications for teacher professional development and learning.
In this study, teachers’ approaches with student behaviour have been
investigated through a phenomenographic methodology. This methodology allows for
in-depth analysis of teachers’ experiences with student behaviour approaches in the
Preparatory year and reveals the range of qualitatively different ways that teachers
experience and understand their approaches. These emerging conceptions have
generated new knowledge that may ultimately influence teacher practice. The research
methodology will be presented next, in Chapter 3.
Chapter 3: Methodology 75
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Phenomenography has been chosen as the methodology for this study that
investigated teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour in the
Preparatory (Prep) year. In this chapter I will present the phenomenographic
methodology and theoretical framework, namely variation theory, and describe the
methods that were used to conduct this study. The chapter has two parts.
First, an overview of the phenomenographic methodology will be presented in
section 3.2, before introducing key terms associated with phenomenography and
variation theory that relate to this study (section 3.3). Next a rationale for using
phenomenography will be outlined in section 3.4, followed by a discussion of the
ontological and epistemological bases of phenomenography in section 3.5. In section
3.6, first and second order perspectives will be discussed, then the relationship between
phenomenography and variation theory will be unpacked (section 3.7).
Second, the data collection process and approach to data analysis are presented
in section 3.8. The ethical considerations associated with this phenomenographic study
are outlined in section 3.8.1, followed by the participant overview (3.8.2), the study
procedure (3.8.3) and the conduct of the semi-structured interviews (3.8.4). Finally a
detailed account of the conduct of analysis is provided in section 3.9, along with
explanations and examples of how the final outcome space (or findings) were derived.
Australian phenomenographer, Bowden (2000b), stated that researchers should
commence a study with a clear intention and purpose. This purpose should provide a
focus and guide researchers’ actions throughout the study. The purpose of this study
was to explore how Prep teachers experience and conceptualise their approaches with
student behaviour in their day-to-day teaching. Through conducting
phenomenographic teacher interviews, applying phenomenographic methods and
analysing the data using variation theory, the range of ways that Prep teachers
approach student behaviour is revealed. This provides a catalyst for reflection upon
76 Chapter 3: Methodology
these approaches, which can in turn generate an awareness of how to best support
teacher professional learning on behaviour approaches.
3.2 OVERVIEW OF PHENOMENOGRAPHY
Phenomenography is an empirical research tradition. The central claim of
empiricism is that experience is the only source of knowledge (Paley, 2008); and it is
this notion of experience as knowledge that is a key aspect of phenomenography. The
aim of phenomenographic research is to describe qualitatively different ways of
experiencing and understanding various phenomena, with interviews being the most
common method employed to understand participants’ experiences of phenomena
(Åkerlind, 2005d; Green, 2005).
The methodology of phenomenography emerged from a research group in the
Department of Education at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden in the late 1960s
and early 1970s (Ashworth & Lucas, 1998; Pang, 2003). Phenomenography’s founder,
Ference Marton, advocated for research that would describe, analyse and understand
learners’ experiences of learning. Examples of early phenomenographic studies that
investigated students’ learning include physics students’ experiences or understanding
of concepts related to kinematics, that is, the study of motion (Dall'Alba et al., 1989),
children’s conceptions of learning (Pramling, 1983), and students’ conceptualizations
of sound (Linder & Erickson, 1989).
Due to the international partnerships forged by Swedish phenomenographers and
other interested researchers, phenomenography has gained popularity outside of
Sweden over the past 40 years, with research emerging from the United Kingdom,
Hong Kong and Australia in the late 1990s (Åkerlind, 2005d). This methodology has
expanded its application to a variety of other fields outside education, such as health,
science, engineering, music and general issues in society (Bowden, 2000b). More
recent topics of phenomenographic research outside education include work in such
diverse fields as middle-aged women's perceptions of lifestyle (Elgán & Fridlund,
2011) and investigating television via social networking (P. Booth, 2012).
Over time, phenomenography has grown from a methodology originally being
understood as a “research programme” (Dahlin, 2007, p. 327) intended to map out
variation in ways of experiencing and understanding phenomena, to the application of
variation theory, with its concepts of discernment, variation and simultaneity. This
Chapter 3: Methodology 77
growth has shifted phenomenography’s focus to a methodology with a strong
theoretical basis (Pang, 2003).
Central to phenomenography’s theoretical underpinnings is the notion of how
we experience phenomena. In phenomenography, the investigation of how people
experience something comprises the relationship between the person and the
phenomenon under investigation. Ekeblad and Bond (1994) stated that the nature of
the relation between the person and the phenomenon is dynamic, as there are
individual, historical and situational contexts pertaining to both the phenomenon and
the person. Limberg (2008) stated that a way of experiencing something is a distinct
way of being aware of something in the here and now. The here and now, however,
can only be experienced with reference to previous experiences, and with reflection
upon the similarities and differences of these experiences. This focus on experience as
an awareness is the essence of the theoretical framework of phenomenography as
discussed by Marton and Booth (1997) in their landmark work Learning and
Awareness.
Marton and Booth (1997) stated that in phenomenographic approaches,
experience and situation cannot be separated. The situation comprises a context, time
and place. Phenomena are described as entities, “that transcend the situation, which
link it with other situations and lend meaning to it (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 83). In
phenomenography the phenomena and situation are importantly intertwined in
experience. In this study, I sought to understand the experiences of Prep teachers. The
phenomenon under investigation was approaches with student behaviour and the
situation was the Prep year in Queensland government schools. Whilst maintaining the
focus on exploring the experience of the phenomenon as described by the participants,
participants may be oriented towards situational aspects in which the phenomenon is
embedded (Marton & Booth, 1997). This means that in this study the context of Prep
classrooms and the nature of schools are connected with the phenomenon of
approaches with student behaviour, with teachers’ experiences likely to reflect such
situational aspects.
The phenomenographic notion of how we experience something requires further
explanation at this point. Drawing upon phenomenology to derive their conceptual
learning and awareness framework, Marton and Booth (1997) stated, “to experience
something emanating from its environment is, for the first thing, to discern it from its
78 Chapter 3: Methodology
context” (p.86). That which surrounds the phenomenon experienced is known in the
phenomenographic framework as the external horizon. In relation to this study, this
means Prep teachers’ experience of approaches with student behaviour as discerned
from its context (or surrounds) within Preparatory classrooms in Queensland
government schools, and all other contexts in which teachers have experienced related
occurrences with these approaches. For instance, teachers in this study were asked to
reflect not just upon their current experience with their approaches with student
behaviour in the Prep year, but also upon their teaching in other year levels (if relevant
to participants), in other schools in which they had worked, and over time (for example
at the beginning of the school year or at different points in their teaching careers).
In the phenomenographic framework, as shown in Figure 3.1, the external
horizon (that which surrounds the phenomenon) is complemented by an internal
horizon. This internal horizon comprises the structural presence; all the parts of the
phenomenon itself (namely approaches to student behaviour) and their relationships
together, along with the contours or surrounds of the phenomenon (the external
horizon). The external horizon, along with the internal horizon, create the structural
aspect of phenomenography. This structural aspect relates to discerning the
phenomenon from its context, but also to discerning its parts, the way they relate to
one another and to the whole (Marton & Booth, 1997).
Figure 3.1. A way of experiencing (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 309).
Marton and Booth (1997) stated that intertwined with the structural aspect of the
experience is the referential aspect, that is the meaning. Marton and Booth (1997)
argued that an individual’s awareness of this meaning is brought to a reflective state
through the researcher’s interventions during the course of an interview, with in-depth
questioning enabling participants to articulate their experience. This clearly illustrates
Chapter 3: Methodology 79
another key concept of the structure of awareness, that is that structure presupposes
meaning (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 309).
The aims of phenomenographic investigations are not just to describe or define
experience, but to capture variation in the ways phenomena are experienced, and to
group these conceptions (or ways of seeing) together into categories for the purpose of
description. The way that these conceptions are described in phenomenographic
studies is via categories of description (Bowden, 2000b; Marton, 1981). These
categories of description constitute a reduction of the data and are intended to express
a summary of the content or meaning of the data that is as close to the data as possible
(Svennson, 1994). The “complex” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 125) of categories of
description, capturing the different ways of experiencing the phenomenon is the
outcome space. Marton and Booth (1997) stated that these qualitatively different ways
of experiencing a phenomenon typically form a hierarchy, as was found during the
analysis phase of this study. This hierarchical structure presents the “increasing
complexity, in which the different ways of experiencing the phenomenon in question
can be defined as subsets of the component parts and relationships within more
inclusive or complex ways of seeing the phenomenon” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p.
125). The phenomenographic terms are now discussed in more detail.
3.3 COMING TO TERMS WITH PHENOMENOGRAPHY
This section will introduce and critique key phenomenographic terms, before
presenting the particular terms that will feature most prominently in this study.
The terms most commonly used to represent the unit of phenomenographic
research within Marton and Booth’s (1997) phenomenographic framework are
experiences, understandings, meanings and conceptions. These phenomenographic
terms, along with other terms such as ways of seeing, perceive and view, are used
interchangeably in many studies, which provides for much confusion when coming to
terms with the methodology. Therefore a deeper exploration of these terms is
warranted.
In the phenomenographic research literature, there is much variation in the way
in which the unit of phenomenographic research is described. This demonstrates the
wide range of ways that phenomenographers have interpreted, adapted and applied this
methodology to their particular studies. Some studies have favoured the term
80 Chapter 3: Methodology
experiences (Åkerlind, 2005a; C. S. Bruce, 1999; Ramritu & Barnard, 2001; K. Wood,
2000); others conceptions (Broström, Strömberg, Dahlström, & Fridlund, 2001;
Loughland, Reid, & Petocz, 2002; Prosser, Trigwell, & Taylor, 1994); while another
group of researchers have aimed at the study of perceptions (Boström, Sandh,
Lundberg, & Fridlund, 2004; Cope & Ward, 2002; Schröder, Ahlström, & Larsson,
2005). Furthermore, other terms such as meanings (Åkerlind, 2005d) and views
(Swartling, Peterson, & Wahlström, 2007) are used, in addition to terms such as
thinking (Marton, 1986), seeing (Green, 2005), interpret (Marton, 1981), apprehend
(Ashworth & Lucas, 1998), remember (Boström et al., 2004), and perceive, articulate,
and handle (S. Booth, 2008). Many of these terms have been evidenced alongside the
term experiences and used interchangeably to describe what is to be studied. To the
novice phenomenographer this could suggest that: (i) there is some confusion around
the nature of the approach; (ii) there has perhaps been some slippage in translation of
the terms, for example, from Swedish to English; and perhaps (iii) there has also been
considerable stretching of the methodology, with researchers making adaptations to
answer a range of research questions.
However, prominent phenomenographers such as Gerlese Åkerlind and Ference
Marton offered another perspective. Åkerlind (2005a), in her study on how university
academics experience academic growth and development, stated, “as is common with
phenomenographic research, I use terms such as meanings, understandings,
experience, awareness, perceptions, views, etc. interchangeably” (p.6). Most
commonly used in her study, however, were the terms experience, meanings and
understandings. Åkerlind’s (2005a) methodology was in part drawn from Marton and
Booth’s (1997) work, which explains her preference for the use of these specific terms;
but her work was also influenced by research such as that by fellow
phenomenographer, Keith Wood (2000), who investigated teaching from the
perspectives of teachers, examining their conceptions and approaches to teaching.
Marton, like Akerlind, advocated for a wide range of terms when referring to the
basic unit of phenomenography. In Marton’s (2015) most recent work, Necessary
Conditions of Learning, he stated that phenomenographic descriptions can be:
…phrased in terms of different ways of seeing something, or different ways
in which something appears or, simply, meanings. We can also add
conceptions, different ways of experiencing something as well as the lived
Chapter 3: Methodology 81
(experienced) objects of learning. The different labels do not refer to different
kinds of things; they are used as synonyms and they refer to the basic unit of
phenomenography (see Marton & Pong, 2005). The reason that many terms
are used is that none of them is perfect for the purpose (they are words or
expressions that have many other connotations and point to different aspects
of what is meant to be the basic unit of phenomenography). (p.106)
Marton’s (2015) point here is most valid. Phenomenographers require a range of
terms, carefully selected to describe their particular approach and study, to articulate
the different aspects of the basic unit of phenomenography. No two studies are the
same, therefore the terms used will also vary. What is important, especially in light of
such wide variation of use of phenomenographic terms, is that phenomenographic
researchers clearly articulate and explain the terms they use and how they relate to the
particular phenomena investigated.
Swedish phenomenographer Dahlin (2007) and Ashworth and Lucas (1998)
from the United Kingdom are researchers interested in the development of
phenomenography and variation theory, who have contributed to the literature by
clarifying the meaning of common phenomenographic terms and their relation to
particular aspects within the phenomenographic approach. For instance, Dahlin (2007)
stated that the terms experience and understanding are often used interchangeably in
studies, but he provides a helpful example to explain the difference between the two:
My experience of a phenomenon may be crucially different from my
understanding of the same phenomenon. For instance, if you ask me how I
experience a particular blue colour painting, I may say that I perceive it as a
cold and hard instance of blueness. But if you ask me how I understand that
colour, I may say that it is painted with a chemical substance that reflects a
particular wavelength of light and absorbs all others, or that the quality of this
blueness reflects the artist’s intention with the painting. Thus, at least in this
case, my answer to the question of experience would be different from that to
the question of understanding, and so would my conceptions. (p.332)
This quote shows the distinction between what is experienced and what is
understood, based upon the phenomenographic theoretical foundations established in
Marton and Booth’s (1997) Learning and Awareness. Adding to this, Ashworth and
Lucas (1998) stated that:
82 Chapter 3: Methodology
…many mental processes (perceiving, conceptualizing, apprehending,
understanding and so on) were all taken as referring to ‘experience’, though it
was recognised that the emphasis was on experience that has been reflected
on to the extent that it could be discussed and described by the experiencer.
(p.415)
Thus, participants’ experiences and understandings as described by the
researcher comprise the conceptions of the phenomenon investigated in
phenomenographic studies.
The term conceptions is commonly used in phenomenographic studies.
Conceptions are understood as aspects of an individual’s awareness that can be brought
to a “reflected” or “thematized” state through the researcher’s interventions during the
course of phenomenographic interviews (Marton & Booth, 1997, pp. 130-131).
Although the term conceptions has been used in phenomenographic literature
interchangeably with experiences, experiences focus on awareness, whereas
conceptions linguistically have a strong link to knowledge and this forms the
epistemological basis of phenomenography (S. Booth, 2008).
Conceptions, knowledge and thinking are inextricably linked. Prominent
Swedish phenomenographer Lennart Svensson (1997) stated that conceptions are
closely related to the nature of knowledge and thinking, and are created through human
thinking and activity. Conceptions, however, are also based upon the world or reality
external to the individual (Svensson, 1997). The character of a conception may vary,
from the meaning of a reality that is immediately experienced to a fragment of reality
as a more general thought. Conceptions are accessible through language, and in
phenomenographic studies are expressed by participants, with the researcher
describing them.
Svensson (1997) stated that, during data analysis decisions have to be made
about what is and is not a conception, and whether or not the conceptions vary as to
their character or nature. This is where phenomenography’s theoretical framework
comes into play. To be classified as a conception, some whole-parts of the meaning of
the phenomenon have to exist. Ekeblad and Bond (1994) discussed conceptions as
being the object within the participant’s focal awareness. That is, what is prominent to
them. Marton and Pong (2005) described conceptions as being characterised by the
Chapter 3: Methodology 83
particular meaning of an object (the referential aspect) and the combination of features
recognized and focused upon by the participant (the structural aspect).
Phenomenological perspectives of consciousness have been influential to the
development of variation theory as applied to phenomenographic studies, resulting in
researchers of student learning becoming interested in drawing attention to the
variation of conceptions (Dahlin, 2007). This variation has meant that,
…in order for learning to take place, the learner has to discern a critical aspect
of dimension of variation in the phenomenon; she has to see how this aspect
can vary; and she has to become simultaneously aware of the possible “values”
along this dimension of variation in order to compare them. (Dahlin, 2007, p.
328)
The intentional level of reflection creates varying conceptions. This forms the
so-called outcome space that is often described in phenomenographic studies. Swedish
phenomenographer Dahlin (2007) depicted this as, “a map of conceptions or, if you
like, a map of (a certain part of) the human mind” (p.338). During the conduct of this
present study, this intentional level of reflection was reached by encouraging
participants to talk about their current approaches with student behaviour and then
asking them to contrast these experiences against previous experiences. This included
a reflective line of questioning for participants to tease out any variation in their
responses, for example, why a participant might use a particular approach during a
whole-class lesson, but not use that approach during individual interactions with
students.
More recently, Marton’s (2015) work on variation theory introduced the term
way of seeing (p.112). In gaining access to individuals’ experiences within
phenomenographic studies, there is recognition of a logical relationship between what
people see (their way of seeing things) and what they do. Marton (2015) further
describes the term way of seeing in relation to critical aspects that are discerned by the
learner/research participant:
…seeing, as I use the term here, means making distinctions, and making a
distinction is an act (i.e., it is “doing”). In this case, there is no seeing separate
from doing, where the former explains the latter. There is one thing only:
making distinctions (i.e., “doing” which is read by the teacher or researcher as
expressing “seeing”). (p.112)
84 Chapter 3: Methodology
The term way of seeing links what Marton (2015) calls the acts of learning (p.
111) to how a phenomenon is understood or conceptualised by the learner/research
participant as analysed by the researcher. This term way of seeing is particularly
important to this study as during the data collection phase I sought to probe what
Preparatory teachers actually ‘do’ in the classroom with student behaviour (the acts of
learning or, in other words, their approaches) in an effort to appreciate their
experiences and understandings of this phenomenon (that is their way of seeing
approaches with student behaviour in the Prep year). In this study seeing and doing are
inextricably linked, thus the term way/s of seeing has been adopted when discussing
conceptions.
In this study, phenomenographic methods were used to investigate how teachers
experience their approaches with student behaviour in Prep classrooms. Employing
variation theory in the analysis phase has meant that the categories of description and
outcome space communicate variation in teachers’ way of seeing (or conceptions of)
their approaches. Experiences, understandings, conceptions and way/s of seeing will
be the terms used. This reflects the chosen approach (phenomenography) and
theoretical framework (variation theory) based upon the work of Marton and Booth
(1997) and Marton (2015). Unlike the studies discussed in Marton and Booth (1997)
and Marton’s (2015) work, however, this study did not focus on student learning, but
instead drew upon the work of phenomenographers like Åkerlind (2005a) and Harris
(2008) who studied the experiences and conceptions of academics and teachers.
Although this is not a study of student learning, it is, however, a study that has realised
phenomenography’s “pedagogical potential” (Kroksmark 1987, in Marton, 2015
p.118), that is, the potential to contribute to learning, in this case, to teacher
professional learning. The pedagogical potential of this study will be communicated
via its outcomes, which will be presented in chapters 4 and 5.
The next section provides a rationale for the use of phenomenography in this
study.
3.4 RATIONALE FOR PHENOMENOGRAPHY
The rationale for using phenomenography in this study can be made on several
grounds. A review of the literature on student behaviour in the previous chapter has
shown that there is insufficient empirical evidence, from teachers’ perspectives of how
Chapter 3: Methodology 85
they experience student behaviour in their day-to-day teaching, and how they
understand their approaches, particularly in the early years of school. In Queensland,
the State in which this study is located, little attention has been placed on investigating
how teachers approach student behaviour in Prep classrooms, even though student
behaviour has been flagged as a problem by the premier teachers’ advocacy group, the
Queensland Teachers’ Union (Chilcott, 2011a, 2011c). Additionally, as discussed in
Chapter 2, Prep disciplinary absences and incidents have continued to increase in the
Preparatory year in the period between 2008 to 2016 (Blundell, 2011; Queensland
Government, 2017a), further highlighting approaches with student behaviour as a
significant issue.
Few studies of what is happening in the Queensland Prep year have been
conducted to date. Examples of phenomenographic research that have been undertaken
in this context include studies on learning, such as A Justification for Mathematical
Modelling Experiences in the Preparatory Classroom (Fox, 2006), and A Study of
Mathematical Patterning in Early Childhood Settings (J. Waters, 2004). Other studies
by Irvine (2005) and O’Gorman (2007) have sought to understand the experiences of
parents in the Prep year. However, none have investigated teachers’ approaches with
student behaviour in the Prep year. Given the perceived observations of student
behaviour reported in the print media, and the worrying trend of student disciplinary
absences increasing in the Prep year, it seemed timely and necessary to undertake an
investigation of teachers’ approaches with student behaviour and to report the findings
from the perspectives of teachers themselves.
It is pertinent at this point to reiterate how student behaviour has been studied
previously, as this will make clear the rationale for approaching this study from the
vantage point of teachers’ experiences of how they approach student behaviour.
Research by Arbuckle and Little (2004), Clunies-Ross et al. (2008) and Rosas and
West (2009) reported on the student behaviours that teachers find most challenging to
manage in classrooms. While it is helpful to be aware of which student behaviours
teachers find most troublesome, and to examine the effect of these challenging
behaviours, investigating how teachers actually experience student behaviour may
lead to new understandings about teachers and about the nature of teaching. These
understandings in turn may be helpful to inform future teacher preparation and
professional development and learning around student behaviour.
86 Chapter 3: Methodology
In deciding how to best study teachers’ experiences with student behaviour,
research traditions must be considered. Åkerlind (2005b) stated that quantitative
research has historically been the most dominant and prestigious research paradigm.
This is clearly evidenced in studies around student behaviour. There are numerous
quantitative studies investigating student behaviour, such as those by Carter et al.
(2011), Curtis et al. (2010) and Horner et al. (2010), that have reported on the outcomes
of Schoolwide Positive Behaviour Support programs. These quantitative studies have
used questionnaires and other forms of numerical data to report on the successes and
challenges associated with behavioural-based interventions. While there has been a
steady increase in the use of such quantitative studies over time, little empirical
research of a qualitative nature has been carried out in education settings to explore
teachers’ experiences with student behaviour. The benefit of qualitative research is the
in-depth examination of phenomena, which Cooley (2013, p. 250) stated provides
richness of detail, giving “insights into the complicated nature of teaching and learning
that would be missed through other means.”
Studies that have examined student behaviour in educational settings
qualitatively have generally explored teachers’ perceptions of student behaviour, using
methods such as grounded theory (Tillery et al., 2010) and other interpretive methods
involving individual and group interviews (McCready & Soloway, 2010). The study
of perceptions, however, is more closely aligned with the use of phenomenology rather
than phenomenography. Interestingly, the majority of studies that have investigated
student behaviour, whether qualitative or quantitative, have positioned the
phenomenon of student behaviour as being problematic for teachers. These studies
have primarily sought to expose the challenges and investigate the difficulties that
teachers face in managing student behaviour. In contrast, this present study has not
assumed student behaviour as problematic, but rather has been open to investigating
the various conceptions that Prep teachers have when approaching this phenomenon.
Marton (1981) argued that phenomenography is a methodology that is
complementary to other forms of research. Åkerlind (2005b), a strong advocate for
phenomenography, said its advantage lies in another way of viewing knowledge,
research and reality. Central to phenomenography is its aim to capture experience as
the internal relation between people and phenomena. Marton (1981) suggested that
outcomes of studies that explore this internal relation are of sufficient interest in
Chapter 3: Methodology 87
themselves, but phenomenography’s focus on variation, and its particular focus on
capturing the range of ways that people can experience a phenomenon, cannot be
obtained in any other way (Marton, 1981). Phenomenography then as a methodology
employed to answer the current research question is likely to make a unique
contribution to the body of literature on teaching in relation to approaches with student
behaviour in the Preparatory year. Teachers’ voices are yet to be clearly articulated
and the variation in the way they approach student behaviour yet to be understood.
Phenomenographic studies often contribute new insights to phenomena which
may lead to identifying solutions to pedagogical problems. A further rationale for the
conduct of this study lies in its potential to influence preservice and inservice teacher
education by generating new understandings of how teachers experience their
approaches with student behaviour. Trigwell (1999) stated that phenomenography has
a number of key aspects which differentiate it from other research methodologies such
as grounded theory, phenomenology and content analysis (Figure 3.2), and that these
points of departure provide rich potential for application to educational practice.
First, its philosophy is non-dualist, setting it apart from methodologies such as
surveys and case studies. By non-dualist Trigwell (1999) meant that reality is not seen
as external to the individual, but rather as a relationship between the individual and the
phenomenon under investigation. This internal relation is a key theoretical
underpinning of this methodology. In the present study this means that approaches
with student behaviour cannot be viewed in isolation. They are inextricably linked to
teachers and teaching and inseparable from associated contextual factors related to
teachers, teaching and schools.
Second, phenomenography is qualitative rather than quantitative, although
quantitative methods have been employed alongside phenomenographic methods
(Jones, 2004). For example, Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas, and Prosser (1998)
investigated students’ experiences of learning mathematics at university using
questionnaires to build upon understandings gained from phenomenographic analysis.
Third, phenomenography espouses a second order rather than a first order
approach, differentiating it from case studies and grounded theory (Trigwell, 1999). In
a first order approach, the phenomenon is described by the researcher. It is the
researcher’s analyses of that phenomenon that constitute the outcomes. In a second-
order approach, however, the researcher’s aim is to describe the phenomenon as
88 Chapter 3: Methodology
expressed by the participants. For this study the aim was to describe approaches with
student behaviour as experienced by Preparatory teachers.
Fourth, phenomenography focuses on variation, which makes it different to most
other qualitative research approaches, such as phenomenology, case studies and
grounded theory (Trigwell, 1999). Emphasis is placed on the key aspects of variation
in the way the phenomenon is experienced by participants, the key focus being on
identifying the different ways of experiencing a phenomenon, rather than identifying
what is common across the whole sample. Trigwell (1999) used the phrase, points of
departure (see Figure 3.2), to depict where phenomenography differs from
phenomenology. Although both methodologies adopt a second-order approach, with
the researcher aiming to describe the participants’ experiences of a phenomenon,
phenomenography’s focus is on describing variation, specifically the limited number
of ways of experiencing a phenomenon, whereas phenomenology focuses on a full
description of the individual’s experience. In addition, whereas phenomenology is
concerned with “immediate experience”, phenomenography is concerned with both
experience and “conceptual thought” (Marton, 1981, p. 181).
Fifth, phenomenography investigates the internal relationships between the
different ways of experiencing a phenomenon. This is the final point of departure from
other methodologies. Phenomenographers explore the internal relations between and
within the categories of description (Trigwell, 1999). This differs from methodologies
such as content analysis. Like phenomenography, content analysis maintains a focus
on investigating meaning and developing categories of common themes through an
iterative process of analysing data, but does not provide the richness of
phenomenographic outcomes, where the relations between and within the categories
of description are also described (Julien, 2009; Trigwell, 1999). In this study, the
process of analysing the internal relations within and between the categories of
description has revealed variation in the ways Prep teachers understand their
approaches with student behaviour, the outcome of which has provided a unique view
of these teachers’ experiences.
Chapter 3: Methodology 89
Figure 3.2. Trigwell’s (1999) phenomenography defined using points of departure (p.77).
Phenomenography, then, is likely to produce new understandings of teachers’
experiences of student behaviour, particularly with regard to describing variation in
the ways teachers see or conceptualise their approaches. Supporting this statement,
Dahlin (2007) stated that,
the mapping out of a conceptual space through phenomenographic studies
increases the possibility of discovering, or even predicting, the likely existence
of “new” conceptions; that is, conceptions not found among the group of
people studied but which nevertheless are logically possible, considering the
dimensions of variation that have been constituted through phenomenographic
research. (p. 339)
Dahlin (2007) proposed that when people learn to see a significant part of the
world in a new way, consciousness changes. In teaching, there are myriad
opportunities for such changed consciousness. Changed consciousness or a new way
of seeing may be brought about by educators engaging with the findings of this study,
and may contribute to differences in the way teachers think about their approaches
with student behaviour. Preservice and inservice teacher education provide rich
contexts with potential for reconceptualising teachers’ practice with student behaviour.
This is important because studies to date, such as those by Axup and Gersh (2008) and
Tillery et al. (2010), have pointed out the inadequacies of preservice and inservice
teacher education in preparing teachers to respond to student behaviour.
Adding further justification for the focus on conceptions and their practical
applications, Marton and Booth (1997) stated that,
90 Chapter 3: Methodology
…in order to make sense of how people handle problems, situations, the
world, we have to understand the way in which they experience the problems,
situations, the world, that they are handling or in relation to which they are
acting. Accordingly, a capability for acting in a certain way reflects a
capability of experiencing something in a certain way. The latter does not
cause the former, but they are logically intertwined. You cannot act other than
in relation to the world as you experience it. (p. 111)
This quote provided further inspiration for this study. Gathering data which seek
to understand how teachers experience their approaches with student behaviour has
provided valuable insights into Prep teachers’ actions (or approaches) with student
behaviour in the classroom. This in turn has generated new knowledge that will enable
teachers and teacher educators to reflect on the appropriateness of these approaches to
achieving goals with student behaviour, thus realising the pedagogical potential of
phenomenography. Next, the ontological and epistemological basis of
phenomenography will be discussed.
3.5 ONTOLOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL BASIS OF
PHENOMENOGRAPHY
Some writers have argued that phenomenography has had a limited theoretical
basis (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000; Richardson, 1999). For instance, Richardson (1999)
stated that early in its emergence as a research approach phenomenography lacked a
clear articulation of methods used for the collection and analysis of data and the
conceptual foundations of these methods. More recently, Harris (2011) reviewed 56
phenomenographic studies and found many had not provided clear definitions of the
theoretical frameworks underpinning the studies, further demonstrating that
phenomenography is not well understood, communicated or utilised. However, since
its inception, phenomenography has gradually developed clearer theoretical
assumptions and frameworks to underpin its methods.
Marton and Booth’s (1997) work, Learning and Awareness, as well as ongoing
contributions to the literature by researchers such as Ekeblad (1994), Hasselgren
(1997), Prosser (1993), Saljo (1997), Svensson (1997), Trigwell (1999), Bowden
(2000b), Åkerlind (2005c), and Marton’s (2015) more recent work, have contributed
to the contemporary development of phenomenography. This section will explore
some of the particular schools of thought that have influenced phenomenography, such
Chapter 3: Methodology 91
as Plato’s theory of recollection, behavioural psychology, Gestalt, Piaget, cognitivism,
individual constructivism, social constructivism and phenomenology, as well as
providing a discussion on phenomenography’s ontology and epistemology.
In Learning and Awareness, Marton and Booth (1997) discussed the
epistemological basis of phenomenography. They stated, “epistemology has to
do with the question of gaining knowledge but also with the question of the
truth value of the knowledge gained” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 2). Here they
discussed the acquisition of knowledge, describing schools of thought that have
influenced their thinking in their quest to understand student learning (Marton
& Booth, 1997; Richardson, 1999). They were particularly interested in finding
out “what it takes to learn something” (p. 1). They discussed Plato’s theory of
recollection, drawing upon the premise that all knowledge is inherent in the
soul; that it does not originate from the world or outside (externally), but rather
from within (internally) (Gulley, 1954). Marton and Booth (1997) thought this
to be a valid idea, but turned to a range of other sources of knowledge to seek
more comprehensive insights into their questions about learning.
Through their work on student learning, Marton and Booth (1997) were
influenced by behavioural psychology. Behavioural psychology focused on the role
that reflexes, memory and functional behaviour had on learning. But Marton and Booth
(1997) felt its limitation was an inability to contribute inclusive understandings of
student learning. While behavioural psychology contributed an appreciation of the
impact of environments and external factors on learning, it did not answer their
question of what it takes to learn something. Marton and Booth (1997) sought a
broader understanding of learning, one that encompassed both internal and external
factors, and the relationship between the two.
In the phenomenographic literature, reference is also made to the influence of
the school of Gestalt on phenomenography’s ontology and epistemology. Marton
(1981) charted this influence, focusing in particular on Wertheimer’s psychological
analysis of how people structure and understand the content of various problems. This
is synonymous with phenomenography’s particular focus on understanding the content
and the quality of experience. Marton (1981) stated that learning must be described in
terms of its content. Therefore content is seen to be focal: “there can be no process
without content and there can be no content except in terms of mental activity”
92 Chapter 3: Methodology
(Marton, 1981, p. 184). The description and analysis of experience is central to
phenomenography. The description provides “an understanding of knowledge as a
matter of meaning, and similarities and differences in meaning” (Svensson, 1997, p.
16). The description of the content of participants’ experiences with phenomena
comprise the categories of description, with phenomenography’s aim being to develop
a summary expression of the content or meaning of the data (Svensson, 1997).
Also influential to the development of phenomenography were Piaget’s studies
of children’s qualitatively different conceptions of various aspects of their reality
(Marton & Booth, 1997). Both individual constructivism and cognitivism’s emphasis
on the learner’s active role in the development of knowledge were seen to contribute
to Marton and Booth’s (1997) thinking on how knowledge is acquired, and how more
sophisticated levels of knowledge might replace less advanced levels. Marton and
Booth (1997) also mentioned social constructivism’s influence on their thinking,
stating, “studies with a situated action orientation are characterised by human acts
being explained, not in terms of an individual’s or several individuals’ mental states,
but in terms of what goes on between individuals, and between individuals and
situations” (p. 11). They were clearly interested in the social construction of
knowledge, with its emphasis on cultural practices, language and social contexts. The
foundation for their studies on student learning arose from these influences and was
focused towards the relationship between people’s internal reality (thinking) and
external experiences (actions, environment, culture) and their associated meanings.
While the ontological and epistemological basis for phenomenography was
influenced by Plato, Piaget, cognitivism, individual constructivism and social
constructivism, Marton and Booth (1997) also noted the influence of phenomenology.
Phenomenography was informed by the theoretical understandings of intentionality,
originating from the work of German philosopher and psychologist Franz Brentano
(Marton & Booth, 1997), whose influence is also noted in phenomenology’s
theoretical position. Brentano (1943) held that intentional objects were mind-
dependent, that is “existing in the mind” (Calabi, 1987, p. 1), meaning that thought can
only be identified in relation to an object.
Phenomenography is sometimes confused with phenomenology. Positioning
phenomenography as a particular school of thought with its own methodology and
therefore theoretically different to phenomenology has been fraught with tension.
Chapter 3: Methodology 93
Theorists have been at pains to differentiate the two approaches. In Marton’s (1981)
early work, Phenomenography: Describing Conceptions of the World Around Us, he
rejected phenomenography’s likeness to phenomenology, although he later noted the
similarities of the two approaches, describing both as being relational, experiential,
content-oriented and qualitative (Richardson, 1999). Distinguishing approaches,
Marton (1981) stated that people can only access the world through experience. While
phenomenology adopts a first order perspective (i.e. describing the world),
phenomenography adopts a second order perspective (i.e. describing people’s
experience of the world). This is a key distinction, as this present study does not aim
to describe approaches with student behaviour, but rather to describe teachers’
experiences of their approaches with student behaviour through investigating what
they do and how they go about it, and how they talk about it.
The present study offers the opportunity to demonstrate phenomenography’s
four points of departure from phenomenology. The first point of departure is that
phenomenologists would aim at learning about approaches with student behaviour,
while phenomenographers would aim at learning about teachers’ experiences of their
approaches with student behaviour. A second point of departure is that in
phenomenography it is believed that there is a limited number of qualitatively different
ways of experiencing phenomena, with phenomenography seeking to explore the
variation in these conceptions. Phenomenology, however, seeks to “explicate the
general, necessary and invariant features of objects - their essences” (Richardson,
1999, p. 61). Marton (1981) saw a third point of departure as phenomenography being
“substance-oriented” (p. 181), referring to its aim of understanding how people
experience and conceptualise phenomena. Finally, while phenomenology is a
philosophical approach directed towards a “pre-reflective level of consciousness”,
phenomenography deals with:
…both the conceptual and the experiential, as well as with what is thought of
as that which is lived. We would also deal with what is culturally learned and
with what are individually developed ways of relating ourselves to the world
around us. (Marton, 1981, p. 181)
It is this focus on understanding people’s lived experiences of phenomena (the
what), with reflection upon their experiences and actions (the how), and the
relationship between the two (the meaning) that forms the theoretical framework of
94 Chapter 3: Methodology
the phenomenographic approach. The framework also comprises structural and
referential aspects where “reality presents itself in human thinking as different related
entities having the character of forming units or wholes” (Svensson, 1997, p. 14). In
this study, phenomenographic interview methods were employed to elicit Prep
teachers’ experiences of their approaches (actions) with student behaviour. A carefully
designed interview framework coupled with analysis that allowed for both what and
how aspects, and structural and referential aspects to be revealed, was essential to the
design of this study. The interview techniques and analysis that were used are detailed
later in this chapter.
As phenomenography deals with both the conceptual and experiential,
phenomenography’s epistemology can therefore be seen to be directly related to its
ontology. Phenomenography’s ontology is non-dualist, that is, “… there is no
differentiation between an objective ‘real world’ and a subjective experienced world.
The subject and object (phenomenon) are linked, not separate, existing together in a
space both subjective and objective” (Lois Harris, 2008). Marton and Booth (1997)
stated that in phenomenography, the outer and the inner disappear:
The world is not constructed by the learner, not is it imposed upon her; it is
constituted as an internal relation between them. There is only one world, but
it is a world that we experience, a world in which we live, a world that is ours.
(p.13)
The ontological and epistemological assumptions of phenomenography are
particularly concerned with the nature of conceptions and their relationship to
knowledge. Knowledge is seen to be created through human activity and thinking, with
conceptions the central form of knowledge (Svensson, 1997). This position differs
from “empirical and positivistic assumptions about observations as facts and
knowledge as inductively based on facts” (Svensson, 1997, p. 8). As discussed, it also
differs from “rationalistic, mentalistic and constructivistic assumptions” (Svensson,
1997, p. 165) about knowledge as a rational or mental construction. Knowledge is seen
as relational, created through thinking about external reality, but also dependent upon
context and awareness.
In this study I have adopted Marton and Booth’s (1997) phenomenographic
framework, along with the application of variation theory (Marton, 2015), which is
underpinned by phenomenography’s ontology and epistemology. An overview of
Chapter 3: Methodology 95
these methods and their application to this study will be presented in subsequent
chapter sections.
3.6 FIRST AND SECOND ORDER PERSPECTIVE
To further clarify the phenomenographic approach, it is important to highlight
Marton’s (1981) distinction between what is known as first order and second order
perspectives. Marton stated that a first order perspective seeks to describe various
aspects of the world, whereas a second order perspective aims to describe people’s
experiences of the various aspects of the world (Marton, 1981). Where first order
perspectives aim to elicit descriptions of a particular phenomenon from participants, a
second order perspective exposes the internal relationship between the world (or
phenomenon) and the learner or participant (Åkerlind, 2005b). Trigwell (1999) stated
that this is the basis of phenomenography’s non-dualist ontology, where reality is
constituted as the relation between the individual and the phenomenon.
Marton (1981) drew links from the phenomenographic second order perspective
to the work of Piaget, suggesting that Piaget’s empirical work has been carried out
from this second order perspective. Marton asserted that Piaget was pivotal in
presenting original descriptions of “children’s qualitatively different conceptions of
various aspects of their reality” (Marton, 1981, p. 191). Piaget shifted the focus from
the child to the child’s world, which is analogous to a second order perspective
(Marton, 1981).
In phenomenography, the second order perspective as described by the
participants forms the basis of the researcher’s description. This second order
perspective is foundational to this study, as it seeks to explore peoples’ (in this case,
teachers’) experiences of an aspect of their world, namely approaches with student
behaviour. Approaches with student behaviour as a phenomenon are more complex
than the current research on this topic has so far been able to capture. There are many
studies that attend to a first order perspective, such as those on the acceptability of
student behaviours (Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Dunlap et al., 2006; Grieve, 2009;
Liljequist & Renk, 2007; McCready & Soloway, 2010; Reynolds, Stephenson, &
Beaman, 2011; Shen et al., 2009); the effects of student behaviour on teacher stress
and attrition (Axup & Gersch, 2008; Brackenreed & Barnett, 2006; Buchanan, 2010;
Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Ferguson, Frost, & Hall, 2012; Fernet, Guay, Senécal, &
96 Chapter 3: Methodology
Austin, 2012; Roache, 2008; Schaubman, Stetson, & Plog, 2011); to what teachers
attribute challenging student behaviour (Grieve, 2009; Tillery et al., 2010); and
strategies teachers use to support behaviour in the classroom (Clunies-Ross et al.,
2008; Gillen et al., 2011; L. Overton & Sullivan, 2008; Tillery et al., 2010). However,
a second order perspective which explores the relationship between the phenomenon
and participant has seldom been researched.
A second order perspective is necessary in research that seeks to understand the
different ways that people experience their world (Marton, 1981). Ultimately, deeper
understandings of how teachers experience approaches with student behaviour may
contribute to the design of programs that effectively target the education and
professional learning needs of preservice and inservice teachers in relation to these
approaches.
3.7 PHENOMENOGRAPHY AND VARIATION THEORY
Some aspects of the theoretical underpinnings of the phenomenographic
approach have created confusion for researchers in the past. Harris (2011), in her
review of 56 studies using the phenomenographic framework, found that there was
considerable variation in the way phenomenography was interpreted and used within
studies, stating that “few authors give serious treatment to the theories underpinning
the use of the frameworks” (p. 115). Åkerlind (2005), like Harris (2011), also
acknowledged variation in phenomenographic practice, and attributed this to a lack of
rigorous published discussion on the methodology.
Indeed, confusion prevails around phenomenography and its theoretical
counterpart variation theory. This can be attributed to the ongoing evolution of
phenomenography and variation theory by Marton (2015). In 1997, Hasselgren and
Beach (1997) provided an overview of what they termed traditional types of
phenomenography, by pointing out that what differs most in phenomenography is the
way the data are produced and what phenomena are studied. Hasselgren and Beach
(1997) argued that there were five recognisable phenomenographic context-types:
experimental; discursive; naturalistic; hermeneutic; and phenomenological. However,
phenomenography’s evolvement, and the critical time points in its development, is
more likely to have influenced how phenomenography has been used in studies. In
recent times, variation theory has built upon phenomenographic specialisation
Chapter 3: Methodology 97
(Marton, 2015) and is often seen applied to both phenomenographic and learning
studies. The application of variation theory to phenomenographic studies realises the
methodology’s pedagogical potential, as understanding learning (or in this study how
we experience something) provides rich understandings that can be applied to teaching
practice (in this case, supporting professional development and learning for preservice
and inservice teachers). To explain the importance of understanding learning through
the application of variation theory, Marton (2015) states:
Experiencing patterns of variation and invariance in learning illuminates what
a deep approach to learning is like. In order to develop a powerful way of
seeing something, the learner must decompose the object of learning and bring
it together again. Such decomposition happens in two ways: through
delimitating parts and wholes and through discernment of critical aspects.
Towards such an end, the learner has to create the necessary patterns of
variation and invariance. This is the deep approach to learning in terms of the
theory of variation. (p.145)
This quote embodies the essence of the analytical framework adopted in this
study, namely phenomenography and variation theory. While the study has not directly
focused on learning (although it is certainly clearly linked to teachers’ professional
understandings of their approaches with student behaviour), it has aimed to reveal the
variation and invariance in the ways Prep teachers see their approaches with student
behaviour. Variation theory was applied in the data analysis phase of this
phenomenographic study and will be further discussed in the next section.
3.8 DATA COLLECTION
This section outlines the research design and procedure for this study, including
information on ethics approval, recruitment of participants and the conduct of
interviews, as well as detailing the analysis undertaken and how results are
communicated.
3.8.1 Research Ethics
The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (National
Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, & Australian
Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, 2015) and the Australian Code for the Responsible
Conduct of Research (National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian
98 Chapter 3: Methodology
Research Council, & Universities Australia, 2007) contain important guiding
principles to ensure ethical responsibility. Important in the ethical conduct of this study
were processes to ensure participants’ informed and voluntary consent, and
confidentiality and privacy.
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was gained from the Queensland
University of Technology Human Research Ethics Committee in April 2013 (Approval
number: 1300000308, see Appendix A). A copy of the approval email is included in
Appendix A. This application was approved as a low-risk research project involving
human participants. An application for conducting research in the then Queensland
Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE) sites was submitted for
approval to recruit participants from Queensland government schools. Approval was
obtained from the Department of Education, Training and Employment in November
2013 (see Appendix B: Approval letter).
Ethical issues considered important in the conduct of this study included: (i)
informed consent; (ii) protection of participant identities; and (iii) management,
storage and disposal of data. First, informed consent will be detailed. During the
recruitment phase of this study, when potential participants initially expressed their
interest in taking part in this research project, they were emailed a Participant
Information Sheet and Consent Form (see Appendix C). At the commencement of
each interview, the researcher used a script (Appendix D: Interview Script) to
communicate to participants the purpose, methods, demands, risks and potential
benefits of the research study. Participants were provided with an opportunity to ask
questions and discuss the information further if they desired.
Participants were then invited to complete a hard paper copy of the Participant
Information Sheet and Consent Form. This indicated their agreement to volunteer in
the research project. It was communicated clearly to participants on this form and at
the outset of each interview that participation in the research project was entirely
voluntary, and that consent may be withdrawn by the participant at any time.
Permission to conduct interviews on the school sites was sought from each school
Principal prior to the teacher interviews (Appendix E: Permission email), Consent
forms were collected from participants and stored, securely, by the researcher.
Second, protection of participants’ identities was also prioritised and managed.
Participants were requested where possible to avoid using actual names during the
Chapter 3: Methodology 99
recorded interview. During transcription, names and identifying information were
removed and replaced with a numerical code. When writing up the study, a decision
was made to not provide demographical information about the schools in which the
teachers worked, so as to further protect participant identities.
Third, also important to the ethical conduct of this study was the management,
storage and disposal of data (National Health and Medical Research Council et al.,
2015). Individually identifiable data collected during interviews were transferred from
the electronic audio recording device to the QUT password protected estore network
drive. The individually identifiable audio recordings were stored on estore for the
purpose of transcription and verification of transcripts where needed, and were
destroyed at the end of the project. Data were de-identified at the time of transcription.
Non-identifiable transcripts were stored on the password protected QUT estore
network drive for the duration of the project. Paper copies of the non-identifiable
transcripts were also used during data analysis. These were stored at the researcher’s
home office in a locked filing cabinet, accessible only by the researcher.
In addition to the ethical guidelines and policies as detailed above, it was
important that a rigorous and transparent approach be taken throughout the data
collection process, analysis and dissemination of results. This approach will be
detailed next.
3.8.2 Participants
Phenomenography typically uses small samples, with maximum variation
sought across key indicators such as age, gender and experience (Åkerlind et al., 2005).
This is seen to promote the research goal of searching for variation in experience of
the phenomenon under investigation (Åkerlind, 2005b).
In the phenomenographic literature, there has been considerable inconsistency
in recommended sample sizes. Larsson (2007) stated that experience from a large
number of phenomenographic studies has shown that “data from 20 informants is
usually enough to discover all the different ways of understanding the phenomenon in
question” (p. 56). Trigwell (2000) suggested 10-15 participants as being an appropriate
sample size to create a reasonable chance of finding variation in the range. This smaller
sample size was also seen as helpful in managing the large volume of data that is
typical of phenomenographic studies, allowing the researcher to effectively treat the
100 Chapter 3: Methodology
data as a whole during analysis. To increase the chance of variation in his studies,
Trigwell (2000) purposefully selected participants using this smaller sample size,
saying, “If it is suspected that person X might describe an interesting conception or
one which might be considered extreme, that person could be included in the sample”
(p.66). However, other phenomenographers have employed differing rules of thumb.
Åkerlind et al. (2005) preferred phenomenographic studies to typically have
between 20-30 participants. Åkerlind’s (2005a) study of university academics’
experiences of their own growth and development had a sample size of 28 academics.
It is unclear however, why 20-30 participants is seen as an effective sample size.
Åkerlind et al. (2005) suggested that Åkerlind herself was comfortable with larger
sample sizes due to her prior background in quantitative research. Other studies with
traditional phenomenographic sample sizes included O’Gorman’s (2005) study on
parent conceptions of the Preparatory year and Irvine’s (2005) study on parent
conceptions of their role in early childhood education and care, which both had sample
sizes of 26.
For this research project, participants (n=21) were Prep teachers currently
teaching in Queensland government schools. Maximum variation of participants was
sought through encouraging the participation of teachers with a range of different
teaching qualifications including Bachelor degrees, teaching Diplomas and Graduate
Diplomas, as well as teachers with both early childhood and primary specialisations.
In addition, it was intended that the sample reflect as much as possible variation in age
range between teachers, gender and varied teaching experience (such as beginning,
mid-career and experienced teachers). This variation was encouraged in the initial
recruitment email that was sent out to potential participants (see Appendix F:
recruitment email).
3.8.3 Procedure
Potential participants were approached initially via the Department of Education
Training and Employment (DETE) P-3 Discussion List. The P-3 Discussion List is a
user-subscribed email networking list of teachers working in Prep and years 1, 2 and
3 classrooms in Queensland. An email was sent on two occasions (Appendix G: P-3
Discussion List Recruitment Email) after seeking approval from the P-3 Discussion
List moderator. This recruitment email invited potential participants (i.e. any teachers
currently teaching in the Prep year in Queensland government schools) to reply to the
Chapter 3: Methodology 101
researcher directly (off list), to ensure that return emails did not inconvenience the
DETE P-3 Discussion List subscribers. When potential participants contacted the
researcher to communicate their interest, the Participant Information Sheet and
Consent Form was emailed to them. This explained the research study, the benefits
and potential risks to participants, and the contact details of the researcher. Interested
participants who responded to this email were contacted, with the researcher
negotiating an interview time with each participant. Thirteen participants were
recruited via the P-3 Discussion List. After recruiting via the P-3 Discussion List, the
sample size fell short of the participant targets recorded by Akerlind (2005) and
Larsson (2007). Additional participants were thus required for the study and were
approached via direct contact with Brisbane metropolitan DETE schools and snowball
sampling (Bowden, 2000a).
Brisbane metropolitan government schools were approached via an email to the
Principal of each school (see Appendix H: DETE Recruitment Email). The email
requested that the study information be forwarded on to Prep teachers if the Principal
agreed. Schools were approached in alphabetical order from the DETE Find a School
directory (Department of Education and Training, 2017b). When potential participants
contacted the researcher to communicate their interest in participating, a Participant
Information Sheet and Consent Form was emailed and an interview time negotiated
with each participant. At the end of each interview, participants were asked if they
knew of other Brisbane metropolitan government school Prep teachers who might be
interested in participating in this study. Participants were invited to forward the study
details to other potential participants, with a request for them to make contact with the
researcher if they were interested in participating.
Altogether, 128 schools were invited to participate in the study. Twenty-one
teachers from 12 schools in the Brisbane Metropolitan region of the Department of
Education and Training participated, with interviews being conducted in the first six
months of 2014. Table 3.1 shows demographic details of the study participants. Of the
21 teachers who volunteered, 19 (90%) were female and 2 were male. The mean age
of participants was 41 years and the mean length of teaching experience was 12.85
years. At the time of data collection, 18 participants were teaching in a Prep classroom,
while three others taught in combined Prep/ Year 1 or Prep/Year 1 and 2 classrooms.
Twelve teachers held a qualification with specialisation in early years education, while
102 Chapter 3: Methodology
another 8 were primary (elementary) trained, and one held a special education
qualification. Teachers in the sample had varied teaching experience in schools
regarding year levels taught, ranging from teaching in preschool through to year 12.
Table 3.1
Demographic details of study participants (n=21)
Demographics n
Age
<24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
2 (10%)
4 (19%)
7 (33%)
4 (19%)
4 (19%)
Gender
Female
Male
19 (90%)
2 (10%)
Qualification
Diploma of Teaching (Early Childhood)
Graduate Diploma of Teaching (Early Childhood)
Graduate Diploma of Teaching (Primary)
Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood)
Bachelor of Education (Primary)
Bachelor of Education (Special Education)
Master of Education (Early Childhood)
1 (5%)
3 (15%)
3 (15%)
7 (33%)
5 (24%)
1 (5%)
1 (5%)
Teaching experience
0-5 years
6-10 years
10-20 years
21-30 years
31+ years
6 (29%)
4 (19%)
5 (24%)
4 (19%)
2 (10%)
Year levels taught
Kindergarten
Preschool
Prep
P-3
P-7
P-12
1 (4%)
5 (19%)
4 (15%)
7 (27%)
6 (23%)
3 (12%)
Year level currently taught
Prep
Prep/1
Prep 1/2
18 (86%)
2 (10%)
1 (5%)
3.8.4 Interviews
In this study, data were gathered though interviews. This is the primary mode of
data collection in phenomenographic research (Åkerlind et al., 2005). Åkerlind et al.
Chapter 3: Methodology 103
(2005) recommended the use of pilot interviews to assist the researcher in learning the
required skills for phenomenographic interviewing and to aid the process of refining
planned questions. Three pilot interviews were undertaken prior to conducting the
interviews for this research study. This process provided an opportunity to refine
questions and gain feedback on the researcher’s interview skills. Pilot interviews were
conducted with three early years teachers known to the researcher. In addition, at this
point during my candidature I was fortunate to visit Gothenburg University for a study
school and met with experienced phenomenographers Ingrid Pramling Samuelsson,
Nikolas Pramling and Ake Ingerman who provided valuable expert feedback on the
study design, interview questions and schedule, which ensured that the interview
schedule and conduct of research aligned with phenomenography’s theoretical
framework.
The interviews began in March 2014 and concluded in June 2014. Each teacher
participant was interviewed in their own school setting after the school day had ended.
This minimised inconvenience associated with travel, allowed for participant comfort,
and assisted in fostering their ability to recall and reflect upon their classroom
experiences and practices with student behaviour in their everyday teaching context.
20 of the participants were interviewed in their own classroom and one in a school
staff room.
At the outset of the interview it was important to develop rapport with each
teacher participant to assist in gathering data as faithfully as possible to the lived
experiences communicated by the participants. Initial gathering of relevant contextual
information included an informal conversation about years of service to teaching,
qualifications etc. Åkerlind (2005c) found it favourable to make interviews as
comfortable and conversation-like as possible. In addition, phenomenographic
interviews invite deep reflection so it was important to build trust with participants.
This was done through showing empathy, providing reassurance and ensuring
confidentiality. It was important to ensure that trust was not compromised, and that
interview data did not identify interviewees (Åkerlind et al., 2005), so participants
were reassured from the outset that privacy would be protected by de-identifying
interview data at the point of transcription.
Each interview focused on gathering in-depth information about the participants’
experiences of their approaches with student behaviour. This was assured through the
104 Chapter 3: Methodology
use of open-ended questioning and prompting teachers to talk through examples of
how they approached student behaviour in the classroom. Svensson (1997) suggested
that the researcher should be sensitive to the participants’ ways of defining the objects
or phenomena. It was important in this study to adopt a supportive, curious and open
approach to interviewing. Interview questions, which will be outlined shortly,
followed a predictable structure; however allowances were made for focusing in on
areas of interest presented by the participants.
In phenomenographic interviews, researchers clearly set the topic and then use
a series of set structured questions and semi-structured questions to further explore
meaning (Åkerlind et al., 2005). Planned questions are used to ensure consistency so
that all interviewees are talking about the same phenomenon (Åkerlind, 2005c).
Åkerlind et al. (2005) stated that interviews must be conducted rigorously to ensure
integrity of the data. This means that the theoretical framework underpinning the
research should be clearly articulated and evidenced not just in the analysis but also
during data collection. The interviewer takes a lead role in defining the phenomenon,
with interviews consisting of initial contextual questions to set the scene for the
primary questions, followed by more open questions and situated examples (Åkerlind,
2005c). Bowden (2000b) stated that interview questions should centre on problem
questions in the field, encouraging participants to reflect upon their practice with the
phenomenon. The questions should be open-ended in nature and the interviewer should
allow participants to decide on which aspects of the phenomenon hold the most
relevance to them. Bowden (2000b), in his physics project interviews, cited Saljo’s
recommendation of posing problems that relate to the participants’ handling of the
phenomenon during data collection, to increase the likelihood of developing shared
definitions and helping to maximise a range of perspectives. Researchers should also
pose questions to participants which assist in clarifying and explaining their meaning
further, as well as asking them to comment on any apparent inconsistencies within
their expressed ideas (Bowden, 2000b).
The interviews in this study were carefully structured to probe Prep teachers’
experiences of their approaches with student behaviour and the meanings these
experiences held for them. The interviews commenced with gathering contextual and
demographic information. This included noting participants’ names, gender,
Chapter 3: Methodology 105
geographical location, age, qualifications, teaching experience and current and
previous year levels taught.
The interviews then progressed to questions about student behaviour in the
classroom, to hone in on the study phenomenon. Teachers were asked about ‘student
behaviour’ as a neutral term, to allow them to direct the focus of the interview onto the
particular student behaviours they wished to discuss. They talked about positive
behaviours they experienced in their classrooms and also about challenging ones. The
initial planned interview questions included primary prompts of:
Tell me about student behaviour in your classroom.
Can you give me some examples of the student behaviours you
encounter in a typical day in your classroom?
In this part of the interview the conversation angled towards what teachers
actually did in the classroom (“What did you do when that behaviour happened?”).
This line of questioning is based on Marton’s (2015) theoretical notion that a way of
acting (what teachers do) is a way of seeing or experiencing the phenomenon. This is
the essence of the phenomenographic framework adopted in this study. In addition, in
phenomenographic interviews participants are asked to provide examples to illustrate
their comments and further clarify meaning. For instance, asking teachers to “Tell me
about a time when you were pleased with how you approached student behaviour?”
allowed them an opportunity to elaborate on their experiences with their approaches
with student behaviour. Set questions included:
What do you do when you encounter these behaviours?
What are you trying to achieve?
Are you happy with the way you approach student behaviour?
Tell me about a time when you were pleased with how you
approached student behaviour.
Tell me about a time when you were not happy with how you
approached student behaviour.
It was also necessary to use secondary prompts during this part of the interview
to probe for the intention behind the action. Åkerlind et al. (2005) discussed the
researcher’s role and considerations during this unstructured stage of the interview.
The use of ‘Why’ questions instead of ‘What’ questions at this stage is thought to elicit
the underlying perspective or ‘internal attitude’ towards the phenomenon. ‘What’
106 Chapter 3: Methodology
questions during this stage would allow only for description of experience, and so not
provide depth to understanding their meaning (Åkerlind et al., 2005). For example, the
question, “Why do you go about it in that way?” encouraged teachers to reflect on their
experiences with student behaviour and articulate their attitude towards this
phenomenon.
Examples of secondary prompts included:
Why do you go about it in that way?
How would you describe your approach?
Would you/ could you put a label on it?
Tell me a little more about how you see your approach.
Is this always the way you’ve gone about it?
What has/ hasn’t changed? Why?
What specific things are you happy with/ not happy with? Why?
The use of clarification questions encouraged the explication of meanings which
were not immediately clear. Clarification questions included:
Could you tell me a little more about that?
Could you explain that further?
What do you mean by that?
Could you give me an example?
The full interview schedule for this study is located in Appendix I.
The conclusion of an interview must also be planned. Åkerlind (2005c) wrote
from her experiences as a researcher about knowing when to conclude interviews. She
found the interview to be exhausted when the interviewee started to repeat themselves
or had difficulty answering requests for further elaboration. Interviews in the present
study reached a conclusion quite naturally when participants exhausted talking about
examples of their approaches with student behaviour. Interviews lasted between forty
minutes to one hour, depending on the teachers and their discussions.
3.9 DATA ANALYSIS
3.9.1 An Overview of Phenomenographic Analysis
Key to phenomenographic data analysis is attention to the design of the
interviews, ensuring that the theoretical framework underpins the approach to data
Chapter 3: Methodology 107
gathering. Truthfully representing the ways individual participants have experienced
the phenomenon is also fundamental to phenomenographic analysis (Marton & Booth,
1997). To facilitate this, Marton and Booth (1997) suggested considering:
Have we really captured how they experience this phenomenon? Does the
research method do them justice? Would they have done this differently under
other circumstances? Can the findings be generalised to other situations at the
individual level, or to a population, or to other populations, at the group level?
(p.127).
This line of questioning highlights the importance of the study design.
Thoughtful data collection methods are directly linked to effective analysis. In
phenomenography, the unit of analysis is the distinctly different ways of experiencing
the phenomenon (Trigwell, 1999). The logical relations established from these
different understandings constitute the results.
Many phenomenographers have detailed the stages they use to analyse data in
phenomenographic studies (Åkerlind, 2005c; Dahlgren & Fallsberg, 1991; Marton,
Carlsson, & Halasz, 1992; Säljö, 1997; Sandberg, 1994). In the present study,
Åkerlind’s (2005c) 6 basic steps for analysing phenomenographic research were
adopted for their simplicity and precision. These are:
Step 1: Reading the transcripts
Step 2: Developing draft categories
Step 3: Re-reading the transcripts again, with challenge and testing
Step 4: Subsequent readings with a different focus
Step 5: Refining and modifying the outcome space
Step 6: Constituting structural relationships
3.9.2 Data Analysis Step By Step
The analysis for this study began with the transcription of the twenty-one
interviews. During the transcription phase it was important to de-identify data, check
that the audio interviews were represented accurately into text, and re-familiarise
myself with the data. Once transcription was completed, a further check was conducted
to ensure accurate transcription and to allow for further familiarisation with the data.
Next came an initial reading of the transcripts.
108 Chapter 3: Methodology
Step 1: Reading the Transcripts
In phenomenographic analysis, a whole of transcript approach is used. This
means that individual transcripts are not interpreted in isolation, but in light of the
group of transcripts as a whole (Åkerlind et al., 2005). Analysis must focus on the
central research question and transcripts be read with the research question in mind.
For this study, this meant that the analysis needed to be undertaken with the focus
question of, “How do Prep teachers experience their approaches with student
behaviour?”
Åkerlind (2005) stated that the analysis begins with the researcher undertaking
a first reading of the transcripts, searching for extracts from the data that are central to
the phenomenon, inspecting transcripts both as a whole and individually for related
themes (Marton & Booth, 1997). Barnacle, in Åkerlind et al.(2005), suggested posing
a question such as, “What does the phenomenon mean to the interviewees if this is
what they are saying?” (p. 85) as being helpful to the analysis. In this study the
questions that drove the analysis during the initial readings of the transcripts were,
“What do Prep teachers do when they approach student behaviour?” and “How do Prep
teachers see their approaches with student behaviour?”
After an initial reading of the transcripts, they were read again, but this time a
more analytically-focused approach was used. Combing through each transcript on the
computer screen using Microsoft Word, I first highlighted in yellow commentaries
relating to the teachers’ particular approaches with student behaviour. Concurrently, I
highlighted in green their actions, that is, what they actually did when they approached
the student behaviour (how they went about it); and their explanations of why they
went about it in that way (the meaning) were highlighted in blue. In addition, I used
the Microsoft Word facility track changes and comments to record my preliminary
thoughts about how teachers saw their approach. I approached all twenty-one
transcripts in this same way in this early stage of analysis. Take for example this
excerpt from transcript 9:
Interviewee: So I've reached a level with these children where they're
reflecting on their own behaviour and identifying things with me that they
would like to improve. Then they actually select it. I only did it today and
it's something that worked very nicely for the children that I chose. So I'll
continue that and I'll teach how to do that explicitly. Because I'd like to see What teachers actually did
when they approached
student behaviour.
Teachers’
approach with
student
behaviour
Chapter 3: Methodology 109
that self-reflection coming in. Because a lot of the behaviours when there
are problematic behaviours seem to be around impulse control. So I want
to cultivate children who have that moment of thought in their head about
what they're doing, what's happening around them, and then can navigate
that towards our positive outcome. As opposed to just going with that first
thing they want to do.
With some children they're ready to do that now. We saw that
in the kids who were immediately able to nominate something that they
wanted to do. For other kids it's going to be a lot of me modelling how to
do it. A lot of me talking them through it and teaching that process of, what's
something you think you can do today? How are you going to do rule six,
keep your teacher happy? Good. When they do that, I immediately reward
it on my super improvers chart. So up until this point the super improvers
chart over in the corner there has been me directed. I've told them something
I want to see. When I've seen it I put there. Or when I've just seen a
behaviour instantaneously then I'll put the mark there.
Now that we're reaching mid-way through the year and we're
getting that slightly deeper thinking about ourselves as kids who get along
and kids who understand the rules and kids who can follow them, I'm going
to start exploring that idea of them nominating how they want to get their
star that day and see how that works. Because I want that deeper thought
about myself as a chooser of my own behaviours, rather than, I'm doing it
because you're the boss and you've told me what to do. I want to indicate
that internal thought process, as opposed to an external thought process
from me.
Figure 3.3. Analysis of transcript excerpt.
My preliminary thoughts here were that this teacher, in this particular excerpt of
the transcript, adopted a reflective approach with student behaviour. She went about
this by questioning and talking with students, as well as supporting them to set goals.
She also talked about modelling and actively teaching this reflective behaviour. It was
evident that this approach was adopted to encourage students to ‘own their behaviours’
rather than behaviour being reliant on the teacher telling them what to do. This way of
analysing data is supported by Australian phenomenographer Bowden (2000), whose
research findings aimed to contribute to physics teaching and learning. Bowden
(2000b) adopted Marton’s phenomenographic approach to analysis, and recommended
Teachers’ explanations
of why they went about
it in that way.
Teachers’ approach with
student behaviour.
110 Chapter 3: Methodology
that during analysis utterances found to be of interest are selected and their meaning
analysed and interpreted. Selected quotes should be examined for embedded meaning,
with a focus on developing a pool of meanings (Bowden, 2000b).
After this initial process of analysis and interpretation with the 21 transcripts, the
next stage involved revisiting the transcripts to identify similar themes or aspects and
grouping them together, thus developing pools of meanings. An example of a dominant
theme or aspect that emerged early on during this phase was focused upon teachers’
thinking about and intentions towards student compliance. This emerging theme
centred on teachers acting in ways to encourage compliance in the classroom. The term
compliance came from the participants’ frequent use of this word. Take for example
these excerpts from transcripts 2, 3 and 11:
But at the same time, we’re adjusting his behaviour plan anyway, so it’s sort
of, we’re going to try and align him a little bit more with what we’ve got in
here. But bearing in mind that he, he’s so very non-compliant at the moment
that, you know… (Interviewee 2)
But I was going to say, so he was not very compliant, like I couldn’t get him
to do much. But slowly we have worked with him on it and slowly he’s doing
those things. (Interviewee 3)
So you've got a couple of children with hyperactivity or extreme non-
compliance, or the other side you've got those who are weeping all the time.
(Interviewee 1)
Teachers described a wide range of approaches they employed to achieve
compliance with students, such as the use of rewards, providing students with
reminders and consequences, raising their voice and removing students from the
classroom. In terms of this theme or aspect, it was evident that the use of teacher
control or power was central to achieving compliance and it was important to teachers
that the approach be quick to implement. From analysis of the first three transcripts,
the following theme of Student compliance was developed, shown below in Figure 3.4.
The dots points were derived from teacher approaches (actions) with student behaviour
that they detailed in the interviews and from their explanations or articulated goals for
using those approaches.
Chapter 3: Methodology 111
Student compliance:
Behaviour requests I2
Managing behaviour so learning can occur I2
The boss I2
Firm I2
Retraining I2
Request of admin to talk to child I2
Requesting assistance from others I2
Use of consequences I2
Warnings I2
Praise I2, I3
Child learning to modify their behaviour, but adult enforces I2
Stickers and rewards: First/then rewards I2, I3
Rewards adapted to individual students’ needs I2, I3
Based on observation I2
Raising voice; yelling I2, I3
Firm voice I2
Reminders I2, I3
Instructing I2, I3
Giving directions I2
Gesture I2
Counting down I2
Teacher means business I2
Power I2, I3
Rules I1, I3
Talking to child about behaviour: lecturing; trying to get the child to think about how the teacher
feels (developing empathy); trying to develop a ‘shared’ understanding I2, I3
Influenced by other professionals I2
Relationships: loving is important (mediates the firm approach?); building relationships to get
students to do what you want them to do (mutual respect) I2, I3
Seating consideration I2, I3
Students to think about their behaviour - independently I2
Removal of child: sitting out I2
Flexible, based on particular incident I2
Ignoring I2
Comply to routines and structure I2, I3
Physically looking for child I2
Visual schedule I2
Talk with parents I3
Move from stickers to just praise: stages, moving to self-regulation? I3
Learning to be compliant: gradual move I3
Individualised approaches to compliance I2
Need for student to engage with the rest of the class I2, I3
Task completion: physically making child complete task I3
Teacher adjusting expectations I3
Questioning student about behaviour I3
Teacher giving child a ‘look’ I3
Teacher compliant to school I3
About time management: quick approach to get the learning done (behaviour and learning not
linked) I3
Students must ‘look’ like they are listening/engaging I3
Figure 3.4. Analysis theme: Student compliance.
112 Chapter 3: Methodology
Bowden (2000) stated that themes or categories should emerge from the data,
developed from similarities and yet differentiated from each other in terms of their
variances. In contrast to the student compliance theme or aspect, another theme that
emerged based upon similarities in the data seemed to be focused on teachers thinking
about students’ intrinsic motivation. In this much smaller theme or aspect, teachers
described rejection of approaches that used rewards and consequences, and instead
preferred approaches that were aimed at student self-regulation. Specific approaches
included student self-reflection and attention to learning and relationships. This
emerging aspect or theme had a strong future focus. From analysis of the first three
transcripts, a theme centring on Students’ intrinsic motivation was pooled. This theme
is shown below in Figure 3.5. This theme again depicts the teachers’ details of their
approaches with student behaviour, along with the explanations or stated goals for
using those approaches.
Students’ intrinsic motivation:
About developing feeling of success I1
About the process: learning I1
Motivation to learn I1
Developing positive dispositions I1
About future personal growth I1
About children developing responsibility for their behaviour I3
Developing self-regulation I3
Rejects use of stickers I3
Relationships I3
Students knowing the right thing to do I3
Student self-reflection I3
Figure 3.5. Analysis theme: Students’ intrinsic motivation.
What was immediately interesting here in this emerging way of seeing
approaches to student behaviour was that teachers were less focused on themselves
and what they were doing and more focused on students and their learning. It was
becoming apparent in these initial emerging themes that variation was present. By the
time half the transcripts were analysed in this way, other different themes or aspects
had emerged including, student safety, student learning, understanding students,
shared knowledge, conflicts, thinking about their teaching and trial and error. From
here it was possible to progress data analysis to a draft set of categories.
Step 2: Developing draft categories
Chapter 3: Methodology 113
Phenomenographic researchers provide guidance for the process of developing
draft categories. Trigwell (1999) stated that the outcome of phenomenographic studies
is descriptions of the qualitative variation in the ways a group of people experience a
phenomenon. This is based upon the notion that there are a limited number of ways of
conceiving the object (or phenomenon) of the study. These ways of seeing
(conceptions) are characterised in terms of categories of description, which are
logically related to one another and may form hierarchies in relation to given criteria.
This produces the outcome space of the phenomenon (Trigwell, 1999).
Marton and Booth (1997) pointed out the difference between conceptions and
categories of description. They stated that conceptions are what is described, while
categories of description are the way in which it is described. Categories of description,
as developed by the researcher when analysing the data, represent the different ways
of seeing the phenomenon. Larson (2007) stated that, “The categories of description
are the researcher’s abstractions of the different ways of understanding, which have
been identified. They referred to a collective level and describe the different ways the
phenomenon can be understood” (p.56). It provided a system for looking at the
collective human experience of the phenomenon, even though the phenomenon may
be perceived “…differently by different people and under different circumstances”
(Åkerlind, 2005b).
On the issue of hierarchies of categories, Walsh (2000) stated that categories are
constructed through a set of logical relations. Some authors, like Marton (2015), stated
that in phenomenographic practice categories are usually presented in the form of a
hierarchy of conceptions, which reflects increasing levels of understanding and shows
the relation between the conceptions (Åkerlind et al., 2005; Bowden, 2000a). Other
researchers such as Patrick (2000), did not assume that a hierarchy will emerge. For
example Patrick (2000) explained that when considering the logical relations between
categories for her study with 18 physics teachers, she
…looked at the category descriptions to see whether, and how, they might be
structurally related to each other, and if so whether a hierarchy of categories
had emerged. Generally it seemed possible to order the categories from the
less complex and the less complete to the more complex and more complete;
in relation to teachers’ conceptions of physics and history, however, it seemed
114 Chapter 3: Methodology
prejudicial to assume that the ordering was hierarchical in advance of
exploring students’ experiences. (p. 130)
There seems to be some disagreement in the literature around whether or not to
actively search for a hierarchy. In Learning to do Phenomenography: A Reflective
Discussion, Åkerlind, et al. (2005) described the accounts of five individual
researchers using phenomenography. While Åkerlind (2005) herself believed that it is
commonly expected that the relationships between the categories form a structural
hierarchy of inclusiveness, Cherry (as cited in Åkerlind et al., 2005), reflecting on her
phenomenographic practice, felt that a search for structure would impose the
researcher’s views on the data; she therefore valued the idea of researchers simply
immersing “themselves in their data and see what themes emerge intuitively” (p.99).
Like Åkerlind (2005), Walsh (2000) also discussed potential issues with the
construction of the categories with regard to this search for structure. While the
researcher having control over the data allows the categories of description to be
developed in a logical fashion, a question is posed by Walsh (2000) related to whether
this approach is a faithful representation of the data. Walsh (2000) is acknowledging
here the tension that may exist between being truthful to the data - by allowing the
categories to emerge - and the need to create an orderly construction (Walsh, 2000).
She went on to say that when researchers develop categories from their own
framework or lens, a hazard lies in the possibility of adding or adjusting categories
which are not supported by the data. In addition, imposing a logical framework where
one does not exist may result in bias.
In the present study it was important to adopt an open and, as far as possible,
unbiased approach to analysis that allowed the voices of Prep teachers to emerge, to
faithfully represent their way of seeing approaches with student behaviour. However,
as the aim of this study was to reveal the fundamental variational structure of teachers’
ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour, and with the analysis being
influenced by the work of Marton (2015) and S. Booth and Ingerman (2002), data
analysis was approached with openness to the likelihood of an hierarchical structure.
During the process of identifying themes or aspects I began to reflect upon the
different meanings teachers may hold with reference to the phenomenographic
structure of experience and with consideration of the nature of knowledge (S. Booth
& Ingerman, 2002). Reflection upon these initial groupings at this time led me to think
Chapter 3: Methodology 115
about where teachers’ awareness of the phenomenon was centred. Teachers were
continually talking about approaches with student behaviour in relation to student
learning. Take for example these two excerpts from transcripts 8 and 1:
Just getting her to focus is the biggest thing for me. She's not ready, and there's
a whole lot of learning that she's just not getting. (Interviewee 8)
I’ve dug my heels in about behaviour, and about the social and emotional
learning, in that I think, like, it’s still got to be a focus. If I don’t get that right,
the rest of it’s not going to be okay. So for (child’s name), that little fellow
who escalates, if I don’t get his behaviour sorted and work with him to develop
those skills, the academics aren’t going to come. And I don’t understand,
people don’t understand that, like you’ve got to have children who are happy
to come to school, who feel successful, who can manage their own behaviour,
who can take turns, negotiate, work together, before any real learning
happens. (Interviewee 1)
These comments prompted me to reflect upon the relationship between student
behaviour and learning. Although I had focused the interviews around teachers’
experiences of approaches with student behaviour, it was evident that their focus was
on student behaviour in relation to student learning. This led to the use of the term
engagement to better describe teachers’ meanings. For example, when considering the
aspect of student compliance, I began to ponder: is teachers’ thinking on this aspect
centred on engaging students to learn? That is, are teachers thinking about ways to
ensure students are physically on-task and compliant to the teacher so that learning can
occur? Similarly, I reflected on the aspect of students’ intrinsic motivation, wondering:
are teachers thinking about independent student engagement and self-regulation; that
is, focused towards independent engagement with learning? This was the beginning
of the development of a preliminary draft set of categories of description.
Through the iterative process of going back to the data, examining what teachers
did when they approached student behaviour and considering how they described their
approaches with student behaviour (the what and how), meaning was found in terms
of the teachers’ way of seeing their approaches with student behaviour. Marton and
Booth (1997) stated that alternating between looking at one aspect of the phenomenon
at a time and then looking at the transcript as a whole will allow the researcher to bring
into focus different aspects against the background of the different situations. They
116 Chapter 3: Methodology
propose that this will lead to identifying the structural aspects of the study (Marton &
Booth, 1997), advocating inspecting the data from one perspective to another until
clarity is found. This results in identifying the number of qualitatively different ways
of experiencing the phenomenon, and the variation in the different ways in which each
of the ways of experiencing are expressed (Marton & Booth, 1997). This is the very
essence of phenomenography’s theoretical framework, and this was applied in this
case.
By employing this process, three early ways of seeing (or preliminary categories
of description) were beginning to emerge. For instance, in the theme or aspect of
student compliance, a way of seeing (or category) emerged that I labelled Engaging to
Learn. It was evident within this theme that teachers were focused on students’
compliance with their rules and directions so that students were on-task or engaged so
that learning could occur. There seemed to be a dual focus for teachers here, that is, on
compliance and learning. Figure 3.6 shows the teacher described approaches with
student behaviour and, in the blue text box, a preliminary category name, along with
an explanation of that theme. In red are the participant numbers (e.g. I2) that
contributed to this category.
Student compliance:
Behaviour requests I2
Managing behaviour so learning can occur I2, I7
The boss I2, I6
Firm I2
Retraining/training I2, I9
Request of admin to talk to child I2, I5
Requesting assistance from others I2
Use of consequences I2, I6, I7
Warnings I2, I9
Praise, reinforcement and parallel praise I2, I3, I4, I6, I7, I8, I9
Child learning to modify their behaviour, but adult enforces I2, I9
Stickers and rewards: First/then rewards I2, I3, I5, I6, I7, I9
Rewards are adapted to individual students’ needs I2, I3, I4
Based on observation I2
Raising voice; Yelling I2, I3, I9
Firm voice I2, I5
Reminders I2, I3, I6
Instructing I2, I3, I7
Giving directions I2
Gesture I2
Counting down I2, I9
Chapter 3: Methodology 117
Teacher means business I2
Power I2, I3
Rules I1, I3, I7, I8
Talking to child about behaviour: lecturing; trying to get the child to think about how the
teacher feels (developing empathy); trying to develop a ‘shared’ understanding I2, I3
Influenced by other professionals I2, I5
Relationships: loving is important (mediates the firm approach?); building relationships
to get students to do what you want them to do (mutual respect) I2, I3
Seating consideration I2, I3, I4, I8
Students to think about their behaviour- independently I2
Removal of child: sitting out I2
Flexible, based on particular incident I2
Ignoring I2, I4, I8
Comply to routines and structure I2, I3, I6
Physically looking for child I2
Visual schedule I2
Talk/notes to parents I3, I8
Move from stickers to just praise: stages, moving to self-regulation? I3
Learning to be compliant: gradual move I3
Individualised approaches to compliance I2, I6
Need for student to engage with the rest of the class I2, I3
Task completion: physically making child complete task I3
Teacher adjusting expectations I3
Questioning student about behaviour I3
Teacher giving child a ‘look’ I3, I8
Teacher compliant to school I3
About time management: quick approach to get the learning done (behaviour and
learning not linked) I3, I6, I7, I9
Students must ‘look’ like they are listening/engaging I3
Attention gaining strategies; keeping attention I9
Control I6
Removal/withdrawal: buddy class, removed from group, time-out, thinking chair I6, I8, I9
Missing out on playtime I7, I8
Expectations I5
Time of year I6
Students liking reward systems I7
Whole-class rewards: passport systems, pom pom jar, class party, happy sticks I4, I7, I8
Voice/acting/facial expression: engagement I9
Behaviour sheet I5
Fairness I6
School awards I7
Redirection I8
Keeping on task I7
Teacher decided I7
Future: compliance and support needed I4, I5, I7
Traffic lights: stepped system I4, I7, I8
Figure 3.6. Preliminary category: Engaging to learn.
118 Chapter 3: Methodology
Another way of seeing approaches with student behaviour emerged from the
aspect or theme of students’ learning. I named this way of seeing Learning to Engage,
as it was evident that teachers were thinking about students being on-task so that they
were learning, but were also focused upon teaching their students how to actually
engage with learning. Approaches teachers used included teacher modelling,
practising behaviours, the use of visual schedules and peer tutoring. The teachers’
focus had shifted from compliance to learning and teaching in this theme. Figure 3.7
shows the teacher described approaches with student behaviour and, in the blue text
box, the assigned preliminary category name along with an explanation of that theme.
In red are the participant numbers (e.g. I9) that contributed to this category.
Their students’ learning:
Behaviour linked to teaching and learning: thinking out loud with children I1, I3, I4
Empowering children I1
Importance of social and emotional learning as it influences academics I1, I9
Developing social awareness and conscience I1, I3
Students teaching their peers: reinforcing behaviour I1, I8
Student included in learning as much as capable: child/ class division? I2, I3
Use of resources to engage student I2
Play-based learning means engagement I3
Developing a work ethic in students I3
About the future and learning/ developing skills for future life I3
Modelling: leads to learning behaviour I1, I4, I8, I9
Developing independence I3
Visual schedule to support learning I2, I8
Learning compliance I2, I3
Move from stickers to praise I3
Student reflection- process of behaviour reflection sheet I3
Behaviour charts I7, I8
Building relationship with school I8, I9
Teaching rules though the use of consequences I7, I8
Explaining I6, I9
Peer tutoring I8, I9
Talking with students I7, I8, I9
Building relationships I9
Problem solving I9
Making an example of student I6,
Scaffolding I8
Practising behaviour I8, I9
Thinking about development I8
Positive feedback I7, I9
Teaching behaviour I4
Reinforcement I5, I9
Is this about LEARNING TO
ENGAGE?
Teachers thinking about teaching
their students how to engage in
learning?
About skill development and
intentional teaching?
Chapter 3: Methodology 119
Routines I5
Checking for understanding I9
Shadowing student I4
Repetition I5
Aligning behaviour approach with curriculum I9
Teaching parents: practising behaviour at home I4
Behaviour reflection: behaviour conferences; reflecting on rules; drawing reflection;
reflective questioning I4, I7, I9
Teaching/developing a work ethic I7
Figure 3.7. Preliminary category: Learning to engage.
As the theme or aspect of students’ intrinsic motivation was centred on teachers
thinking about students regulating their own behaviour, I formed a category I labelled
Towards Independent Engagement with Learning. It was apparent that teachers in this
way of seeing approaches with student behaviour were future focused, that is, more
concerned with approaches that would support students’ self-regulation and
engagement with learning, rather than approaches that relied on the teacher to regulate
student behaviour and engagement. Figure 3.8 shows the teacher described approaches
with student behaviour and, in the blue text box, the assigned preliminary category
name along with an explanation of that theme. In red are the participant numbers (e.g.
I7) that contributed to this category.
Students’ intrinsic motivation:
About developing feeling of success I1
About the process: learning I1
Motivation to learn I1
Developing positive dispositions I1
About future personal growth I1
About children developing responsibility for their behaviour I3
Developing self-regulation I3
Rejects use of stickers I3
Relationships I3
Students knowing the right thing to do I3
Student self-reflection I3
Students self-monitoring behaviour I4
Teacher thinking about her teaching: teacher enthusiasm towards love of learning I9
Students owning behaviour I7
Problem solving I7
Figure 3.8. Preliminary category: Towards independent engagement with learning.
It was becoming apparent that these themes or aspects were differentiated from
one another in terms of where the teachers’ focus was held.
Is this TOWARDS
INDEPENDENT ENGAGEMENT
WITH LEARNING?
Teachers thinking about independent
student engagement and self-
regulation.
120 Chapter 3: Methodology
At this point conducting analysis on the computer screen using Microsoft Word
was becoming unmanageable due to the size of the data. Although draft categories
were beginning to emerge, this approach no longer provided sufficient flexibility to be
able to re-look at data and adjust and re-test categories, so I searched for a different
way to look at the data.
Step 3: Re-reading the transcripts again, with challenge and testing
Akerlind (2005) stated that transcripts should be read and then re-read, leading
to iterative cycles between transcripts, interpretations of transcripts and then the
checking of interpretations back against the data. In this phase of analysis I decided to
physically cut up the highlighted parts (or meaning statements) of transcripts and
arrange the selected participant quotes into these three initial categories or ways of
seeing (see Figure 3.9, Long table data analysis process). This process allowed for
iterative cycles of reading, interpretation and testing of the draft categories.
Figure 3.9. Long table data analysis process.
During this ‘long table’ data analysis process, another way of seeing approaches
with student behaviour became evident. A very small but distinct theme emerged
where teachers were describing their approach with student behaviour in terms of not
doing anything with the behaviour. The student behaviours described in this category
by teachers were mainly high level behaviours that teachers did not feel equipped or
confident to handle. Teacher approaches centred on ignoring the behaviour or
removing the student (and thus the behaviour) to administration or a buddy class. I
named this way of seeing Not Engaging.
Chapter 3: Methodology 121
There were now four categories, and these were organised hierarchically in terms
of increasing complexity, influenced by Marton’s (2015) discussion on approaches to
learning and variation. The four categories were:
Category 1: Not Engaging
Category 2: Engaging to Learn
Category 3: Learning to Engage
Category 4: Towards Independent Engagement
These categories were then arranged on the long table to enable the process of
challenge and testing. This additional iterative process involved careful inspection of
the meaning statements, individually weighing them up against other categories to
ensure they fit with the particular category to which they had been assigned. At this
point the supervision team was engaged to question and challenge the construction of
categories to help ensure reliability.
Marton (2015) argued that a “less powerful, surface approach to learning is less
varied”, while “the more powerful deep approach to learning is more varied” (p.151).
This was evident in these four categories, as Not Engaging illustrated very little
variation in terms of the teachers’ focus or thinking, whilst Towards Independent
Engagement showed a great deal of variation. The mapping of this variance and
invariance, which is at the heart of variation theory, will be detailed in the next chapter.
Step 4: Subsequent readings with a different focus
Marton (1986) stated that categories should be adjusted, retested and adjusted
again during data analysis. Åkerlind (2005c) argued that although this iterative
analysis is time consuming, the researcher must be aware of not closing the analysis
too early. This was important in this analysis, as further iterations of the data revealed
yet another category or way of seeing approaches with student behaviour.
Upon further inspection of Category 2, Engaging to Learn, a distinct way of
approaching student behaviour within this category that centred on teachers adapting
something in order to engage students to learn was discovered. This category was
labelled Adapting to Engage and was nestled between two existing categories in the
hierarchy. Approaches included teachers adjusting their expectations of students and
122 Chapter 3: Methodology
changing or adjusting the activity for students, and saw teachers’ thinking focused on
individual students and flexibility. The five categories were now:
Category 1: Not Engaging
Category 2: Engaging to Learn
Category 3: Adapting to Engage
Category 4: Learning to Engage
Category 5: Towards Independent Engagement
Further iterations were necessary at this point to ensure that categories were
indicative of teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour. The
doctorate supervision team were also involved at this point, to invite different
perspectives and to challenge the construction of the categories. It was suggested at
this time that perhaps Category 4 might potentially be split into two, as some of the
quotes within the category did not seem to fully fit. Further iterations revealed that
some of these quotes were better positioned in other categories. Take for instance this
quote, where a participant talks about the use of a traffic light behaviour system with
the class:
Because this class is particularly well-behaved, they’re horrified when they’re
on orange. One little fellow up there, actually from yesterday, burst into tears
and all he’d done was gone from green to orange and he hadn’t even gone to
red or time-out. But the thought of having his peg on orange was enough to
‘arrrh!’ Well, do as you’re told next time. (I14)
This quote was initially placed in Category 4, as I interpreted it as the teacher
using this traffic light system to help the student learn from the consequence of having
his name moved down to the orange. Re-examining this quote, and testing it against
other quotes within the category, it was evident that this statement fitted more
appropriately in Category 2 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, as
teacher control is in focus (e.g. “Well, do as you’re told next time”). Teacher control
is a feature of Category 2, but in Category 4 control is shared between teachers and
students. In addition, in Category 4 students’ expectations and needs are focal and
teachers are flexible in their approach, whereas in Category 2 the teachers’
expectations and needs are focal and a flexible approach is not evident. This justified
Chapter 3: Methodology 123
moving this quote and other similar ones to Category 2. This type of subsequent
reading and testing proved crucial to the reliability of the study.
Other quotes not fitting any of the five categories were relegated to Category 6.
While interesting, these quotes did not centre upon the phenomenon of approaches
with student behaviour and were therefore determined to be outside the scope of this
study. They were more geared towards an explanation of the dilemmas or barriers
teachers experienced when they approached student behaviour. Some examples of
such quotes are:
So why I was saying that is because the structure of school, we have
expectations and we’re told that we must do, we must do explicit teaching, we
must do these warm ups, we must do, we must do teaching in a certain way,
like we are being dictated to by the school how we do certain things. So I have
to follow suit with that, and it doesn’t fit well with lots of students, well lots
of students? …half the class probably do really well with it, then there’s
another quarter that you know struggle but you know they are getting there.
And then there is another little pocket that find that really, really difficult to
learn like that. So that’s how it impacts me is I guess what I was trying to say.
I have to do stuff that maybe sometimes feel philosophically I don’t believe
in but I’m part of the school, so I have to do it and to get them to learn I have
to use certain behaviour strategies that I maybe don’t use another time. (I3)
I think that's what's posing that big problem now because we are so busy and
we've got - with this Australian Curriculum we've got so much to get through
that almost if we don't have that perfect structure and perfect behaviour,
almost, it's almost proving - it just can't happen. (I15)
Akerlind (2005) stated that the end point of analysis is reached when the
researcher ceases to see the transcripts as a new experience and nothing new has
emerged. The categories, showing the different ways of understanding the
phenomenon, can then be seen to be stable (Akerlind, 2005). After multiple iterations
the five categories appeared stable, with no new ways of seeing aproaches to student
behaviour emerging (see Figure 3.10). The next step was then to refine and modify the
outcome space.
124 Chapter 3: Methodology
Figure 3.10. The five categories.
Step 5: Refining and modifying the outcome space
In the next step, the outcome space can be defined as a description of the
categories and their relationship to each other (Åkerlind et al., 2005). This focus on
description is characteristic of phenomenography and is related to necessary
understandings of the similarities and differences of meaning. In this study, the
categories, presented in an outcome space, provided a description of teachers’ varying
ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour and the relationship within and
between categories.
Marton and Booth (1997) stated that the outcome space is “the complex of
categories of description comprising distinct groupings of aspects of the phenomenon
and the relationships between them” (p. 125). The categories in this study have a
logical relationship with one another. The different ways of seeing the phenomenon
form a hierarchy which can be defined in terms of increasing complexity. Some ways
of experiencing phenomena can be more complex than others and may coincide with
other ways of experiencing, where the quality of each can be considered against the
others (Marton & Booth, 1997).
During this stage of the analysis, on the advice of Swedish phenomenographer
Ake Ingerman who mentored me during the analysis stage, I used S. Booth and
Ingerman’s (2002) Making Sense of Physics in the First Year of Study paper to guide
my thinking around the construction of the outcome space. This Swedish
phenomenographic study found six qualitatively different ways university students
experienced the first year of physics study, with variation analysed in terms of the
structure of experience, the nature of knowledge and an ethical aspect. I found S. Booth
and Ingerman’s (2002) detailed analysis of variation in this paper helped me to
understand how to reveal and communicate the structural and referential aspects in my
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5
Chapter 3: Methodology 125
study. Armed with this new knowledge I began to revisit the categories, further
refining these through thinking about the relationships within the categories as well as
what made each different from other categories. At this stage I began to detail this
variation in a way that explained the structural and referential aspects of the categories,
similar to the strategy used by S. Booth and Ingerman (2002). This is shown in figure
3.11. In the far left hand side of the figure are the category numbers (1-5). The second
column details the structural aspect, comprising the external horizon (what is focal)
and internal horizon (the details). The next column shows the referential aspect, that
is, the meaning. On the far right of the figure is the ethical aspect which describes
where the responsibility for approaches with student behaviour lies and the different
views of teacher knowledge.
Figure 3.11. Analysis of ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour
During the process of developing the analysis of variation, further checking and
retesting of the categories was required. It was at this stage that I began presenting my
tentative analysis to a wider audience for comment, feedback and critique. I presented
at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Higher Degree Research
Conference, a conference for higher degree research students to present their research
to fellow students and QUT researchers; the Australian Association for Research in
Education (AARE) conference for sharing educational research with fellow
researchers and educators; and the QUT Phenomenography Futures Symposium,
where researchers who hold a particular interest in the phenomenographic
methodology present their research and discuss phenomenographic methods and
126 Chapter 3: Methodology
theory. Soon after, I was fortunate to be able to present my categories of description
and preliminary analysis in a meeting with Swedish phenomenographer Ake Ingerman
(S. Booth & Ingerman, 2002; Collier-Reed & Ingerman, 2013). These experiences
encouraged me to further refine and explain in greater detail the outcome space,
including descriptions of the categories and dimensions of variation. These
descriptions are detailed in chapter 4, the results chapter.
Step 6: Constituting structural relationships.
While categories of description are logically related to one another through the
common phenomenon being experienced, the structural relationships between the
different categories are critical to the outcome space in phenomenographic studies. As
discussed previously in this chapter, this structure makes phenomenography unique
and is part of the theoretical basis of this approach (Åkerlind et al., 2005).
Analysis needs to focus on the structure of participants’ experiences, with the
researcher seeking both the meaning and structure of the phenomenon (Marton &
Booth, 1997). This is the essence of variation theory. The goal of phenomenographic
research is achieved by the researcher “applying the principle of focusing on one
aspect of the object and seeking its dimension of variation while holding other aspects
frozen” (p.133). Finally, in data analysis for this study, it was important to map these
dimensions of variation. The dimensions of variation for each of the categories are
presented and explained in the following table (3.2). There are fifteen dimensions of
variation in total, with the purple headings introducing each dimension name. The left
hand column lists the five categories for each dimension, and the right hand column
details the variation in teachers’ awareness and understanding for each dimension.
Table 3.2
Dimensions of variation
Dimension Category 1:
Not engaging
Category 2:
Engaging to
learn
Category 3:
Adapting to
engage
Category 4:
Learning to
engage
Category 5:
Towards
independent
engagement
Responsibility Teachers release
responsibility for
the student
behaviour in
some way
(admin; buddy
class; other
activities).
The teacher
holds
responsibility
for student
behaviour.
The teacher
holds
responsibility
for student
behaviour.
The teacher has
responsibility
for student
behaviour and
so do the
students (joint
responsibility).
The teacher is
releasing
responsibility
for behaviour to
the students
(student
responsibility).
Chapter 3: Methodology 127
Power/ control Teacher may or
may not have
power/ control.
Powerless if
behaviour is
taken out of
hands (e.g.
admin). Control
used if teacher is
making decisions
for what happens
with student
behaviour.
Teacher
controls
student
behaviour.
Teacher
controls
student
behaviour.
Joint teacher
and student
control.
Teacher
releasing
control. Moving
to student
control.
Individual vs
group
Considering
behaviour of
individuals.
Considering
behaviour of
individuals.
Considering
behaviour of
individuals or
group.
Considering
behaviour of
whole group.
Considering
behaviour of
whole group.
Consideration of
students’ needs
Limited
consideration of
students’ needs.
Limited
consideration
of students’
needs.
Consideration
of students’
needs
(individual and
group).
Understanding
of students is
central
(demonstrated
via
observation
and from
reflection on
individual
students).
Consideration of
students’ needs
(group).
Consideration of
students’ needs
(group).
Here and now/
Future
(temporal)
Future not focal. Future not
focal.
Future not
focal.
Future partially
focal.
Future focal.
Engagement Not concerned
with engagement.
Concerned
with
engagement.
Concerned
with
engagement.
Concerned with
engagement and
learning.
Concerned with
engagement and
learning.
Inclusion Students
excluded from
cohort.
Individual
students seen
in isolation
from the
cohort.
Individual
students seen
in isolation
from the
cohort.
Students seen as
a ‘community of
learners’.
Students seen as
a ‘community of
learners’.
Time (temporal) Quick to
implement.
Quick to
implement.
May be quick
or take time.
Takes time to
implement.
Takes time to
implement.
Flexibility No flexibility or
can contain pre-
considered
elements of
flexibility (e.g.
providing the
student with an
alternate
activity).
No flexibility. Flexibility. Flexibility. Flexibility.
Teaching Focus is on
teaching the
cohort (not the
individual
exhibiting the
behaviour).
Focus is on
teaching the
cohort and the
individual.
Focus is on
teaching the
cohort and the
individual.
Focus is on
teaching the
whole cohort.
Focus is on
teaching the
whole cohort.
128 Chapter 3: Methodology
3.10 CHAPTER SUMMARY
In this chapter an overview of the phenomenographic methodology has been
presented, key terms associated with phenomenography introduced, and variation
theory explained. Further, the rationale for using phenomenography in this study was
outlined, followed by a discussion of the ontological and epistemological bases of
phenomenography. The relationship between phenomenography and variation theory
was also described.
Also in this chapter, the data collection process and approach to analysis were
presented and ethical considerations associated with this phenomenographic study
outlined, followed by the participant overview and description of the conduct of the
semi-structured interviews. Finally, a detailed account of the conduct of analysis was
provided, along with explanations and examples of how the final outcome space (or
findings) were derived. In the following Results chapter the final categories of
description and analysis of variation will be presented.
Teacher
expectations and
needs
Teachers’
expectations and
needs are focal.
Teachers also
considering the
needs of the rest
of the cohort.
Teachers’
expectations
and needs are
focal.
Teachers’
expectations
and needs are
focal.
Students’
expectations and
needs are focal.
Students’
expectations and
needs are focal.
Behaviour Challenging; high
level behaviours
of individuals.
Challenging
behaviours of
individuals.
Behaviours of
individuals
and the whole
cohort.
Behaviour of
the cohort.
Behaviour of
the cohort.
Relationships
with students
Relationships not
focal.
Relationships
not focal.
Relationships
focal.
Relationships
focal.
Relationships
focal.
Reflection Teacher
reflection not
focal.
Teacher
reflection not
focal or
superficial.
Teacher
reflection
evident.
Teacher
reflection
evident.
Reflection focal.
Managing Management
focal.
Management
focal.
Management
focal.
Management
not focal, but
still aware of
need for
management.
Management
not focal, but
still aware of
need for
management.
Chapter 4: Results 129
Chapter 4: Results
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This phenomenographic study has sought to understand teachers’ ways of seeing
their approaches with student behaviour in Preparatory (Prep) classrooms in
Queensland government schools, and to capture the variation of their conceptions of
this phenomenon. Twenty-one Queensland Prep teachers from Brisbane metropolitan
schools were interviewed. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using
methods underpinned by the phenomenographic theoretical framework (Marton &
Booth, 1997) and variation theory (Marton, 2015).
In this chapter, the findings of this study of teachers’ ways of seeing approaches
with student behaviour are reported and explained. First, the phenomenographic
categories of description are presented, along with supporting participant examples
from the data and a detailed analysis of the dimensions of variation for each category.
It is important to remind the reader at this point that the findings of phenomenographic
studies do not categorise individual participants. Instead, the interview data are seen
as … “forming a ‘pool of meaning’ in which the variation in ways of experiencing the
phenomena of interest are to be seen” (S. Booth & Ingerman, 2002, p. 495). The
findings discussed in this chapter, therefore, comprise the experiences of this group of
teachers, and will be illustrated by representative individual statements.
The individual participant statements, excerpts, or quotes featuring in this
chapter were de-identified at the point of transcription and each participant was
allocated a number code. Thus in the presentation of the findings of the categories of
description, each participant quote contains the particular participant’s allocated
number code rather than their actual name (e.g. I4 indicates interviewee 4). As the
majority of participants were female, the pronoun ‘she’ is used in the discussion of the
individual statements to protect the identity of male participants (National Health and
Medical Research Council et al., 2007) and to ensure consistency.
To conclude this chapter, an analysis of variation is presented and explained.
This analysis provides a concise overview of the categories and shows clear evidence
of the phenomenographic framework within the analysis.
130 Chapter 4: Results
4.2 CATEGORIES OF DESCRIPTION
As discussed in the previous chapter, five stable hierarchically organised
categories, constructed by the researcher, emerged from the data. The categories are:
Category 1: Not Engaging
Category 2: Engaging to Learn
Category 3: Adapting to Engage
Category 4: Learning to Engage
Category 5: Towards Independent Engagement
These five categories are presented in a hierarchically organised outcome space,
from compartmentalized ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour (Category
1) to holistic or integrative ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour
(Category 5). This hierarchical organisation reflects principles of phenomenographic
analysis and variation theory, with reference to Marton’s (2015) surface to deep
approaches to learning, as discussed in the previous chapter.
The categories present the varying ways teachers see their approaches with
student behaviour and are inclusive of the 21 teacher participants’ experiences. Evident
within each of these categories are several dimensions of variation which will soon be
explained. These dimensions, presented in Table 3.3 at the end of Chapter 3, are now
considered alongside excerpts from participant accounts of their experiences with
approaching student behaviour.
In this chapter, to illustrate the categories and the dimensions of variation within
the categories, a selection of quotes from individual participants is presented. It is
important to note that many of these 21 teachers’ experiences with approaching student
behaviour contributed to all 5 categories. A participant’s quote appearing in one
category does not imply that this participant can be discussed as ‘operating’ in only
that way of seeing. Rather, one of the interesting findings from this study is that many
participants can be discussed as operating in all categories at some point or other,
depending on where their focus was directed at that particular time.
This chapter is organised to present the study findings category by category,
beginning with Category 1. For each category a figure is presented, to provide a visual
snapshot of the dimensions of variation within that particular category. The category
Chapter 4: Results 131
figure colours transition from lighter to darker shades, representing hierarchically the
complexity of the categories, with the darkest shade (Category 5) being the most
complex way of seeing approaches with student behaviour. Each figure contains the
name of the category in the centre, along with each dimension of variation positioned
around the category name. For the dimensions where the participants’ focus was
strongest in that category, the text is darkest in colour. Where the text is faded into the
background, the participants’ focus was not evident in that particular dimension.
Where the colour is light in shade (in between the two) there was a partial focus. After
this figure, each category is then introduced with a category overview, followed by a
more in-depth explanation of the category with participant examples/quotes and finally
a conclusion that draws out the meaning of the category.
4.2.1 Category 1: Not Engaging
Figure 4.1 below shows a pictorial snapshot of the variation within Category 1.
In the centre of the figure is the category name. The fifteen dimension names surround
the category name and are bold or faded to varying degrees based upon the degree of
awareness placed by participants. For example, in Category 1 behaviour; managing;
individual; here and now; teacher expectations and needs; and time: quick are in bold
as these dimensions are foreground to participants. There is a slight emphasis placed
on power/control, showing that participant awareness is considered but not strong, like
the foregrounded dimensions above. The other dimensions are faded into the
background, showing participants do not have these dimensions open in their
awareness in this category. A full explanation of these dimensions in Category 1 is
provided after Figure 4.1.
132 Chapter 4: Results
Figure 4.1. Category1: Not engaging.
Overview of Category 1
In this category, the way of experiencing approaches with student behaviour is
seen as fragmented, with the management of student behaviour being the focal point
for teachers. Student behaviour is experienced in isolation and is seen as separate from
student engagement with learning and teaching. Challenging individual student
behaviour is supressed or removed in some way, so that learning with the rest of the
cohort can be achieved.
In this category, this way of seeing approaches with student behaviour contains
an individual component. That is, individual students are ‘drawn out’ for their
problematic behaviour. Difficult behaviour is seen as an individual characteristic of
the student, resulting in their exclusion from the class group and from learning with
their peer cohort. It is this compartmentalized view of behaviour that seems to support
the removal or exclusion of students. In this category teachers express dissatisfaction
with their approaches with student behaviour, and as a result they often report
experiencing stress.
Explanation of Category 1 with examples
In this category, student behaviour is recognised as problematic. This way of
experiencing centres on the teacher not engaging (that is, not doing anything or as little
as possible) with the student behaviour, often removing it or retreating from it.
Students with challenging behaviours were removed from the classroom, ignored or
referred onto administration, as they were seen to hinder the cohort’s learning. A
Chapter 4: Results 133
compartmentalized way of seeing student behaviour as isolated or cut off from
engagement with learning and teaching supports this removal and exclusion. With the
exclusion, removal or disregarding of problematic behaviours, the teacher could then
return her focus to what she considered to be her core role of teaching the
‘unproblematic’ students who were willing and ready to learn. In this category the
focus is also on managing for ‘here and now’. For instance:
Sometimes, with some kids, when their behaviours are so challenging, and
you don't have the parent support and you don't have the admin support, you
just end up giving them things to babysit them so that you can spend time with
the others, which is terrible. But if you try and set boundaries and they cross
them and you have no support, well, then you just pretty much need to leave
them, because you can't, at this time, do anything with them, and you have to
focus on the ones that are ready to learn. (I8)
Participant 8 experiences and expresses powerlessness with regards to
approaching student behaviour, suggesting that she really “can’t” do anything about
the behaviour. Her attention is then focused away from the challenging behaviours and
refocused on the rest of the class, as teaching these students is within her direct control.
This approach does not sit comfortably with the teacher, as evidenced by her comment
about the situation being “terrible” when through lack of support she has to give
“things to babysit them”. The perceived lack of support is from parents or school
leadership, and has contributed to her adopting such an approach. Another example
within this category is the following:
He’s really complex. But I made the choice that he cannot suck up more of
my time than that’s allotted. Because I have 24 children in my class. So I make
allowances for that, yes he’s high needs so he does get more time for that, but
I have 24 other children. Some of them are very high needs too. You know, I
have some really low functioning kids, I’ve got EAL kids, and they have just
as much need of my attention as well. So, you know, if he goes off, the other
teacher’s problem, not mine, and she has to deal with him running and the
violence and whatever. (I14)
In this example the teacher retreats from the problematic behaviour. It is evident
in this example that student behaviour is a concern for I14 and viewed in terms of what
she considers to be equitable and sustainable management. The student with
challenging behaviour is separated from his cohort rather than integrated with the
134 Chapter 4: Results
group. The teacher’s response is to retreat from the problem behaviour she experiences
and leave it for another teacher to handle so that she can return to teaching the rest of
the class and to meeting the individual learning needs of other children within her
group. In this quote behaviour is seen as a characteristic of the individual student
concerned, evidenced by the statement that “He’s really complex”. Here’s another
example where a teacher isolates the student behaviour, this time by providing the
student with separate learning activities:
And then he starts to disrupt the other children, so he has his own box that he
goes to. So I say to him, okay you need to go to do some work on your own,
so he just gets out his box and in it there’s his pencils and scissors and just
different activities that he can do and he’s quite happy to just sit on his own
and to do it, to leave me to keep on with the lesson. (I10)
Again this teacher removes the student with the disruptive behaviour from the
group by redirecting the student to a box of activities that will keep him occupied so
that she can get on with teaching her lesson. Here’s yet another example:
So, I was putting out fires all over the room, because these kids were idle.
When this guy started doing the wrong thing, the program was to - well, the
behaviour policy at the school was for the aide to ring the office or to send a
red card and they'd come down and get him. But in the meantime, I had to take
the children out because he was throwing fruit - he was just out of control. So,
yes, for that one, I had to get help from the school guidance officer and have
strategies in place for what we did with this little guy. (I8)
Participant 8 here talks about the school behaviour policy dictating the approach
taken (the red card system and removal of the student to “the office”) and she retreats
from the student behaviour, in the first instance by removing the whole-class from the
student concerned. The result is that the student is isolated from his peers, teacher and
eventually the Prep precinct too (when removed to the office).
The next four short examples from two teachers show teachers again talking
about not engaging with problematic student behaviour, but this time as a result of it
being taken out of their hands. Consider these:
Having that happen first, they went up to the Principal, they were taken up to
the Principal. So that was sort of out of my control that one. When they came
back they had time out at lunch time and that did involve sitting up there. I18
Chapter 4: Results 135
I need to send him to the office if he's violent towards other children but what
happens after that is - none of this is my decision. I try not to send him unless
I absolutely have to, one because I'm not sure how much good a day home is
doing him. (I21)
I have no idea they don't talk to us, we just get told he's being suspended.
You'd have to talk to admin and the people who do that. When I send him
down here it's because he's been physically violent towards other children and
sometimes he just ends up in time out. Sometimes - he actually doesn't get to
go out in the playground because he was so violent and rough in the
playground with the other children, he now goes to break space every break
which is a supervised play space. (I21)
Whether suspending him is making any difference I don't know but it does
give the other children a day's break from having him do things like that to
them. (I21)
These two teachers experienced a sense of powerlessness in the face of this
challenging student behaviour. The behaviour is retreated from and the students
excluded (in these cases by students being removed to administration, ‘break space’ or
suspended from school). Of interest are the second and fourth quotes by participant
21, where this teacher questioned the actual effectiveness of removing the student. She
acknowledged that the suspension does allow for respite for the rest of the class, but
again there is a clear exclusion of the student from his peers and the school in the case
of the suspension. Participant 21 recognised that this approach had far-reaching
ramifications, not only for the student, but for the student’s family as well.
In contrast, participant 11 uses an approach of removing a student to a buddy
class, also to provide respite from challenging student behaviour, but this is her own
decision:
Great kid but the behaviours can be extremely challenging and there's been a
couple of times when I've said to (teacher) next door, (child)'s going to come
in for a visit and sit in with you for a while just so we can all have space …
Sometimes it has to be, my experience in the past, they need to be removed
for a little while and if you've got a relationship with a teaching partner where
136 Chapter 4: Results
that happens, it just stops things from escalating, doesn't it? For everybody,
the teacher, the children, the child. (I11)
The removal of the student provides respite for all and in this case de-escalates
the challenging behaviour so that Participant 11 can focus back on teaching the rest of
the cohort.
Conclusions about Category 1
These examples illustrate the exclusionary strategies that typify this category,
with teachers in many cases expressing their powerlessness in the face of challenging
student behaviour. The stress that teachers experience in this way of seeing student
behaviour is palpable, as is their dissatisfaction with their approach. This way of seeing
shows teachers’ understanding of approaches with student behaviour as
compartmentalised. Student behaviour is focal in teachers’ awareness, ‘drawn-out’ and
viewed as problematic, resulting in student behaviour being experienced in isolation
and seen as an individual student characteristic in this category.
Alternatively, it is important to also consider the teachers and their ability to
support such challenging student behaviour in the face of diverse classroom needs and
high expectations for student learning outcomes, alongside a reported lack of support
for teachers with challenging student behaviour. The fact that schools support the use
of removal and exclusion of students with challenging behaviour as an approach within
policy and school-based processes also communicates to teachers that exclusion is
appropriate and necessary. This further compounds the view that ongoing problematic
behaviour needs to be isolated, and may contribute to teachers’ way of understanding
their approaches with student behaviour as compartmentalised.
4.2.2 Category 2: Engaging to Learn
Figure 4.2 below shows a pictorial snapshot of the variation within Category 2.
In the centre of the figure is the category name. The fifteen dimension names surround
the category name and are bold or faded to varying degrees based upon the degree of
awareness placed by participants. For example, in Category 2 teacher responsibility;
behaviour; managing; individual; here and now; power/control; engagement; teacher
expectations and needs; and time: quick are in bold, as these dimensions are
foreground to participants. The other dimensions are faded into the background,
showing participants do not have these dimensions open in their awareness in this
Chapter 4: Results 137
category. A full explanation of these dimensions in Category 2 is provided after Figure
4.2.
Figure 4.2.Category 2: Engaging to learn.
Overview of Category 2
In this category, as in Category 1, the way of experiencing approaches with
student behaviour is fragmented. Student behaviour is still experienced in isolation,
with suppression or control of student behaviour, but in this category we also see a
focus on student engagement. Therefore in this category student behaviour and
engagement are simultaneously in focus (unlike the previous category where student
behaviour was experienced in isolation, and not linked to engagement with learning).
Like Category 1, behaviour is seen as an individual student characteristic. The
individual student is in the spotlight and foregrounded for their behaviour. Again the
teacher feels they must supress and contain the difficult behaviours of these individual
students to successfully return to teaching the remainder of the cohort.
Explanation of Category 2 with examples
In this category teachers’ way of seeing their approaches with student behaviour
focuses on acting in ways that engage students in learning as a way of keeping the
classroom manageable, that is, supressing or controlling student behaviour. Whereas
in Category 1 the focus was on keeping the classroom ‘manageable’ (by removing,
isolating or ignoring any behavioural challenges), in this category the focus shifts to
getting students engaged in learning (by supressing or controlling their behaviour) and
keeping them engaged (again by controlling behaviour). Behaviour is experienced in
138 Chapter 4: Results
isolation, but is linked to engagement with learning. With this way of experiencing, a
role of power is adopted by teachers in the classroom (i.e. ‘I am in charge and the
students will do as I say’), to keep the behaviour managed and at the same time
maintain students’ engagement with learning (through suppression or teacher control).
Rewards and punishments feature strongly, reminders are provided about behavioural
expectations, and how the environment shapes student behaviour is considered, for
instance by physically moving a student to what is perceived to be a better learning
position. The strategies used are quick to implement, focus on compliance and are
about the ‘here and now’. There is limited flexibility in this way of experiencing:
students must do as they are told. For instance:
I feel like if you’ve got the children under control, which is probably the
completely wrong word, but if you’ve got the children engaged and interested
and not worrying about all that other stuff - you know there’s not someone
rolling all over the floor that’s distracting them from something, or there’s not
someone calling out or yelling out that’s distracting them, you can just get so
much more learning time in. (I6)
Participant 6’s comment above exemplifies this category. The approach is about
keeping the classroom managed and controlled to achieve engagement with learning.
Another example of the power/control within this category:
Facilitator: Yeh, and what do you want to, what’s your aim with this approach,
like with using the thinking chair and then you know, like you said you use,
sometimes they miss out on play time and things like that? What is it that
you’re wanting to achieve with the children through that?
Interviewee: The first thing that comes to mind is control.
Facilitator: Yeh, right, yeh.
Interviewee: I guess you know in the end I want them to know that I'm in
charge. And they really do need to listen and do as they're told …does that
sound terrible? (I6)
Participant 6 describes a focus on management (the students need to ‘do as
they’re told’). A thinking chair strategy and applying a consequence of students
missing out on playtime to enforce behaviours that are conducive to learning are used
(in essence, I will punish them to engage them). Teacher control is central, and this is
a rigid approach. The question, “Does that sound terrible?” suggests that perhaps
Participant 6 is not confident with the appropriateness of this approach. Further:
Chapter 4: Results 139
But I do, from time to time, if someone hasn't got their work done, I'll say to
them, well, you know what? You didn't do your work during that session, so
you know how you really like PE? Well, today, you're not going if you don't
get your work done. (I8)
This is an example of the suppressing of student behaviour (the use of
punishment: missing out on a preferred learning activity) in an effort to enforce student
engagement with learning. The threat used here is the possibility of the student being
isolated, that is, if the student doesn’t complete their work, they will be kept back from
a preferred class activity. Here is another example of the use of control:
That in my head then became my super improvers chart. I use that to reward
an individual for doing a great thing. But I also use it very critically to get that
other child that I want to do that thing. So if I see a kid - we've got some kids
who like to have a loll down in the classroom, and at times not what we need
to do. So if I've got that child sitting next to the child who is having a lie down
and rolling around and touching people and picking their nose and putting
their hand where it shouldn't be, as you get with young people ... If I've got a
person next to them who is doing learning, sitting, who is showing the engaged
behaviours, who is thinking about their answers, I will give them the star. (I19)
Participant 19 uses rewards (the ‘super improvers chart’) as a way to supress
unwanted behaviour. This particular suppression strategy is what is commonly known
in Queensland government schools as cueing with parallel acknowledgement: “To
acknowledge students' on-task behaviour with the intention of prompting others to
copy” (Education Queensland, 2007b, p. 12). This is an advocated strategy for teachers
to covertly control student behaviour to achieve compliance. Consider:
But obviously, occasionally there are and there’s a couple of children that I
can think of that continue to talk or aren’t ready when I want them to be ready
and I'm quite strict on, you know, they need to be listening. Or they’re not
sitting with their legs crossed and again I stop every time they unfold their
legs or they get tired - of course they do because they're Prep and they try and
lie down and no, they’ve gotta sit up, and you know if that behaviour continues
they go and sit on the thinking chair. And if they do that I don’t enter into
conversation, I just say you’re going to the chair and there’s a sand timer next
to the chair, they turn the sand timer over, it goes for a minute, so it’s really
quick. They turn it over and when it’s done they come back and they sit down
140 Chapter 4: Results
and no one wants to go there, even though nothing terrible happens. I told a
boy the other day he had to go and sit on the thinking chair and he burst into
tears, even though it’s sitting on a chair with a sand timer for a minute, and he
was good as gold the rest of the day and that was last week and no one’s been
near it since. (I6)
This is another example of suppressing or controlling student behaviour but via
a different mechanism. This is achieved through the use of a ‘time-out’ strategy. It
seems this strategy is aimed at punishing non-engagement (students not sitting as
required by the teacher) by isolating the student. This approach is about complying
with the teacher’s expectations. Even when the teacher acknowledges that prep
students get tired and find sitting for long periods of time challenging, there is no
leeway for them. They must comply. The outcome of this strategy is that the behaviour
was successfully suppressed, so that Participant 6 could shift the focus back to student
learning. The following is another example of suppression using isolation:
If I can I'll put either myself or (name) my teacher aide on that group to keep
a lid on it a bit, but if all else fails, if I have work with a different group of
children, I'll remind them particularly and then if they keep on not doing the
right thing I'll move them out of their group and sit them by themselves, so
they still have to get their work finished but they don't have anyone to bounce
off. That tends – that generally tends to work. (I21)
In this category, control is central to this way of experiencing approaches with
student behaviour. Isolating a student to supress unwanted behaviour is discussed as
an effective way to ensure the student re-engages with learning and completes his
work. Participant 7 controls student behaviour by using rewards:
I think when I'm sitting in the chair and I'm teaching the kids on the carpet and
I'm able to say four names, Grab a high five stick, you're sitting beautifully,
and I always look for kids who are sitting beautifully and they're really
attentive, and it's like everyone else in the class snaps into focus and
everyone's engaged and everyone's on-board and I go Great that really works!
and it keeps on working which makes me really excited. So that kind of… yep
that makes me feel good every time that happens. (I7)
This is another example of experiencing approaches with student behaviour as
isolated but linked with engagement. Participant 7 uses rewards (the high 5 sticks) to
acknowledge wanted behaviour and as a quick strategy to supress various unwanted
Chapter 4: Results 141
behaviours, to ensure students are ready to learn. A focus on management (or
suppression) of behaviour is necessary to achieve engagement (students being ready
to learn). One cannot happen without the other. Another quote from Participant 7
where student behaviour is experienced in isolation but linked with student
engagement is provided here:
I think that you don't want behaviour management to take too much time out
of everything else. I think I like it to be quick because I like to be able to move
on very quickly, so I just say great job, high five stick and then they take the
high five stick and then it's done and then I can keep on teaching and there's
no big distraction and there's no big use of time doing that, but it's significant
enough that they really enjoy it and it works really well for them. (I7)
In this way of experiencing approaches with student behaviour, time - and the
effective use of teaching time in particular - is an important factor. The teachers are
focused on engagement with learning and so they focus on implementing time efficient
strategies that will have students engage quickly. Rewards are used to successfully
suppress unwanted student behaviour, so attention can focus on engagement with
learning. In addition:
I turn things into little games too. Instead of saying and harping on, hands on
your head, hands on your shoulders, I'll start saying, who's listening? I'll say,
hands on heads, hands on shoulders. I'll start saying something and doing the
opposite. I'll start, okay, hands on head. Where's your head? That's a funny
spot. They think we're playing a little game, but secretly it’s behaviour
management. (I9)
Again, a quick approach to re-focusing student behaviour is evident here. What
is focal is Participant 9’s need to intervene to ensure students are engaged and ready
for learning, in this case by curbing potential behaviours through the use of humour
and movement. She uses an attention gaining strategy and humour to achieve this,
which is a different strategy to using rewards (as in the high 5 sticks) or applying
consequences, but has the effect of the same simultaneous focus on student behaviour
and engagement. Finally:
Now at the moment, one or the other of us, (teacher-aide) or I, we've got our
eye looking out - because we're the closest classroom to the junior toilets we
can see if they're not doing the right thing up there and we're still able to check
out the window if they're doing the right thing. But you get to relax and when
142 Chapter 4: Results
you get to relax you're feeling less stressed in the day and you can have some
more fun, you have a little joke with them, all of those sorts of things, there's
more fun things that you can do with them and that they can get involved in
as well.
It's a less stressful time for everybody once you get them to the point where
you've got everybody doing the right thing in terms of themselves and their
learning and the other children in their class too. So I think that's the pay off
at the end of it, but it is, getting to that - having to be that disciplinarian thing
all the time at the start of the year, you look forward to getting into the second
half of the year where you don't have to do that all the time. Because it is really
quite stressful having to do that all the time. (I21)
This excerpt again reflects the control that teachers experience with student
behaviour in this category, with the teacher using supervision (watching and checking
up on students) to help ensure compliance. Participant 21 suggests that once students
are doing the right thing then there is less stress for both students and teacher. She
mentions the stress involved with being a ‘disciplinarian’, but sees that this is a
necessary step to achieving this aim.
Conclusions about Category 2
What is evident in this category is the focus on suppression or control of
unwanted student behaviour in order for teachers to engage students in learning. This
way of experiencing approaches with student behaviour alongside engagement with
learning sees teachers’ efforts converging on establishing and maintaining behavioural
expectations for the class. What is different from Category 1 is that engagement with
learning is considered alongside undesired student behaviour. Importantly, in Category
1 student behaviours were isolated (along with the student), thereby excluding these
students from learning. By comparison, in Category 2, while student behaviour is
suppressed or controlled, there is a simultaneous focus on engagement with learning.
The focus is on engagement with learning for all students in the class, including the
disengaged students.
4.2.3 Category 3: Adapting to Engage
Figure 4.3 below shows a pictorial snapshot of the variation within Category 3.
In the centre of the figure is the category name. The fifteen dimension names surround
the category name and are bold or faded to varying degrees based upon the degree of
Chapter 4: Results 143
awareness placed by participants. For example, in Category 3 teacher responsibility;
behaviour; adapting (flexibility); student’s needs; power control; engagement; teacher
expectations and needs; and time: quick are in bold as these dimensions are foreground
to participants. There is a slight emphasis placed on individual, here and now,
managing, relationships and inclusion, showing participant awareness is considered,
but not as strong as the foregrounded dimensions above. The other dimensions are
faded into the background to varying degrees, showing participants either have partial
awareness of the dimension or do not have these dimensions open in their awareness
in this category. A full explanation of these dimensions in Category 3 is provided after
Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3. Category 3: Adapting to engage.
Overview of Category 3
In this category, as for the previous two, the way of experiencing approaches
with student behaviour is fragmented. Student behaviour remains isolated (or focal) in
teachers’ experience, requiring suppression in some way so that learning can be
achieved. While in Category 1 a focus was on suppressing and isolating unwanted
student behaviour, and in Category 2 teachers focussed on suppressing problematic
student behaviour in order to engage these children with learning, here in Category 3
we see an extension of the Category 2 way of experiencing. That is, that while teachers
are still acting in ways that suppress student behaviour in order to engage them with
learning, in this category they are now considering how they adapt their own
behaviours to achieve this. What is also significant about this particular category is the
144 Chapter 4: Results
fact that teachers in this way of experiencing are thinking about inclusion, that is, ways
of bringing the student into the group, rather than isolating them in some way (as
discussed in Category 1 and 2).
Like Category 1 and 2, in Category 3 student behaviour is still seen as an
individual characteristic. The challenging behaviours of these individual students must
be suppressed for the teacher to refocus on student learning. However, in Category 3
the way this is achieved is different. This is because teacher thinking focuses on
including (not excluding) the student from the group, and as such embraces more
flexible and inclusive practices.
Explanation of Category 3 with examples
This category, like Categories 1 and 2, retains a focus on teachers keeping their
students behaving and engaged in learning, but teachers’ ways of experiencing their
approach with student behaviour is now less rigid and compartmentalised. This way
of experiencing mainly sees students as individuals, with teachers considering how
they can make adaptations to engage these individual students in learning with the rest
of their cohort. Strategies include approaches such as: adjusting the learning
environment, using students’ interests or preferences to engage them in learning, and
adjusting their expectations of student behaviour based on their knowledge of the
students. This category is more learner focused, with teachers considering various
students’ needs, not just their own needs for order and control, as in Categories 1 and
2, although the teacher is still focusing on achieving his or her behavioural
expectations. The teacher is still in a position of authority in this way of experiencing
(they are the ones making the decisions), and concerned about the ‘here and now’. For
example:
I said to mum that this is going to be an evolution and this is how I teach every
student, I don’t know how to cater for their needs until I get to know them.
And I said, when he comes in we will see what the best processes for him will
be, and you know just watching him and seeing his cues, you know, I could
see that he was a very kinaesthetic learner, a very hands, on - not kinaesthetic
learner, that’s not what I meant - but he likes, he needs to touch to see where
he is and that, so when I was asking him to sit on the floor to listen to the book,
it’s very hard for him to have his head up and be tuned into there, so I just
asked him one day, does he wants to come and sit on my knee, and then I
Chapter 4: Results 145
could see that that worked so that was something that I said Oh great, this is
where I can do the big book thing . (I3)
Participant 3 was clearly thinking about the individual student behaviour and
instead of ignoring or removing the behaviour/ student (as in Category 1) the teacher
considers this individual student’s needs whilst thinking about ‘engaging’ the entire
class in learning, and adjusts her approach to accommodate this student (which is
different to Category 2, where the teacher makes no individual adjustments for
learners, instead expecting them all to ‘do as they are told’). Indeed what is evident
here is that Participant 3 is bringing this student in to be part of the group. This is
evidenced by inviting him to ‘come and sit on my knee’ to facilitate his engagement
with the lesson. The teacher maintains a focus on behavioural expectations for student
engagement with learning, but now makes adaptations to her own practice. Thus, this
can be seen to be a more inclusive way of experiencing approaches with student
behaviour. Another example:
I really liked the fact when I realized I could speak through the dinosaurs and
get in his face and say, oh Felix the dinosaur wants you to come and sit down,
and using that vehicle to get him to listen. And he was really excited too
because, it was a really beautiful moment because we could speak the same
language. And he was like, ah okay, yes I understand what you want me to do
and I will do that, so that was really good too. (I3)
Participant 3 is trialling various adaptations for an individual student. The focus
on attaining behavioural expectations and student learning is evidenced by her asking
the student, via the dinosaur toy, to ‘sit down and listen’. Her use of the dinosaur toy
to communicate behavioural expectations to him, immediately demonstrates to the
student recognition and acknowledgement of his personal interest/preference as a
means by which to achieve his engagement. Consider:
I had a child who, that wasn’t going to work. Wouldn’t have mattered how
many times I insisted that he sat on the carpet with his legs crossed, it was not
going to happen. So there are certain circumstances where you need to make
allowances and you know then those particular children, well that particular
child has their own boundaries that might be slightly different to the rest of
the class’s. (I6)
146 Chapter 4: Results
Like Participant 3, Participant 6 shows a simultaneous focus on student
behaviour and learning but has also recognised that this particular student requires
“allowances”, adjustments (or adaptations) of teacher expectations to achieve
engagement. Here’s another example:
But I just found it was more about figuring out what he was interested in, and
what he would respond to positively. Which I think, I kind of go well that’s
really logical, it’s not like its rocket science. Just really honing in on those
things, and giving him opportunities to be in context where he could be
affirmed and encouraged. Or like I think also, even just allowing my
expectations to I guess stretch a little bit for him. So it’s like differentiating
the curriculum for a child. It was I who needed to differentiate my approach
to behaviour management with him. That although for all other children when
they are on the mat, I expected them to show whole-body listening. Their legs
crossed, hands in lap, eyes, ears, lips. For him, if he was fidgeting, if he had
found something on the carpet, as long as I could see that I still had his ears, I
was okay with that. I would still try and encourage him, but I wasn't going to
stop my lesson every two minutes, to keep redirecting. (I17)
This is yet another example of a teacher thinking about individual student
capacities and needs and adjusting expectations so that learning can be achieved with
the whole-class. This quote illustrates how Participant 17 is making explicit links
between student behaviour and learning. As is common within this category, the
teacher retains a focus on the particular behaviour/s of an individual student in the
class, and behaviour is seen to be an individual characteristic of students, as in
Categories 1 and 2. In the following quote Participant 17 discusses how students’
perceptions of their own behaviour is a consideration:
Giving them the opportunity to explain, okay that may not be a legitimate
explanation, but they had a chance to say hey, this was my reasoning. In my
head that was really rational, I'm sorry that didn’t fit with what you wanted
me to do. But you know, the amount of times that when I've taken the time to
do that, I've actually gone, oh you’re actually trying to be really helpful there.
Or there’s something more going on here that I need to understand. (I17)
The above quote illustrates Participant 17’s focus on individual students and an
attempt to understand the behaviour through listening. The next quote is from a teacher
who also thinks about the student’s perspective of what is happening with behaviour:
Chapter 4: Results 147
I mean for instance one child here on the playground. This was last term so
he’s new to the school, new to the playground and also socially immature. He
was found to be hitting someone and so the teacher went, right you're off to
the responsibility room. Responsibility room, oh where’s that? So he runs
away so bang, whoah you are going to the responsibility room. And he’s like,
he was in the classroom when he has a confrontation he will crawl away and
hide under the couch. And in the playground you run away, but for every
teacher at the school who’s not dealing with Prep you’ll be like, right, that’s
not: ‘right off to the responsibility room!’ But he just didn’t know how to
respond, they didn’t know how to respond to him and when I caught them at
the end of lunch time he was very distressed, they were distressed because it
was like well you're like talking different languages, he doesn’t understand
what you mean, he doesn’t know about the responsibility room. So I think,
early childhood, they need to come and talk to the teacher about it because
there’s always a little background, isn’t there too, as to why he may have
behaved like that. (I5)
Evident in the above quote is the teacher thinking about adapting approaches
with student behaviour. The standard school approach applied to hitting behaviours in
the playground was to send the student to the responsibility room, thus suppressing the
behaviour and excluding the student. However, based on Participant 5’s prior
knowledge of the student and her understanding of the current level of distress he is
experiencing, the teacher considers this particular Prep child may be too immature to
understand this whole-school approach. ‘Understanding students’ is important within
this category, as it informs and directs teachers’ responses to challenging student
behaviour. This aspect is not evident in the previous two categories. The way the
teacher responds to this incident demonstrates a more inclusive approach in
comparison to the school’s ‘one size fits all’ consequence of the responsibility room.
This more flexible position may be due to the teacher thinking about the individual
student and his particular needs. This differs greatly from previous categories where
teachers’ way of seeing takes on a more rigid view. Another example of how students’
individual interests were flexibly taken into account is provided here:
…one of the behaviours even this year has been coming back in after morning
tea, coming back in after lunch. Because they still like to play and they still
like to talk and some of them have played all morning tea and haven't gone to
the toilet. So bringing them in was my question mark. They're great in here
148 Chapter 4: Results
but getting them in sometimes the behaviour is delayed. How can I do that?
So going into a profiling in-service I got to hear more about and got to see
little snippets of classrooms and I went okay I'm not a sticker person, I'm not
an extrinsic reward person. I’m, how do you feel? Positive. But I could do a
passport with some little stamps which I guess is like a sticker but if you're in
within a timer you can put a passport stamp in. But then I haven't even
introduced that because I just came to the realisation I'd rather them use their
thinking. So I played naughts and crosses once with a child on the board and
that was like a trigger. Everyone wanted to do naughts and crosses so now
they can't wait for that door to open after morning tea because they come in,
a timer's on. They get their whiteboards and they all sit here and they play
noughts and crosses. (I4)
Participant 4 had an issue with how the students entered the classroom. Like the
experiences reflected in the previous quotes, this teacher has considered individual
student interests, in this case the naughts and crosses game and uses this as a way to
settle the students during this transition time. Finally, consider these examples of
Category 3:
When we do rotations, before we go to rotations because they're like two hours
these days, five stations, two hours, we'll have lots of stretching. I'll throw a
movement activity in one of the rotations so some of them might be outside,
out there doing alphabet. So they'll move in between it. Particular boys, I'm
always saying, can you go and get this from Mrs (teacher) when I don't need
anything, just to get them up and moving because they can't sit still. (I15)
So it's just being aware of that. We've just got pack-up songs that we dance to.
We boogie; sometimes we'll just say put everything down and let's boogie for
five and they'll go - and they really do let loose and they'll go back and we'll
write. So just being aware that when you can just tell their little bodies are
getting so tired or they can't sit still and we just need to move. So I think that's
getting from the early childhood perspective how important that movement is.
(I15)
These quotes highlight the focus on being responsive to student needs and
flexible in classroom practice. Participant 15 adapts her own practice through
awareness and understanding of the needs of her students (i.e. recognising their
tiredness and inability to sit still). Rather than just controlling the behaviour the teacher
Chapter 4: Results 149
adjusts her approach (responding with flexibility rather than being rigid). Also present
within these data is the notion that the teacher is aiming to bring individuals towards
the group, evidenced by Participant 15’s discussion of how she incorporates the
‘wiggly’ students along with the whole-class in physical activity.
Conclusions about Category 3
This category shows a shift towards a more inclusive way of seeing approaches
with student behaviour. While teachers do act in more student focused and flexible
ways, student behaviour remains focal in teachers’ experience. In this category,
teachers still suppress or control student behaviour in order to focus their efforts on
student engagement with learning; however, teachers’ knowledge, understanding and
consideration of individuals and their flexible approach marks a point of departure
from this category and Categories 1 and 2.
4.2.4 Category 4: Learning to Engage
Figure 4.4 below shows a pictorial snapshot of the variation within Category 4.
In the centre of the figure is the category name. The fifteen dimension names surround
the category name and are bold or faded to varying degrees based upon the degree of
awareness placed by participants. For example, in Category 4 group; student’s need;
engagement and learning; inclusion; teaching; relationships; and time: takes time are
in bold as these dimensions are foreground to participants. There is less emphasis by
participants placed on managing, power/ control; and reflection, showing participant
awareness is considered but not strong like the foregrounded dimensions above. The
other dimensions are faded into the background to varying degrees, showing
participants either have partial awareness of the dimension or do not have these
dimensions open in their awareness in this category. A full explanation of these
dimensions in Category 4 is provided after Figure 4.4.
150 Chapter 4: Results
Figure 4.4. Category 4: Learning to engage.
Overview of Category 4
In this category we see a shift in teacher thinking and experience. Teachers’ way
of experiencing approaches with student behaviour in this category is now becoming
more integrated in nature rather than fragmented (as seen in the previous 3 categories).
Teachers now see behaviour and engagement with learning and teaching as integrated.
Teacher thinking is focused away from ‘controlling’ or ‘managing’ behaviour
(although teachers still want to achieve their behavioural expectations) and is now
focused towards teaching behaviour. In this category there is a recognition and
understanding of the nexus between student behaviour, engagement with learning and
teaching, and how teachers act in ways that support this knowledge. Teacher control
or power also changes in this category and we see the responsibility for behaviour shift
from teachers to students.
Explanation of Category 4 with examples
Although in Category 4 there remains a focus on behaviour approaches for
engaging students in learning, teachers’ way of experiencing behaviour is now centred
on teaching students how to engage. In this category there is a recognition that if
teachers want students engaged in learning (resulting in a manageable classroom) then
they need to teach them the skills of how to actually do this. Common strategies within
this category include teachers modelling behaviours, engaging students in discussion
about social behaviours and using role-play to practise social behaviours to help
children learn how to behave appropriately and how to engage in learning in the
classroom. This category differs from previous categories as teachers now consider
Chapter 4: Results 151
their role is to explicitly teach the desired behaviours, rather than just control behaviour
(as seen in Categories 1 and 2). Category 4 differs from Category 3 in that the focus
of control shifts from the teacher to the student (i.e. equipping students with the skills
and knowledge of how to behave). In this category flexibility remains a strong focus
(as in Category 3) but this flexibility is now about teachers adapting their teaching both
of and for behaviour. That is, teachers are thinking about adapting themselves and their
teaching practice (rather than adapting for individual students). This category is more
complex and integrated. Here are some examples of this:
Well I guess, I just think about behaviour as a curriculum area. Just like any
other curriculum area. So it’s just, it’s, we’re teaching behaviour. So we’re
teaching skills, we micro-skill, we model, we role-play, we have class
meetings, we talk about what gentle touch is going to look like in the
playground before they go out to lunch. When they come back in after lunch
we have a bit of a de-brief. We talk about what gentle touch looked like or
what it didn’t look like. So, I just see it as a teaching area. (I1)
And I think a lot of it is to do with the fact that they, these little people, are
preppies, and they have got no experience in a working classroom and they
don’t know how to do school. So we work, in especially in the first term, it’s
like a Prep boot-camp. So we’re teaching them how to behave, just like we’re
teaching them how to read or how to write. It’s the ‘how-to’ of school. (I1)
They don't necessarily have any interpersonal skills and they don't understand
non-verbal behaviour. So you also have to teach that. Saying to someone, I'm
angry, but not having an angry look on your face or having your body looking
angry doesn't mean anything to the little guys. You have to actually sort of
show what that looks like. I mean, actually in term one with them as part of
their learning we'd all - I'd say, okay. I'd say a word or I'd even show the word
angry. What does that look like? You show me an angry face. They love it.
(I9)
Central in these comments from Participants 1 and 9 is a focus on their approach
to student behaviour as ‘teaching’. These teachers mention modelling, development of
skills and talking and reflecting with students about behaviour as important ways to
teach them to behave and engage in their learning. For these teachers, this will achieve
152 Chapter 4: Results
their aim of having students engaged in learning. Engagement with learning and
teaching has now become more focal than behaviour. Another example:
Play-based stuff is different, especially if you've got children who just fixate
or tend to take over or are rough with other children, then you can spend time
with them as well, but it's just slowly reinforcing all of those things all the
time. It's not a magic moment, it's a long year, but I think it's an integrated
approach and modelling everything really. If you want them to play
cooperatively you have to teach them how to do it. If you want them to play
outside in a deeper way productively, you've got to sit in the sandpit with
cylinders and start creating things and engage in language. (I11)
In this example, Participant 11 clearly sees her approach as teaching. Discussing
her own approach to play-based learning, she focuses upon a pedagogical approach
that she knows works, teaching students how to play cooperatively through modelling
and engaging them through language. This shows very clearly the integrated way of
thinking about student behaviour that is typical within this category. Student behaviour
is not seen as isolated from engagement with learning and teaching, it is seen as linked
(although slightly de-emphasised in comparison with previous categories).
Demonstrating an awareness that she needs to teach students how to play cooperatively
using play-based learning sessions also shows that Participant 11 understands that
different learning situations require explicit teaching of different skills to ensure
students have the required skills to be successful learners. Further:
I have class sets of things, class sets of colouring pencils, class sets of scissors,
or rulers or equipment, I should say. So nothing is mine or yours. Everything
is everybody's and we're all sharing. That helps reinforce that. We do group
work, small group work, pair work as well as whole-class work to help
reinforce, even though ostensibly I might be teaching a lesson on maths, okay,
we've got to share this equipment with each other. So it's reinforcing all of that
socialising behaviour. (I9)
It is evident that Participant 9 values sharing and social skills and that she
organises the class resources to support this approach. Her comments highlight an
integrated way of seeing approaches with behaviour and again this is an example of a
teacher experiencing a relationship between behaviour, engagement with learning and
teaching simultaneously. Another teacher says:
Chapter 4: Results 153
Part of education is learning how to get along with others and how to speak to
adults and do things at times that they don't want to. So that all gets down to
the relationship with the child, showing respect but making it very clear and
at the same time forming that relationship with the parents. So once the parents
are on board and they see us on board with the parents, then the child responds
to that even more positively, particularly if the parents back it up. So I think
it's really part of that whole base, it's not done in isolation and with my teacher
aide as well. (I11)
In this example, Participant 11 understands approaches with behaviour as
integrated and needing to be part of the educational program, evidenced by the
reference to learning about social behaviours (getting along with others) and also the
inclusion of parents and teacher aide in this approach. A common theme within this
category is that relationships are considered to be important for learning. One final
example:
This little white chair out there. It's called the love chair. That's for when -
because there's 150 Preps out there at playtime and they come from a little
kindy or home and they've eaten this big lunch and everyone's got this brown
uniform with a big brown hat and they can't find anyone. So now they come
to the love chair. Then if anyone sees them at the love chair they've got to
swing by and get them. (I15)
The ‘love chair’ strategy is another example of an integrated approach focusing
on the structured development of supportive friendships. This teacher is not concerned
with teacher control, instead shifting the responsibility for behaviour and supportive
friendships to the students. It is evident that Participant 15 is thinking about facilitating
relationships and helping students develop an inclusive concept of friendship.
Conclusions about Category 4
Category 4 sees a shift in teacher awareness towards a more integrated way of
experiencing approaches with student behaviour. A strong relationship between
behaviour, engagement with learning and explicit teaching is evident. Within this
category teachers are beginning to see beyond the ‘here and now’ and are considering
how to equip students with knowledge and skills of how to behave/ engage. There is a
shift away from teacher control and management to a shared responsibility for
behaviour. The whole-group has now come into focus rather than just the individuals
within the group, and strategies are inclusive of the whole-group. Indeed teachers now
154 Chapter 4: Results
see their students more as a ‘community of learners’ and the teacher is actively
‘teaching’. The Category 3 way of experiencing has acted as a precursor to this
category. Flexibility (rather than rigidity) is required to effectively operate in this
category. The teacher needs to be able to adapt, as there is the understanding that
behaviour, engagement with learning and teaching are inextricably linked.
4.2.5 Category 5: Towards Independent Engagement
Figure 4.5 below shows a pictorial snapshot of the variation within Category 5.
In the centre of the figure is the category name. The fifteen dimension names surround
the category name and are bold or faded to varying degrees based upon the degree of
awareness placed by participants. For example, in Category 5 group; student’s need;
engagement and learning; inclusion; teaching; relationships; and time: takes time;
future; reflection and student responsibility are in bold as these dimensions are
foreground to participants. There is less emphasis by participants on behaviour and
managing, showing participant awareness is considered but not strong like the
foregrounded dimensions above. The other dimensions are faded into the background
to varying degrees, showing participants either have partial awareness of the
dimension, or do not have these dimensions open in their awareness in this category.
A full explanation of these dimensions in Category 5 is provided after Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.5. Category 5: Towards independent engagement.
Overview of Category 5
In this category we see holistic and integrative teacher experience (and thinking)
about approaches with student behaviour. Teachers now see behaviour, learning and
Chapter 4: Results 155
teaching as integrated, although - as in Category 4 - behaviour is slightly de-
emphasised. Teacher awareness is focused away from ‘controlling’ or ‘managing’
behaviour, although teachers still want to achieve this, and is now focused on teaching
behaviour and ultimately releasing the responsibility of student behaviour to the
students. In this category there is a recognition and understanding of the nexus between
behaviour, engagement with learning and explicit teaching, and teachers act in ways
that support this knowledge. There is a future dimension here not previously
evidenced, with teachers considering student behaviour outcomes beyond the current
year of school (i.e. the Prep year). This future aspect of teacher approaches with student
behaviour is not evident in any other category.
Explanation of Category 5 with examples
This category represents an integrated and holistic awareness of approaches with
student behaviour. In this category, the teachers’ way of experiencing their approach
with student behaviour is by releasing responsibility of behaviour/ engagement to the
students, although there is still a focus on the teachers’ behavioural expectations, as
well as on engaging students in learning and teaching them how to do this. In this way
of seeing approaches with behaviour, students are supported to set goals; to reflect on
their behaviour and engagement with learning; teachers sit back and observe students
‘having a go’ and also reflect on their own approach with regards to achieving this.
This teacher reflection is important to this category, with teachers being concerned
about the impact that their own practice has on students’ future learning and
development; a characteristic not seen in previous categories. Their goal is to develop
independent and self-regulated learners. The responsibility or control for behaviour is
now shifting towards students, away from the teacher. The awareness of students as
individuals as seen in earlier categories, is not a key focus in this category, as teachers
now see individual students within the context of a community of learners. Teachers
are also thinking about their students’ future behaviour and learning outcomes, beyond
the Prep year, which is not evident in the other categories. For instance:
Because I think it will carry them through. Because if I’m using a system now
where it’s all extrinsic, sticker, sticker, sticker, happy box, happy box, or
whatever type of physical reward, that’s training the children to work for those
rewards and what happens if next year they go into a classroom where a
teacher doesn’t use those rewards? What’s going to drive those children then?
156 Chapter 4: Results
So I think that intrinsic reward is going to take them further, like as they grow
and move through school. And into adulthood too. Because I read a book
because of the joy of reading a book and the joy I get from it, not because
someone’s going to pay me to read the book or yeh … (I1)
In this example, Participant 1 is rejecting an approach that uses rewards that
‘train’ students to behave and engage. Instead she reflects on the learning dispositions
she would like her students to develop to carry with them throughout their lives, which
reveals a futures perspective rather than the ‘here and now’ perspectives evident in
earlier categories. She is also thinking about intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation,
which she achieves by explicitly teaching the students and then releasing responsibility
to them. In this way the future potential of behaviour, engagement with learning and
teaching are inextricably linked. Another example:
They live completely in the moment. So I want - if I want a citizen later on
who can think about their behaviours and think, what can I do right now that's
going to be a safe, happy behaviour for myself and for my friends? How can
I create it here? I do it by making it visual, by making it emotional and by
really discussing it when it happens so that I've given the reasons and the
language of, you got that because of this. What's going to happen now? We're
going to do this, Ms (teacher), we're going to do that Ms (teacher). Fantastic.
I can tell that's going to be exciting. I'm going to keep this by my pocket
because as soon as I see it happening I'm going to put it up. So that they're
thinking about the future as well. (I19)
Within these comments Participant 19 again demonstrates an holistic awareness
that simultaneously highlights student behaviour and engagement with learning and
teaching (although behaviour is slightly de-emphasised). She is thinking about the
future, evidenced in the mention of ‘citizens later on’, and is also scaffolding students
to become responsible for their behaviour through use of discussion, questioning and
reflection. Further:
…I'll set up things for certain children and I choose when to intervene and
when to lead and when to watch. I would rather, as I said to (teacher aide),
give them a bit of leeway; give them a bit of space to enable them to make
decisions, to enable them to learn so we don't cut in and interfere, we actually
stop them from learning. That's the sort of thing that often is done at home and
if they come here and they have a repeat of the decisions made for you, stop
Chapter 4: Results 157
it, sit down - and I do that sometimes, but if I actually want them to learn, it's
the time for that. You have to take the child's lead and give them a bit more
space and then call them over and have a chat about the decision later. (I11)
The teacher’s focus on releasing responsibility for behaviour/engagement to the
students is evident by the comment about ‘giving them a bit of space to enable them
to make decisions’. As with the previous quote, this example also retains a focus on
teachers teaching students the skills that underpin appropriate behaviour. Behaviour,
teaching and engagement with learning are again seen to be interrelated. Consider this:
Oh we do - I mean I actually do mindfulness exercises so they always sit on
the carpet and I'll tell them to be aware of the carpet on their ankles and the
air-conditioning, the beautiful air-conditioning, blowing through their hair and
stuff. I just try and get them to be present. Yeah so I wouldn't have ever called
my behaviour approach Buddhist, but when you said one or two words that is
what popped into my head. I'm not a Christian, I'm not anything like that but
I do believe in … for our kids future, that that's really important. (I12)
Teaching mindfulness, as discussed in Participant 12’s comments above,
cultivates self-awareness and self-regulation (Hassed & Chambers, 2014). This teacher
also discussed a focus on the future, by reflecting on the importance of this approach
with reference to the impact on students’ well-being in the future, not just the ‘here
and now’ as in previous categories. Further:
So if I want to be the change that I want to see in the world it starts with the
way that I interact with these children. It starts with the attitude with which I
expect them to behave. So if I want citizens - if I want to walk down the street
and be treated respectfully and to - feel like I live in a society that cares for
each other and that looks after one another, I need to start the first step here.
Which is teaching children to make choices that are independent. To
understand that they do have that freedom to make that choice. But what are
the consequences of making a choice? How can I actually make a choice that
is good for me and good for you and good for the classroom? That way, I hope,
I will start the process of developing a child who will develop into an adult
who will make choices that are positive for his or her society as well. So there's
that idea of social and ethical development; that is why I want independence
in my children, as opposed to being an authority in the classroom, where this
is what I say, this is how you're going to do it. I want us to choose together the
best ways. (I19)
158 Chapter 4: Results
In this example, Participant 19 sees her approach to behaviour as being about
developing students into independent, future citizens of the world who can make good
choices in life. Her approach is about modelling (with reference being made to teacher
interactions with students) as a way to develop positive behavioural attitudes. This
approach aligns well with Participant 19’s learning expectations and learner
engagement. However her understanding goes far beyond the compartmentalised and
controlling ways of thinking that are seen in Categories 1-3. Category 5 is now about
seeing behaviour and engagement with learning and teaching as interconnected, and
geared towards moving students towards independent engagement. Another teacher
says:
I hope that there is a link between home and school so it’s not just me at
school, you do the right thing. You do the right thing because we’re part of a
family, because we’re part of a school, because we’re part of a bigger
community. (I3)
Here again we see a bigger picture view, a more expansive way of viewing
behaviour and engagement with learning and teaching. Participant 3’s mention of
‘being part of a bigger community’ indicates a focus on the broader social collective
beyond the school gate. The capacity for cooperation and self-reflection is seen as
integral. Consider these further two quotes:
Now that we're reaching mid-way through the year and we're getting that
slightly deeper thinking about ourselves as kids who get along and kids who
understand the rules and kids who can follow them, I'm going to start
exploring that idea of them nominating how they want to get their star that day
and see how that works. Because I want that deeper thought about myself as
a chooser of my own behaviours, rather than, I'm doing it because you're the
boss and you've told me what to do. I want to indicate that internal thought
process, as opposed to an external thought process from me. (I19)
Facilitator: So why that approach with that child, with having the special box
and the breathing and all that sort of stuff?
Interviewee: Because I'm aiming for her to - I don't want to regulate her. I
want her to regulate her own emotions. I think that if it's always me responding
to her then she'll just keep having the same problems over and over again. So
Chapter 4: Results 159
I'm trying to - and I'm trying to give her the confidence that she can do it too.
(I12)
Importantly, these teachers show an understanding of developing independent
and self-regulated learners through their own thoughtful releasing of responsibility for
behaviour to the students. In addition, there is evidence of teacher self-reflection in
this way of experiencing approaches with student behaviour, with teachers possessing
a deepening awareness of their practice and a more complex and holistic way of
thinking about student behaviour. To sum up this category, I present a final quote,
again from Participant 19:
My approach - okay, here we go. I'm going to say it in a couple of words. It's
going to be brilliant. Here we go. My approach to my behaviour management
with my class is about developing young people who are invested in their
appropriate behaviours so that they are the dictator. They are the person who
makes those choices. I'm here to help them. Everyone else is there to help
them. But they're individuals, they're strong, they're intelligent. It's your job.
Yeah. (I19)
Participant 19 clearly sees her approach as empowering students to make their
own choices and supporting them to do so. She views students as capable and
competent, allowing her to release responsibility for behaviour to them.
Conclusions about Category 5
In Category 5 we see approaches with student behaviour experienced as holistic,
integrative, embedded in engagement with learning and teaching, and exhibiting a
future perspective. Participant statements represented in this category show that
teachers are thinking about investing in behaviour approaches that are not just about
the here and now, but that will carry students through schooling (and even life) beyond
the Prep year. To bring about this level of awareness teachers need to be able to see
the individuals in their class as part of a collective whole, that is, a community of
learners, and linked to the broader real world community. These teachers need to be
able to adapt, think and act in ways that promote inclusivity, foster relationships and
require their students to think about their own behaviour. They also need to be willing
to relinquish control at times and commit to a gradual thoughtful release of
responsibility for behaviour to the students themselves. In addition, teachers also need
160 Chapter 4: Results
to be able to reflect upon the purpose and outcome of their approaches with student
behaviour and the effectiveness of these.
Next an analysis of the variation inherent in the 5 categories is presented and
explained.
4.3 ANALYSIS OF VARIATION
An analysis of variation was developed to explain the structural and referential
aspects of the five categories. This analysis of variation also aimed at revealing
patterns of variance and invariance in Prep teachers’ ways of seeing approaches with
student behaviour, and was based on S. Booth and Ingerman’s (2002) approach to
analysis.
In the analysis of variation (see Figure 4.6 Analysis of variation) the structural
aspect, (that is, ‘the what’ in Marton and Booth’s (1997) learning and awareness
framework) encompassed both an internal and external horizon. This structural aspect
is descriptive of the participants’ experience. The external horizon is what is focal to
the participants in each of the categories (categories being numbered on the left hand
side in Figure 4.6). The internal horizon explains the details of the focus, in this case
the actual actions (approaches or strategies) participants described when approaching
student behaviour (the ‘how” in Marton and Booth’s (1997) framework).
Category Structural Aspect Internal horizon External horizon
Referential aspect Ethical aspect
1 Managing Removing or ignoring problem individual student behaviour; teaching the rest of the cohort
Keeping classroom ‘managed’ and students safe in order to teach
Responsibility rests with teacher and administration “I need to leave them”
2 Managing, engagement
Rewards, stickers, reminders, firm expectations, essential skills, time out
Keeping students engaged in learning in order to teach; rigid
Responsibility rests with teacher “I’m in charge”
3 Managing, engagement, adaptations
Seating, environment, student interests or preferences, ‘brain breaks’; adjusting expectations
Keeping students engaged in learning in order to teach; flexible
Responsibility rests with teacher “I can adapt”
4 Managing, engagement, adaptations, teaching
Modelling, role play, discussions, co-playing, using visuals
Teaching students how to engage
Responsibility shift towards student “I can teach them how”
Referential aspect: meaning External horizon: What is focal to participants
Chapter 4: Results 161
Figure 4.6. Analysis of variation.
In Category 1 teachers were focused on managing approaches with student
behaviour and adopted practices that included office referrals, removing students or
ignoring behaviours. Category 2 included a focus on managing and engaging. Teacher
approaches in Category 2 included rewards, punishments, the Essential Skills for
Classroom Management and behavioural reminders. In Category 3 teachers held a
focus on managing, engaging and adapting behaviours. Common practices included
seating considerations, incorporating students’ interests and providing the class with
‘brain breaks’. Category 4 saw a focus on managing, engaging, adapting and teaching.
Approaches such as modelling, role-play and discussions were evidenced. In Category
5 student reflection, goal setting and choices were approaches teachers described.
The referential aspect then communicates the meaning, based upon ways of
seeing (or conceptions) being linked to what participants do (as represented in the
structural aspect in the analysis). ‘Doing’, is read as expressing ‘seeing’ (Marton,
2015). Marton explains,
… I can see what other people do and I can “read” what they do in terms of
how things must appear to them (how they must see things) if they do what
they do and if we assume there is a logical relationship between what they see
and what they do (Marton, 2015, p. 110).
Additionally, an ethical aspect is also presented in this analysis of variation,
again adopted from S. Booth and Ingerman’s (2002) study. This ethical aspect
represents the different views of knowledge and where the responsibility lies for the
structure and outcome of the approaches with behaviour. In this study, as explained
within the category descriptions, the responsibility or authority for approaches with
student behaviour rests with the teacher in the early categories (Categories 1-3). An
important shift is evidenced between Category 3 and 4, resulting in a growing sense of
agency given to the students in Categories 4 and 5.
5 Management, engagement, teaching, students’ future learning and development
Goal setting, choices, student reflection, teacher reflection, observation
Developing independent and self-regulated learners
Responsibility rests with student “I can teach and support”
Internal horizon: details of the focus,
the approaches (acts of learning) Categories
Ethical aspect: different views of
knowledge and where responsibility rests
162 Chapter 4: Results
To support this analysis of variation, I developed a way of accounting for the
variance and invariance for each category (see Table 4.1 Analysis of variance and
invariance). In this table, the ‘v’ stands for variance, showing where the participants’
focus was held and which dimensions were held open, simultaneously, by the
participants in and across the categories. The invariance, represented as an ‘i’, shows
focus away from that particular dimension. As you can see in this analysis, in the most
inclusive and complex category (Category 5) teachers had all five dimensions in focus
simultaneously, whereas in Category 1, awareness was focused on ‘managing’ only,
meaning that teachers were not thinking about engagement with learning, adapting
their practice to engage students in learning, teaching students new behaviours or
students’ future self-regulation.
Table 4.1
Analysis of variance and invariance
Category
Managing
Engaging
Adapting
Teaching
Future
learning and
development
1. Not engaging v i i i i
2. Engaging to learn v v i i i
3. Adapting to engage v v v i i
4. Learning to engage v v v v i
5. Towards independent engagement v v v v v
This analysis provides a useful picture for teacher educators of both preservice
and inservice teachers, as well as for teachers and school administrators of where
teacher thinking and awareness needs to be focused if we wish to approach student
behaviour in inclusive ways that support student learning and the development of
student self-regulation.
4.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter has presented and explained the findings of this study of teachers’
approaches with student behaviour in the Prep year. Five categories of description
outlining teachers’ ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour have been
outlined and examples from the data have been included. The chapter has detailed the
analysis of variation and pointed towards the implications of such findings. This is
important as Marton (2015) has strongly advocated for phenomenographic studies to
Chapter 4: Results 163
draw out the ‘pedagogical potential’, that is point towards pedagogical change and
implications for teaching and learning.
In the next chapter, the Discussion, the implications of this study along with
considerations for preservice and inservice teacher professional development based on
the findings from this study will be outlined and discussed.
Chapter 5: Discussion 165
Chapter 5: Discussion
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents a discussion of this study’s findings concerning teachers’
approaches with student behaviour in Preparatory (Prep) classrooms. The discussion
positions the findings in the context of existing literature, and in so doing explores the
implications of the study for teaching practice, education policy and initial and
continuing teacher education.
In the previous chapter, analysis of the phenomenographic interview data
uncovered 5 increasingly complex and inclusive categories that represented Prep
teachers’ ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour. These were:
1. Not engaging, where managing student behaviour was the focal point for
teachers and student behaviour was seen as isolated from engagement with
learning.
2. Engaging to learn, where teachers’ focus was on student behaviour and
engagement with learning simultaneously.
3. Adapting to engage, where teachers adapted their own behaviours to achieve
student engagement with learning.
4. Learning to engage, where teachers focused on teaching behaviour to achieve
student engagement with learning.
5. Towards independent engagement, where teachers were focused on teaching
behaviour and ultimately releasing the responsibility of student behaviour to
the students.
First in this chapter, to set the stage for this discussion, the importance of the
Prep year as the first and foundational year of formal school is revisited. Then a brief
discussion on the range of ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour is
presented. This is followed by a discussion of each of the five data categories with
reference to relevant literature. Finally, the dimensions of variation identified within
the categories are explicated and considered.
166 Chapter 5: Discussion
5.2 THE PREP YEAR AS A FOUNDATION YEAR
This study was located within the context of the Prep year, the first and
foundational formal year of school for children aged four to six years in Queensland,
Australia. It is important to foreground the Prep year in this discussion and to position
it within the early childhood years as a significant period in children’s learning and
development. UNESCO (2016) defines this period thus:
Early childhood, defined as the period from birth to eight years old, is a time
of remarkable growth with brain development at its peak. During this stage,
children are highly influenced by the environment and the people that
surround them.
Early childhood care and education (ECCE) is more than preparation for
primary school. It aims at the holistic development of a child’s social,
emotional, cognitive and physical needs in order to build a solid and broad
foundation for lifelong learning and wellbeing. ECCE has the possibility to
nurture caring, capable and responsible future citizens (para.1&2).
This positioning of the early childhood years as significant and important for
children’s well-being is also supported by the Organisation for Economic and Co-
operation and Development (OECD), which states that Early Childhood Education and
Care (ECEC) remains high on the agendas of OECD countries (OECD, 2010).
Internationally, governments have shown a strong commitment to ECEC in before
school contexts because of the known benefits for children’s future learning and
development. The OECD (2015) states that this commitment also needs to be drawn
up into the early years of primary school so that these benefits endure. By focusing on
teachers’ ways of seeing (or conceptions) this study’s findings have re-positioned the
Prep year as important for nurturing students’ social and emotional learning
development. Young children in Queensland enter the Prep year with a range of prior-
to-school social experiences and emotional capabilities. A commitment to the
development of students’ personal skills needs to be realised in the Prep year and
sustained as students move through the primary years to enhance their learning and
well-being.
In arguing for consolidation in and enhancement of the development of
children’s social and emotional capabilities, it is important to acknowledge here the
significant structural, curriculum and policy changes education systems have
Chapter 5: Discussion 167
undergone over the last 10 years (Krieg & Whitehead, 2015). In Queensland, the
transition in 2007 from a pre-compulsory, part-time, play-based Preschool year to the
introduction of Prep, a compulsory, full-time first year of school, meant a gradual
move away from flexible, child-centred curriculum and pedagogical approaches to a
more rigid, adult-focused, outcomes-based approach.
Issues for Prep teachers concerning implementing early childhood principles and
practices in primary school contexts are highlighted throughout this discussion chapter
as these issues are relevant to teachers’ ways of seeing approaches with student
behaviour. Krieg and Whitehead (2015), two South Australian academics who wrote
about the divide between pre-compulsory (before school) and compulsory (school)
early childhood provision, noted that differentiation issues existed even within the
early childhood years. Two such issues were (i) curriculum approaches, with broad
outcomes seen in before-school contexts versus specific outcomes in primary school
contexts, and (ii) qualifications, with teachers in before-school contexts requiring
specialist early childhood qualifications, whilst teachers in the primary school years
were not required to have any specialist early childhood qualifications or experience
(Krieg & Whitehead, 2015). In this chapter, the impact of these issues on teachers’
approaches with student behaviour has been acknowledged.
There are currently two key curriculum documents that influence Prep teachers’
planning for the learning and development of children aged four to six years. These
are the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2016a) and Early Years Learning
Framework (EYLF) (DEEWR, 2009). Teachers have been encouraged to draw upon
the Early Years Learning Framework’s key principles and practices of early childhood
teaching when implementing the Australian Curriculum in the early years of school.
However, in practice, as stated by many participants in this study, this is often easier
said than done. The Early Years Learning Framework is Australia’s national early
childhood curriculum that is designed to “extend and enrich children’s learning from
birth to 5 and through the transition to school” (p. 5), and is based upon conclusive
international evidence-based research that acknowledges early childhood as a critically
important stage in children’s learning and development (DEEWR, 2009). The Early
Years Learning Framework is underpinned by the Melbourne Declaration on
Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA, 2008) and the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (Office of the United Nations High
168 Chapter 5: Discussion
Commissioner for Human Rights, 2017). Via these mechanisms, the goal of providing
every child with opportunities for the best start in life and children’s rights to play and
to be active participants in their learning is to be recognised. Connor (2012) asserted
that there are strong connections between the Early Years Learning Framework and
the Australian Curriculum that can serve to strengthen the transition between before-
school contexts and Prep. Connor (2012) stated:
The Australian Curriculum recognises that the EYLF establishes the
foundations for selective learning in school and throughout life and aims to
build on those foundations as learners move through schooling (p.15).
Understanding and drawing upon the relationship between the Australian
Curriculum and the Early Years Learning Framework enhances continuity and is in
the best interests of children’s learning success (Connor, 2012).
The Early Years Learning Framework places particular emphasis on play-based
learning and the importance of children’s social and emotional development. However,
these emphases appear in direct contrast to the implementation of the Australian
Curriculum in Queensland, which has been enacted with an emphasis on prescriptive
approaches to teaching such as the Curriculum into the Classroom (C2C) (Department
of Education and Training, 2015a) strategy, which comprises “comprehensive” lesson
plans ready for classroom delivery. Additionally, there has been a renewed focus on
the use of Direct Instruction (McMullen & Madelaine, 2014) in Queensland
government schools, via the C2C resources, which involve teachers following a rigid
set of instructions for consistent content delivery. These conditions have made
integrating the principles and practices of early childhood teaching challenging for
Prep teachers, as evidenced in the study data.
At the heart of this challenge is the fact that professionals who work with
children in the early childhood years, early childhood educators, are guided in practice
by principles developed from their knowledge and beliefs about how young children
learn, and these take into account shifts in educational theories (ECA, 2016). These
principles of early childhood education are often in conflict with broader systemic and
institutional processes and policies aimed at primary school education, of which Prep
is part. Tensions for teachers in this study arose as they held their principles of early
childhood education alongside school-based procedures, compulsory curriculum and
Chapter 5: Discussion 169
pedagogical approaches, which they articulated as impacting unfavourably on their
approaches with student behaviour.
Although there has been a strong commitment internationally to ensuring
teachers who work with young children aged 0-8 years have formal early childhood
specialist qualifications (National Association for the Education of Young Children
[NAEYC], 2009), in the early years of school in Queensland teachers are not required
to hold such qualifications. Prep teachers in Queensland typically have a four-year
undergraduate Bachelor of Education, or a one or two-year postgraduate qualification
on top of a previous degree. However, their Bachelor of Education could have a
speciality in early childhood, primary education, middle school education or - in a
minority of cases - even secondary education. The teacher registration authority in
Queensland, Queensland College of Teachers (QCT), does not require teachers to hold
a specialist qualification in early childhood to teach in the early years of primary
school. Krieg and Whitehead (2015) argued however, that teachers require this
specialist early childhood knowledge and expertise to negotiate the differences
between the Early Years Learning Framework and the Australian Curriculum in the
first year of school. This study of teachers’ approaches with student behaviour
included teacher participants with early childhood qualifications and expertise as well
as those with primary and/or secondary qualifications, as the Prep teachers in this study
held a range of qualifications and experiences. While the differences in qualifications
did not feature in the data corpus, the curriculum issues discussed above and their
impact on ways of seeing student behaviour approaches were raised several times.
The context-based tensions highlighted above form an important backcloth to
interpreting this study’s findings. The implications of these findings will be offered
throughout this and the final chapter.
5.3 TEACHERS’ APPROACHES WITH STUDENT BEHAVIOUR - AN
OVERVIEW OF THE CATEGORIES
There is a vast range of behaviour approaches for teachers to use in classrooms.
In the forthcoming discussion of the data categories in this chapter, teachers’ ways of
seeing their approaches with student behaviour are analysed alongside the existing
literature. It is important first, however, to present a short discussion about behaviour
approaches generally.
170 Chapter 5: Discussion
Australian educational child psychologist, Porter (2006), is well known in the
education field for her work on behaviour approaches, and a decade ago she published
a continuum of behaviour approaches, mapping their theoretical underpinnings
hierarchically from authoritarian approaches such as assertive discipline at one end of
the continuum through to egalitarian approaches such as choice theory and the
guidance approach at the other end of the continuum. More recently, Porter (2014) has
revised the characterisation, suggesting that only two main typologies of behaviour
approaches have solid underpinning theories and strong evidence bases; these are
behaviourism and guidance. Behaviourism operates on the premise that individual
behaviour is governed by external consequences, whereas guidance operates with the
idea that individual behaviour is an attempt to have needs met. Within the guidance
approach, teachers teach children the skills they need for considerate behaviour
(Porter, 2014). One important difference between the two theories lies in the
distribution of power between students and teachers. In behaviourism, an authoritarian
approach, power is assigned to teachers, whereas in the guidance approach,
authoritarian control is rejected, as it is thought to marginalise and silence young
children (Porter, 2014). Instead the guidance approach is based on “the notion of power
as the ability to act or produce an effect” (Porter, 2014, p.41). Teachers are
conceptualised as leaders rather than bosses in the guidance approach, and they work
with students to teach them the skills they need to behave considerately (Porter, 2014).
Across the two approaches there are also philosophical differences in how children are
viewed with regard to beliefs about human nature, children’s competence and their
worth. For example, in behaviourism, Porter (2014) argues that the core belief about
human nature centres on distrust of children, that they have “evil intentions” (p.42). In
contrast, in the guidance approach, she argues the core belief about human nature is
that children’s behavioural actions are intended to meet their needs (Porter, 2014).
In the data Categories 1 and 2, as will shortly be demonstrated, a behaviourist
view of students was apparent in the teachers’ discussions of their approaches with
student behaviour. In Category 1, for challenging student behaviour teachers described
their use of exclusionary practices that removed students from learning activities, peers
or classes (for example, they used time out). In Category 2, teachers reported using
power to control and suppress student behaviour. Porter (2014) stated that exclusionary
practices such as time out and detentions lack an evidential and theoretical base for
Chapter 5: Discussion 171
efficacy. The Queensland Department of Education and Training, the employing body
for the participants in this study, endorses the use of exclusionary practices such as
detentions in policies, for example the Safe, Supportive and Disciplined School
Environment (Department of Education and Training, 2017e) procedure. However, at
the same time the strategy of exclusion seems to exist in opposition to the
Department’s (2017c) inclusion policy which states, “inclusive education means that
every day in every classroom, every state school student is learning and achieving in
a safe, supportive, inclusive and disciplined learning environment” (para 3). When
students are excluded from classrooms for time out, classroom learning and achieving
ceases. As exclusionary approaches to student behaviour are endorsed in Departmental
policies and procedures, and as these are designed to guide schools’ practice with
student behaviour, it is not surprising that punitive approaches such as time out and
detentions have featured in teachers’ approaches with student behaviour in the Prep
year.
From Category 3 onwards a shift in power dynamics was evidenced as teachers
stated that they acted in ways that moved away from controlling student behaviour and
towards meeting students’ needs and/or actively teaching social and emotional skills.
These approaches were more aligned to the guidance approach, and have positive
implications for students’ social and emotional development and self-regulation.
There is a growing awareness of the importance of teaching students about self-
regulation (Murray et al., 2016). Teachers’ use of mindfulness (Hassed & Chambers,
2014; KidsMatter, 2016) and meditation (L. Waters, Barsky, Ridd, & Allen, 2015) are
approaches that have recently surfaced to encourage the development of students’ self-
regulation. Kidsmatter, an Australian government-funded initiative for primary
schools and early childhood education and care services to support children’s mental
health and well-being, states that a benefit of mindfulness is an increase in the ability
for children to self-regulate their emotions (KidsMatter, 2016; Leland, 2015; Maynard,
Solis, Miller, & Brendel, 2017). The Mindful Schools Program Evaluation (Smith,
Guzman-Alvarez, Westover, Keller, & Fuller, 2012) found that benefits of
mindfulness as observed by teachers included self-awareness, self-control, improved
behaviour, students thinking of others and calmness. These mindful outcomes are
thought to work towards equipping students with the knowledge and skills necessary
to regulate their own behaviour, rather than having their behaviour regulated by others.
172 Chapter 5: Discussion
Importantly for this study, these were approaches with student behaviour that were
found in the latter, more complex and integrated categories in this study (Categories 4
and 5).
The Prep teachers who expressed views in this study described using a range of
approaches with student behaviour. Although many expressed a tendency towards
either behaviourist or guidance approaches, they articulated their selection of
behaviour approaches based on a range of factors, including the type and perceived
severity of the student behaviour, their knowledge of individual students, their own
preferences, as well as school behaviour policies and procedures, and time factors. As
such, the approaches with student behaviour identified by individual teachers could be
seen across multiple categories, rather than fitting within only one category.
5.4 FRAGMENTED AND HOLISTIC WAYS OF SEEING APPROACHES
WITH STUDENT BEHAVIOUR
It is important to highlight the fragmented and holistic ways of seeing
approaches with student behaviour which were evident in the study’s findings, and to
analyse them alongside behaviour policy and procedures. Queensland’s Statement of
Expectations for a Disciplined School Environment (Department of Education
Training and Employment, 2013) policy details expectations for all Departmental
personnel and aligns with the Code of School Behaviour: Better Behaviour, Better
Learning policy document (Department of Education Training and Employment,
2006) and the Safe, Supportive and Disciplined School Environment (Department of
Education and Training, 2017e) procedure to promote positive behaviour and the
‘maintaining’ of teaching. These policies and procedures align with the Categories 1
and 2 ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour. In these categories teaching
and behaviour were not integrated, but were rather seen as separate or fragmented.
Teachers’ experiences that contributed to these categories showed an emphasis on
managing student behaviour so that they could re-focus on their teaching. This is
distinct from Categories 3, 4 and 5, which as explained in detail later in this chapter,
describe teachers’ ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour in more holistic
ways. Teachers’ experiences in these latter categories favoured the integration of
behaviour, student learning and teaching, with teachers intentionally providing
opportunities for social and emotional learning and allowing students to take joint
responsibility for their personal development.
Chapter 5: Discussion 173
It seems that existing Departmental student behaviour policies and processes
may inadvertently support fragmented ways of seeing approaches with student
behaviour as found in Categories 1 and 2. This particular issue will be discussed in
more detail later in this chapter. While reactive behaviour approaches such as time out
and Student Disciplinary Absences (SDAs) may be necessary in some circumstances,
it is important that administrators and teachers are supported to understand that
inclusive approaches are also needed to assist students in developing self-regulation
that supports social and emotional learning.
5.5 DISCUSSION OF CATEGORIES
In Chapter 2, the existing literature was reviewed, highlighting key themes
emerging in relation to student behaviour and teaching. Bodies of literature reviewed
included: (i) Australian educational contexts; (ii) school behaviour policies; (iii) the
Preparatory year in Queensland; (iv) behaviour theories and approaches; (v)
curriculum, pedagogy, motivation, engagement and their relationship with student
behaviour; (vi) teachers’ perceptions of student behaviour and behaviour strategies and
approaches; and (vii) teachers’ professional development and learning.
The literature review identified a gap in what is known about teachers’
approaches with student behaviour, particularly in the early years of school. In the
Australian State of Queensland, only a small group of studies have ever been
conducted in the Preparatory year, designated as the first formal year of school. These
studies include Breathnach et al. (2016), who investigated parents’ views of play in
Prep; Hoyte, Torr, and Degotardi (2014), who examined the relationship between
language and preschool friendships in Prep classrooms; O'Gorman and Hard (2013),
who examined distributed leadership experiences of early childhood teachers;
O'Gorman and Ailwood (2012), who investigated parents' views on play-based
learning; and Thorpe et al. (2005), who evaluated the 2003 Preparing for School Trial.
None of these studies, however, had explicitly studied teachers’ approaches with
student behaviour despite Prep student behaviour having been the subject of recurring
high profile media reports (e.g. M. Bruce, 2015; Chilcott, 2011a). The review also
indicated a gap in what we know about teachers’ knowledge of and practice with the
range of effective approaches that support student behaviour. The literature review of
behaviour policy in Queensland showed limited attention to democratic approaches,
the development of supportive relationships or flexibility, which have been shown in
174 Chapter 5: Discussion
the literature to be hallmarks of effective student behaviour programs (Blair & Raver,
2015; Porter, 2014). These substantial gaps and absences in the current policy and
literature provided the catalyst for this study.
This study set out to hear from Queensland Prep teachers, in their own words,
about their experiences with approaching student behaviour. It aimed to capture the
varying conceptions of this group of teachers. In doing so, the study revealed five
qualitatively different ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour. These
findings will now be discussed in light of the existing literature. The literature at times
will direct focus to the Australian context, in particular the State government
educational reforms and policies that have impacted on teachers’ practice with student
behaviour. This discussion is organised around the five ways of seeing approaches
with student behaviour. Headings provide the organising structure, under which each
of the categories is briefly described, with a focus on features that differentiate the
categories from one another. Sub-headings then signal the ‘big ideas’ that surfaced
within the findings of each category and these are discussed in turn. In some category
discussions, rich, exemplary quotes from participant statements are used to convey
these big ideas. These quotes represent what have been called irrelevant aspects
(Marton, 2015), aspects which are irrelevant to the phenomenon investigated
compared to the target way of experiencing it; however, they highlight important
points that surround the phenomenon and thus can illuminate teachers’ experiences.
These participant excerpts serve to anchor the discussion firmly in the participants’
accounts. It is important to reiterate here that, in line with phenomenographic analysis,
the data from individual teacher expressions do not sit solely in one particular category.
Individual teachers’ expressions of their approaches with student behaviour were often
seen across multiple categories.
5.5.1 Not engaging: Category 1
Category 1 was labelled as Not engaging. This way of seeing approaches with
student behaviour was seen as managing, with teachers focused upon their own need
for maintaining or restoring order to their classrooms when faced with challenging
student behaviour in Prep. In this fragmented way of seeing approaches with student
behaviour, teachers focused upon individual student behaviour in isolation from
engagement with learning and, indeed, from the rest of the class. This resulted in
approaches where teachers reported supressing students’ behaviour and/or removing
Chapter 5: Discussion 175
students from the classroom so that their not engaging with these students enabled the
teachers to direct attention to the other individuals and tasks.
Queensland Government school student behaviour policy enables the exclusion
of students from classrooms and schools as a way of disciplining students (Department
of Education and Training, 2017e). The Queensland Government’s (2017e) Safe,
Supportive and Disciplined School Environment procedure nominates exclusionary
practices such as time out, disciplinary consequences (for example detentions) and
suspensions to maintain the “good order and management of schools” (p.1). Teachers
expressing conceptions in this category could therefore be seen as merely adhering to
the policy. On the other hand, the use of these exclusionary approaches may indicate
that teachers and administrators fall back on exclusionary practices when faced with
challenging student behaviours due to lack of knowledge of more proactive approaches
and time factors preventing their implementation.
Within the Category 1 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour,
students were positioned as passive recipients of adult-driven interventions, with the
aim being to satisfy teachers’ need for order and control (or management). The term
management (called ‘managing’ here) in relation to behaviour or classroom
management has long been used by educators globally to discuss the “actions taken to
create and maintain a learning environment conducive to attainment of the goals of
instruction” (Brophy, 1988, p. 1). The term ‘management’ was stated by Kohn (2006)
to have originated from the business world and was concerned with the control and
direction of employees. This term has since been applied to education, with Porter
(2014) claiming that the purpose of schooling seems to be aimed at teaching
occupational skills necessary for participation in the economy, and the way of
achieving this is via standardisation and control. This has led to the idea of managing
or controlling student behaviour. Although Positive Behaviour for Learning (PBL) is
a more contemporary term used in schools regarding approaching student behaviour,
the term behaviour management persists in the vocabulary of teachers, as evidenced
in this study. The term managing was thus chosen to reflect this.
The big ideas that stand out as warranting discussion from this category are time
out as a behaviour approach; the use of student disciplinary absences (SDAs) as a
behaviour approach; and teacher dissatisfaction, stress and well-being.
176 Chapter 5: Discussion
Time out as a behaviour approach
Approaches that excluded students from learning, such as time out, detentions
and suspensions were evidenced in the Category 1 way of seeing approaches with
student behaviour. Time out was one of the approaches with student behaviour
commonly nominated by teachers who expressed views aligned with Category 1.
Teachers reported using time out, that is, excluding a student from the classroom in
some way, to provide respite from their behaviour. Behaviours that warranted such an
approach included students not listening to the teacher, being off-task, breaking
classroom rules, distracting others, not sitting up, running away, hitting others, and
throwing objects. In most cases, apart from hitting and throwing behaviours, students
were given verbal warnings from teachers before they were removed.
Time out is an approach common in parenting literature and forums, and this
approach is purported to teach children about unacceptable behaviour. On the popular
Raising Children Network (2016) website, which is supported by the Australian
Government’s Department of Social Services, time out is a suggested strategy for
managing children’s inappropriate behaviour. The Raising Children Network (2016)
proposes that when children behave inappropriately they should be denied the chance
to be around other people and interesting things for a period of time, through enacting
a time out strategy implemented by the parent not giving attention to their child for a
short period of time. It is suggested that this gives children a chance to think about
what they did and what they might do differently, however, actual guiding principles
to achieve this reflection on behaviour are not provided to parents (Raising Children
Network, 2016).
The employing authority for all teachers who participated in this study, the then
Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE), defined
time out as “giving a student time away from their regular class program/ routine” and
explained it as “one of a range of options for students to manage their own behaviour”
(Department of Education and Training, 2017e, p. 2). A deeper investigation reveals
that time out is an exclusionary behaviour management strategy commonly endorsed
in an approach to classroom management known as assertive discipline, which was
widely disseminated from the 1970s via a self-paced distance learning course and
practised by teachers in schools around the world. Assertive discipline was initially
developed by Canter and Canter (1976), and was the most popular discipline system
Chapter 5: Discussion 177
in the United States for over two decades. Canter (2010) continues to promote assertive
discipline as a program that allows teachers to create classroom environments in which
they teach and “students learn free from the distraction of disruptive student
behaviour” (p.3). He attributes disruptive student behaviour to a lack of respect for
teachers’ authority, the diverse nature of students, the inclusion of special needs
students in mainstream classrooms, and cultural and family differences. In this
approach, students with challenging behaviours are viewed as ‘troublesome’, with
teachers needing to implement strategies, including disciplinary consequences, to
restore order and control to the classroom and ensure student compliance. The terms
‘compliant’ and ‘non-compliant’ are often used by Canter. Highlighting the
pervasiveness of these ideas, teachers articulating conceptions in this category also
often used these same terms to talk about student behaviour (for example see Chapter
3, p. 110).
Critiques of approaches to student discipline, like assertive discipline, suggest
that these approaches position teachers as unskilled, uncritical, and incapable of
solving their own classroom behavioural issues (Palardy, 1996; Rigoni & Walford,
1998; Robinson & Maines, 1994). However, Canter (2010) argued that teachers should
be provided with concepts and strategies to enable them to manage student behaviour
so they can effectively do their job; but this is in opposition to the literature on teacher
professional learning that positions teachers as powerful agents of change who should
be active in identifying issues and devising solutions relevant to their particular context
(Timperley, 2011, 2015). The positioning of teachers as incapable may contribute to a
lack of teacher confidence, with teachers disempowered by experts who inform rather
than capacitate.
Assertive discipline’s influence on contemporary school behaviour policies is
palpable, particularly in the use of disciplinary consequences such as time out. This
can be detected in many schools’ Responsible Behaviour Plans, which were required
to be developed by Queensland Government schools from January 2014, to set out
how student behaviour would be managed in each school (see for example Albany
Creek State School, 2015; Caloundra State School, 2017; Manly State School, 2013;
Nundah State School, 2016; Rainworth State School, 2012). The Responsible
Behaviour Plan for Students is a Government dictated but individually-adapted
school-based document outlining a range and level of responses and consequences for
178 Chapter 5: Discussion
student behaviour not consistent with the Code of School Behaviour (Department of
Education Training and Employment, 2006). The Responsible Behaviour Plans were
to be developed according to a template which specified consequences for
unacceptable behaviour as one of the areas to be addressed (see Template for a
Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students, Department of Education and Training,
2014b).
In Nundah State School’s Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students (2016), for
example, time out is a ‘level 1’ consequence applied to unacceptable behaviour. There
are two other more serious levels of consequences in this plan, which include parent
contact, behaviour specialist referral and suspension. The document states that during
time out students are to be supervised and given an opportunity to re-join the class in
intervals of no more than 10 minutes. The Raising Children Network (2016) proposes
an algorithm for the length of time out for children aged 3-8 years: “one minute per
year of age, up to a maximum of five minutes” (para. 4). It is unclear from what - if
any - evidence-based literature these time indications are derived. Additionally, there
is no step-by-step procedure described in Nundah State School’s Responsible
Behaviour Plan for Students (2016); and no detail regarding what happens for students
during time out, or the process for re-entry into the classroom. As such, the school’s
behaviour plan is built on assumptions that teachers will know and understand how to
implement time out in age or developmentally appropriate ways.
While time out is a common classroom management practice, there are critics of
this approach who draw attention to its authoritarian underpinnings based in
behaviourism. Behaviour guidance authors and advocates Porter (2004) and Gartrell
(2007) stated that time out does not teach students to manage or regulate their own
behaviour. Dann (2015) argued that the use of exclusion in the time out approach is
problematic as it isolates children from relationships. He suggested instead that adults
listen to their children, be assertive, solve problems with children, and use time away,
where children calm down with the aid of adult-supported strategies such as listening
to music. Like Dann, Porter and Gartrell advocate for time away or cooling down
where students learn to ‘soothe’ themselves. Teachers provide areas in classrooms for
students, and teach students to remove themselves when necessary, encouraging them
to develop emotional self-regulation. Gartrell (2007) stated that teachers should
provide mediation and conflict management after the cooling down process. This is in
Chapter 5: Discussion 179
stark contrast to time out where students are removed by teachers with the aim being
to simply supress and remove their behaviour, with no mechanisms to support self-
regulation or opportunity to reflect on the incident. This was characteristic of ways of
seeing approaches with student behaviour in Category 1.
Time out is considered an authoritarian adult-enforced approach (Kohn, 1996;
Porter, 2004; Warren, 2014), whereas time away is an egalitarian approach which is
aimed at teaching students self-regulation (Gartrell, 2007; Porter, 2004). In the Safe,
Supportive and Disciplined School Environment procedure (Department of Education
and Training, 2017e), time out is conceptualised as part of a “calming down process”
for students, used “to reduce the frequency of a particular behaviour” (p.1). However,
the actual step-by-step process and means for achieving this are not described. The
Queensland Government’s policies and procedures thus appear to convey a preference
for particular approaches to student behaviour which have been reflected in this
category 1 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour.
The use of student disciplinary absences (SDAs) as a behaviour approach
Student disciplinary absences (SDAs) is the term used to describe student
suspension or expulsion from school. Suspension is the temporary removal of a student
from school (usually for a period of days), while expulsion is the removal of a student
from school for an extended period of time. Both suspension and expulsion are
disciplinary consequences applied by schools to address student behaviour that is
inconsistent with the Code of School Behaviour (Department of Education Training
and Employment, 2006). The Code lists detentions, including detention on a non-
school day, suspensions, exclusions and community service intervention as
Government approved consequences for serious student behaviour that does not
comply with expected standards. Suspension was an approach reported by participants
in Category 1. Suspensions were used to remove students with challenging behaviours
from the school in an effort to restore order and provide respite for the teacher and
other students from serious inappropriate behaviour. The Department of Education and
Training’s (2017e) Safe, Supportive and Disciplined School Environment procedure
details the process for student suspensions for disobedience and misbehaviour, stating
that suspensions may be applied where conduct “adversely affects the good order and
management of the school” (p.5).
180 Chapter 5: Discussion
In Category 1, providing suspensions for students with challenging behaviours
was an exclusionary approach, often adopted by school administration when teachers
felt they had exhausted all other options. Unlike latter categories characterised by
making adaptations for students (a feature of Category 3) or teaching new social
behaviours (a feature of Category 4), in Category 1 suspension was used to enforce a
school or teacher-driven need for order and compliance. The Safe, Supportive and
Disciplined School Environment (Department of Education and Training, 2017e)
procedure does not detail specific student behaviours that warrant suspension. It does
not describe specific approaches that should be adopted to support student transition
back to school following suspension. It does not specify what social and emotional
learning and classroom or curriculum adaptations might be required to prevent further
suspensions in the future. The omission of these details in this procedure document
may partially explain the seemingly reactionary approaches to student behaviour
evidenced in Category 1.
Exclusionary behaviour practices such as student disciplinary absences may lead
to adverse student outcomes. American authors, Pane and Rocco (2014), in their book
Transforming the School to Prison Pipeline, considered what happens during
disciplinary moments in schools that lead to exclusionary disciplinary consequences
that “funnel an underclass of students into the school-to-prison pipeline” (p.3). The
authors argue that whether or not students, particularly those who are poor, diverse
and failing in school, enter the school-to-prison pipeline is influenced in part by
classroom discipline. Pane and Rocco (2014) posited that the school-to-prison pipeline
cycle begins when students meet trouble in class and then become known as trouble-
makers. The pipeline continues with office referrals, suspensions, expulsions, school
failure, dropping out, juvenile incarceration and, ultimately, adult prison (Pane &
Rocco, 2014). Howard (2005), an academic with extensive experience as a behaviour
support specialist in Queensland Government schools, warned that exclusion of
students can have profound consequences for them, including educational
disadvantage, an increased risk of criminal activity and personal harm. In her PhD
research she found that school SDAs make unstable family circumstances worse and
lead to an increase in truancy and homelessness (Howard, 2005). In addition, SDAs
may lead to unemployment and a decrease in future earning potential. Attention to
approaches that exclude students, such as those seen in Category 1, deserve careful
Chapter 5: Discussion 181
scrutiny, as they may lead to adverse outcomes for students, their families and
communities.
Teacher dissatisfaction, stress and well-being
It is important to draw attention to the dissatisfaction and stress that teachers
expressed with their use of approaches specifically in Category 1. This was not evident
in other categories and is significant because dissatisfaction and stress may lead to
adverse outcomes for teachers themselves and the teaching profession generally. In
Category 1, teachers reported dissatisfaction with their approaches due to their being
unable to influence student behaviour in productive ways, especially when the
behaviour was particularly challenging and they also had academic performance
outcomes to address, such as those pertaining to literacy and numeracy targets.
In Australia, 14 percent of teachers report spending their time maintaining
classroom order (OECD, 2014). The OECDs (2014) 2013 Teaching and Learning
International Survey (TALIS) of over 100,000 teachers from 34 countries and
economies, found that classroom disciplinary issues limit students’ opportunities to
learn, with one in four teachers in most countries reportedly losing 30 percent of
teaching time through disruptions and administration tasks associated with classroom
discipline. Additionally, challenging classroom circumstances (such as classes
comprised of more than a tenth of low academic achieving students or students with
behaviour problems) was significantly associated with individual teachers’ sense of
self-efficacy and job satisfaction. The OECD stated that low self-efficacy in teachers
was linked with higher levels of teacher stress and problems dealing with students who
misbehave. In a similar vein, the Australian Education Union’s (AEU) New Educators
Survey (2008b) of 1545 Australian teachers in their first three years of teaching found
behaviour management to be beginning teachers’ second highest concern, behind
workload. In Category 1, teachers experienced finding both disruptive student
behaviour and workload stressful and this contributed to a sense of low self-efficacy
in their teaching. There was a strong sense of teacher dissatisfaction with their
approaches with student behaviour, with teachers reporting feeling powerless and
incompetent.
Classroom management is a significant issue for teachers that affects their
efficacy and well-being (Egeberg, McConney, & Price, 2016). In a Queensland report
of teacher occupational stress and well-being across the career span, using data
182 Chapter 5: Discussion
collected from 560 survey responses and 10 interviews, teacher participants suggested
it was becoming increasingly difficult to manage student behaviour (Brough, Morrow,
& Harding, 2016). The study revealed only moderate teacher job satisfaction across
the teaching career span, with Prep teachers in particular reporting low levels of work-
life balance. Educational psychologist and academic Roffey (2012) has stated that
teacher well-being is critically relevant for whole-school well-being. A stress overload
for teachers leads to poor performance which may translate into poor outcomes for
students. In addition, stress in the classroom may lead to teacher attrition (Roffey,
2012).
In Australia, attrition of early career teachers has been recently flagged as a
significant workforce issue; however, current estimates of attrition of early career
teachers are seen to vary widely (AITSL, 2016). For example, the QCT (2013)
investigation into recent graduate teacher attrition estimated from their review of
literature that the proportion of beginning teachers who leave the profession within the
first five years ranges from 8% to 50%. QCT analysed data drawn from their Register
of Teachers and cited attrition of Queensland graduated teachers as 15.2% in 2008.
Complementary to this project was the 2013 Staff in Australian Schools Study (SiAS),
which surveyed 5213 primary and 10349 secondary school teachers to gain a detailed
picture of the Australian teaching workforce, finding that 6.75% of early career
teachers intended to leave the profession permanently prior to retirement. In addition,
45% of early career teachers perceived a need for more professional learning in dealing
with difficult student behaviour (McKenzie et al., 2014), showing that student
behaviour is a significant concern for teachers, which if not addressed may contribute
to teachers exiting the profession. It can be surmised from these findings that
challenging student behaviour is a common concern for many early career teachers. If
professional learning targeting approaches for challenging student behaviour is not
actioned, early career teachers may resort to using a limited range of behaviour
strategies which may not be as effective as they would like, thus adding to feelings of
stress and incompetence.
Approaches with student behaviour that lead to teacher stress, such as those
reported in Category 1, therefore pose a risk of contributing to this early career teacher
attrition and may stifle professional growth at a crucial stage in teachers’ careers.
Timperley (2015), a professional learning and school improvement researcher who
Chapter 5: Discussion 183
was commissioned by AITSL to undertake a literature review to draw together national
and international research into conversations that support professional growth, has
noted that when people experience stress, they narrow their horizons and opportunities
to learn, and this may impact negatively on teacher professional learning and growth.
Timperley (2015) stated that supportive relationships are essential to enabling
professional growth. Roffey (2012) stated that “in communities with high levels of
social trust individuals are more likely to openly exchange information and be caring
towards each other” (p.10). This is important, as teacher social supports, and strategies
that build teacher resilience, may help teachers combat the negative effects of stress
and lead to changes in teacher practice that are more effective and productive (Roffey,
2012).
It seems that exclusionary behaviour practices may not only lead to poor
outcomes for students, their families and communities, but also to poor outcomes for
teachers regarding their well-being, career longevity and professional learning. A
focus on behaviour practices which involve teacher collaboration, promote teacher
agency and foster inclusion, as seen in the latter categories of this study, may attain
better outcomes for students, their families, communities and teachers than the ones
evidenced in Category 1.
5.5.2 Engaging to learn: Category 2
As in Category 1, the way of seeing approaches with student behaviour in
Category 2 was focused on managing. In Category 1, teachers expressed their own
need for order and control so that they could teach. However, unlike Category 1, in
this category teachers were concerned with engaging students with learning rather than
excluding them from learning, and they described using a variety of behaviour
management approaches to achieve such engagement. Therefore Category 2 was
focused on both managing and engagement.
Engagement is a term that needs to be defined and discussed at this point.
Fredricks, Blumenfeld and Paris’s (2004) seminal research on engagement defined
three types of engagement: (i) behavioural engagement, which is concerned with
student participation; (ii) emotional engagement, which encompasses students’
positive and negative reactions to teachers, peers and school; and (iii) cognitive
engagement, which requires students’ willingness to exert effort needed to develop
skills and understand complex ideas. Fredricks et al. stated that these three types of
184 Chapter 5: Discussion
engagement should not be thought of in terms of discrete entities, but instead as
multidimensional and interrelated, varying in intensity and duration. In Categories 1,
2 and 3 teachers seemed to be concerned solely with behavioural engagement, whilst
in Categories 4 and 5 teachers have regarded the three types of engagement as
interrelated.
The notion of engagement is often neglected in behaviour policy documents and
plans. While the Victorian State Government’s Department of Education and Training
(2017f) and the Tasmanian Government’s Department of Education and Training
(2016f) provide comprehensive guidance to their schools on engagement via their
student engagement policies, the other Australian States and Territories offer school
behaviour policies with very little direction on student engagement. Despite this lack
of direction in policy for Queensland teachers, in Category 2, teachers were concerned
with student engagement with learning, however they were solely focused on student
participation, that is, behavioural engagement. This may be due to this study’s
particular interview focus on ‘student behaviour’, or it could indicate that teachers
require more professional learning on the notion of engagement along with guidance
on how this can best be achieved in the classroom.
The Early Years Learning Framework states that engagement, along with well-
being and a strong sense of connection, enables children to develop a positive attitude
to learning (DEEWR, 2009). In the Grattan report on Engaging Students: Creating
Classrooms that Improve Learning, Goss, Sonnemann, and Griffiths (2017) state that
engaging classrooms enhance student behaviour and are a necessary condition for
effective teaching and learning. Considering the important relationship between
engagement, student behaviour and learning, a strong focus on teachers attending to
students’ behavioural, emotional and cognitive engagement seems vital.
There are several big ideas that stand out as warranting discussion from this
category: Essential Skills as a behaviour approach; Departmental policy and dictated
approaches and their contribution to controlling student behaviour; direct instruction
and its behavioural consequences; and time constraints inhibiting teachers’ approaches
with student behaviour.
Chapter 5: Discussion 185
Essential Skills as a behaviour approach
In Category 2, behaviour strategies from the Essential Skills for Classroom
Management (Education Queensland, 2007b) was one approach teachers described
using in this way of seeing approaches with student behaviour in Prep. The Essential
Skills for Classroom Management originated from the Queensland Government’s 2006
Better Behaviour Better Learning initiative, and has been widely adopted by
Queensland Government schools (Department of Education and Training, 2016b). The
Essential Skills for Classroom Management was originally implemented as a 3 hour
training package delivered by trained facilitators, and contained a core knowledge
component, coaching sessions, and more recently, classroom profiling. Classroom
profiling is where staff trained in this approach observe and provide feedback to
teachers on their use of the Essential Skills.
Teachers trained in using the Essential Skills set clear expectations, acknowledge
appropriate behaviour, and correct inappropriate behaviour (Education Queensland,
2007b). Teachers use the Essential Skills to communicate classroom expectations and
re-engage students with learning as needed. The set of 10 skills or strategies are: (1)
establishing expectations; (2) giving instructions; (3) waiting and scanning; (4) cueing
with parallel acknowledgment; (5) body language encouraging; (6) descriptive
encouraging; (7) selective attending; (8) redirecting to the learning; (9) giving a choice;
and (10) following through.
In Category 2, teachers particularly described using Essential Skills 2 and 4:
giving instructions and cueing with parallel acknowledgment, which are based upon
providing students with clear behavioural expectations. Education Queensland
(2007b) stated in the Essential Skills Core Learning Component that “expectations
must be stated clearly to students and followed by precise instructions” (p.6), and in
this category teachers described approaching student behaviour in this distinct manner,
with ‘giving instructions’ the most commonly expressed strategy. The teachers’ goal
for using this approach was to meet their own need for classroom order and control
(that is, management). Skill 6, descriptive encouraging, which involved teachers
describing to students the behaviours that will allow them to learn, reinforcing rules
and telling students of their competence, was also described in this category by
teachers, most often in conjunction with describing the use of individual student class-
based rewards. The Essential Skills Core Learning Component stated that this skill is
186 Chapter 5: Discussion
useful for building students’ self-esteem, encourages risk-taking in learning and may
result in students becoming more able to practise self-control. American self-
regulation researcher Zimmerman (2002) stated that educators have long focused on
social encouragement and extrinsic means to attempt to elevate students' level of
motivation with learning. However, a reliance on social encouragement may lead to
novice students’ loss of motivation. Instead, Zimmerman proposed that educators
should enhance students’ intrinsic motivation through equipping them with high-
quality self-regulatory skills, for example by teaching close self-monitoring strategies.
This particular Essential Skill then, implemented in isolation, is unlikely to fully
achieve its aim for students to practise self-control, as the development of self-control
requires a much more complex set of teaching strategies than descriptive encouraging
alone.
The use of these three skills was described by teachers in terms of prevention,
that is, preventing disruptive student behaviours from occurring in the first place; but
also, especially with regard to Skills 2 and 4, telling students what they were required
to do if their behaviour was off-task. In Category 2, teachers described the desired
outcome of using these particular Essential Skills (aimed at student compliance, order
and management) as having students successfully engage with learning. This was the
focus of teachers’ conceptions in this category, as they wanted to be able to teach the
curriculum and have children learn, without behavioural distractions. The latter
categories also contained this focus, but teachers’ means to achieving engagement with
learning was not about compliance, rather it was about teaching students social and
emotional learning behaviours that lead to self-regulation.
The Essential Skills Core Learning Component acknowledged that when
students are provided with relevant curriculum and tasks, the need for management is
reduced (Education Queensland, 2007b). This recognition is important, as attention to
aspects related to classroom ecology - that teachers have much control over - such as
the curriculum, physical environment, resources and teaching, can help prevent the
disengagement which leads to disruptive student behaviour (Sullivan et al., 2014). In
Category 2, however, teachers were concerned solely with students’ behavioural
engagement, that is, their participation in the lesson; so rather than describing selecting
relevant curriculum or resources, or adjusting the physical environment to meet the
particular learning needs of students, teachers described using the skills in isolation to
Chapter 5: Discussion 187
achieve engagement. Meeting the particular learning needs of students would have
required teachers to adapt their own teaching behaviours; a feature of Categories 3, 4
and 5.
The Essential Skills recommended that teachers establish order in their
classrooms and then respond flexibly (adapt) to management issues (Education
Queensland, 2007b). While the package has the capacity to build teachers’ knowledge
and skills in classroom management, some additional guidance concerning how to
respond in flexible ways to student management issues, beyond the use of the skills,
may contribute more effectively to their way of seeing approaches with student
behaviour in more holistic ways. In Category 2, teachers were focused on establishing
and maintaining order in their classrooms; however, responding flexibly to student
behaviour was not a consideration. This was rather a feature first seen in Category 3.
While flexibility is recommended in the Essential Skills, additional detail on what this
might look like in practice, especially with consideration to classroom ecology, may
help teachers understand how to approach student behaviour in more holistic ways and
so to move beyond a Category 2 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour.
Category 2 did not, then, represent holistic or integrated ways of seeing
approaches with student behaviour; it was rather the latter categories (4 and 5) that
showed evidence of teachers’ thinking moving beyond management to developing
students’ capacities for self-regulation. The Department of Education’s (2007b)
Essential Skills Core Learning Component recognised that when students possess a
positive self-concept and have developed self-control, behavioural corrections by
teachers are less frequently required; however, it does not elaborate on how the
development of a positive self-concept and self-control are connected with the skills.
The use of the skills in isolation then, as described by teachers in Category 2,
without thought of future implications for the development of student self-control,
leads to a more fragmented and compartmentalised approach to student behaviour.
Students will not be able to comprehend the intrinsic value of learning if they do not
learn key processes, such as goal-setting, time management, learning strategies, self-
motivational beliefs and self-evaluation, that are required for the development of self-
regulation (Zimmerman, 2002). As social learning theorist Bandura (1991) stated,
If human behavior were regulated solely by external outcomes, people would
behave like weathervanes, constantly shifting direction to conform to
188 Chapter 5: Discussion
whatever momentary social influence happened to impinge upon them. In
actuality, people possess self-reflective and self-reactive capabilities that
enable them to exercise some control over their thoughts, feelings, motivation,
and actions (p.249).
The realisation of these capabilities is, then, critical to the development of
students as life-long learners. It is important that the Essential Skills are conceptualised
thenceforth alongside equipping students with self-regulation skills, as not only are
self-regulated students more likely to do well academically, but they also view their
future more optimistically (Zimmerman, 2002).
Finally, the Essential Skills Classroom Profiling tool deserves a mention, even
though Classroom Profiling was not mentioned by participants in this study. In a study
of fifteen preservice teachers in Far-North Queensland, Classroom Profiling, a data-
driven teacher feedback tool, was seen to improve preservice teachers’ knowledge of
and confidence in using the Essential Skills for Classroom Management (Jackson et
al., 2013). While Classroom Profiling’s strength is said by Jackson et al. to lie in
providing non-judgemental and confidential feedback to teachers on their use of the
skills to promote reflection upon practice with the skills, this particular type of
feedback may contribute to teachers’ compartmentalised view of behaviour
approaches. Profiling of the Essential Skills on its own may provide limited feedback
to teachers on a partial facet of behaviour approaches. In Category 2, teachers’
descriptions of their use of the Essential Skills showed a fragmented way of seeing
approaches with student behaviour, as teachers were concerned with only two aspects:
managing and engaging. Student behaviour is complex, therefore approaching student
behaviour needs to be conceptualised as multidimensional. It is important that
educators understand how the broader classroom ecology can influence student
engagement (Sullivan et al., 2014). As found in this study, in the more multifaceted
and integrated Categories 4 and 5, additional considerations that importantly support
student behaviour need to be highlighted to preservice and in-service teachers, to
ensure a holistic view of approaching student behaviour that fosters students’
engagement as learners both now and in the future. These considerations include:
strong student-teacher and peer relationships, engaging curriculum, organised physical
environments and effective classroom routines, teacher flexibility, teachers’
appreciation of students’ perspectives on their own behaviour, meeting students’
Chapter 5: Discussion 189
social, emotional, physical and learning needs, and teaching social and emotional
learning skills.
Departmental policy and dictated approaches and their contribution to
controlling student behaviour
In this category, Departmental policy and dictated approaches to managing
student behaviour were seen to influence how teachers approached student behaviour
in the classroom, and contributed to them controlling student behaviour. One such
approach cited by teachers as influencing their approach with student behaviour was
School Wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS). SWPBS is an approach to student
behaviour that has been used in Queensland Government Schools (Department of
Education and Training, 2015c). Currently the Departmental website has undergone a
change of nomenclature regarding this approach: Positive Behaviour for Learning
(PBL) is the term that has now superseded SWPBS (Department of Education and
Training, 2016g). According to the accounts of some teachers in the Category 2 way
of seeing approaches with student behaviour, the adoption of SWPBS by schools
influenced their approach with student behaviour. Provided here is a participant quote
not contained in the categories, to highlight an issue for teachers concerning SWPBS.
Participant 3 stated:
Then I’ve been at another SWPBS school, and they’re very mandated, even
the language you say to them… So, what are you doing? What should you be
doing? And you need to be very direct. So different schools definitely have a
massive impact on the way that you approach behaviour. I3
This participant has clearly articulated the impact of educational system-
favoured approaches, frameworks and behaviour policy on her approaches with
student behaviour. Teachers who expressed the Category 2 way of seeing approaches
with student behaviour commonly cited SWPBS strategies such as the use of positive
reinforcement, rewards and consequences to motivate students to behave and engage
with the curriculum. However, it is important that SWPBS, or PBL, is not just
considered as a school-wide program of rules, rewards and consequences to be
implemented in isolation, but rather as a holistic program that pays equal attention to
the development of an engaging curriculum, effective pedagogical approaches,
students’ social and emotional development and effective student-teacher relationships
(Sugai & Simonsen, 2012). While schools must have a school-wide position and plan
190 Chapter 5: Discussion
for student behaviour, this systematic requirement may push schools to adopt
inflexible approaches to behaviour aimed at controlling student behaviour, rather than
favouring an individualistic and customised response to behaviour that aims to meet
students’ social and emotional learning needs.
Controlling student behaviour was a focus for teachers when articulating their
ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour in this category. It was not as
strongly evident in the other categories. Sullivan et al. (2014), in the South Australian
study Punish Them or Engage Them?, argued that politicians, education systems and
schools produce policies and practices that promote a sense of control in schools. In
this study, teachers were found to use strategies that frequently involved controlling
students to ensure compliance. The data in Category 2 were qualitatively different to
those in Category 1, where teachers experienced a sense of powerlessness. Conversely,
in Category 2, teachers experienced a strong sense of power bolstered by policy in
relation to managing student behaviour and to meeting their own needs for classroom
order and control. Sullivan et al. (2014) argued that school behaviour policies
encourage the use of consequences to gain effective student control, because when
teachers gain control, learning can occur. This situation was echoed in the Category 2
way of seeing approaches with student behaviour.
Teachers accounting for their approaches in this Engaging to Learn category
were concerned with approaching student behaviour in ways that ensured compliance
so they could teach and realize academic outcomes. In this category teachers cited
using rewards to promote compliance and sanctions such as consequences to deter
disruption. American education and human behaviour author Kohn (1999) noted that
the use of both rewards and punishments (often framed by schools as ‘consequences’)
do induce compliance; and Hoffmann, Huff, Patterson, and Nietfeld (2009) stated that
teachers routinely use rewards in the classroom, despite much debate in research
regarding the effect of extrinsic reinforcement on intrinsic motivation. In their mixed-
method study of 86 teachers across three large public schools in kindergarten to year
five classrooms in the United States, Hoffmann et al. reported that all teachers
indicated they used rewards in their classrooms. The most common weekly-based
rewards were verbal or written praise (100% of teachers) and tangible rewards such as
token economies and prizes (79.1% of teachers). Teachers in Hoffmann et al.’s study
stated that they believed that elementary (or primary school) teachers should use
Chapter 5: Discussion 191
rewards, as they help students to demonstrate good behaviour and help motivate them
to do their best work.
However, Kohn (1999) stated that while rewards may work in the short term, for
behaviour changes to last, rewards need to be continuous. This means that for rewards
to work effectively for behaviour change, teachers would need to commit to their
interminable use. In addition, rewards such as praise, ‘happy sticks’ and stickers do
not work to improve students’ self-motivation, as this is more likely influenced by
their underlying beliefs, including perceived efficacy and intrinsic interest
(Zimmerman, 2002). Dweck (2016), an American researcher in the field of motivation,
agreed, stating that, “praise is intricately connected to how students view their
intelligence.” (p.67). In an American study of 978 third to eighth grade students,
declines in motivation were more likely to be found in children who adopted an entity
theory of intelligence or performance goals (Haimovitz, Wormington, & Corpus,
2011). A more contemporary perspective, then, on the development of self-motivation
is that it can be affected through changing students’ attitudes and beliefs. For example,
teachers can positively influence students’ attitudes and beliefs through assisting them
to develop growth mindsets, where they are focused on the process of achievement
(Lin-Siegler, Dweck, & Cohen, 2016).
Conversely, Shiller, O'Flynn, Reineke, Sonsteng, and Gartrell (2008) stated that
the modest use of rewards can encourage intrinsic motivation in challenging
classrooms. The authors suggested that rewards were particularly useful when children
had to perform non-preferred learning tasks, or as temporary incentives to encourage
task-persistence so students can acquire basic skills for later success. This latter
statement is what differentiates the use of rewards in Categories 2 and 4. Whilst
rewards in Category 2 were used solely for the goal of student compliance, in Category
4 rewards were used to guide students’ reflection on their behaviour. Take, for
example, this participant from Category 4 talking about her individual reward system
for a Prep student:
He's someone that I have a separate rewards system for where - he loves
Despicable Me, the movie, so we make him Despicable Me puzzles. Just
laminated card and we cut them up. If he makes great choices all day he gets
to take a puzzle piece home in the afternoon and he puts it together. So that's
his carrot. But originally I thought oh I'll have to do a puzzle piece every
192 Chapter 5: Discussion
session. So if it was a good session he got a puzzle piece but yeah now we've
got it to a day. So if he has a great day, a puzzle piece, if not - like today was
the first time he didn't get one in a while and he was just being quite - he didn't
really follow instructions today and I just had that conversation with him about
two minutes before the bell, What do you think? You know, do you think you
deserve your puzzle piece today? No. Why? Oh you know I wasn't following
instructions, I was being quite noisy. Well what can you do to change that for
tomorrow? I can follow instructions, listen, that type of thing. I16
These Category 4 data are presented here to illustrate that it is this focus of the
teacher on managing, engagement, adaptions and teaching, rather than just managing
and engaging (Category 2), that makes the Category 4 way of seeing approaches with
student behaviour more sophisticated. It is clear then that rewards and punishments
can be used in different ways and can produce different outcomes.
In Category 2, both rewards and punishments were used to achieve student
compliance. Moberly et al.’s (2005) survey study of 124 pre-kindergarten to year three
teachers’ use of extrinsic rewards and punishments revealed that the first choice of
strategy teachers used for inappropriate behaviour or failure to complete a task was
loss of student recess (40.3% of 92 teacher respondents). This preference was mirrored
in the Category 2 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, where teachers
described removing a privilege such as play-time or a preferred activity for students’
failure to complete a task or as a punishment for non-compliance. This particular
strategy clearly shows a focus on managing and engaging, as teachers described using
the strategy to make children compliant (managing) to task completion (engagement).
This strategy is an unsophisticated approach concerning ways of seeing approaches
with student behaviour, as it does not aim at understanding the individual needs of
students (e.g. why they are not completing the task), that is, adapting; at teaching
students how to engage with learning (changing attitudes and beliefs); or at considering
supporting students’ growing independence (future learning and development).
It is crucial that teachers are challenged in their practice to move away from
controlling approaches with student behaviour to more child-centred approaches that
aim to teach students how to engage with learning. Policy that encourages this shift in
thinking is an important vehicle to realising this aim. Shaddock, Packer, and Roy
(2015) stated that “good policy provides good guidance and supports good practice”
Chapter 5: Discussion 193
(p.13). It is important, therefore, that policy focuses away from controlling and
punitive ways of managing behaviour to approaches that not only focus on engagement
with learning but also support the long-term development of students’ social and
emotional learning and self-regulation.
The effect of policies on teachers’ abilities to make decisions concerning student
behaviour that are in the best interests of their students cannot be underestimated. UK
educational policy analysist and theorist Ball (2003) argued that policy technologies,
that is, the market, managerialism and performativity, are mechanisms for reforming
teachers, for changing what it is to ‘be’ a teacher, resulting in “new kinds of teacher
subjects” (p.217). This reforming of teachers through policy approaches that are
compulsory in schools may have negative implications for teachers’ ability to exert
agency for the continued development of their knowledge and skills that influence the
improvement of outcomes for students (Timperley, 2015). This is important, as teacher
agency allows for the adoption of flexible approaches with student behaviour, which
are necessary when meeting the needs of diverse young learners.
Direct instruction and its behavioural consequences
The implementation of the Australian Curriculum, along with the Queensland
Government’s Curriculum into the Classroom (C2C) resource, has resulted in an
increase in instances of whole-class teaching and a rise in the use of direct instruction
methods in early years classrooms (Department of Education and Training, 2015b).
Whole-class teaching is where the class is grouped and taught together. In a Prep
classroom, this usually involves the entire class, usually between 20-28 children,
sitting together on a floor space and the teacher teaching from the front of the class.
Direct instruction is a packaged, programmed instructional model, developed in the
late 1960s by American and Canadian behavioural psychologists (Luke, 2014).
Australian researcher Luke, commenting on direct instruction in Australian Literacy
Educators’ Association’s (ALEA) Hot Topics publication, stated that teachers follow
a “step-by-step, lesson-by-lesson approach to teaching that has already been written
for them. What the teachers say and do is prescribed and scripted” (para. 4). Luke
argued that the aim of direct instruction is to place quality controls on curriculum
delivery. In Prep classrooms, this has resulted in the narrowing of teacher pedagogies.
The practice of direct instruction coincided with the introduction of the Australian
Curriculum, and this was interpreted by some to mean the “introduction of a set of
194 Chapter 5: Discussion
formal instructional approaches” (Department of Education and Training, 2015b, p.
6). This apparent formalisation of curriculum and pedagogy is a result of nation-wide
reforms aimed at improving student results. This has resulted in previously well-
accepted play-based and active learning approaches being rejected by schools, even
for children in the early years.
In Category 2, teachers articulated the tensions associated with their approaches
with student behaviour and prescribed curriculum and pedagogy. They noted a link
between formal instructional approaches and approaches with student behaviour that
were quick to implement, formulaic and rigid. This was in direct contrast to Categories
4 and 5, where teachers talked about using play-based pedagogies, and about their
adoption of behaviour approaches which were flexible, aimed at teaching self-
regulation, that used shared thinking and collaborative problem solving, and required
more time to implement.
In the Category 2 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, teachers
commonly stated that explicit or direct instruction was the pedagogical approach they
were expected to adopt in the classroom. It is important to note here that teachers in
this study often used the term explicit instruction interchangeably with the term direct
instruction, and also used other terms including instructional direction and explicit
teaching. However, these terms have different and specific meanings. Explicit
instruction is defined by Luke (2014) as:
…teacher-centred instruction that is focused on clear behavioural and
cognitive goals and outcomes. Students are told what they will be learning and
how, and what they have to do to show that they have succeeded in learning
whatever it is. The aim of explicit instruction is a strong focus on curriculum
content and clarity for all about the criteria for performance expected (para.
7).
In direct instruction, Luke (2014) says teachers:
…follow a step-by-step, lesson-by-lesson approach to instruction that follows
a pre-determined skill acquisition sequence… The prescribed approach to
teaching is tightly paced, linear and incremental, aiming to maximize time on-
task, and positively reinforce student behaviours. Teachers receive rigorous
training and a directive teachers’ guidebook. The strict scripting of teacher
Chapter 5: Discussion 195
behaviour is an attempt to place quality controls on the delivery of the
curriculum (p1).
In this study, it seemed direct instruction is what teacher participants were
talking about when referring to the use of the Department’s Curriculum into the
Classroom (C2C) resource. Participants told of how the C2C resource was used in
their school as a prescribed approach to pedagogy and how they taught the C2C as
scripted, in a lesson-by-lesson approach. In this category, the way in which this direct
instruction pedagogy was to be implemented in the classroom was often at odds with
Prep teachers’ recognition of the need to be flexible and responsive in their
pedagogical approach to teaching young Prep students. Here I present a couple of
quotes from the data not contained in the categories, to best explain this. Participant 4
stated:
That was the big thing, differentiation, and I think with your early childhood
philosophy you always teach the child however they learn best. So going into
this very, to me, instructional direction of I say and you listen, open head, pour
it in, give it back to me data collection for outcomes, was a big question mark.
I4
The above quote suggests that Participant 4 felt that this “instructional direction”
pedagogical approach was at odds with her professional philosophy. It seems that this
teacher felt she had been denied the opportunity to exercise her professional judgement
in choosing pedagogical approaches that best suited the learning needs of her students.
This centralised control of pedagogy via curriculum risks the de-skilling of teachers
(Apple, 2012). In addition, this perceived focus on direct instruction stopped teachers
from being able to approach student behaviour in ways they might otherwise have
preferred. For instance Participant 3 stated:
So why I was saying that is because the structure of school, we have
expectations and we’re told that we must do, we must do explicit teaching, we
must do these warm ups, we must do, we must do teaching in a certain way,
like we are being dictated to by the school how we do, do certain things. So I
have to follow suit with that, and it doesn’t fit well with lots of students, well
lots of students? …Half the class probably do really well with it, then there’s
another quarter that you know struggle but you know they are getting there.
And then there is another little pocket that find that really, really difficult to
learn like that. So that’s how it impacts me is I guess what I was trying to say.
196 Chapter 5: Discussion
I have to do stuff that maybe sometimes feels - philosophically I don’t believe
in, but I’m part of the school, so I have to do it and to get them learn I have to
use certain behaviour strategies that I maybe do not use another time . I3
This quote from Participant 3 illustrates the challenge teachers experience when
they are provided with narrowly-focused and rigidly-adopted school-based
approaches. This has been a particular issue for many Prep teachers who have had to
negotiate tensions associated with balancing the wide range of development needs of
young learners alongside compulsory curriculum and pedagogical approaches
(Gaedtke, 2010). This challenge may have hindered teachers’ ability to adopt the more
flexible approaches described in Categories 3-5.
Time constraints inhibit teachers’ approaches with student behaviour
In the Category 2 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, approaches
that were quick to implement (such as sticker rewards) were described. It appeared
that time constraints were a major barrier to teachers being able to respond flexibly to
students’ needs, as seen in Categories 3-5. Even if teachers wanted to use more flexible
approaches, time factors prevented them from doing so. Provided here are three quotes
from the data that illuminate the voices of teachers, and in so doing highlight the
challenges that prevent them from implementing more holistic approaches with
student behaviour. Participant 3, reflecting on taking a different Prep class for monthly
art lessons, explained:
The first few weeks I give stickers out lots because they’re new at school and
it’s a really quick easy way to give them something and they think oh that’s
great and they get it right away and put it on their bag and feel good about
themselves … So I think sometimes too you change things for time
management as well, like that was definitely for time management because I
knew that I was only in the classroom for a short amount of time. I don’t have
them all the time, I only have them every 4 weeks for one hour so I took
stickers for that class because it’s just a short block of time and I want to get
the learning done and I know that that’s going to work. I3
The final part of this statement from Participant 3, that she wanted “to get the
learning done,” is typical of the Category 2 way of seeing approaches with student
behaviour. Participants 19 and 15 also noted time and curriculum demands as barriers
Chapter 5: Discussion 197
to being able to approach behaviour in the way they would prefer to. Consider these
two quotes:
I mean the causes of those are things like the size of the curriculum, the not
having time. But if I want children to take time to think about their behaviours
and to make adjustments and choices, I need to do that with them. So there are
times where you don't, just because it's just the way - I mean it’s five minutes
before the parents come in. You've got to get all the bags in. You have to have
the children sitting down, you've got to mark your afternoon roll and get that
saved through OneSchool. So sometimes those structural things and those
business things get in your way from really approaching a person the way I
want to. I19
I think that's what's posing that big problem now because we are so busy and
we've got - with this Australian Curriculum we've got so much to get through
that almost if we don't have that perfect structure and perfect behaviour,
almost, it's almost proving - it just can't happen. I15
From these quotes it may be plausible to assume that curriculum, time demands
and structural processes, like needing to submit rolls to OneSchool twice a day, are
practical but time consuming tasks that hinder teachers approaching student behaviour
in more integrated and holistic ways. OneSchool is a program that helps schools
manage key teaching and school administrative activities, such as tracking student
attendance and behaviour, and reporting on student academic outcomes (Department
of Education and Training, 2017d).
There was an obvious tension between time constraints associated with
implementing the curriculum that teachers talk about in Category 2 versus the
approaches to behaviour they would like to adopt. A review of the Australian
Curriculum by Donnelly and Wiltshire (2014) revealed that appeasing many different
stakeholders in the curriculum development process resulted in an overcrowded
curriculum. Donnelly and Wiltshire found that this overcrowding has risked de-
skilling teachers; has contributed to a lack of teacher autonomy; and has not provided
teachers with the flexibility necessary to adequately meet the needs of their learners.
Von Oppell’s (2016) PhD thesis, a mixed-methods study of Abu Dhabi teachers’
beliefs about their practice and the factors that influence implementation of
constructivist practices, found that teachers felt that additional workload impacted
198 Chapter 5: Discussion
their performance and ability to differentiate student learning. In the current study,
flexibility was key to teachers approaching student behaviour in more holistic ways
and this was evidenced in Categories 3, 4 and 5. By choosing resources and
pedagogical approaches that catered for students’ learning preferences, interests and
their emotional and social capacities, teachers were able to successfully influence their
students’ social, emotional and learning needs.
In this study it was found that curriculum and time demands constrained
teachers’ approaches with student behaviour. Accountability factors have also
impacted on teachers’ ability to effectively teach their students (Donnelly & Wiltshire,
2014). These issues were reflected in Category 2, as teachers often explained they felt
constrained by school-dictated pedagogical approaches, teaching a crowded
curriculum and general accountability pressures. Canadian researchers Nichols and
Parsons (2011) stated that heavy accountability means teachers ‘respond’ rather than
‘lead’. The authors believe that intensification of teaching limits democratic
opportunities for teachers, as time constraints mean their attention is diverted to
decisions that require an immediate response. In addition, Von Oppell (2016) found
that time constraints reduce teachers’ capacity to adopt a creative approach to
developing an engaging curriculum and lessons. In this category, teachers expressed
their frustration with school-based accountability pressures and felt there was often
little opportunity to make autonomous decisions regarding their pedagogical
approaches.
In Category 2 an overcrowded curriculum, time-constraints and school-based
approaches like direct instruction led to teachers approaching student behaviour in a
way that was compartmentalised and inflexible by nature, with a focus on managing.
Coercive behaviour strategies were applied by teachers to engage students in learning
so the teacher could teach the curriculum. Consequently, in the Category 2 way of
seeing approaches with student behaviour, teachers experienced their approach with
student behaviour as isolated from teaching. Nichols and Parsons (2011) emphasised
that it is important for teachers’ voices to be heard. This study has sought to illuminate
teachers’ voices through the analysis and discussion of the data and in so doing
highlight issues that constrain effective teacher practice with student behaviour. As
teachers greatly influence student learning and development, it is important that school
Chapter 5: Discussion 199
administration and policy-makers understand their experiences and find ways to
address the issues raised in this discussion.
5.5.3 Adapting to Engage: Category 3
As in Categories 1 and 2, the way of seeing approaches with student behaviour
in Category 3 was focused on managing. Like Category 2, there was also a focus on
approaches with student behaviour that aimed to engage students with learning.
However, what was new in this category was a focus on teachers adapting their
practice to engage students with learning in inclusive ways (rather than the exclusion
seen in the previous categories). In this category, teachers’ ways of seeing their
approaches with student behaviour were more complex and holistic compared to
Categories 1 and 2. Teachers were less concerned with compliance, and instead were
concerned with attempting to understand individual students and to cater for their
needs in a way that facilitated engagement with the curriculum.
Timperley (2015) drew attention to the notion of teachers as ‘adaptive experts,’
that is, being able to work out when known routines are not working for students and
to develop innovative approaches as needed. In this category, teachers expressing
relevant conceptions were engaged as adaptive experts, being flexible in their practice,
describing how they used their understanding of their Prep students to adapt their own
practice to engage them in learning. This notion of teachers being adaptive experts has
important implications for teachers’ professional learning and growth. When teachers
are able to identify what is or is not working for students, they are more likely to
develop innovative approaches; and, importantly, they also contribute to the wider
knowledge-base (Timperley, 2011).
The big ideas that stand out as warranting discussion from this category are:
catering for diversity with flexible approaches to student behaviour, and ‘whole-
school’ approaches and student behaviour.
Catering for diversity with flexible approaches to student behaviour
Today’s classrooms comprise of students with diverse learning, social and
emotional needs. Teachers respond to these needs with responsive and flexible
practices. Copple and Bredekamp (2009), in their landmark work on Developmentally
Appropriate Practice (DAP), encouraged educators to be responsive to individual
differences in children’s abilities and interests. DAP is the National Association for
200 Chapter 5: Discussion
the Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC) foundational work, describing an
approach to teaching based on knowledge of how young children develop and learn
and on effective early childhood practice. Similarly to DAP’s call for responsiveness
to individual differences, the Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority
(2017) stated that inclusive strategies and the adjustment of learning experiences
should be considered by educators to cater for diversity. Differentiation, tailoring or
adaptation of teaching strategies and the use of the physical environment by teachers
were common approaches described in Category 3.
Differentiation can be described as responsive teaching which meets the varying
cultural, physical, social, emotional and cognitive learning needs and interests of
students (Monaghan, 2016; Tomlinson, 2016). Consideration of students’ prior
knowledge and experience forms the basis of differentiated learning. American author,
Tomlinson (2016), believes few teachers actually differentiate learning effectively,
due to traditional beliefs about teaching and to the inflexible nature of schooling
systems. While Categories 1 and 2 evidenced approaches with student behaviour that
were rigid and inflexible by nature, Category 3 approaches were centred on teachers
understanding individual students’ needs and catering for them through differentiation.
The notion of differentiation is well supported in Departmental policy, for example,
the Queensland Department of Education and Training (2014c) argued for
differentiated and explicit teaching as a regular part of curriculum provision to respond
to students’ particular learning needs, including those who require behaviour support.
They stated:
Informed by student performance data and validated research, teachers vary
what students are taught, how they are taught and how students demonstrate
what they know. Teachers differentiate instruction in response to data and day-
to-day monitoring that indicates the particular learning needs of students.
Teachers purposefully plan a variety of ways to: engage students; assist them
to achieve the expected learning; and to demonstrate their learning (p.1).
In addition, (ACARA, 2013) stated:
Teachers take account of the range of their students’ current levels of learning,
strengths, goals and interests and personalise learning where necessary
through adjustments to the teaching and learning program (p. 6)
Chapter 5: Discussion 201
ACARA (2013) suggested instructional adjustments, such as using personal
interests to motivate and engage students; the provision of alternative resources,
equipment and furnishings; and using the Australian Curriculum general capability,
personal and social capability, to support students’ social and emotional development.
Many of these adjustments featured in teachers’ descriptions of their approaches with
student behaviour in Category 3. For example, participants talked about using a
‘joining’ strategy, where they added a personal item of interest - such as a dinosaur -
to the learning activity in order to engage a particular student. This adaptation by the
teacher was a defining feature of Category 3. By using alternative resources to those
contained in lesson plans, resources which had personal relevance to individual
students who were perceived as being disengaged, they were able to bring the student
into the group and engage them in the lesson. Such a flexible approach, evidenced in
Category 3, offers positive outcomes for students’ learning and social development.
The Queensland Department of Education and Training’s (2016c) Every Student
Succeeding State Schools Strategy 2016–2020 also stated that teachers should meet
their learners’ needs by creating a culture of engaging learning focused on achievement
and catering for individual students’ social and emotional needs. Behaviour guidance
advocate Porter (2014) stated that fewer disruptive student behaviours and more
prosocial behaviours are evidenced when teachers minimise conflicts between
themselves and students, provide students with emotional support, display sensitivity,
respond to students’ academic needs, and show regard for their perspectives. Whereas
in Category 2 teachers described using strategies focused on controlling students for
engaging learners, Category 3 shows responsiveness by teachers acting in ways that
show flexibility and a consideration of students’ perspectives to promote their
engagement. This responsiveness to individual needs was central to the Category 3
way of seeing approaches with student behaviour and, in the context of this study’s
five categories, is a precursor to considering approaches with student behaviour in
more complex and holistic ways. Teachers’ responsiveness to individual students’
needs is necessary to successfully support student behaviour.
If flexibility is key to approaching student behaviour in more holistic ways, then
it would seem reasonable that the importance of flexible approaches is highlighted for
teachers in educational policy and procedures. Shaddock, Neill, Limbeek, and
Hoffman-Raap (2007), in a study of 294 Australian teachers, examined teaching
202 Chapter 5: Discussion
adaptations used with students with disabilities. The researchers discovered that the
biggest barrier to inclusive practice for teachers was demands on their time. Reasons
teachers gave for not adapting their practice revolved around issues with resourcing
(including time), logistical issues and departmental or school-based policies that
restricted adaptations. These findings by Shaddock et al. (2007) were reflected in
Categories 1 and 2 in this study, where teachers were unable to approach student
behaviour in preferred ways due to time factors and school-based policies which
constrained their practice. These issues hindered teachers’ inclusive approaches with
student behaviour, yet, the adoption of flexible approaches by teachers, as seen in
Category 3, is necessary to effectively cater for the diverse needs of students in the
classroom and to foster inclusion.
‘Whole-school approaches and student behaviour
Whole-school approaches to student behaviour are said to be more effective than
individual teacher practice alone (De Nobile et al., 2015). De Nobile et al. (2015) stated
that whole-school behaviour management programs comprise the interactions of
school culture, leadership, teacher and student behaviours. Whole-school behaviour
management frameworks are developed for the whole-school, and include policies and
procedures that define appropriate and inappropriate behaviours, and describe the
rights and responsibilities of students and teachers (De Nobile et al., 2015).
School Wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS) is an example of a whole-
school approach to behaviour. It is a multi-level, whole-school approach which
provides universal (tier 1), targeted (tier 2) and intensive (tier 3) supports to manage
student behaviour (Tyre & Feuerborn, 2017a). Key SWPBS practices include the
communication of school-wide behavioural expectations, behavioural
acknowledgements and consequences, targeted interventions and intensive support
measures such as behaviour intervention plans and functional behavioural assessment.
In contrast, KidsMatter, another whole-school systemic approach, aims to improve
children’s mental health and well-being through mental health promotion, prevention
and early intervention and is based on the premise that a whole-school approach can
be protective of students (Dix, Slee, Lawson, & Keeves, 2012; P. Slee et al., 2009).
KidsMatter has four key components: (1) positive school community; (2) social and
emotional learning; (3) parenting support and education; and (4) early intervention for
students experiencing mental health difficulties (Slee et al. 2009). This whole-school
Chapter 5: Discussion 203
approach is quite different in nature to the often-adopted SWPBS or Positive
Behaviour for Learning (PBL) approach. It may be valuable for schools to consider
how different whole-school approaches may best support students’ social and
emotional growth and learning.
In the SWPBS approach, specific interventions and strategies, tailored to meet
particular circumstances of students who require additional attention are encouraged
via the use of Functional Behaviour Analysis (FBA) (Curtis et al., 2010). While
school-based approaches such as SWPBS advocate for individualised approaches
through the application of FBA, the whole-school approach could be interpreted as
inflexible if it is interpreted as a one-size-fits-all model. Many teachers in this study
described the challenge of adapting their approach for individuals when the school
rules/procedures dictated a particular way of addressing student behaviour. For
example, Participant 5 in this study talked about her four year old Prep student, who
at the beginning of the school year hit another child in a busy playground at lunch time.
The school-based procedure for all hitting incidents was to send the perpetrator to the
school responsibility room and for the incident to be reported on OneSchool. The Prep
student’s teacher (Participant 5) was not on playground duty that day and had not
witnessed the incident, but on her way back to the classroom had come across the
distressed child running away and the frustrated playground-duty teacher. Participant
5 commented:
…he just didn’t know how to respond, they didn’t know how to respond to
him and when I caught them at the end of lunch time he was very distressed,
they were distressed because it was like well you're like talking different
languages, he doesn’t understand what you mean, he doesn’t know about the
responsibility room. So I think, early childhood, they need to come and talk to
the teacher about it because there’s always a little background isn’t there too
as to why he may have behaved like that. I5
This participant’s view was that her student, being new to Prep, did not
understand the school procedure of the responsibility room and that the school
procedure was not developmentally appropriate to the student’s age. She thought that
the school procedure should be able to be adapted to the individual student’s needs and
circumstances, particularly in this first year of school. While the Statement of
Expectations for a Disciplined School Environment (Department of Education
204 Chapter 5: Discussion
Training and Employment, 2013) states that implementation of the school-wide plan
must be adapted to students, it lacks guidance on what this means in practice.
Participant 5 articulated the importance of developing a relationship and understanding
individual children in order to cater for their needs. The playground teacher upholding
the schools’ responsibility room consequence in this instance created much confusion
and distress for a Prep student. Unlike the Prep teacher, this teacher may not have
known the child concerned, so was unable to adapt the approach. This shows the
importance of teachers knowing individual students, including their developmental
understanding of school-based rules, so that they can adopt flexible approaches that
support student behaviour.
A limitation to the implementation of SWPBS in schools is staff “buy-in”. Tyre
and Feuerborn (2017a) stated that negative outcomes may occur for both students and
staff if whole-school approaches to student behaviour are not understood and
implemented rigorously and consistently by school staff. Looking at the above
example, it could also be suggested that the distress of the Prep child was caused by a
lack of effective communication of school-wide behavioural expectations and
consequences. Tyre & Feuerborn’s (2017a) qualitative study of 1210 school staff in
Washington, USA across 36 elementary, middle and high schools, found that reasons
for low support for Schoolwide Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports
(SWPBIS) could be attributed to lack of consistency, misunderstandings of SWPBIS,
and philosophical disagreement. Participant 5 showed a low level of support for the
whole-school behaviour procedure of the responsibility room, based on her
philosophical disagreement with its use with this particular Prep-aged student. As a
way forward, understanding teachers’ views of such approaches is vital to effective
evaluation of whole-school programs and implementation that meets the diverse needs
of individual learners, and allows teachers to conceptualise their philosophy alongside
the program.
5.5.4 Learning to Engage: Category 4
In the Category 4 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, teachers
were still concerned with managing and engaging and were adapting their practice to
meet the needs of individuals; but in this category there was a new focus on teaching
students the social skills needed to successfully interact with others and to be engaged
learners. Teachers discussed using approaches to teach social skills and to promote
Chapter 5: Discussion 205
engagement with learning, such as role-plays, modelling and class discussions.
Teachers in Category 4, therefore are seen to be focusing their efforts on students
learning to engage.
The big ideas that stand out as warranting discussion from this category are:
teaching social skills as a behaviour approach; relationships as being central to
approaches with student behaviour; and inclusion as a behaviour approach.
Teaching social and emotional skills as a behaviour approach
Teachers articulating their approaches with student behaviour in Category 4
were focused on the deliberate teaching of social skills. The idea of teaching students
social skills is central to Gartrell’s (2007) guidance approach, and this sits theoretically
towards the egalitarian end of Porter’s (2006) continuum of theories of discipline. In
Gartrell’s (2007) guidance approach, children learn to function autonomously when
they are guided, rather than punished for their behavioural errors. The consequence for
children’s mistaken behaviour is for them to learn positive social skills through
intentional teaching. Porter’s (2006) continuum charts a range of theories of discipline,
from authoritarian to egalitarian, depending on where the balance of power rests. What
makes the guidance approach sit towards the egalitarian end of the continuum is its
shared power between teachers and children (power with). The guidance approach is
aimed at meeting students’ needs, enabling them to learn and to behave pro-socially
through teacher guidance and ultimately supporting students’ autonomy rather than
behaviour being continually controlled by teachers (power over).
The National Safe Schools Framework: All Australian Schools are Safe,
Supportive and Respectful Teaching and Learning Communities that Promote Student
Wellbeing (SCSEEC, 2013) supports a focus on student engagement with learning, on
cooperative learning and on the intentional teaching of social and emotional skills,
integrated across all school subjects and year levels to enhance students’ well-being,
relationships and safety. Key effective practices include the explicit teaching of skills
to assist students to develop friendships, conflict management skills, empathy,
resilience, assertiveness, learning about self-protection, dealing with peer pressure,
and advocating for others in unsafe situations. Included in these effective practices are
the design and delivery of targeted support and early interventions that aid students’
social skill development, where students exhibit anti-social behaviour or experience
difficulties with peer relationships (SCSEEC, 2013).The National Safe Schools
206 Chapter 5: Discussion
Framework ideals were evidenced in the Category 4 way of seeing approaches with
student behaviour. Teachers’ thinking and actions centred on proactively teaching
students the skills needed to interact and communicate appropriately with peers and to
successfully engage in the curriculum and wider school activities. They identified the
individual social, emotional and learning needs of their students, implemented
interventions and provided targeted support to develop skills. Teachers were less
concerned with controlling student behaviour as witnessed in the earlier categories,
and instead were more concerned with working with students to improve their well-
being, relationships, safety and engagement with the curriculum.
In the Australian Curriculum: Health and Physical Education (F-10) for the
Foundation (Prep) year, the curriculum content descriptor for the Personal, Social and
Community Health strand: Communicating and interacting for health and wellbeing,
supported by the Personal and Social Capability cross curriculum priority includes
teaching students social and personal skills to interact positively with others and
fostering the use of appropriate language to communicate feelings across a range of
situations (ACARA, 2015). The content of this curriculum provides teachers with a
platform to justify the importance of teaching these skills and integrating them across
the curriculum learning areas in Prep. Similarly, the Early Years Learning Framework
(EYLF), with its emphasis on play-based learning, communication and social and
emotional development, accentuates the importance of children’s holistic
development, encouraging educators to explicitly model communication strategies that
support peer interactions and to discuss with children their emotional responses to
situations in order to develop their understanding of self-control (DEEWR, 2009).
Both these documents the Health and Physical Education curriculum for the
Foundation (Prep) year and the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) - have
synergy with Prep teachers’ approaches with student behaviour in Category 4. In this
category, teachers acted in ways that recognised the holistic nature of children’s
development and aimed at scaffolding students’ development of self-control, so that
they were able to be effective and engaged learners. Importantly, this more integrated
Category 4 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour is likely to provide
positive benefits for both students and teachers, including well-being, effective
relationships and engaged learning.
Chapter 5: Discussion 207
The teaching of social and emotional skills may be supported through adoption
of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) programs, and this is encouraged in Australian
schools (Department of Education and Training, 2016e; KidsMatter, 2017b, 2017c;
Linke, 2011). For example, KidsMatter, an Australian Government and Beyondblue
funded initiative, supports and trains school staff to provide mental health and well-
being programs that enhance the lives of children, also targeting the participation of
families, health services and the wider community. KidsMatter (2017c) states that:
Social and emotional learning (SEL) skills are crucial for a child's mental
health and wellbeing. A whole-school approach to teaching SEL enables these
to become strategic, consistent and fully embedded (para 1.)
Social and emotional learning programs impact positively on students’ academic
outcomes and behaviour. Payton et al.’s (2008) report, summarising three large-scale
reviews of research on the impact of SEL programs involving 317 studies and 324,303
elementary and middle-school children, showed that SEL programs that seek to foster
a variety of social and emotional skills did in effect improve these skills and students’
attitudes about self and others, connection to school, positive social behaviour and
academic performance. SEL programs were also seen to reduce students’ challenging
behaviours and emotional issues (Payton et al., 2008). Teachers articulating
conceptions in Category 4 supported social emotional learning via the intentional
teaching of skills they saw their students needed to interact positively and productively
with others in the classroom; however, the actual use of formal SEL programs, like
KidsMatter, did not feature in their approaches with student behaviour.
Another relevant study was conducted by Durlak, Dymnicki, Taylor, Weissberg,
and Schellinger (2011), who produced a meta-analysis of 213 social and emotional
learning (SEL) school-based programs involving 270,034 students from kindergarten
to high school. It was found, as in Payton et al.’s report, that students involved in SEL
programs showed enhanced social and emotional skills, behaviour adjustment,
attitudes towards self and others and academic performance. The integration of
emotion, cognition, communication and behaviour in SEL programs is important, as
attempts to foster discrete emotional skills without also teaching social-interaction
skills could be limited from an intervention stance (Durlak et al., 2011). Durlak et al.
argued that SEL programs are more likely to be effective if they attend to the following
SAFE features:
208 Chapter 5: Discussion
Sequenced step-by-step training approach;
Active forms of learning;
Sufficient time on skill development; and
Explicit learning goals.
Durlak et al.’s (2011) conclusions point to implications that are relevant to this
study’s findings, as the isolated teaching of social skills - as described by participants
in Category 4 - which sit outside of SEL programs with SAFE features, may not have
the intended effectiveness. While the teaching of social and emotional skills as
described by teachers articulating conceptions in this category show a more considered
and integrated approach to student behaviour, teachers may require further training in
evidenced-based SEL programs, so that they can be confident in the effectiveness of
their approach. In addition, factors that sit outside the teaching of social and emotional
skills and impact on student behaviour approaches also need to be considered. Gillies
(2016) cautioned that educational initiatives focused towards the development of
social and emotional skills, often overlook the institutional and structural issues that
frame behaviour in schools. It is important, therefore, that a wider perspective is taken
and policy, school-based procedures and issues of power are carefully examined to
assess their contribution to student behaviour.
As the adoption of SEL programs has been shown to benefit students’
development of social and emotional skills, positive behaviour and associated
academic achievement, training for Prep teachers in the implementation of SEL
programs should be prioritised, along with the provision of sufficient time to
successfully implement such programs. Payton et al. (2008) stated that some educators
argue against implementing SEL due to time taken away from academic learning. The
need for time featured prominently in comments in this Category 4 way of seeing
approaches with student behaviour. Teachers expressed the view that the teaching of
social skills takes time, and they prioritized this as they were concerned with meeting
the needs of their students. Participants’ awareness of the interaction between
approaches with behaviour and engagement with learning and teaching showed the
holistic and integrative nature of Category 4 thinking. It is important that the
foregrounded variation that exists in this category, as presented in the analysis and this
discussion, are highlighted to teachers, so that they understand the approaches that
Chapter 5: Discussion 209
positively enhance students’ social and emotional development and associated well-
being, attitudes, behaviour and learning outcomes.
Relationships are central to approaches with student behaviour
In the Category 4 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, participants
often talked about the importance of collaborating with others in the way they
approached student behaviour. Forming and maintaining relationships with parents
and teacher aides was seen as important for understanding students’ needs and for
communicating how they were approaching student behaviour so that there was a
consistent approach in the classroom and at home. Collaboration is an important
consideration for approaching student behaviour in more holistic ways. Positive
student-teacher relationships, and partnerships forged between teachers, parents and
other school staff, encourage a more collaborative and inclusive approach to
supporting student behaviour, the results of which are increased student attendance,
improved academic outcomes and better student behaviour (Samples, 2010).
The Department of Education Training and Employment (2015) developed a
Parent and Community Engagement Framework, recognising that parents and broader
communities play vital roles in supporting successful student outcomes.
Considerations for supporting parent and community engagement include the
development of a shared set of expectations about learning in schools, and teachers
seeking to understand and learn about students through the partnerships forged with
parents (Department of Education, Training and Employment, 2015). However,
Samples (2010) saw an issue with teachers engaging parents in learning, stating that
educators often don’t know how to go about this. This may have been reflected in the
earlier categories (Categories 1 and 2), as teacher participants either described merely
reporting the challenging student behaviour to parents (rather than seeking parents’
perspectives or engaging them in decision making) or did not report any involvement
with parents concerning student behaviour. The latter more inclusive categories of this
study saw a shift in this approach, with a focus on engaging parents as partners and
evidenced thinking about students and their behaviour in relation to the wider school
community.
Participants in Category 4 often also discussed the importance of collaboration
with their teacher aides. Shaddock, Nielsen, Giorcelli, Kilham, and Hoffman-Raap
(2007), in their study of different models of teacher-teacher assistant relationships in
210 Chapter 5: Discussion
five Australian school sites, saw the need for teachers and teacher assistants to engage
in joint, team-based professional development, along with the need to arrange
workloads to allow sufficient time for teacher-teacher aide relationship building and
collaborative planning. The need for ‘time’ is critically important here for effective
relationship development and planning that will generate cohesive and consistent
approaches with student behaviour in the classroom. It would also seem imperative
that teacher aides, along with teachers, are jointly involved in professional learning on
approaches with student behaviour.
Typical of Gartrell’s (2007) guidance approach is attention to the development
of positive student-teacher relationships, an important feature of Category 4 teachers
in this study. The quality of student-teacher interactions has been found to impact on
student learning and behaviour (Liberante, 2012). For instance, Caputi, Lecce, and
Pagnin’s (2017) longitudinal study of 45 Italian children over a three year period found
that the teacher-child relationship had a significant effect on academic achievement.
Similarly, Archambault et al.’s (2017) quantitative study of 385 third and fourth grade
students and their teachers in Canadian schools found that behavioural engagement
was greater in students who reported close relationships with their teachers. The
authors cautioned, however, that an emotional bond between teachers and students
may not be adequate to positively affect students’ enthusiasm for learning. They
suggest rather that teacher pedagogical strategies and activities may better predict
students’ interest in and enjoyment of learning.
In The Quality School Teacher (Glasser, 1993) Glasser argued the importance of
positive and reciprocal student teacher relationship, noting that in quality schools
teachers position themselves in the classroom as the ‘leader’ rather than the ‘boss’, and
student-teacher relationships are collaborative in nature. Effective relationships mean
that teachers and students get to know and understand each other; and ‘knowing’
students allows teachers to adapt their practice and meet their students’ learning needs.
This understanding is reflected in this Category 4 way of seeing approaches with
student behaviour, as teachers identified the link between understanding students and
then acting in ways that equip them with the knowledge and skills of how to behave
and engage in learning. In addition, teachers expressing their views in this category
saw their class as a community of learners, rather than just as students in isolation.
Awareness of this dimension is important, as the forging of positive student-teacher
Chapter 5: Discussion 211
relationships allows teachers to approach student behaviour in more holistic and
integrative ways.
Inclusion as a behaviour approach
Inclusive approaches with student behaviour were evidenced in Category 4.
Teachers described acting in ways that brought students into the group, rather than
excluding them as in Categories 1 and 2. For example, teachers described purposefully
discussing social issues with students in class meetings to develop their collaborative
problem solving skills, empathy and caring attitudes. In the Early Years Learning
Framework (EYLF), educators are encouraged to support inclusion through play-
based learning, helping children to recognise unfairness, considering alternative
perspectives and identifying ways to build an inclusive, caring and fair learning
community (DEEWR, 2009). Inclusion as an approach is embedded throughout the
Framework and provides clear guidance for educators of inclusive practice in the early
years. The Department of Education and Training (2016) supports inclusion in schools
in the following terms:
Inclusive education ensures that schools are supportive and engaging places
for all school community members. It builds communities that value, celebrate
and respond to diversity. It is underpinned by respectful relationships between
learners and school community members. It is supported by collaborative
relationships with parents and communities through communication, learning
partnerships, participation and consultative decision-making (para 2).
This quote by the Department of Education and Training (2016) shows inclusion
as having a joint focus on relationships, collaboration, communication and decision
making. Inclusion was an important dimension in Category 4, with teacher participants
describing a strong focus on communication and collaboration, both with students and
parents, to support student behaviour. Teachers articulating conceptions in this
category identified children as part of the whole-class group, a community of learners,
rather than as isolated individuals, and they acted in ways that supported this, for
example, the use of the ‘love chair’ (see Chapter 4, Category 4) the strategy described
by one participant to support friendships. Including parents as partners in their child’s
education was also important in this category, evidenced by teachers communicating
with parents to gain an understanding of student behaviour from a different perspective
212 Chapter 5: Discussion
and working collaboratively to find solutions to support behaviour across both school
and home.
While inclusive education is endorsed in school policy, it seems that in practice,
implementing inclusion is challenging for teachers. Gillies (2016) described inclusion
as an approach founded on a “morally infused stand against discrimination” (p.101),
with a commitment to support all learners as equally valued and entitled, thus allowing
them to be treated differently because of the social and structural classifications they
hold. However, Gilles, a UK social policy and criminology researcher, sees inclusion
policies to be lacking due to being characterised as promoting equality and celebrating
diversity rather than really examining influences on the day-to-day practices that lead
to disadvantage in schools. Orsati and Causton-Theoharis (2013) undertook a critical
discourse analysis of commentaries by eleven teachers and teacher aides in
Kindergarten to year-four classrooms in America to understand their practices and
beliefs around young children’s challenging behaviours. Their analysis found that
teachers labelled students rather than the behaviours as challenging, showing that
behaviour was understood as an individual characteristic of students. Exclusion was
found to be a natural response to challenging behaviour and was used to maintain
classroom control. These findings have synergy with this study, as earlier categories
(1 and 2) showed similar rejection of students with challenging behaviours. Teachers
saw behaviour as an individual characteristic of students and used exclusion to gain
student compliance and to meet their need for classroom control. This is in direct
contrast to Category 4, where teachers were more concerned about meeting their
students’ needs, and saw challenging student behaviour as an impetus to teach social
and emotional skills.
Australian inclusive education researcher, Slee (2014), asserted that exclusion is
a common tradition in contemporary schooling. He suggested that:
…the ready availability of discourses of individual behaviour, mental health,
brain pathology and defectiveness may prove seductive in education, where
the pressure for demonstrating raised standards creates surplus students- those
who threaten the attainment and ranking of schools (p.13).
This is seen to result in schools become unsympathetic to such students and more
likely to defer to exclusive practices (Slee, 2014). In the data from this study, there
was an overarching pressure described by teachers of school leaders pushing for higher
Chapter 5: Discussion 213
student learning outcomes in the Prep year. Teachers articulated that this pressure was
a barrier to approaching student behaviour in more inclusive and holistic ways, and
subsequently often resulted in approaches that were focused on compliance and
control. It may be plausible to think that a fragmented focus on achievement then may
be linked to exclusive approaches. A greater emphasis on teachers widening their
awareness to the range of dimensions that support holistic behaviour approaches would
be fruitful.
As inclusive practice can been seen to contribute to a more sophisticated way of
seeing approaches with student behaviour, it is important to understand what effective
inclusion looks like in practice. Whole-school policies and procedures and positive
student-teacher relationships are some practices that support inclusion. Malmqvist’s
(2016) mixed-methods study of three Swedish elementary schools’ work with students
with emotional behavioural difficulties found that inclusion was achieved successfully
in a school with strong leadership, a cohesive whole-school policy towards inclusion,
and shared values of inclusion between staff. Therefore, a stronger focus for schools
in developing a shared view of inclusion, supported by policy and school-based
procedures, and definition of what this means in practice for staff working with
students with challenging behaviours would be a good way forward. Orsati and
Causton-Theoharis (2013) stated that inclusive practice can also be influenced by the
development of relationships. They highlighted the importance of teachers developing
relationships with students, so that they see them as individuals, empowering them to
push past labelling students instead supporting them. This practice was a feature of
Category 4, with teachers using their understanding of individual students’ needs as a
basis for planning for students’ learning and development in a way that connected them
to their class community.
It is evident that inclusion is an important dimension of supporting student
behaviour. When teachers can see students both as individuals and part of a community
of learners and think about approaches that ‘bring them in’ to the group rather than
separating or excluding them, a more holistic approach to supporting student behaviour
will be evident.
Towards Independent Engagement: Category 5
In Category 5 we saw an extension of the Category 4 way of seeing approaches
with student behaviour. As in Category 4, Prep teachers articulating conceptions in
214 Chapter 5: Discussion
Category 5 were still concerned with managing and engaging, were also adapting their
practice to meet the needs of individuals, and were focusing on teaching students the
social skills needed to successfully interact with others and to be engaged learners.
What was different in this category was a focus on students’ future learning and
development, that is, teachers were thinking about releasing the responsibility for
behaviour to the students. They were more concerned with supporting students
alongside teaching them, with the goal being to develop independent and self-regulated
learners.
Category 5 highlights the importance of approaches with student behaviour that
aim to enhance self-regulation, student empowerment and independence. Teachers’
way of seeing approaches with student behaviour represented in this category is
inclusive rather than exclusive, integrated rather than compartmentalised, and
responsive rather than dismissive. It is this inclusive, integrative and responsive
teacher thinking, with a focus on equipping students with social and emotional skills
for the future, which leads to approaching student behaviour in the Category 5 way.
As Ravi Babu (2014) stated, “the ultimate goal of discipline is for children to
understand their own behaviour, take initiative, be responsible for their choices, and
respect themselves and others” (p.24). The Category 5 way of seeing approaches with
student behaviour supports this notion.
The big ideas that stand out as warranting discussion from this category are:
teacher critical reflection; rejection of behaviourist-based rewards and punishments;
pedagogies that support the development of self-regulation in students; and thinking
in holistic ways.
Teacher critical reflection
In Category 5, teacher critical reflection was an important dimension that
differentiated this way of seeing approaches with student behaviour from the earlier
categories. Teachers expressed an awareness of the managing-type approaches seen in
earlier categories (e.g. using sticker rewards), but were able to reflect on and critique
the effectiveness of these and then bring into their awareness a more complex way of
looking at approaches that took into account the importance of influencing students’
future development. This teacher reflection was prominent in this category. Teachers
were able to critically reflect on their practice and contrast it against other practices
when asked “why?” they used that particular approach. Conversely, in earlier
Chapter 5: Discussion 215
categories, this reflection was not evident. When participants were asked “why?” the
comment was often simply, “it works”. This is one of the strengths of the
phenomenographic methodology, as the phenomenographic interview method lends
itself to prompt teacher critical reflection and awareness that may lead to pedagogical
change (Marton, 2015).
Self-reflection, that is, the capacity and preparedness to think critically about
oneself, has a powerful impact on the growth of teachers (Cleveland, 2010; Ramos,
2012). White (2009), a teacher educator, conducted research on how to challenge her
preservice teachers to think beyond their own experiences. She concluded that
Emotion can play a major part in learning. It can be the tool that pushes
students to think more critically as they examine their own assumptions and
actions, rather than analysing day-to-day classroom events on a technical
level. (p.15)
White (2009) found four considerations for supporting critical thinking that
challenges preservice teacher thinking. These were, (i) a safe environment for sharing
perspectives; (ii) supporting connections between theory and practice; (iii) making
equity and diversity visible; and (iv) use of role-play to encourage preservice teachers
to take on different perspectives and strengthen their emotional thinking. These
considerations could be useful for professional development programs aimed at
supporting the critical reflection of approaches with student behaviour for both
preservice and inservice teachers. Additionally, Earl and Timperley’s (2008) work on
professional learning and development for educators asserted that while individual
teacher reflection is helpful in identifying issues that influence improvement of teacher
practice, collective teacher reflection through inquiry-based conversations better
supports continuous professional learning and assists teachers to generate new
knowledge and apply this to their school contexts. Critical reflection on approaches
with student behaviour with small groups of teachers, following an inquiry-based
action research cycle, may lead to increased awareness of teacher practice and new
actions (Earl & Timperley, 2008). This may be particularly effective for questioning
the fragmented ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour in the earlier
categories (1 and 2), and for progressing teachers towards a more integrated and
holistic way of seeing approaches.
216 Chapter 5: Discussion
In Category 5, teacher critical reflection on approaches with behaviour has
proven a significant predictor of teachers seeing their approaches in more holistic
ways. If teachers are challenged to reflect on approaches, on their effectiveness and on
the outcomes for students, they may be more likely to discern the intricacies of this
phenomenon and to approach student behaviours in more integrated and holistic ways.
Rejection of behaviourist-based rewards and punishments
Participants’ critical reflection during the process of the phenomenographic
interviews for this study often led teachers to reject the use of controlling or managing
approaches such as the use of rewards and punishments. This notion is reflected in
Gartrell’s (2007) guidance approach, which rejects the use of both rewards and
punishments (a fragmented approach to behaviour seen in Category 2), and instead
favours strategies that intentionally teach children the skills necessary to interact and
communicate competently with others. For example, this quote from the Category 5
data is presented again here to clearly illustrate this notion of teacher reflection that
led to the rejection of rewards:
Because if I’m using a system now where it’s all extrinsic, sticker, sticker,
sticker, happy box, happy box, or whatever type of physical reward, that’s
training the children to work for those rewards and what happens if next year
they go into a classroom where a teacher doesn’t use those rewards? What’s
going to drive those children then? So I think that intrinsic reward is going to
take them further, like as they grow and move through school. And into
adulthood too. Because I read a book because of the joy of reading a book and
the joy I get from it, not because someone’s going to pay me to read the book
or yeh ... I1
As seen in this above comment, teachers articulating conceptions in Category 5
questioned their approaches with student behaviour. As a result, they favoured the use
of more egalitarian approaches in the classroom, such as teaching students social skills,
modelling, role-play and class discussion. These more egalitarian approaches were a
feature of the Category 5 ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour, where
participants were more concerned with collaborative approaches to behaviour rather
than behaviourist approaches focused on teacher control. Teachers used these more
egalitarian approaches in the hope they would impact positively on students’ social
and emotional capabilities, both now and in the future.
Chapter 5: Discussion 217
American academic and child psychologist Ross Greene (2008) in his book Lost
at school: Why our kids with behavioral challenges are falling through the cracks and
how we can help them, stated that consequences such as rewards and punishments are
used to teach students the right and wrong ways to behave. He believes, however, that
students are generally already aware of what they are supposed to do, but what they
don’t have is the important thinking skills necessary for communicating their needs,
regulating their own emotions, considering the impact of their actions on others and
responding to change by being flexible (Greene, 2008).The rejection of rewards and
punishments as articulated by teachers in this category made way for other approaches
with student behaviour that focused on social and emotional learning and were more
collaborative in nature. This teacher awareness has allowed for a more complex and
holistic view of approaches to student behaviour.
Pedagogies that support the development of self-regulation in students
In the Category 5 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, participants
were focused on teaching and used pedagogies that supported the development of self-
regulation in students so that they could positively influence their future learning and
development. Age-appropriate pedagogies, play-based learning, scaffolding,
practising behaviours and the gradual release of responsibility were elements of
pedagogies that were commonly discussed in association with self-regulation, and will
be discussed in this section. First, however, it is important to briefly revisit the concept
of self-regulation in relation to young children in the context of schooling. Blair and
Raver (2015) argued that, based on brain maturation of the prefrontal cortex, children
are generally ready to start school around the age of 6 years, when they are “… able to
manage stimulation and attention in ways that begin to allow the regulation of emotion
and attention that enable sustained engagement with learning” (p.715). Conversely,
the Queensland Government (2017c) states that children in Queensland can commence
schooling in the Prep year at 5 years of age by 30 June in the year they enrol. Children
commencing Prep in Queensland are therefore aged between 4.5 and 6.5 years.
Enrolment in Prep is based on age, rather than on developmental factors, although the
Queensland Government does make provision for delayed or early entry. The age and
maturity of commencing Prep students, along with inflexible curriculum and
pedagogical school-based expectations, may provide for some potential issues
regarding self-regulation and the associated flow-on effects for student behaviour. This
218 Chapter 5: Discussion
conundrum was noted by teachers in this study across the five categories. Thus a
concentrated focus on approaches and programs that develop students’ self-regulation,
along with flexibility, and an inspection of school-based pedagogical and curriculum
expectations in the Prep year is vital, as recognised by teachers articulating the
Category 5 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour.
Students’ abilities to self-regulate socially and emotionally are strongly linked
to their academic achievement (Blair & Raver, 2015; Vaughn, 2014). Montroy,
Bowles, Skibbe, and Foster (2014), in a study of 118 preschool children, found that
behavioural self-regulation positively affected children’s literacy development. Self-
regulation provides the foundation for adjustment to school and allows for student
engagement with learning activities (Blair & Raver, 2015). Executive function and
self-regulation skills depend on cognitive flexibility, working memory and inhibitory
control, which Blair and Raver (2014) say are malleable. Readily implementable
programs, like Tools of the Mind (ToTM), are seen to boost early achievement for all
children (Blair & Raver, 2014). The inclusion of social emotional learning programs
that promote the development of self-regulation and executive function would greatly
enhance the experiences of Prep students in their first year of school. As found in the
Category 5 futures perspective, this would be an approach to student behaviour that
sets Prep children up for personal and academic success in the Prep year and beyond.
It is crucial, then, that inclusive approaches with student behaviour that seek to develop
students’ self-regulation, such as those seen in Category 5, are highlighted in teacher
preparation programs and teacher professional learning.
In the Category 5 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, the careful
consideration of pedagogy was important for realising teachers’ goal of student self-
regulation. During interviews, participants articulating Category 5 compared
approaches with student behaviour and reflected on their outcomes. For example, they
mentioned the use of rewards such as stickers to manage student behaviour, but
rejected this approach as they viewed it as not contributing to students’ ability to
manage their own behaviour in the long term. Instead they favoured approaches that
were integrated with teaching: age-appropriate pedagogies such as play-based
learning, guided practice of behaviours through role-play, teacher modelling and
scaffolding, and the transfer of responsibility for behaviour to the students themselves.
Chapter 5: Discussion 219
In 2015, Queensland’s Department of Education and Training introduced a
significant policy reform, Age-appropriate pedagogies, recommending that early
years teachers adopt a balanced approach to pedagogy. The Department developed a
teacher reflection framework on the use of a balance of pedagogical approaches that
respond to students’ needs. The framework supports teachers to consider the balance
between planned and spontaneous learning and adult-initiated and driven and child-
initiated and driven learning experiences (see Figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1. The Department of Education and Training’s (2015) teacher reflection framework on the
use of a balance of pedagogical approaches (p.5).
The Department of Education and Training (2015b) stated that “extended
periods of classroom activity in any quadrant of the framework would not provide
children with the pedagogical support” (p.31). This statement suggests that equal time
in each quadrant of the framework was not seen as necessary, as teachers need to be
responsive to individuals and as such make judgements on the pedagogical approach
that best suits the learning. The Department of Education and Training argued that a
range of pedagogical approaches is necessary to support a range of student capabilities.
Pedagogical considerations were central to teachers articulating in this category, with
a balanced approach to pedagogy evident as they worked decisively towards
scaffolding students’ self-regulation.
In Category 5, Play-based learning featured strongly as a chosen pedagogy to
develop students’ self-regulation and social skills. The Department of Education and
Training (2015b) stated that while direct instruction is useful for the development of
symbol systems, pretend play is noted as a more effective pedagogy for developing
220 Chapter 5: Discussion
students’ cognition and self-regulation. In a Western Australian study of 200 educator
participants, Barblett, Knaus, and Barratt-Pugh (2016) examined pedagogical issues
that concern educators in the birth to eight years sector, using focus group interviews
and inductive analysis. Findings suggested that the most significant concern for
educators was the erosion of play-based learning. Participants reasoned that the
pushdown of the curriculum and direct instruction had contributed to the loss of play-
based learning, along with play being misunderstood and undervalued. In addition,
educators claimed that the consequences of a lack of play were children’s behavioural
problems (Barblett, Knaus & Barratt-Pugh, 2016). Roberts-Holmes and Bradbury
(2016) suggested that the narrowing of early years pedagogy is due to schools’ focus
on performance and data collection, which has served to undermine the foundations of
students’ personal development and learning. This is problematic, as the evidence
clearly shows that play-based learning is an effective pedagogy for developing
students’ social and emotional skills and engagement in learning (QSA, 2006;
Department of Education and Training, 2015b; 2006).
Play has long been valued by early childhood educators as a pedagogy for
children’s learning. Through play-based learning, children use language to learn how
to enter play situations, develop relationships, foster thinking and problem-solving
strategies and improve their social competence (DEEWR, 2009; QSA, 2006). The
Early Years Curriculum Guidelines (EYCG) was a curriculum framework developed
to guide children’s learning in the Prep year in Queensland during its introduction in
Queensland in 2007 (QSA, 2006). Although the EYCG has been superseded by the
Australian Curriculum, some of the EYCG learning statements were still being
reported on in Prep during the course of this study (namely social and personal
learning and active learning processes). In the EYCG, play provides a powerful
context in which children learn as they
…actively engage socially, emotionally, physically and intellectually with
people, objects and representations (p.38).
In the EYCG, early childhood teachers assume a variety of roles in children’s
play to facilitate learning. These roles include: co-player, observer, listener, initiator,
responder, facilitator, scaffolder, modeller, questioner, challenger or mediator (QSA,
2006, p.38). In Category 5, play-based learning was a pedagogy teachers used to
support the social and emotional development of their Prep students; and they
Chapter 5: Discussion 221
discussed adopting a variety of these roles or strategies, especially guided practice of
behaviours, modelling and scaffolding, to develop students’ social and emotional skills
so they could effectively engage in learning both now and in the future.
The notion of guided practice is supported by the Statement of Expectations for
a Disciplined School Environment (Department of Education Training and
Employment, 2013), along with the explicit teaching of appropriate behaviours to all
students in Queensland Government schools. That is, to “define, teach, reteach and
model the expected behaviours and provide opportunities for practice in the settings in
which they will be used” (p.3). This guided practice was effected through play-based
pedagogy by Prep teachers expressing this category. Marzano (2016) stated that guided
practice involves structured opportunities for students to practise new skills, moving
from simple to complex versions of the skills or strategies. The provision of frequent
and varied practice allows students to build competence. The idea of providing
opportunities for practising behaviours reflects a futures perspective, where teachers
assume a support role while students develop independence with the skills required for
managing their own behaviour. This futures perspective was unique to Category 5, as
was the notion of developing independence in relation to prosocial behaviours.
Modelling and scaffolding were also common teaching strategies in this category
and were often adopted alongside play-based pedagogy. Archer and Hughes (2014),
authors of Explicit Instruction, a popular pedagogical guide that has informed the
pedagogical framework of many Queensland Government schools, (see for example
Pioneer State High School, 2013; Warwick West State School, 2014), names
modelling the “I do it” stage. Modelling involves teachers walking through the steps
of the skill and thinking aloud or describing what they are doing to the students
(Marzano, 2016; Archer & Hughes, 2014). The next stage, “We do it”, engages
students in guided practice of the skills and teachers use directions, clues or reminders
to facilitate this. The final stage, “You do it”, involves teachers providing students with
opportunities for independent practice, so that they can determine whether students
can perform the skill independently (Archer & Hughes, 2014).
This scaffolding was a strategy often mentioned by teachers articulating
Category 5. Effective teacher scaffolding, which is progressively withdrawn as
learners gain increasing mastery, is seen to provide active structures to support new
learning (Department of Education and Training, 2015b). The Department of
222 Chapter 5: Discussion
Education and Training (2015b) stated that adult scaffolding includes teacher actions
such as modelling, encouraging, questioning, adding challenges and providing
feedback that serve to extend children’s capabilities. Smit, van Eerde, and Bakker
(2013) stated that the adults’ role in supporting learning is to provide temporary
support that assists learners to perform a task they cannot do by themselves, and to
bring them to a state of competence where they can perform a similar task
independently. Van de Pol, Volman and Beishuizen’s (2010) literature review
identified three key characteristics of scaffolding: (i) contingency (responsively
adapting to the child’s level of knowledge); (ii) fading (gradual release of scaffolding);
and (iii) transfer of responsibility of the performance of the task to the learner.
The use of scaffolding in Prep teachers’ descriptions of their pedagogical
approaches that support student self-regulation mirrored the characteristics and actions
as elaborated in Archer and Hughes’ (2014) Explicit Instruction model. The
scaffolding strategy of transfer of responsibility was unique to this way of seeing
approaches with student behaviour, as teachers were concerned with releasing the
responsibility of the behaviour to the students, thus developing their social and
emotional independence.
Thinking in holistic ways
Teachers who adopt a Category 5 way of seeing approaches with student
behaviour must hold multiple dimensions open in their awareness, that is, think
holistically about student behaviour and about inclusive ways of supporting student
behaviour. Inclusivity, also a feature of Categories 3 and 4, was not featured in
Categories 1 and 2. This Category 5 inclusive and holistic way of seeing approaches
with student behaviour was in direct contrast to Categories 1 and 2, which featured a
fragmented or compartmentalised way of seeing that centred on exclusionary strategies
and compliance. This finding has important implications for preservice and inservice
teacher education. For teachers to act in inclusive ways with student behaviour, there
needs to be a move away from compartmentalised thinking.
In addition, Prep teachers need to be supported as they navigate their way
through the various philosophical tensions at play that constrain them from acting in
inclusive ways in their daily work. Regarding the tension associated with reconciling
mandated curriculum alongside early years philosophy, Shin (2015) suggests that
Chapter 5: Discussion 223
The future of effective early childhood education in the context of national
curriculum in Australia lies in increased communication, connections and
shared understandings about practice (p.13).
Teachers need to be encouraged to celebrate and share their effective holistic
practice with student behaviour and engage in professional conversations that
challenge ineffective practices and recognise behaviour approaches as complex.
This chapter concludes with a summary of the dimensions of variation within
the 5 categories.
5.5.5 Summarising the dimensions of variation
The value of phenomenographic studies can be seen in the description of the
dimensions of variation as presented in Chapter 4. These dimensions of variation show
where awareness is most prominent and provide an insight into both simple and
complex (surface and deep) approaches to understanding phenomena (Marton, 2015).
As seen in the previous discussion of this study’s categories of description, the earlier
categories (1 and 2) show a surface approach to seeing ways of approaching student
behaviour, with fewer dimensions open. The way of seeing approaches with student
behaviour was therefore compartmentalised. In these earlier categories, awareness
centred only on managing and (in Category 2) engaging. The focus was fixed on
student behaviour and approaches that met teachers’ own needs for classroom control.
In contrast, in later categories (3, 4 and 5), multiple dimensions were
increasingly open in participants’ awareness, supporting a more complex and
integrative way of seeing approaches with student behaviour. These categories saw
awareness focused towards students’ independent engagement and approaches that
achieved this were flexible, concerned with teaching, relationships and inclusion and
directed towards students’ future development. Prep teachers achieved this holistic
approach to student behaviour through purposeful planning and prioritising of time in
the curriculum for students to learn and practise social and emotional skills. They also
reflected on their practice with student behaviour, and considered the purpose of their
approaches and the effects they had on the development of students’ self-regulation.
The value of phenomenography lies in revealing the variation of experiencing or
understanding phenomena. In this case variation has revealed the range of ways Prep
teachers experienced and saw their approaches with student behaviour. The variation
224 Chapter 5: Discussion
showed a graduated and nuanced picture of how the teachers in this study approached
student behaviour in the classroom and why they adopted those approaches. Looking
at this hierarchy of approaches with student behaviour and thinking of it as a
continuum may be useful for early years teachers and school staff when reflecting on
their approaches with student behaviour. Reflecting in such a way on teacher practice
with student behaviour may lead not just to an awareness of the range of behaviour
approaches teachers and schools actually use, but the outcome and success of these
approaches for developing students’ social and emotional self-regulation in the
Preparatory year.
5.6 CONCLUSION
This chapter has discussed the findings of this study of Prep teachers’ ways of
seeing approaches with student behaviour alongside a range of the literature linking to
behaviour policy, pedagogical approaches in the early years, outcomes of specific
behaviour approaches, and teacher professional development and learning. It has
outlined how teachers’ approaches with student behaviour serve different purposes and
produce different outcomes for students in terms of inclusion and exclusion and the
development of self-regulation. Behaviour approaches that are more likely to lead to
student self-regulation are more complex and holistic in nature. To adopt these
approaches, it is necessary that early years teachers think about the range of
considerations that support integration of many important dimensions, including
understanding students, inclusion, relationships, teaching, learning, flexibility, and the
gradual release of responsibility of behaviour to the students themselves. These
approaches also require an investment of time by teachers.
In the next chapter, the conclusion, implications and recommendations from the
research are described, highlighting the study’s contributions to advancing knowledge
in the study of teachers’ approaches with student behaviour and to phenomenographic
research.
Chapter 6: Conclusion 225
Chapter 6: Conclusion
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This thesis was undertaken to understand how Prep teachers see their approaches
with student behaviour, in an effort to produce recommendations for improved
outcomes for both students and teachers in the field of student behaviour. Chapter 2
presented a literature review that included a synthesis of research, policy and advice
to teachers relating to the broad field of student behaviour. In Chapter 3, the
methodology and the theoretical framework for this study, phenomenography and
variation theory, were explained and the data collection procedures and analyses
detailed. In Chapter 4, the main findings of the study were presented, along with the
phenomenographic analysis of variation. Chapter 5 provided a discussion of the
study’s findings in the context of existing literature via the five categories of
description and the dimensions of variation.
This final chapter presents the implications of the research in relation to student
behaviour policy, students, and preservice and inservice teacher professional
development and learning. It highlights the contribution of this study to advancing
knowledge on approaches with student behaviour in the Prep year and to
phenomenographic research. Recommendations from the study findings will be
presented along with a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the study and
suggestions for future research.
6.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR STUDENT BEHAVIOUR POLICY
This study has uncovered significant variation in the range of ways teachers
experience and conceptualise approaches with student behaviour in the Prep year. This
variation is important, as revealing the different experiences teachers have with student
behaviour, and understanding the range of ways they approach student behaviour,
leads to reflection on teacher practice and renewed thinking that may promote
pedagogical change. This study has important implications for policy makers, as if
they want to change what teachers think and do, they first need to understand what it
is that they think and do. Phenomenography has been the most appropriate
methodology to provide this knowledge.
226 Chapter 6: Conclusion
Policy influences teacher practice, but not always in positive ways. Prep teachers
in this study described their practice with student behaviour as being constrained by
school policy and procedures. Ball (2013) stated that policies are ways of accounting
for and legitimising political decisions. Educational policy in Australia has been driven
by political decisions and its flow-on effects can be felt in classrooms (Bown, 2009,
2014; Porter, 2014; Reid, 2014). National testing, with its centralised control, for
example, is about accountability and efficiency. This has resulted in the de-skilling
and re-skilling of teachers, with teachers losing control of decisions concerning
curriculum and pedagogy (Apple, 2012). Ball (2003) stated that educational reforms
do not only change what people do, but also change who they are. This is concerning,
as this may contribute to a loss of teacher agency, with negative flow-on effects to
their professional learning. Thomson, Lingard, and Wrigley (2012) instead proposed
a move toward “more professionally controlled, community-engaged, richer, more
intelligent forms of educational accountability” (p.3).
Student behaviour policy and procedures may have a substantial influence on
teacher practice, but teachers may not always value these policy directives. Sullivan et
al. (2014) stated that educational authorities develop policies, directives and
procedures aimed at ‘controlling’ student behaviour. Earl and Timperley (2015) stated
that educational policy makers are interested in innovation, but want a sense of security
and accountability. Policy makers in their innovation expect teachers to change what
they think and do, but Earl and Timperley note that teachers will have different
perspectives and expectations. Policy makers may not think through the possibilities,
especially concerning how the policy will be implemented in their particular context.
In Chapter 2, the policy backcloth to the study was reviewed in detail. At the
time of the study, relevant student behaviour policies and procedures were in place,
for example, the Queensland Government schools’ Code of School Behaviour
(Department of Education Training and Employment, 2006) policy and the Safe,
Supportive and Disciplined School Environment (Department of Education and
Training, 2017e) procedure. These policy and procedure directives were aimed at
controlling student behaviour. This study has, however, revealed a richer approach
taken by teachers with regards to the complex and integrated ways of seeing
approaches with student behaviour, particularly as represented in Categories 3, 4 and
5. The dimensions of variation in teachers’ ways of seeing approaches with student
Chapter 6: Conclusion 227
behaviour were not prescribed in school behaviour policies and procedures. Indeed, if
these identified dimensions of variation were part of policies and procedures, it would
lead to changes in thinking and practice around student behaviour approaches,
especially with regard to fostering students’ self-regulation, with flow-on effects for
both student and teacher well-being.
In this study, approaches to student behaviour which excluded students by way
of time outs, detentions or student disciplinary absences (suspensions) were found in
Category 1, arguably the least helpful (surface approach) of all the categories. In this
category, exclusion meant that students’ learning was disrupted. Such disruptions are
counterproductive to learning and engagement. Research into exclusionary behaviour
approaches show undesirable effects for students who have experienced exclusion
(Gillies, 2016; Pane & Rocco, 2014). Supressing or removing students is sometimes
necessary and student disciplinary absences (SDAs) may be required for some students
in some situations. However, applying an SDA does not resolve the underlying issues
that led to the SDA. Often student behaviours that lead to SDAs are challenging and
complex and, as such, a considered approach which takes into account holistic means
for altering these behaviours is required, such as approaches seen in Categories 3, 4
and 5. Student behaviour policies and procedures and inflexible teacher and school
approaches make adaptations for students, the teaching of social and emotional skills
and self-regulation, and a positive school climate and relationships a distant vision.
It is important to recognise the importance of teacher efficacy with teachers’
approaches with student behaviour. Howard’s (2005) study of primary school
educators' beliefs about suspension and exclusion of students with challenging
behaviours found overwhelming support for the use of student disciplinary absences
for students displaying challenging behaviours. In Howard’s (2005) study, most
educators saw the necessity for some sort of student disciplinary absences in schools.
Their views were linked to teacher self-efficacy, as many were challenged by and felt
ill-equipped to handle difficult student behaviours. If teachers feel confident and
competent adopting approaches with student behaviour as seen in Categories 3, 4 and
5, rather than stressed and incompetent as found in Categories 1 and 2, they are more
likely to use inclusive approaches that effectively support student behaviour over the
long term (Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Orsati & Causton-
Theoharis, 2013).
228 Chapter 6: Conclusion
Teachers’ need for flexibility was seen in Category 3, where their way of seeing
approaches with student behaviour centred on them adapting their own practice to meet
the needs of their students. However the findings of this study suggest that teachers
are constrained by their perceptions of school policies and procedures, along with
whole-school approaches such as School Wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS),
which has been a popular approach to student behaviour in schools in Australia and
internationally (Department of Education and Training, 2016g; Swain-Bradway,
Swoszowski, Boden, & Sprague, 2013). McIntosh et al.’s (2014) mixed method study
of 257 school personnel, which aimed to understand perceptions related to the
implementation and sustainability of School Wide Positive Behaviour Support
(SWPBS), found that staff buy-in was a commonly reported barrier for sustaining the
program. In the adoption of school wide approaches then, teachers need to be afforded
some agency and ownership over the approach and flexibility to adapt approaches to
meet the needs of their learners. In Queensland Government schools, Positive
Behaviour for Learning (PBL) is currently promoted as a school-wide approach for
creating a safe and supportive environment for students.
School-wide approaches that were punitive and offered no flexibility were seen
by Prep teachers to be inappropriate for their young students, as they recognised that
they may not understand enforced consequences. Teachers articulating their
conceptions in Category 3 would often reject school-wide approaches and adapt what
they did, even when this went against school processes and procedures. They were, in
essence, exercising their teacher agency (Calvert, 2016; Timperley, 2015). It is
important that policy makers and schools understand schools’ and teachers’ need for
flexibility when writing policy and school-based behaviour plans that serve a diverse
student body, particularly with regard to the youngest students and those with learning
differences and disabilities. Queensland behaviour policies show no recognition of
early childhood as a critical period in young children’s development and learning; and
as such do not support teachers and administrators to cater effectively for these young
students. As found in this study of teachers’ approaches with student behaviour,
teachers’ ability to be flexible and adapt behaviour approaches for individual students
allowed them to meet their needs and support student behaviour. If schools wish to be
successful in supporting student behaviour, then listening to teachers and allowing
them to be agentic is essential.
Chapter 6: Conclusion 229
6.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS
The findings of this research show that teacher approaches with student
behaviour as seen in Categories 1 to 5 were used for different purposes and had
different outcomes. The categories represented a hierarchy of teachers’ conceptions
that ranged from compartmentalised ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour
(in Category 1) to inclusive ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour (in
Category 5). For example, in Category 1, time out was used by teachers for respite
from the challenging behaviour of individual students. The outcome of this way of
seeing approaches with student behaviour was that students were excluded from their
peers and learning, and teachers experienced frustration with their approaches to
student behaviour which resulted in stress. The Category 1 way of seeing approaches
with student behaviour thus has serious consequences for students’ educational
outcomes and teachers’ well-being.
In Category 2, student behaviour was supressed by teachers via a range of
teacher-enforced sanctions and incentives in an effort to engage students with learning.
The outcome of this way of seeing approaches with student behaviour was that student
behaviour was controlled and teachers were able to continue with teaching their
lessons. In this way of seeing, students are dependent upon teachers for their behaviour
and are thus not likely to develop skills that will lead to independence with self-
regulation. While it may seem beneficial that an outcome of the Category 2 way of
seeing is that teachers are able to successfully teach without disruption, it comes at the
cost of preventing students from learning how to manage their own behaviour.
In Category 3, teachers adapted their practice to accommodate the needs of
individual students, the outcome of which was inclusion for students within the group
and students’ engagement with learning. The teacher approaches in this category thus
impact positively on students’ learning and on students’ relationships with their peer
group. In Category 4, modelling and role-play were used to teach students new social
behaviours and to develop empathy. The outcome of this approach was an opportunity
for students to learn new social skills and ways of acting with their peers. In Category
5, teachers were focused on releasing responsibility for student behaviour to the
students themselves, resulting in the development of student independence with social
behaviours. These Category 4 and 5 approaches were proactive in nature, concerned
with students’ learning and development beyond the Prep year. This was in opposition
230 Chapter 6: Conclusion
to Categories 1 and 2, where teachers’ reactive approaches were not concerned with
the notion of students’ future development or learning. Important implications for
students and teachers flow directly from these findings, especially for students’ self-
regulation, social and emotional development and teacher well-being.
In this study, egalitarian approaches were evidenced in Categories 3, 4 and 5,
with Category 5 and its futures perspective aimed at fostering self-regulation. The
dimensions of variation, that is, what is focused upon by teachers when articulating in
this Category 5 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, therefore have
importance for schools and teachers when approaching behaviour if they want to move
beyond purely managing behaviour to developing students who are independent and
self-regulated learners.
6.3.1 Self-regulation is important for students and teachers
This study found that the more holistic and integrative ways of seeing
approaches with student behaviour were concerned with students developing
independence with social and emotional behaviours through the deliberate teaching of
such behaviours and skills. The development of self-regulation in children is positively
associated with academic growth (Blair & Raver, 2015; J Montroy et al., 2014; Rimm-
Kaufman, Curby, Grimm, Nathanson, & Brock, 2009). It seems reasonable to argue
then that an important educational aim is for teachers to teach students to regulate their
own behaviour (as seen in Categories 4 and 5), rather than continually applying
behaviour strategies to manage behaviour (as in Categories 1 and 2). With a stronger
emphasis on teaching social and emotional skills and strategies for self-regulation,
students would gain long term benefits of increased self-esteem through knowing how
to successfully engage with learning, and develop positive and productive
relationships with their peers and teachers. The flow-on effect to teachers would be
better engaged students, a reduction in stress and feelings of incompetence, and
improved teacher retention.
These implications are supported in research by Montroy et al. (2014). Their
study of 118 preschool aged children found that children’s self-regulation and social
functioning related directly to academic achievement; and that social skills were a
significant mediator of the relationship between self-regulation and growth and
literacy. Montroy et al. (2014) proposed an increased emphasis on the development of
self-regulation and social skills in preschool. It is therefore important that teachers
Chapter 6: Conclusion 231
think in more integrative and holistic ways about student behaviour and act in ways
that support the acquisition of students’ social and emotional skills and self-regulation
if they wish to support their academic achievement.
6.3.2 Provision of Social and Emotional Learning
This study found that social and emotional learning was important to teachers in
the more integrative and holistic Categories 4 and 5 ways of seeing approaches with
student behaviour. These teachers were concerned with purposeful or intentional
teaching (DEEWR, 2009) and the modelling of social and emotional skills (Bandura,
1991). Research has shown that the provision of social and emotional learning in the
early years of school positively influences students’ behaviour, peer relationships and
academic outcomes. This implication is supported by a substantive body of research
evidence (Durlak et al., 2011; Elias & Arnold, 2006; Payton et al., 2008). For example,
Spivak and Farran (2012) studied teacher behaviours that support prosocial student
behaviour. The authors looked at 124 first-grade classrooms in a semirural area in
south-eastern United States of America. The observational study included 2098
students and targeted teacher behaviour and instructional practice. Spivak and Farren
considered teachers’ emotional warmth and the construction of a positive social
environment, behaviour management practices and students’ prosocial behaviour in
the classroom. Findings suggested that teacher behaviours contributed in important
ways to how students treated one another. If teachers actively guided students towards
prosocial behaviour and empathy, students were more likely to share, help and
cooperate with peers. This suggests that teachers need to be aware of actively
developing students’ social and emotional learning skills and to be able to act in ways
that promote empathy and the development of productive and positive social
behaviours.
Intentional teaching of social and emotional skills is recommended in the Early
Years Learning Framework: “educators who engage in intentional teaching recognise
that learning occurs in social contexts and that interactions and conversations are
vitally important for learning” (DEEWR, 2009, p. 15). The Collaborative for
Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning advocates for social and emotional
learning (SEL) in educational contexts from preschool to high school and provides a
range of tools and resources for implementation (CASEL, 2017). In Australia,
KidsMatter (2017a) also provides information, resources and support to early
232 Chapter 6: Conclusion
childhood education and care services and schools to promote the teaching of social
and emotional skills. Such programs impact positively on students’ development,
evidencing positive social behaviours and attitudes towards self and others, a reduction
in behaviour problems and improved academic performance (Durlak et al., 2011;
Payton et al., 2008).
Teachers’ creation of a respectful, supportive environment that stimulates
classroom social interactions, along with the teacher behaviours cited above, support
students’ self-regulation, problem solving, transitioning and appropriate behaviour
(Spivak & Farren, 2012). These considerations, seen in Categories 4 and 5 ways of
seeing approaches with student behaviour, are important to students’ long term
personal development and to their mental health and well-being. This importance
should be impressed upon teachers, administration and policy makers.
6.3.3 Positive Relationships
Evidence from this study showed that positive relationships between students,
teachers, teacher-aides and families were focal to teachers when thinking about
approaching student behaviour in more holistic ways. The implications for students
and teachers are clear and supported by two decades of research (Roorda, Helma, Spilt,
& Oort, 2011). Positive relationships lead to hopeful outcomes for students regarding
higher academic outcomes, motivation and retention. For example, McClelland et al.
(2014) found that the quality of student-teacher relationships held consequences for
students’ emotional and behavioural adjustment. Positive relationships lead to positive
effects on student motivation, and lower levels of conflict lead to higher academic
outcomes and more productive student work habits (McClelland et al., 2014). This
evidence shows some of the multi-faceted sequences of influence on student academic
outcomes, and the importance of looking more deeply into those influences. In a
similar vein, yet more simply, Peguero and Bracy’s (2015) study of how school
climate, order and justice are related to the phenomenon of adolescents dropping out
of school found that student perceptions of positive student-teacher relationships were
a protective feature against dropout, while school discipline which embraced
exclusionary forms of punishment was identified as a risk factor.
In this study of Prep teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with student
behaviour, the later categories revealed an emphasis on relationships (Categories 3-5);
whereas exclusionary practices with disregard to positive student teacher relationships
Chapter 6: Conclusion 233
characterised Categories 1 and 2. Reflecting on Peguero and Bracy’s (2014) study, it
is plausible that the Category 1 and 2 approaches with student behaviour may actually
serve an adverse purpose if these are risk factors for later school dropout. Conversely,
approaches with student behaviour in the latter categories (3-5) may be protective
against school dropout and positively affect student academic outcomes.
6.3.4 Opportunities to Reflect
During the data collection phase of this study, teachers often remarked that the
interview was the first opportunity they had had to reflect deeply upon their approaches
with student behaviour. Most remarked that the interview itself had helped clarify their
behaviour approaches by being prompted to think about what they valued and what
impact it had on their students. The ‘balanced approach’ in Queensland’s Age-
appropriate Pedagogies for the Early Years of Schooling: Foundation Paper
described in the previous section (Department of Education and Training, 2015b) may
support teacher reflection on approaches with student behaviour. This balanced
approach, where teachers reflect on the balance between spontaneous and planned
learning and adult-driven and child-driven learning experiences, may be
complementary to supporting teachers to choose different approaches to student
behaviour for different purposes. For instance, teachers who see a need for the
development of a particular social skill may use adult-initiated explicit instruction,
modelling and role-playing strategies to assist students to learn the skill, but then move
to a more child-initiated play-based pedagogical approach to allow students to apply
and master the particular skill and to develop independence.
Student behaviour is a complex phenomenon and simple responses are unlikely
to be effective. Looking at the dimensions of variation, a key outcome of this
phenomenographic research is that this methodology provides a means of
understanding the many considerations needed to be taken into account when working
effectively with student behaviour. For teachers to be successful in supporting
students’ self-regulation and social and emotional learning, it is vital that they are able
to consider and maintain their awareness of this range of dimensions (Categories 4 and
5) that support a holistic view of approaches with student behaviour.
234 Chapter 6: Conclusion
6.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR INITIAL AND CONTINUING TEACHER
EDUCATION
One of the key findings that has emerged from this study is the need for teachers
to learn how to critique and navigate the constant tensions they encounter in the
educational landscape. There is a great need to help them interpret mandated and
prescribed approaches, whilst ensuring that they can reconcile these with their own
values and philosophies. Attention to teacher professional learning that helps navigate
these challenging dilemmas is essential.
Research has shown that both preservice and inservice teachers perceive that
there are limited opportunities to engage with professional learning on the topic of
student behaviour (Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Buchanan, 2010; DellaMattera, 2011;
Rosas & West, 2009). With demands placed on teachers to attend meetings for
curriculum planning, pedagogy and assessment and other school and sector-based
professional development pertaining to policy initiatives, professional development
aimed at student behaviour often takes a back seat. Alongside an identified lack of
school leadership support for student behaviour, teachers in this study often mentioned
lack of time for collegial discussion and collaboration. As mentioned previously in
relation to the interview data, participants often commented about not having had the
opportunity to engage in professional discussions about student behaviour. These
comments align with Timperley’s (2015) observation that conversations among
teachers about teaching and learning remain uncommon in the profession.
Teacher professional learning should contribute to the ongoing improvement of
teachers’ knowledge and practice and make a difference to student learning:
Professional learning is the formal and informal learning experiences
undertaken by teachers and school leaders that improve their individual
professional practice and the school’s collective effectiveness as measured by
improved student engagement and learning outcomes (Cole, 2012, p. 4).
Professional learning programs address teachers’ individual needs within the
school context, and should be led by teaching experts rather than traditional
professional development events facilitators (Cole, 2012). While school leaders are
often driven by data and compliance to system requirements, they have a responsibility
for providing professional learning opportunities for their staff, “to enhance their skills
to positively manage behaviour” (Department of Education Training and Employment,
Chapter 6: Conclusion 235
2013, p. 1). P. Wood, Spandagou, and Evans (2012) surveyed 340 New South Wales
school Principals, with the overall results suggesting that Principals in general were
“not heavily influenced by a single theoretical approach or they implement practices
without a concrete understanding of their relationship with theory” (p.388). This
suggests that school leaders, who often drive the school behaviour plan and approach,
need to better understand the theories and principles that underpin the behaviour
approaches they use, and the likely outcomes for students when adopting those
approaches, so that they can assist staff to critically reflect on their practice.
The findings of this study in relation to the hierarchy of increasingly inclusive
and complex categories that show the range of ways of seeing approaches with student
behaviour could prove helpful to school leaders. Reflecting on the categories
established in this study, teachers and school leaders could identify the approaches
they currently use in their context and think about possible gaps in their practice,
particularly with regard to the more inclusive and complex categories where
approaches are about adapting, teaching and releasing responsibility.
One of the implications of this study is that school leaders should ensure the
inclusion of approaches to student behaviour that foster students’ self-regulation and
prioritise their social and emotional skills. Peak world bodies have called for this, for
example the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (2015) states
that, “the social and emotional skills that raise children’s capacities to achieve goals,
work effectively with others and manage emotions are considered among the important
drivers of school and lifetime success” (p.46). Policy makers and preservice teacher
education institutions should lead the charge. Teacher preparation programs should
prepare pre-service teachers to teach students self-regulation skills (Vaughn, 2014).
Queensland Government schools need to consider adding egalitarian approaches to
their behaviour policy and professional learning programs, approaches that foster
students’ self-regulation and the development of effective social and emotional skills,
and provide a more balanced model for setting students up for lifetime success. This
would value add to the Queensland Government’s current professional learning
program, the Essential Skills for Classroom Management, which is geared towards a
management ideology.
Preservice and inservice teacher professional learning and development can
influence teachers’ perceptions on the approaches, theories and strategies for working
236 Chapter 6: Conclusion
with student behaviour in more effective ways. Research supports such a goal.
Moberly, Waddle and Duff (2005), for example, found that observation of other
teachers’ practice was seen to influence respondents’ choice of behaviour management
strategies (52.4%); but observation of others’ practice on its own may be insufficient
to influence teachers own practice. The fact that teachers’ greatest influence was
observing other teachers suggests that preservice and inservice teacher professional
learning needs to be job-embedded and context-specific; but, as Moberly et al. suggest,
it also needs to help teachers link theory and practice (Moberly et al., 2005).
Teacher conversations are an important vehicle for provoking reflection on
approaches with student behaviour and should be prioritised. Timperley (2015) was
commissioned by AITSL to review the national and international research literature in
relation to conversations that lead to teachers’ professional growth. She identified five
enablers for effective professional conversations: (1) resources; (2) relationships; (3)
processes; (4) knowledge; and (5) culture; and noted that professional knowledge is
constructed through social interaction, and that conversations are central to its
development. Teachers negotiate meaning from conversations, just as they learn from
specialist expertise, with expertise taking the form of the content of a discussion, or
when engaging with a coach or observer. Timperley (2015) argued: “It is the
interpretive conversations that transform the information and artefacts into actionable
knowledge” (p.4). The provision of opportunities for teacher conversations that
support reflection and lead to increased knowledge of student behaviour approaches is
therefore vitally important in preservice and inservice professional learning and
development programs.
Also important to teacher professional learning for student behaviour is the
challenging of deficit thinking about students. This needs to be a priority because
research has identified the fact that teachers are more likely to attribute student
behaviour to self-factors, such as student deficits or family background, than to their
teaching (Grieve, 2009; Ravet, 2007b). This tendency was evident in the earlier,
compartmentalised categories within this study. When teachers articulated conceptions
in Categories 1 and 2, they talked about student behaviour in isolation, being more
likely to focus on student deficits and family background when talking about their
approaches with student behaviour. This compartmentalised thinking may have
contributed to the exclusion-based approaches teachers articulated in Categories 1 and
Chapter 6: Conclusion 237
2. Timperley (2015) argued that a culture shift - from attributing problems to outside
influences to a focus on interactions and what can be changed - is necessary.
Professional learning opportunities for teachers which highlight and challenge deficit
thinking and identify associated implications for both teacher practice and student
outcomes may be a positive way forward.
In this study, even though teachers at times reported feeling constrained by
whole-school approaches to behaviour, some were able to generate individualised,
innovative and responsive approaches to student behaviour, as evidenced in Categories
3, 4 and 5. It is important that teachers see themselves as agents of change. Agency, a
commitment and belief that it is within an individual and group’s capacity to effect
change, is seen as an enabler of effective professional conversations (Timperley,
2015). Teachers and school leaders need to promote such agency and take
responsibility for their own learning, which is a challenge in the current transmission
or “routine expert view of professionalism” (Timperley, 2011, p.11) climate often
adopted in schools. Timperley (2015) suggests teachers and school leaders adopt an
inquiry-focused and problem solving culture, with a collective responsibility for
solving problems. The processes employed to support problem solving need to be
sufficiently flexible to allow teachers to express, engage with and test different ideas.
Teachers also need to know when and where to seek help, in terms of engaging in
ongoing inquiry and knowledge-building cycles (Timperley, 2011). Using
Timperley’s (2015) inquiry-based approach to develop a professional learning
program for teachers on approaching student behaviour would be appropriate,
particularly with regard to sharing the range of different ways teachers go about
approaching student behaviour in the more complex and integrated categories.
It is important that educators conceptualise the Australian Professional
Standards for Teachers beyond lock-step stages of professional development. The
basic premise of the Standards is that professional development and learning practices
should focus on building teacher capabilities in ways that lead to better outcomes for
all students; but Timperley (2011) argued that a challenge to achieving this expectation
is that of catering for student diversity. Professional development for teachers on
student behaviour needs to centre on flexible approaches, approaches that can be
adapted to local contexts and to the needs of individual students. Highlighting the
importance of the Category 3 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour would
238 Chapter 6: Conclusion
be useful in helping cater for classroom diversity. This Category was an important
precursor to the more complex and integrated Categories 4 and 5. Teachers need to be
willing and able to reflect upon their particular context, to think in flexible ways and
to adapt their own practice and conditions of learning in order to meet the needs of
students and thus support behaviour. A focus on flexible approaches and teacher
reflexivity would be an important part of professional learning programs for teachers.
Reflecting on the findings of this study, on the identified categories and their
dimensions of variation, can be pivotal in helping teachers understand how to work
towards better outcomes for all students.
6.5 CONTRIBUTION TO THE PHENOMENOGRAPHIC RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
Phenomenography has made important contributions to research on students’
learning, providing valuable knowledge for understanding learning and teaching
practice. In this study of teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with student
behaviour, new knowledge about the range of ways Prep teachers approach behaviour
has been revealed, and has pointed to the importance of teachers reflecting on their
approaches with student behaviour and the purpose they serve. When people learn to
see a significant part of the world in a significantly new way, consciousness changes
(Dahlin, 2007). It is hoped that the findings of this study enable educators to see
approaches with student behaviour in a different light, so that they can understand and
reflect upon the purpose and outcome of their approaches and enact change that
positively affects future outcomes for students and teachers.
The aim of phenomenographic investigations is not just to describe or define
experience, but to capture variation in the ways phenomena are experienced, and group
these conceptions (or ways of seeing) into categories for the purpose of description. In
this study of teachers’ approaches with student behaviour in the Prep year, variation
has been captured and the range of ways of seeing approaches has been detailed and
analysed. Importantly, this study has allowed teachers to articulate their practices with
student behaviour and has raised their voices. The findings which have been
communicated through these voices may hopefully shape future responses to how
student behaviour is approached in classrooms. The pedagogical potential of
phenomenography has been realised, with the analysis of variation and associated
implications pointing clearly to the complex range of considerations required to
Chapter 6: Conclusion 239
implement holistic approaches to student behaviour. Åkerlind (2005b), a strong
advocate for phenomenography, says its advantage lies in another way of viewing
knowledge, research and reality. Central to phenomenography is its aim to capture
experience as the internal relation between people and phenomena. In this case, this
study sought to explore the internal relation between Prep teachers and their
approaches with student behaviour. Marton (1981) suggested that outcomes of studies
that explore this internal relation are of sufficient interest in themselves, but
phenomenography’s focus on variation, and its particular focus on capturing the range
of ways that people can experience a phenomenon, cannot be obtained in any other
way.
My journey along the road to understanding phenomenography and its
theoretical counterpart, variation theory, for this study has been a long and arduous
process. Understanding phenomenographic terms and the varied application of
phenomenographic methods created much confusion initially. Engaging in researching
these issues and wrestling with understanding how variation theory influences
phenomenographic methods, and how this fits with my study, allowed me to develop
a deeper understanding of phenomenography and variation theory, thus strengthening
the application of phenomenography to this study of teachers’ experiences of student
behaviour in Prep classrooms.
The way in which the unit of phenomenographic research is described in
research studies varies, as does the way in which researchers articulate their
approaches to the methodology. To date, there has been little review of the
interchangeable use of phenomenographic terms such as experience, conception,
seeing, thinking etc., or of how this influences the way phenomenographic studies are
conducted and reported. It seems crucial that researchers conducting
phenomenographic investigations clearly define the terminology that is to be used
within the study, and exercise transparency in detailing the approach taken throughout,
which I have attempted to do.
Although phenomenographic studies capture and report variation in the ways
phenomena are experienced, they may also provide an opportunity to reveal new ways
of understanding phenomenography and variation theory. There has been much
diversity in the way that phenomenographic studies have been carried out, and clear
articulation of these different approaches has been limited (Åkerlind, 2005b; Harris,
240 Chapter 6: Conclusion
2011; Hasselgren & Beach, 1997). Phenomenographic researchers must be conscious
of the different approaches and choose methods that are complementary to their
studies. They should clearly articulate the approach taken, including methods used to
gather and analyse data, with consideration given to the associated theoretical
underpinnings, and ensure the terms used to describe the unit of conception are clearly
articulated and rationalised. In this study I have aimed to clearly articulate my use of
the phenomenographic approach, the theoretical underpinnings of this approach, and
the associated terms adopted. I have also aimed to carefully detail the analysis and
report the findings in a way that realises Marton’s (2015) pedagogical potential. The
detailing of my approach with phenomenography may assist other novice researchers
in the future, contributing to their understanding of phenomenography as a
methodology and understanding its significant potential for influencing teachers’
practice.
6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings of this study point to recommendations that can be made about
teachers’ behaviour approaches in Prep classrooms. These recommendations may be
useful for teachers, policy makers, school leaders and ancillary school staff such as
teacher aides working both in the Prep year and beyond in the broader educational
field. The recommendations below draw upon the new understandings gained from the
phenomenographic analysis and analysis of variance and invariance of this study of
Prep teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour. The findings,
by way of the categories of description and dimensions of variation, provide important
direction for change to pedagogy and policy which will now be identified and
discussed.
6.6.1 Recommendation 1
A stronger focus on professional learning of the range of behaviour
approaches and their theoretical underpinnings for early years preservice and
inservice teachers.
A first recommendation relates to professional learning on approaches with
student behaviour for preservice and inservice teachers in the early years of school.
Managing student behaviour has been identified as a dominant concern for the majority
of preservice teachers prior to commencing their final field experience (Peters, 2012).
Chapter 6: Conclusion 241
Successive studies have shown that preservice teachers agreed that they still had much
more to learn about encouraging and responding to student behaviour (Buchanan,
2010; DellaMattera, 2011; Rosas & West, 2009). It is evident from this study that a
stronger focus on approaches with student behaviour in preservice teacher education
is necessary. Furthermore, research has shown that teachers in general find student
behaviour challenging. This suggests that professional learning on student behaviour
approaches needs to be prioritised also for inservice teachers.
It is important that both preservice and inservice teachers develop knowledge of
the theoretical underpinnings of behaviour approaches, so that they are able to critique
approaches and select ones that best meet their students’ needs. Behaviour approaches
and associated theories should be embedded in preservice teacher education
professional experience units, so that preservice teachers are supported in connecting
theory with practice and encouraged to critically reflect on this relationship. Inservice
professional learning for teachers on student behaviour should also help teachers
understand the theoretical underpinnings of their approaches and include a focus on
flexible approaches. An emphasis also needs to be placed on understanding the
importance of approaches which support students’ self-regulation in the early years of
schooling and the dimensions of variation necessary to achieve this. Professional
learning should also encourage teachers to challenge deficit thinking and to become
agents of change.
6.6.2 Recommendation 2
Providing early years preservice and inservice teachers with a clearer
understanding of the complex nature of approaches with student behaviour and
of how more holistic and integrative approaches may contribute positively to
students’ self-regulation.
A second important recommendation is for preservice teachers to have
opportunities to develop an understanding of the complex nature of approaches with
student behaviour. Professional learning needs to support development of
understanding of the importance of relationships, teacher flexibility and the teaching
of new social skills to support student behaviour in the early years of school. Preservice
teacher education which focuses on the importance of behaviour approaches that are
collaborative by nature, and on student engagement, diversity and inclusion is
essential. These dimensions were evidenced in Categories 3, 4 and 5 in this study:
242 Chapter 6: Conclusion
approaches with student behaviour which focused on engagement with learning,
actively teaching prosocial behaviours, collaboration, supportive relationships and
inclusion, aimed at the development of student self-regulation and social and
emotional skills that positively influence ongoing personal development. It is
important that both preservice and inservice teacher education programs help early
years teachers to understand that behaviour approaches need to be conceived as
complex and integrative, rather than seen solely as a set of lock-step strategies to apply
to student misbehaviour.
Importantly, whatever is taught about approaching student behaviour must be
based on the best available evidence. The best evidence about what works in student
behaviour support comes from systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on
rigorously conducted trials that provide information about what works for teachers and
under what conditions. Research has found, for example, that Classroom and
Behaviour Management (CBM) courses were not often evidence-based (O'Neill &
Stephenson, 2014). Courses that are not underpinned by rigorous empirical research
should be used with caution. While the use of evidenced-based behaviour practices is
important, so too is the need for preservice teachers to look at student behaviour
practices holistically, not just to apply a set of evidence-based strategies to student
behaviour. This would require the teaching profession to adopt a critical lens when
thinking about behaviour approaches, and to build a work climate that openly
questions, critiques and adapts, rather than simply accepts or tolerates mandated
approaches without critique.
6.6.3 Recommendation 3
Access to supports and services for early years preservice and inservice
teachers that are struggling with behaviour approaches, and quality training for
behaviour support personnel.
Early years preservice and inservice teachers need to be well-supported in their
practice with approaches with student behaviour. Preservice teachers in particular need
to be introduced to a wide range of supports and services that they can access when
faced with challenging student behaviour. Appropriate supports would include
behaviour-specific mentoring for preservice teachers (Angelides & Mylordou, 2011;
Spooner-Lane, 2017); a resource portal that provides a range of information on
inclusive behaviour approaches (Denton et al., 2005; Manouselis, Vuorikari, & Van
Chapter 6: Conclusion 243
Assche, 2010); self-refection tools (Hollingsworth & Clarke, 2017; McCombs, 1997;
Timperley, 2015) and interactive webinars (Reese, 2010).
An important function of mentoring programs is to challenge teachers to reflect
and reframe their beliefs and practices in order to enhance the quality of their teaching
and of student learning outcomes (Spooner-Lane, 2017). Mentoring for preservice
teachers on approaches with student behaviour would be helpful to disrupt ineffective
practice and to identify more positive and productive strategies that would lead to
enhanced student and teacher well-being and favourable learning outcomes for
students. This support is important, but equally important is the need for behaviour
support personnel and services to also receive professional education on behaviour
approaches that best support inclusivity and successful outcomes for student learning
in the Prep year.
6.6.4 Recommendation 4
To encourage AITSL to consider a range of resources and illustrations of
practice that acknowledge the complex nature of student behaviour practice in
the ‘graduate stage’, and recognise early childhood as an important stage of
development that requires early years teachers to develop specialist knowledge
and skills.
A core recommendation from this study is a move away from looking at student
behaviour approaches in isolation, towards adopting a holistic view of student
behaviour when designing professional learning programs for preservice and inservice
teachers. The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2014), guides
professional learning, practice and engagement to facilitate teacher quality, and to
contribute to the public standing of the profession. Standard 4.3 describes the
professional practice for managing student behaviour across a range of professional
stages, from Graduate to Lead. Descriptions of practice range from demonstrating
knowledge of practical approaches to managing children’s behaviour (Graduate); to
establishing and negotiating clear expectations (Proficient); and developing a flexible
repertoire of behaviour management strategies (Highly Accomplished). The graduate
description of practice aligns with the notion of isolated strategies for managing
student behaviour as seen in Categories 1 and 2. In light of the findings from this study,
it would seem that this description supports compartmentalised student behaviour
approaches, and this may be detrimental to preservice teachers’ development.
244 Chapter 6: Conclusion
In addition, Krieg and Whitehead (2015) argue that the Australian Professional
Standards for Teachers do not differentiate the early childhood stage from general
levels of schooling in terms of the specialist knowledge, skills and engagement
required for effective teaching that supports learners in the early years. In delivery of
professional development on the Standards, it would be worthwhile for AITSL to
consider a range of resources and illustrations of practice that acknowledge the
complex nature of student behaviour practice, and recognise the early years as a
particular phase that requires teachers to have specialist knowledge and skills that
effectively shape students’ social and emotional learning. This would include drawing
attention to the range of approaches that support student behaviour in the early years,
including ones that are more likely to lead to the development of students’ self-
regulation, and the importance of teachers reflecting on the purpose of the student
behaviour approaches they use.
6.6.5 Recommendation 5
Provision for school-based professional conversations for problem solving
and co-constructing new ideas with student behaviour approaches that are
contextually relevant and that challenge familiar and ineffective practice.
It is important that schools have the flexibility to develop responses to student
behaviour that are contextually relevant. In line with Timperley’s (2015) work, it is
recommended that school leadership enables professional conversations for problem
solving and co-constructing new ideas with student behaviour approaches. The
development of new knowledge is important for teacher professional growth.
Timperley (2015) suggested that a mix of context specific individual theories of
practice and research-based theories allows new knowledge to arise. It is important
that schools recognise the importance of local contexts, so that they do not just use
available evidence in isolation, but value-add to it. Knowledge must be relevant to
teachers’ particular contexts so that solutions are relevant and actionable. Teachers can
then become ‘adaptive experts’, who both use and contribute to the wider knowledge
base (Timperley, 2011).
In addition, teacher practice needs to be challenged, especially when familiar
and ineffective practice endures (Timperley, 2015). In line with Timperley’s (2015)
paper on professional conversations, reflective coaching for teachers - where
experienced teachers who have additional training on student behaviour are engaged
Chapter 6: Conclusion 245
in joint analysis and co-construct practice - may assist them to develop new and more
effective approaches to support student behaviour, and to challenge those practices
which are ineffective. As found in this study, Prep teachers hold a wealth of knowledge
of individual students and of their particular context, and are therefore best placed to
develop new ideas to support student behaviour. It is important that teachers are
empowered to create and communicate new knowledge and to develop responsive
behaviour approaches through collaboration with other teachers and school leadership
teams, with reflective coaching provided by behaviour experts. The provision of
flexibility is key here; without the means to adapt behaviour approaches to meet the
diverse needs of students, it is likely that teachers will be stuck with compartmentalised
approaches aimed at ‘managing’, as seen in Categories 1 and 2.
6.6.6 Recommendation 6
Provision of programs for teacher professional learning on student
behaviour that centre on self-reflection and support teacher agency through
developing a balanced repertoire of behaviour approaches.
The final recommendation from this study points to a program for teacher
professional learning that integrates Timperley’s (2015) work on professional
conversations and the teacher inquiry and knowledge building cycle (Timperley, 2011)
as a way to encourage teacher agency. It is important that teachers are empowered to
guide their own professional learning, in collaboration with others, and to develop
processes for identifying problems, gaining new knowledge, developing solutions and
evaluating outcomes. In addition there is value in developing a teacher reflection
framework on the use of a balance of behaviour approaches, based on the reflective
pedagogical framework of Department of Education and Training (2015b), using the
approaches in Categories 1 to 5. The provision of a professional learning program for
teachers built around reflection on the five categories from this study, and on the
dimensions of variation that underpin them, will guide teachers’ personal reflections
on their approaches with student behaviour, and challenge them to consider whether
there is a balance between management approaches and the more independent
engagement approaches. Teachers can then identify where they need to expand their
repertoire of approaches to assist Prep students in the acquisition of behavioural self-
regulation. The strength of such a professional learning program lies in not seeking to
replace existing professional learning programs on student behaviour approaches but
246 Chapter 6: Conclusion
to value-add to what schools and teachers already do. Such a program will engage
schools and teachers in reflecting upon their school-based plans and practice with
approaches with student behaviour in the Prep year, challenge practices that are not
helpful, and develop new approaches that are holistic in nature.
6.7 STRENGTHS OF THE STUDY
The strength of phenomenographic studies is the potential to effect change in
consciousness when people learn to see a part of the world in a significantly new way
(Dahlin, 2007). Analysis of data from phenomenographic studies reveals a richness in
reporting the range of ways people experience phenomena that cannot be gained via
others modes of study. In this study, then, a strength is the new-found knowledge of
the range of ways Prep teachers approach student behaviour and of what dimensions
of variation exist in each of these ways of seeing (conceptions). This analysis of
variation has identified understandings of the dimensions teachers need to hold open
in their awareness in order to approach student behaviour in more complex and holistic
ways that serve to support student self-regulation.
In social science disciplines such as education, Sandberg (1997) argued that the
most common way to ensure reliability of research results is through replicability. This
means that if at least two independent researchers achieve similar results to the original
researcher when studying the same data, then the results may be seen as reliable
(p.204). There are some questions around whether phenomenographic results achieved
by way of ‘categories of description’ could be similarly replicated by other researchers
(Sandberg, 1997). However, there is a strong focus and robust discussion in the
phenomenographic literature on methods employed by phenomenographers to address
reliability. These methods include: consistent interview frameworks, a whole of
transcript approach to analysis, adherence to iterative cycles, collaborative analysis,
and bracketing preconceived ideas.
A consistent interview framework with no leading questions is important for
reliability in phenomenographic studies. This study’s interview framework was
carefully focused on the phenomenon and was used consistently across the 21 teacher
interviews. Bowden (2005) also identified the following features of robust
phenomenographic studies: analysis where the researcher plays ‘devil’s advocate’; a
delay in both labelling categories and looking for relations between categories until
Chapter 6: Conclusion 247
analysis of the categories is complete; and a whole of transcript approach which
focuses on meaning. These characteristics are seen to increase the validity of
outcomes, especially when these processes are transparent (p. 90). To ensure rigour
and a transparent process in this study, a whole of transcript approach to analysis was
adopted. Åkerlind et al. (2005) catered for interpretative rigour through employing the
iterative process of analysis. They argued that interpretive rigour is established through
a series of iterative cycles between the transcript data; the interpretations of the data
by the researcher; and the checking of these interpretations back against the data
(p.87). This iterative process to analysis was critically important to this study, and
revealed five categories of description that represented a faithful representation of the
participants’ conceptions or ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour.
While it has been said that there may be potential limitations for single
researchers attempting phenomenographic studies, Åkerlind (2005a) believed that a
team-based phenomenographic research approach may help develop more
comprehensive understandings of data. Value is seen in collaboration between
researchers during the analysis phase, and in the rigour that is gained through rich
discussion, reflection and challenge. In this study it was important to ensure
interpretative rigour through adhering to the iterative cycles and through the
scheduling of discussion meetings with the supervisory team and other
phenomenography mentors (e.g. Åke Ingerman), to scrutinise, debate and test the
categories against the data. In addition, it was helpful to take breaks during the
analysis, in order to gain a fresh perspective, hence the 18 month time frame that was
needed in the analysis phase. A strength in this study therefore lies in the collaborative
approach taken to data analysis.
Phenomenographic researchers who are investigating the experiences of others
must ‘bracket’, or hold in check any preconceived ideas which might contaminate the
data, as researchers are intentionally related to the research object (Richardson, 1999;
Sandberg, 1997). This bracketing was important in this study, and collaboration with
my supervision team during the analysis phase served to challenge and keep
preconceived ideas in check. Åkerlind (2005b) suggested that for single researchers, a
critical attitude towards the interpretation of data is vital. In this study, adopting a
critical attitude was important to ensuring that I was staying faithful to participants’
conceptions, rather than putting my own interpretations on theirs. This required me to
248 Chapter 6: Conclusion
continually question my analysis by returning time and again to the transcripts to keep
a check on the way I was analysing the data. Bowden (2005) stated that rigour is
directly linked to validity; and that the validity of outcomes is related to the processes
used at all stages of phenomenographic research. Thus, it is important that the
researcher is transparent in detailing the steps of the analysis. This transparency was
important to me, especially in light of the lack of transparency I noted when looking
to understand the process of analysis of other phenomenographic studies. I was
committed to being transparent in the steps I took in the analysis of the data which are
detailed in Chapter 3.
6.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Phenomenographic studies are subject to several limitations which must be
acknowledged. One of these is researcher bias. In all stages of phenomenographic
research, it is important for researchers to ensure they are capturing participants’ own
conceptions and keeping a check on their preconceived ideas, values and beliefs, which
should be kept separate from the data. While conducting the interviews for this study,
the carefully constructed semi-structured interview schedule limited the potential for
bias, as the questions were purely focused around participants’ own experiences.
During the analysis of the transcripts, it was also important to safeguard participants’
conceptions and ensure they were represented truthfully. Bowden (2000) agreed with
Sandberg’s assertion that categories of description must be as faithful as possible to
participants’ individual conceptions, as their reality is important to our understanding
of the phenomenon (Sandberg, 1995; Bowden, 2000).
While it is important that phenomenographers keep their preconceived ideas,
values and beliefs in check, descriptions developed when analysing the data will be
dependent upon the researcher’s perspective as well as on the empirical and theoretical
context of the data (Svensson, 1997). This may be a limitation of phenomenographic
studies. Walsh (2000) discussed the construction of categories of description from the
data. In one approach, the categories are seen to be constructed by the researcher. This
construction follows certain procedures and principles with the researcher having
control over the data. It allows the categories of description to be developed in a logical
fashion. A question posed here by Walsh (2000) addressed whether this approach is in
fact a faithful representation of the data. A tension was seen to be evident between the
need to be true to the data and the need to create an orderly construction (Walsh, 2000).
Chapter 6: Conclusion 249
Walsh (2000) added that when researchers develop categories from their own
framework or lens, a hazard lies in the possibility of adding or adjusting categories
which are not supported by the data. Imposing a logical framework where one doesn’t
exist may result in bias.
The potential for bias to occur was continually at the forefront of my mind during
the construction of the categories of description. In the early stages of analysis I spent
a lot of time thinking about how the categories would be constructed in an effort to
avoid bias. This led me to adopt an iterative process of initially simply grouping
‘meaning statements’ rather than allocating meaning statements to predefined
categories. Therefore data in this study were analysed by reviewing each transcript
with a ‘construction towards discovery’ approach, with the aim being to discover new
ways of understanding the phenomenon (Walsh, 2000, p. 25). Continual adjustment
of the groupings of meaning statements allowed the categories to gradually emerge
from the data and avoided the potential for researcher bias. During the later stages of
analysis, it was important that I considered carefully the meaning of each participant
statement when making allocations of participant statements to categories. This helped
to ensure individual conceptions were grouped faithfully to categories, with categories
being tested, readjusted and new ones created based on the collective meaning of the
individual participant statements. This process, as detailed in chapter 3, assisted greatly
in limiting the potential for researcher bias.
Another limitation of this study relates to sample size. Phenomenographic
studies typically use small samples sizes (Akerlind, et al., 2005). Swedish
phenomenographers Larsson & Holmström (2007) stated that data from 20
participants are usually adequate in phenomenographic studies for discovering the
variation of the phenomenon investigated. Other phenomenographers, such as
Trigwell (2000) and Akerlind et al. (2005) suggested slightly smaller or larger sample
sizes as appropriate. In this study the sample size was 21 participants; a sample size
large enough to ensure enough data to obtain variation, but at the same time to make
the analysis of data manageable. Although small sample sizes are appropriate for
phenomenographic studies, it is important to understand that studies are also limited
by their sample size. The findings of this study relate to this particular group of
Queensland Prep teachers, and it must be recognised that a different sample of teachers
(for example a group of Indigenous or Regional/Rural Prep teachers) may have
250 Chapter 6: Conclusion
revealed different ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour. Åkerlind, et al.
(2005) state that as the meaning of the phenomenon is subject to variation, it is only
valid at that particular time and in that particular situation. This means that this current
study represents a point-in-time picture of the conceptions of this particular group of
participants.
Another limitation to this study could have been a lack of diversity in the sample.
During the recruitment phase of this study, even though I approached a large (n=128)
and diverse range of schools within the Brisbane metropolitan region, more teachers
from the more affluent suburbs of inner Brisbane than teachers from areas of Brisbane
experiencing disadvantage volunteered to participate. A purposeful sample with the
inclusion of teachers from more diverse settings may have strengthened the study’s
findings.
A final limitation to this study was my limited knowledge of phenomenography
in the early stages of designing this study. My growth as a novice phenomenographer
throughout my candidature has allowed me to comprehend the methodology and
theoretical framework in a more complex way; and there are some changes I would
have made to the conduct of this study. First, I would have narrowed the phenomenon
under investigation further, and perhaps looked at only one aspect of approaches with
student behaviour, for example the use of rewards in Prep classrooms. Additionally, I
may have developed a student behaviour case study, vignette or hypothetical event
upon which to focus the interviews (Rovio-Johansson & Ingerman, 2016). This may
have generated conceptions that were closer to the phenomenon than the more general
conceptions of student behaviour approaches I gathered.
6.9 FUTURE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
There are many possible avenues for future research arising from this study, such
as researching effective ways to provide professional learning programs to teachers on
student behaviour approaches that allow them to become agents of change; or trialling
and documenting a professional development program to support teacher reflection on
their use of student behaviour approaches.
It would be worthwhile researching the effectiveness of particular behaviour
approaches adopted by school systems, such as the Essential Skills for Classroom
Management, and behaviour reward systems. The data from this study suggest that
Chapter 6: Conclusion 251
there was an abundant and varied use of reward systems in Prep classrooms. It would
be worthwhile investigating how teachers in Prep classrooms are using reward systems
and the efficacy of such systems from both teacher and student perspectives.
Student perspectives on their own behaviour are also important, and often
neglected in research on student behaviour approaches. Undertaking a research study
with students, looking at student behaviour in the classroom, may shed light on how
students understand what teachers do. Phenomenography would be a unique vehicle
for investigating students’ conceptions of their own behaviour in their classrooms.
Many teachers in this study talked about how their personality influenced their
approach with student behaviour. For example Participants 5 and 6 stated:
I don’t know, I hear my husband say, ah you’re too laid back (teacher’s name)!
And I’m like ahh (laughter). I’m not the disciplinarian. Anyway, so maybe
that reflects my teaching style as well. I5
Facilitator: And why do you think that is? Like why do you think…
Interviewee: Because I'm a control freak! I know it, I can say it! My name is
(teacher’s name) and I'm a control freak (laughter)!
Facilitator: Is that just something you use in your teaching, is that the way that
you’ve always been?
Interviewee: No that’s even at home, everything runs by routine, you get up
at 5, you do this at 5:30. No, no, call it OCD, call it what you want, but yes
no… I6
It would also be worthwhile investigating further how teachers’ personal
characteristics and dispositions influence approaches with student behaviour. This
may be a more quantitative study, that examines a range of teacher characteristics and
their relationships with their approaches with student behaviour. It was also found in
this study that teachers varied in their reflective capacities. It would be helpful to
understand more about what leads teachers to critically reflect on their practice with
student behaviour.
In this study it was identified that there needs to be a stronger emphasis placed
on professional learning programs for teachers on student behaviour approaches that
help them to think in more holistic and integrative ways and position themselves as
powerful in their ability to reflect on their approaches, build their knowledge base and
252 Chapter 6: Conclusion
identify effective and flexible approaches that suit the students within their particular
context. The case for teacher agency has been made in this chapter. Teachers have
challenging terrain to negotiate in their journey to selecting integrative approaches
with student behaviour. They encounter tensions daily such as attempting to reconcile
school-mandated approaches alongside their professional philosophy and values.
These tensions often constrain teachers’ actions and lead to dissatisfaction and stress.
Helping both preservice and inservice teachers navigate this terrain and these tensions
is essential. Developing a school-based professional learning program based on the
dimensions of variation seen in Categories 3, 4 and 5, that positions teachers as agents
of change, and researching the effectiveness of such a program would be helpful to
understanding what best supports teachers’ professional development concerning
student behaviour approaches.
In conclusion, future research opportunities exist to further the development of
the phenomenographic methodology and variation theory. Phenomenography as a
relatively new approach to educational research is continually growing and adapting
(Åkerlind, 2005; Pang, 2003). Rovio-Johansson and Ingerman (2016) argued that
researchers must continue to engage in methodological discussion in order to retain
research vigour. This includes a commitment to collaborating on and advancing the
phenomenography methodology and variation theory. Ingerman (2014) has pioneered
phenomenographic research that moves beyond considering the individual learner to
analysing learning at a small-group level. Using group interviews with teachers in
phenomenographic studies of student behaviour may be a novel way of eliciting
teacher talk about particular approaches with student behaviour (such as the use of
rewards or the Essential Skills), and to enhance phenomenographic variation.
6.10 CONCLUSION
This thesis has revealed how Prep teachers see their approaches with student
behaviour. It has delivered recommendations for improved outcomes for both students
and teachers in the field of student behaviour. Chapter 1 introduced the background
and context of the study. Chapter 2, the literature review, included a synthesis of
research, policy and advice to teachers relating to the broad field of student behaviour.
Phenomenography and variation theory, the methodology and theoretical framework
for this study, were explained in Chapter 3, along with the data collection procedures
and analyses. In Chapter 4, the findings of the study were presented in the form of a
Chapter 6: Conclusion 253
phenomenographic analysis of variation. In Chapter 5, a discussion of the study’s
findings in the context of existing literature was provided. Finally, Chapter 6 detailed
implications and recommendations arising from the study findings.
This thesis has highlighted the contribution of this study to advancing knowledge
on approaches with student behaviour in the Prep year. It has been acknowledged that
student behaviour is complex, and as such approaches need to be conceived as
multifaceted and be responsive to the diverse needs of students. As Egeberg et al.
(2016) stated,
It is clear that effective classroom management is so much more than just
rules, rewards and consequences, and that a mastery of classroom
management skills is not an end in itself. It is evident from both the research
and the standards that knowing and understanding young people, their needs
and underlying motivations for their behaviours will help to inform a teacher’s
instructional and behavioural approach to classroom management and should
therefore also inform initial teacher programs in their approaches to
effectively teaching classroom management (p.13).
These aspects are necessary for effective support of student behaviour, as are
knowledge and application of the dimensions of variation found in the holistic and
integrative categories from this study. Integration of these dimensions in preservice
and inservice teacher professional development and learning may have a favourable
effect on students’ social and emotional learning, and produce positive outcomes for
student and teacher well-being.
This thesis has made a methodological contribution to phenomenography. It has
detailed the pedagogical potential from the study for enhancing student behaviour
policy and approaches with student behaviour. It is hoped that the recommendations
from this chapter shift the way teachers, school leaders, policy makers and teacher
educators think about student behaviour and student behaviour approaches, to better
support Queensland’s youngest school-aged children.
Bibliography 255
Bibliography
Aguilar, P., & Retamal, G. (2009). Protective environments and quality education in
humanitarian contexts. International Journal of Educational Development,
29(1), 3-16. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.02.002
Åkerlind, G. (2005a). Academic growth and development: How do university
academics experience it? Higher Education, 50(1), 1-32.
Åkerlind, G. (2005b). Learning about phenomenography: Interviewing, data analysis
and the qualitative research paradigm. In J. A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.),
Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 63-73). Melbourne, VIC: RMIT
Publishing.
Åkerlind, G. (2005c). Phenomenographic methods: A case illustration. In J. A.
Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 103-
127). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
Åkerlind, G. (2005d). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research
methods. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 321-334.
doi:10.1080/07294360500284672
Åkerlind, G., Bowden, J., & Green, P. (2005). Learning to do phenomenography: A
reflective discussion. In J. A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental
phenomenography (pp. 74-100). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
Albany Creek State School. (2015). Albany Creek State School responsible behaviour
plan for students (pp. 1-22). Brisbane, Queensland: Albany Creek State School.
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2006). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. (7th
ed.). New Jersey, USA: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Alter, P., Walker, J. N., & Landers, E. (2013). Teachers' perceptions of students'
challenging behavior and the impact of teacher demographics. Education &
Treatment of Children, 36(4), 51-69. doi:10.1353/etc.2013.0040
Angelides, P., & Mylordou, A. (2011). The beneficial outcome of a successful
mentoring relationship: the development of inclusive education. Teacher
Development, 15(4), 533-547. doi:10.1080/13664530.2011.642650
Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.). (1956). The individual psychology of
Alfred Adler. Great Britain: Basic Books.
Apple, M. (2012). Education and power. New York, USA: Taylor & Francis.
Arbuckle, C., & Little, E. (2004). Teachers' perceptions and management of disruptive
classroom behaviour during the middle years (years five to nine). Australian
Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 4(2004), 59-70.
256 Bibliography
Archambault, I., Vandenbossche-Makombo, J., & Fraser, S. L. (2017). Students'
oppositional behaviors and engagement in school: The differential role of the
student-teacher relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(6), 1702-
1712. doi:10.1007/s10826-017-0691-y
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2014). Explicit instruction. New York, USA: Guilford
Publications.
Ashworth, P., & Lucas, U. (1998). What is the ‘world’ of phenomenography?
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 415-431.
doi:10.1080/0031383980420407
Ashworth, P., & Lucas, U. (2000). Achieving empathy and engagement: A practical
approach to the design, conduct and reporting of phenomenographic research.
Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 295-308.
doi:10.1080/03075070050193424
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012). The shape of the
australian curriculum. Version 4.0. Sydney, NSW: Australian Curriculum
Assessment and Reporting Authority.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2013). Student diversity
and the Australian curriculum: Advice for principals, schools and teachers.
Sydney, Australia: Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting
Authority.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). Australian
curriculum: Health and physical education. Retrieved from
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/health-and-physical-
education/curriculum/f-10?layout=1
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016a). The Australian
curriculum. Overview. Retrieved from
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016b). NAPLAN.
Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016c). Why NAP.
Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu.au/about/why-nap
Australian Education Union. (2008a). National educator survey 2008 results - Public
release summary. Retrieved from Southbank, Vic:
http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2009/Nesurvey08sum.pdf
Australian Education Union. (2008b). New educators survey 2008. Results and report.
Victoria, Australia: Australian Education Union.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2014). Australian
professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from
https://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-
teachers/standards/list
Bibliography 257
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2016). Spotlight. What do
we know about early career teacher attrition rates in Australia? Retrieved
from Melbourne, Victoria: https://www.aitsl.edu.au/research/spotlight
Axup, T., & Gersch, I. (2008). The impact of challenging student behaviour upon
teachers' lives in a secondary school: teachers' perceptions. British Journal of
Special Education, 35(3), 144-151. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8578.2008.00388.x
Aydin, B., & Kaya, A. (2016). Sources of stress for teachers working in private
elementary schools and methods of coping with stress. Universal Journal of
Educational Research, 4(12), 186-195. doi:10.13189/ujer.2016.041324
Ball, S. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of
Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228. doi:10.1080/0268093022000043065
Ballantyne, R. (2005). The pedagogy page. The ACT Teacher, 8-9.
Balson, M. (1996). Understanding classroom behaviour (3rd ed.). Harts, England:
Arena.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behaviour modification. USA: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287. doi:10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90022-L
Barblett, L., Knaus, M., & Barratt-Pugh, C. (2016). The pushes and pulls of pedagogy
in the early years: Competing knowledges and the erosion of play-based
learning. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(4), 36-43.
Belt, A., & Belt, P. (2017). Teachers’ differing perceptions of classroom disturbances.
Educational Research, 59(1), 54-72. doi:10.1080/00131881.2016.1262747
Bergner, R. (2011). What is behavior? And so what? New Ideas in Psychology, 29,
147-155.
Berk, L. E. (2006). Child development (7th ed.). USA: Pearson International Edition.
Bertrand, Y. (1995). Contemporary theories and practice in education. Maddison:
Atwood Publishing.
Bethany Lutheran Primary School. (2017). Relational management and restorative
justice. Retrieved from https://www.bethany.qld.edu.au/education/relational-
management-and-restorative-justice
Betters-Bubon, J., Brunner, T., & Kansteiner, A. (2016). Success for all? The role of
the school counselor in creating and sustaining culturally responsive positive
behavior interventions and supports programs. Professional Counselor, 6(3),
263-277.
258 Bibliography
Biemiller, A., & Meichenbaum, D. (1992). The nature and nurture of the self-directed
learner. Educational Leadership, 50, 75-80.
Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2015). School readiness and self-regulation: A
developmental psychobiological approach (Vol. 66, pp. 711-731). Palo Alto:
Annual Reviews.
Blundell, D. (2011, October 5). [2008-2010 Student disciplinary absences, incidents
and rates per 1000 prep year students per term].
Booth, P. (2012). The television social network: Exploring TV characters.
Communication Studies, 63(3), 309-327.
Booth, S. (2008). Researching learning in networked learning - Phenomenography
and variation theory as empirical and theoretical approaches. Paper presented
at the 6th International Conference on Networked Learning, United Kingdom.
Booth, S., & Ingerman, Å. (2002). Making sense of physics in the first year of study.
Learning and Instruction, 12(5), 493-507. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00028-
7
Boström, B., Sandh, M., Lundberg, D., & Fridlund, B. (2004). Cancer- related pain in
palliative care: Patients’ perceptions of pain management. Journal of advanced
nursing, 45(4), 410-419.
Bowden, J. (2000a). Experience of phenomenographic research: A personal account.
In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 47-61). Melbourne,
Vic: RMIT Publishing.
Bowden, J. (2000b). The nature of phenomenographic research. In J. A. Bowden & E.
Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 1-18). Melbourne, Vic: RMIT
Publishing.
Bowden, J. (2005). Reflections on the phenomenographic team research process. In J.
Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 11-
31). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University Press.
Bown, K. (2009). The policy paradox. Rattler 91(Spring), 26-28.
Bown, K. (2014). Insider perspectives on influence and decision making in the
Australian political sphere: A case study of national quality policy in ECEC
2006-09. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(4), 54-63.
Brackenreed, D., & Barnett, J. (2006). Teacher stress and inclusion: Perceptions of
pre-service teachers. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 34(1-2), 156-176.
Bradfield, L. (2011, 16 July 2017). Letters: Suspension proves ineffective. Retrieved
from http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/letters-suspension-proves-
ineffective/news-story/ea73cef7da6035c22ed5c4c52ccf4bf6
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of
schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes
Bibliography 259
results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(3), 133-148.
Breathnach, H., O'Gorman, L., & Danby, S. (2016). 'Well it depends on what you'd
call play': Parent perspectives on play in Queensland's Preparatory Year.
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(2), 77-84.
Brill, A. A. (Ed.) (1938). The basic writings of Sigmund Freud. New York: Random
House.
Brophy, J. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classrooms and students.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 1-18. doi:10.1016/0742-
051X(88)90020-0
Broström, A., Strömberg, A., Dahlström, U., & Fridlund, B. (2001). Patients with
congestive heart failure and their conceptions of their sleep situation. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 34(4), 520-529.
Brough, P., Morrow, R., & Harding, L. (2016). Supporting the educators:
Occupational stress and well-being across the teaching career span. Brisbane,
Queensland: Griffith University.
Bruce, C. S. (1999). Workplace experiences of information literacy. International
Journal of Information Management, 19(1), 33-47.
Bruce, M. (2015). Parents and experts say all work and no play behind soaring number
of prep suspensions. Retrieved from
http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/parents-and-experts-say-
all-work-and-no-play-behind-soaring-number-of-prep-suspensions/news-
story/9ca919c86cd804e767c8603ac60e1de7
Bryer, F., Beamish, W., Davies, M., Marshall, R., Wilson, L., & Caldwell, W. (2005).
The first step to school-wide positive behavioural support in a Queensland high
school: laying the foundation for participation. Special Education
Perspectives, 14(2), 26-45.
Buchanan, J. (2010). May I be excused? Why teachers leave the profession. Asia
Pacific Journal of Education, 30(2), 199-211.
Bullock, E., & Brownhill, S. (2011). A quick guide to behaviour management in the
early years. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Butler, A., & Monda-Amaya, L. (2016). Preservice Teachers' Perceptions of
Challenging Behavior. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(4), 276-
292.
Calabi, C. (1987). Husserl and intentionality: A study of mind, meaning, and language.
Topoi, 6(2), 139-142. doi:10.1007/bf00141770
Caloundra State School. (2017). Caloundra State School responsible behaviour plan
for students (pp. 1-28). Caloundra, Queensland: Caloundra State School.
260 Bibliography
Calvert, L. (2016). The power of teacher agency. Journal of Staff Development, 37(2),
51.
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation:
A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 363-423.
Cannella, G. (2005). Reconceptualizing the field (of early childhood care and
education): If 'western' child development is a problem, then what do we do?
In N. Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood education (illustrat ed.).
New York, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Canter, L. (2010). Assertive discipline: Positive behavior management for today's
classroom (4th ed.). USA: Solution Tree Press.
Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1976). Assertive discipline. A take charge approach for
today's educator. USA: Canter and Associates, Inc.
Caputi, M., Lecce, S., & Pagnin, A. (2017). The role of mother-child and teacher-child
relationship on academic achievement. European Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 14(2), 141-158. doi:10.1080/17405629.2016.1173538
Carter, D. R., Van Norman, R. K., & Tredwell, C. (2011). Program-wide positive
behavior support in preschool: Lessons for getting started. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 38(5), 349-355.
Centre for Community Child Health, & Telethon Institute for Child Health Research.
(2011). A snapshot of early childhood development in Australia. Australian
Early Development Idex (AEDI) National Report 2009. Re-issue-March 2011.
Parkville, Victoria: Australian Government Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations Retrieved from
http://video.rch.org.au/aedi/National_Report-March_2011_Reissue_final.pdf.
Cerasoli, C., Nicklin, J., & Ford, M. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980-1008. doi:10.1037/a0035661
Chilcott, T. (2011a). Prep student suspensions double as out-of-control kids not
prepared for school. Retrieved from
http://www.couriermail.com.au/life/families/prep-student-suspensions-
double-as-out-of-control-kids-not-prepared-for-school/story-e6frer7o-
1226056369509
Chilcott, T. (2011b). Prep students suspended for violent behaviour. Retrieved from
http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/prep-student-suspensions-
double-as-out-of-control-kids-not-prepared-for-school/news-
story/68441d422dc048ff57dab6297b96ea18
Chilcott, T. (2011c, 16 May). Terror tots. The Courier Mail, pp. 1-2.
Christofferson, R. D., & Callahan, K. (2015). Positive behavior support in schools
(PBSIS): An administrative perspective on the implementation of a
Bibliography 261
comprehensive school-wide intervention in an urban charter school. Education
Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, 2(2), 35-49.
Cleveland, D. (2010). Confronting pre-service teachers' stereotypes: The road to self-
awareness and self-reflection. National Forum of Applied Educational
Research Journal, 24(1/2), 73-84.
Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008). Self-reported and actual use of
proactive and reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship
with teacher stress and student behavior. Educational Psychology, 28(6), 693-
710. doi:10.1080/01443410802206700
Cole, P. (2012). Linking effective professional learning with effective teaching
practice. Victoria, Australia: Australian Institute for Teaching and School
Leadership & Education Services Australia.
Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning. (2017). CASEL.
Educating hearts. Inspiring minds. Retrieved from http://www.casel.org/
Collier-Reed, B., & Ingerman, Å. (Eds.). (2013). Phenomenography: From critical
aspects to knowledge claim (Vol. 9): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Conley, L., Marchant, M., & Caldarella, P. (2014). A comparison of teacher
perceptions and research-based categories of student behavior difficulties
Education, 134(4), 439-451.
Connor, J. (2012). Foundations for learning: Relationships between the Early Years
Learning Framework and the Australian Curriculum. AN ECA/ACARA
PAPER (pp. 1-36): Early Childhood Australia/Australian Curriculum
Assessment and Reporting Authority.
Cooley, A. (2013). Qualitative research in education: The origins, debates, and politics
of creating knowledge. Educational Studies: Journal of the American
Educational Studies Association, 49(3), 247-262.
doi:10.1080/00131946.2013.783834
Cope, C., & Ward, P. (2002). Integrating learning technology into classrooms: The
importance of teachers’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1),
67-74.
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in
early childhood programs. Washington, USA: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Corey, G. (1996). Theory and practice of counselling and psychotherapy. (5th ed.).
USA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Council of Australian Governments. (2008). National partnership agreement on early
childhood education. Canberra, Australia: Council of Australian Governments
Retrieved from
http://www.coag.gov.au/intergov_agreements/federal_financial_relations/doc
262 Bibliography
s/national_partnership/national_partnership_on_early_childhood_education.p
df.
Council of Australian Governments. (2009). Investing in the early years: A national
early childhood development strategy. An initiative of the Council of
Australian Governments. ACT, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.
Retrieved from http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2009-07-
02/docs/national_ECD_strategy.pdf.
Council of Australian Governments. (2016). National partnership agreement on
universal access to early childhood education - 2016 and 2017. Retrieved
from http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/education.aspx.
Cowley, S. (2010). Getting the buggers to behave (4th ed.). London, UK: Continuum
International Publishing Group.
Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively different
experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learning and Instruction,
8(5), 455-468.
Crawshaw, M. (2015). Secondary school teachers' perceptions of student
misbehaviour: a review of international research, 1983-2013. Australian
Journal of Education, 59(3), 292-311.
Curtis, R., Van Horne, J. W., Robertson, P., & Karvonen, M. (2010). Outcomes of a
school-wide positive behavioral support program. Professional School
Counselling, 13(3), 159-164.
Curwin, R. L., Mendler, A. N., & Mendler, B. D. (2008). Discipline with dignity. New
challenges, new solutions (3rd ed.). USA: Assosiation for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Dahlgren, L. O., & Fallsberg, M. (1991). Phenomenography as a qualitative approach
in social pharmacy research. Journal of Social and Administrative Pharmacy,
8 (4), 150-156.
Dahlin, B. (2007). Enriching the theoretical horizons of phenomenography, variation
theory and learning studies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
51(4), 327-346. doi:10.1080/00313830701485437
Dall'Alba, G., Walsh, E., Bowden, J., Martin, E., Marton, F., Masters, G., . . .
Stephanou, A. (1989). Assessing understanding: A phenomenographic
approach. Research in Science Education, 19(1), 57-66.
Dann, L. (2015). What’s the problem with time-out, anyway? Retrieved from
http://thespoke.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/whats-the-problem-with-time-
out-anyway/
De Gioia, K. (2013). Cultural negotiation: Moving beyond a cycle of misunderstanding
in early childhood settings. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 11(2), 108-
122.
Bibliography 263
De Jong, T. (2003). Behaviour management in the middle years of schooling: What is
good practice? Australian Journal of Middle Schooling, 3(1), 1-8.
De Jong, T. (2005). Making the connections: Principles of good practice in student
behaviour management and the needs of young adolescents. Australian
Journal of Middle Schooling, 5(1), 5-9.
De Nobile, J., London, T., & El Baba, M. (2015). Whole school behaviour
management and perceptions of behaviour problems in Australian primary
schools. Management in Education, 29(4), 164-171.
doi:10.1177/0892020615589135
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic
motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational
Research, 71(1), 1.
DellaMattera, J. N. (2011). Perceptions of preservice early educators: How adults
support preschoolers' social development. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education, 32(1), 26-38.
Denton, J. J., Davis, T. J., Smith, B. L., Beason, L., Strader, R. A., & eEducation
Group. (2005). The development and implementation of an online professional
development model for pre-service teacher education. Retrieved from
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/logi
n.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=ED503457&site=ehost
-live&scope=site
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2009). Effective schools
are engaging schools. Student engagement policy guidelines. Promoting
student engagement, attendance and positive behaviours in Victorian
government schools. Victoria, Australia: Student Wellbeing and Support
Division, Office of Government School Education, Department of Education
and Early Childhood Development. Retrieved from
http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/stuman/wellbeing/segpolicy.
pdf.
Department of Education and Training. (2010). Recognition and response (RnR)
information sheet. Brisbane, Australia: Department of Education and Training.
Retrieved from
http://education.qld.gov.au/students/disabilities/adjustment/pdfs/rnr_informati
on-sheet.pdf.
Department of Education and Training. (2011). A flying start for Queensland children.
Queensland Government Education White Paper. Brisbane, Australia:
Department of Education and Training. Retrieved from
http://deta.qld.gov.au/initiatives/flyingstart/pdfs/white-paper.pdf.
Department of Education and Training. (2014a). Data informed decision-making.
Retrieved from http://behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/positive-
behaviour/informed-decision-making/Pages/default.aspx
264 Bibliography
Department of Education and Training. (2014b). Template for a responsible behaviour
plan for students. Brisbane, Queensland: Education Queensland. Retrieved
from http://education.qld.gov.au/studentservices/behaviour/bm-plans.html.
Department of Education and Training. (2014c). A whole-school approach to support
student learning. Brisbane, Queensland: Department of Education and
Training.
Department of Education and Training. (2015a). Curriculum into the Classroom
(C2C). Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/c2c/
Department of Education and Training. (2015b). Foundation paper. Age-appropraite
pedagogies for the early years of schooling. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland
Government.
Department of Education and Training. (2015c, 14th October 2015). Positive
behaviour support. Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/asd-online-
resource-kit/schools/learning-environment/pbs.html
Department of Education and Training. (2016a). Australian early development census
national report 2015. A snapshot of early childhood development in Australia.
Canberra, Australia: Department of Education and Training Retrieved from
https://www.aedc.gov.au/resources/2015-aedc-results.
Department of Education and Training. (2016b). Effective teaching. Retrieved from
http://behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/positive-behaviour/effective-
teaching/Pages/default.aspx#skills
Department of Education and Training. (2016c). Every student succeeding: State
schools strategy 2017–2021. Brisbane, Queensland: Department of Education
and Training Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/about/state-
schools-strategy/index.html.
Department of Education and Training. (2016d). Professional development.
Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/actsmartbesafe/teachers/pd.html
Department of Education and Training. (2016e). Respectful relationships education
program. Retrieved from
http://education.qld.gov.au/parents/information/respectful-
relationships/index.html
Department of Education and Training. (2016f). Student engagement and retention
policy. (TASED-4-3059). Tasmania: Department of Education, Tasmanian
Government.
Department of Education and Training. (2016g, 7th March, 2016). Why adopt a
school-wide approach with PBL? Retrieved from
http://behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/positive-behaviour/whole-
school/Pages/why.aspx
Department of Education and Training. (2017a). Evidence framework. Brisbane,
Queensland: Department of Education and Training Retrieved from
Bibliography 265
https://det.qld.gov.au/publications/management-and-frameworks/evidence-
framework.
Department of Education and Training. (2017b). Find a school. Retrieved from
http://education.qld.gov.au/directory/schools/index.html
Department of Education and Training. (2017c). Inclusive education policy statement.
Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/inclusive/
Department of Education and Training. (2017d). OneSchool. Retrieved from
https://oneschool.eq.edu.au/Pages/default.aspx
Department of Education and Training. (2017e). Safe, supportive and disciplined
school environment. Brisbane, Australia: Department of Education, Training
and Employment Retrieved from
http://ppr.det.qld.gov.au/education/learning/Pages/Safe,-Supportive-and-
Disciplined-School-Environment.aspx.
Department of Education and Training. (2017f). The student engagement policy.
Retrieved from
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/studentmanagement/Pages/e
ngagepol.aspx
Department of Education and Training. (2017g). Universal access to kindergarten.
Retrieved from http://flyingstart.qld.gov.au/getting-ready-
school/Pages/access-to-kindy.aspx
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations. (2009). Belonging,
being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia.
Canberra, A.C.T: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations for the Council of Australian Governments. Retrieved from
https://docs.education.gov.au/node/2632.
Department of Education Training and Employment. (2006). The code of school
behaviour. Better behaviour, better learning. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland
Government: Department of Education Training and Employment. Retrieved
from http://education.qld.gov.au/behaviour/code-behaviour.html.
Department of Education Training and Employment. (2008). Learning in prep.
Retrieved from
http://education.qld.gov.au/strategic/advice/earlychildhood/learninginprep.ht
ml
Department of Education Training and Employment. (2012). Learning and wellbeing
framework. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Government: Department of
Education Training and Employment Retrieved from
http://deta.qld.gov.au/initiatives/learningandwellbeing/.
Department of Education Training and Employment. (2013). Statement of expectations
for a disciplined school environment. Brisbane, Australia: Department of
Education Training and Employment Retrieved from
http://education.qld.gov.au/behaviour/statement-expectations.html.
266 Bibliography
Department of Education Training and Employment. (2014). Performance insights:
School disciplinary absences. Retrieved from Brisbane, Australia:
http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/statistics/absences.html
Department of Education Training and Employment. (2015). Parent and community
engagement framework. Working together to maximise student learning.
Brisbane: Department of Education, Training and Employment.
Dewey, J. (2007). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of
education. USA: Nu Vision Publications, LLC.
Dix, K. L., Slee, P. T., Lawson, M. J., & Keeves, J. P. (2012). Implementation quality
of whole‐school mental health promotion and students’ academic performance.
Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 17(1), 45-51. doi:10.1111/j.1475-
3588.2011.00608.x
Doidge, D. (2005). When rewards don't reward. Education Horizons, 8(4), 7-8.
Domínguez, X., Vitiello, V. E., Fuccillo, J. M., Greenfield, D. B., & Bulotsky-Shearer,
R. J. (2011). The role of context in preschool learning: A multilevel
examination of the contribution of context-specific problem behaviors and
classroom process quality to low-income children's approaches to learning.
Journal of School Psychology, 49(2), 175-195. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.11.002
Donnelly, K., & Wiltshire, K. (2014). Review of the Australian Curriculum. Final
report. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Department of Education.
Dreikurs, R., Cassel, P., & Dreikurs Ferguson, E. (2004). Discipline without tears:
How to reduce conflict and establish cooperation in the classroom (Revised
ed.). Canada: John Wiley and Sons Canada, Ltd.
Dunlap, G., Strain, P. S., Fox, L., Carta, J. J., Conroy, M., Smith, B. J., . . . Sowell, C.
(2006). Prevention and intervention with young children's challenging
behavior: Perspectives regarding current knowledge. Behavioral Disorders,
32(1), 29-45.
Durlak, J., Dymnicki, A., Taylor, R., Weissberg, R., & Schellinger, K. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis
of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432.
Dweck, C. (2016). The perils and promises of praise. In M. Scherer (Ed.), On formative
assessment: Readings from educational leadership (EL Essentials) (pp. 66-75).
Alexandria: ASCD.
Earl, L. M., & Timperley, H. (2008). Professional learning conversations: challenges
in using evidence for improvement (1. Aufl. ed. Vol. 1.). Dordrecht: Springer.
Early Childhood Australia. (2016). Code of ethics (pp. 1-2). ACT, Australia: Early
Childhood Australia.
Bibliography 267
Education Queensland. (2007a). Better behaviour better learning. Professional
development suite. Understanding behaviour in context. Module 1. Brisbane,
Queensland: Education Queensland.
Education Queensland. (2007b). Better behaviour, better learning. Essential skills for
classroom management. Core learning component. Brisbane, Qld: Education
Queensland Retrieved from
https://kawanawaterssc.eq.edu.au/.../Teacher%20and%20Learning/Essential
%20Skills...
Egeberg, H., McConney, A., & Price, A. (2016). Classroom management and national
professional standards for teachers: A review of the literature on theory and
practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 41(7), 1-18.
doi:10.14221/ajte.2016v41n7.1
Ekeblad, E., & Bond, C. (1994). The nature of a conception: questions of context.
Paper presented at the Phenomenography: Philosophy and Practice
Conference, Brisbane, Australia.
Elgán, C., & Fridlund, B. (2011). Middle-aged women and everyday life: Implications
for health. British Journal of Nursing, 20(9), 570-575.
Elias, M., & Arnold, H. (2006). The educator's guide to emotional intelligence and
academic achievement: social-emotional learning in the classroom. Thousand
Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press.
Ellis, A., & Joffe-Ellis, D. (2011). Rational emotive behavior therapy. Washington,
USA: American Psychological Association.
Ellis, S., & Tod, J. (2010). Providing for inclusion. In J. Arthur & T. Cremin (Eds.),
Learning to teach in the primary school. Abington, Oxon: Routlege.
Ennis, C. R., Blair, K.-S. C., & George, H. P. (2016). An evaluation of group
contingency interventions: The role of teacher preference. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 18(1), 17-28.
Fallon, L., McCarthy, S., & Sanetti, L. (2014). School-wide positive behavior support
(SWPBS) in the classroom: Assessing perceived challenges to consistent
implementation in Connecticut cchools. Education & Treatment of Children,
37(1), 1-24.
Ferguson, K., Frost, L., & Hall, D. (2012). Predicting teacher anxiety, depression and
job satisfaction. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 27-42.
Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senécal, C., & Austin, S. (2012). Predicting intraindividual
changes in teacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and
motivational factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1-12.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.013
Feuerborn, L. L., Wallace, C., & Tyre, A. D. (2016). A qualitative analysis of middle
and high school teacher perceptions of schoolwide positive behavior supports.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(4), 219-229.
268 Bibliography
Fields, M. V., Perry, N. J., & Fields, D. M. (2010). Constructive guidance and
discipline: preschool and primary education (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson
Education Inc.
Flannery, K., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. (2009). School-wide positive behavior
support in high school: Early lessons learned. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 11(3), 177-185. doi:10.1177/1098300708316257
Fleer, M., Edwards, S., Hammer, M., Kennedy, A., Ridgway, A., Robbins, J., &
Surman, L. (2006). Early childhood learning communities. Sociocultural
research in practice. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Flower, A., McKenna, J. W., & Haring, C. D. (2017). Behavior and classroom
management: Are teacher preparation programs really preparing our teachers?
Preventing School Failure, 61(2), 163-169.
Fox, J. L. (2006). A justification for mathematical modelling experiences in the
preparatory classroom. Paper presented at the 29th annual conference of the
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Canberra, Australia.
Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
doi:10.3102/00346543074001059
Gaedtke, L. (2010). Playing with the national curriculum. Educating Young Children,
16(2), 12-14.
Garcia, E., & Hoang, D. (2015). Positive behavior supports: Using class dojo as a
token economy point system to encourage and maintain good behaviors.
Retrieved from
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=ED561860&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Gartrell, D. (2007). A guidance approach for the encouraging classroom (4th ed.).
Clifton Park: Thomson Delmar Learning.
Gartrell, D. (2011). A guidance approach for the encouraging classroom (5th ed.).
California, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Gartrell, D. (2014). A guidance approach for the encouraging classroom. (6th ed.).
USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning
Gebeke, D. (1996). The guidance approach to discipline. Retrieved from
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/famsci/fs468w.htm
Gillen, A., Wright, A., & Spink, L. (2011). Student perceptions of a positive climate
for learning: A case study. Educational Psychology in Practice., 27(1), 65 - 82.
Gillies, V. (2016). Pushed to the edge. Inclusion and behaviour support in schools.
Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Bibliography 269
Glasser, W. (1993). The quality school teacher. USA: HarperPerennial.
Glasser, W. (1998). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New
York, USA: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Glasser, W. (2001). Choice theory in the classroom. (Revised ed.). USA: Quill.
Goddard, R., & Goddard, M. (2006). Beginning teacher burnout in Queensland
schools: Associations with serious intentions to leave. The Australian
Educational Researcher, 33(2), 61-75.
Gonzales, T. L. (2012). Child teacher relationship training as a head start early
mental health intervention for children exhibiting disruptive behavior.
ProQuest LLC. Retrieved from
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=ED550953&site=ehost-
live&scope=site http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-
2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&res_dat=xri:pqm&rft_d
at=xri:pqdiss:3538101 Available from EBSCOhost eric database.
González, T. (2012). Keeping kids in schools: Restorative justice, punitive discipline,
and the school to prison pipeline. Journal of Law & Education, 41(2), 281-335.
Gore, J., & Parkes, R. (2008). On the mistreatment of management. In A. Phelan & J.
Sumsion (Eds.), Critical readings in teacher education. Provoking absences
(pp. 45-60). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Goss, P., Sonnemann, J., & Griffiths, K. (2017). Engaging students: creating
classrooms that improve learning. (2017-01). Melbourne, Vic: Grattan
Institute.
Green, P. (2005). A rigorous journey into phenomenography: From a naturalistic
inquirer standpoint. In J. A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental
phenomenography (pp. 32-46). Melbourne, Vic: RMIT Publishing.
Greene, R. W. (2008). Lost at school: Why our kids with behavioral challenges are
falling through the cracks and how we can help them. New York: Scribner.
Grieve, A. M. (2009). Teachers' beliefs about inappropriate behaviour: Challenging
attitudes? Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), 173-179.
Gruber, H., & Voneche, J. (Eds.). (1977). The essential piaget. New York: Basic
Books.
Grunseit, A. C., Weatherburn, D., & Donnelly, N. (2005). School violence and its
antecedents: Interviews with high school students. Sydney, NSW: New South
Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Retrieved from
http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/r56.pdf/$
file/r56.pdf.
Gulley, N. (1954). Plato's theory of recollection. The Classical Quarterly, 4(3/4), 194-
213.
270 Bibliography
Haimovitz, K., Wormington, S. V., & Corpus, J. H. (2011). Dangerous mindsets: How
beliefs about intelligence predict motivational change. Learning and Individual
Differences, 21(6), 747-752. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.09.002
Hard, L. M., & O'Gorman, L. M. (2007). 'Push-me' or 'pull-you'? An opportunity for
early childhood leadership in the implementation of Queensland's early years
curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(1), 50-60.
doi:10.2304/ceic.2007.8.1.50
Harris, L. (2008). A phenomenographic investigation of teacher conceptions of student
engagement in learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 57-79.
Harris, L. (2011). Phenomenographic perspectives on the structure of conceptions: The
origins, purposes, strengths, and limitations of the what/how and
referential/structural frameworks. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 109-
124. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.01.002
Harris, W. T. (Ed.) (1974). The education of man by Friedrich Froebel. New Jersey,
USA: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers.
Hassed, C., & Chambers, R. (2014). Mindful learning: reduce stress and improve
brain performance for effective learning. Wollombi, NSW: Exisle Publishing.
Hasselgren, B., & Beach, D. (1997). Phenomenography - a "good for nothing brother"
of phenomenology? Outline of an analysis. Higher Education Research and
Development, 16(2), 191-202.
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference. What is the research evidence? Paper
presented at the ACER Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77(1), 81-112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
Heckman, J. J. (2011). The economics of inequality: The value of early childhood
education. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review,
77(4), 4.
Hidi, S. (2016). Revisiting the role of rewards in motivation and learning: Implications
of neuroscientific research. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 61-93.
doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9307-5
Hoffmann, K. F., Huff, J. D., Patterson, A. S., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Elementary
teachers' use and perception of rewards in the classroom. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 25(6), 843-849. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.004
Hollingshead, A., Kroeger, S. D., Altus, J., & Trytten, J. B. (2016). A case study of
positive behavior supports-based interventions in a seventh-grade urban
classroom. Preventing School Failure, 60(4), 1-8.
Hollingsworth, H., & Clarke, D. (2017). Video as a tool for focusing teacher self-
reflection: supporting and provoking teacher learning. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 20(5), 457-475. doi:10.1007/s10857-017-9380-4
Bibliography 271
Hook, P. (2014). Behaviour management pocketbook: 2nd Edition: Management
Pocketbooks.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for
school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(8),
1-14.
Howard, J. (2005). Primary school educators' beliefs about suspension and exclusion
of students with challenging behaviours. (Doctor of Philosophy), Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Hoyte, F., Torr, J., & Degotardi, S. (2014). The language of friendship: genre in the
conversations of preschool children. Journal of Early Childhood Research,
12(1), 20-34.
Hughes, J. N., Wu, W., & West, S. G. (2011). Teacher performance goal practices and
elementary students' behavioral engagement: A developmental perspective.
Journal of School Psychology, 49(1), 1-23. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.09.003
Hyson, M., & Taylor, J. L. (2011). Caring about caring: What adults can do to promote
young children's prosocial skills. Young Children, 66(4), 74-83.
Ingerman, Å. (2014). Collaborative meaning-making in group discussions: A
phenomenographic perspective. Paper presented at the EARLI SIG9
conference: Disciplinary Knowledge and Necessary Conditions of Learning,
Oxford.
Irvine, J. (2015). Enacting Glasser's (1998) choice theory in a grade 3 classroom: A
case study. Journal of Case Studies in Education, 7, 1-14.
Irvine, S. (2005). Parent conceptions of their role in early childhood education and
care: A phenomenographic study from Queensland, Australia. (PhD), QUT,
Brisbane.
Jackson, C., Simoncini, K., & Davidson, M. (2013). Classroom profiling training:
increasing preservice teachers' confidence and knowledge of classroom
management skills. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 38(8),
30-46.
Jones, C. (2004). Quantitative and qualitative research: Conflicting paradigms or
perfect partners? Paper presented at the Networked Learning 2004: A
Research Based Conference on E-Learning in Higher Education and Lifelong
Learning: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Networked
Learning., Lancaster, UK.
Julien, H. (2009). Content analysis. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of
qualitative research methods (pp. 121-123). Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Jung, C. G. (2005). Modern man in search of a soul (C. F. Baynes, Trans.). Abingdon,
Oxon: Psychology Press.
272 Bibliography
Karaj, S., & Rapti, E. (2013). Teacher job stress in Albania: Examining the role of
students' classroom disruptive behaviour and other factors in the school
context. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 54, 14-21.
Karp, D. R., & Breslin, B. (2001). Restorative justice in school communities. Youth
and Society, 33(2), 249-272. doi:10.1177/0044118x01033002006
Katz, L. (1972). Perspectives on early childhood education: ERIC Clearinghouse.
Kelsey, J. (2011). The negative impact of rewards and ineffective praise on student
motivation. ESSAI, 8(1), 24.
KidsMatter. (2016). Mindfulness for children. Retrieved from
https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/mental-health-matters/mindfulness
KidsMatter. (2017a). About KidsMatter. Retrieved from
https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/about-kidsmatter
KidsMatter. (2017b). Social and emotional learning. Retrieved from
https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/mental-health-matters/social-and-emotional-
learning
KidsMatter. (2017c). Why a whole-school approach to social and emotional learning?
Retrieved from https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/primary/news/why-whole-
school-approach-social-and-emotional-learning
Kohn, A. (1996). Beyond discipline: from compliance to community. Alexandria:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: the trouble with gold stars, incentive plans,
A's, praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Kohn, A. (2001). Five reasons to stop saying "good job". Young Children, 56(5), 24-
30.
Kohn, A. (2006). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community, 10th
anniversary edition Retrieved from
http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=280293
Krieg, S., & Whitehead, K. (2015). Where are the early years of school in
contemporary early childhood education reforms? An historical perspective.
The Australian Educational Researcher, 42(3), 319-333. doi:10.1007/s13384-
014-0161-0
Kyriacou, C., & Ortega Martín, J. L. (2010). Beginning secondary school teachers’
perceptions of pupil misbehaviour in Spain. Teacher Development, 14(4), 415
- 426.
Langbroek, J.-P. (2013). Green light for tougher school discipline powers [Press
release]. Retrieved from
http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2013/10/31/green-light-for-tougher-
school-discipline-powers
Bibliography 273
Larsson, J., & Holmström, I. (2007). Phenomenographic or phenomenological
analysis: Does it matter? Examples from a study on anaesthesiologists' work.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 2(1),
55-64.
Lawson, K. (2011, 16 July 2017). Letters: Suspension proves ineffective. Retrieved
from http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/letters-suspension-proves-
ineffective/news-story/ea73cef7da6035c22ed5c4c52ccf4bf6
Leland, M. (2015). Mindfulness and student success. Journal of Adult Education,
44(1), 19-24.
Liberante, L. (2012). The importance of teacher–student relationships, as explored
through the lens of the NSW Quality Teaching Model. Journal of Student
Engagement: Education Matters, 2(1), 2-9.
Liljequist, L., & Renk, K. (2007). The relationships among teachers' perceptions of
student behaviour, teachers' characteristics, and ratings of students' emotional
and behavioural problems. Educational Psychology, 27(4), 557-571.
Limberg, L. (2008). Phenomenography. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of
Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 612-615). Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Lin-Siegler, X., Dweck, C. S., & Cohen, G. L. (2016). Instructional interventions that
motivate classroom learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 295-
299. doi:10.1037/edu0000124
Linder, C., & Erickson, G. (1989). A study of tertiary physics students’
conceptualizations of sound. International Journal of Science Education,
11(5), 491-501.
Linke, P. (2011). Social and emotional learning as a basis for curriculum. Every Child,
17, 1-2.
Loughland, T., Reid, A., & Petocz, P. (2002). Young people's conceptions of
environment: A phenomenographic analysis. Environmental Education
Research, 8(2), 187-197.
Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., & Feinberg, A. B. (2005). Whole school
positive behaviour support: Effects on student discipline problems and
academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25(2-3), 183-198.
Luke, A. (2010). Will the Australian curriculum up the intellectual ante in primary
classrooms? Curriculum Perspectives, 30(3), 59.
Luke, A. (2014). On explicit and direct instruction. ALEA Hot Topic(May), 1-4.
Lyons, G., Ford, M., & Aurthur-Kelly, M. (2011). Classroom management. Creating
positive learning environments (3rd ed.). Victoria, Australia: Cengage
Learning Australia.
274 Bibliography
Maguire, M., Ball, S., & Braun, A. (2010). Behaviour, classroom management and
student 'control': enacting policy in the English secondary school. International
Studies in Sociology of Education, 20(2), 153-170.
doi:10.1080/09620214.2010.503066
Maleny State School. (2017). Schoolwide positive behaviour support. Retrieved from
https://malenyss.eq.edu.au/Supportandresources/Behaviourmanagement/Page
s/Behaviourmanagement.aspx
Malmqvist, J. (2016). Working successfully towards inclusion - or excluding pupils?
A comparative retroductive study of three similar schools in their work with
EBD. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 21(4), 344-360.
doi:10.1080/13632752.2016.1201637
Manly State School. (2013). Manly State School responsible behaviour plan for
students (pp. 1-27). Brisbane, Queensland: Manly State School.
Manouselis, N., Vuorikari, R., & Van Assche, F. (2010). Collaborative
recommendation of e-learning resources: An experimental investigation.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4), 227-242.
Mariani, M., Webb, L., Villares, E., & Brigman, G. (2015). Effect of participation in
student success skills on prosocial and bullying behavior. Professional
Counselor, 5(3), 341-353.
Marion, M. (2007). Guidance of young children (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson
Education Inc.
Marquez, B., Vincent, C., Marquez, J., Pennefather, J., Smolkowski, K., & Sprague,
J. (2016). Opportunities and Challenges in Training Elementary School
Teachers in Classroom Management: Initial Results from Classroom
Management in Action, an Online Professional Development Program.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 24(1), 87-109.
Martella, R. C., Newlson, J. R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2003). Managing
disruptive behaviours in schools. A schoolwide, classroom, and individualized
social learning approach. USA: Pearson Education.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography- describing conceptions of the world around us.
Instructional Science, 10(2), 177-200. doi:10.1007/bf00132516
Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach investigating different
understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28-49.
Marton, F. (2015). Necessary conditions of learning. New York, USA: Routledge.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence
Erlbaum and Associates.
Marton, F., Carlsson, M., & Halasz, L. (1992). Differences in understanding and the
use of reflective learning in reading. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 62(1), 1-16.
Bibliography 275
Marton, F., & Pong, W. Y. (2005). On the unit of description in phenomenography.
Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 335-348.
doi:10.1080/07294360500284706
Martyn-Jones, L. (2016). Queensland schools: Move away from play-based learning
adding to children and parents’ anxiety. Retrieved from
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-schools-move-
away-from-playbased-learning-adding-to-children-and-parents-anxiety/news-
story/9a209e641be914cec48084d946bcdace
Marzano, R. (2016). The new art and science of teaching: More than fifty new
instructional strategies for academic success (1 ed.). Bloomington, Indiana:
Solution Tree Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4),
370.
Maynard, B., Solis, M., Miller, V., & Brendel, K. (2017). Mindfulness-based
interventions for improving cognition, academic achievement, behavior, and
socioemotional functioning of primary and secondary school students.
Campbell systematic reviews 2017:5 (1891-1803). Retrieved from
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/logi
n.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=ED573474&site=ehost
-live&scope=site
McClelland, M., Cameron, C., Duncan, R., Bowles, R., Acock, A., Miao, A., & Pratt,
M. (2014). Predictors of early growth in academic achievement: the head-toes-
knees-shoulders task. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 599.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00599
McCombs, B. L. (1997). Self-assessment and reflection: Tools for promoting teacher
changes toward learner-centered practices. NASSP Bulletin, 81(587), 1-14.
McCready, L. T., & Soloway, G. B. (2010). Teachers' perceptions of challenging
student behaviours in model inner city schools. Emotional and Behavioural
Difficulties, 15(2), 111-123.
McIntosh, K., Predy, L., Upreti, G., Hume, A., Turri, M., & Mathews, S. (2014).
Perceptions of contextual features related to implementation and sustainability
of school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 16(1), 31-43. doi:10.1177/1098300712470723
McKenzie, P., Weldon, P., Rowley, G., Murphy, M., & McMillan, J. (2014). Staff in
Australia’s schools 2013: Main report on the survey. Canberra, Australia:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
McKissick, C., Hawkins, R., Lentz, F., Hailley, J., & McGuire, S. (2010).
Randomizing multiple contingency components to decrease disruptive
behaviors and increase student engagement in an urban second-grade
classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 47(9), 944-959.
276 Bibliography
McMullen, F., & Madelaine, A. (2014). Why is there so much resistance to direct
instruction? Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 19(2), 137-151.
doi:10.1080/19404158.2014.962065
McQueen, J. (2011, 16 July 2017). Letters: Suspension proves ineffective. Retrieved
from http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/letters-suspension-proves-
ineffective/story-e6freomx-1226057000194
Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification. An integrative approach.
New York, USA: Plenum Press.
Millei, Z. (2011). Thinking differently about guidance: power, children's autonomy
and democratic environments. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 10(1),
88-99. doi:10.1177/1476718x11406243
Miller, D. F. (2007). Positive child guidance (5th ed.). Belmont, California: Delmar,
Cengage Learning.
Ministerial Advisory Committee for Educational Renewal. (2005). Smart schools,
smart behaviour. Advice to the Minister on behaviour management in
Queensland schools. Brisbane, Australia: Department of Education and the
Arts. Retrieved from
http://education.qld.gov.au/publication/production/reports/pdfs/macer-report-
05.pdf.
Ministerial Council for Education Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs.
(2011). National safe schools framework. Resource manual. Victoria,
Australia: Education Services Australia Retrieved from
https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/national-safe-schools-framework-
resource-manual.
Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs. (2008).
Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians.
Melbourne: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and
Youth Affairs. Retrieved from
http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the
_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf.
Moberly, D. A., Waddle, J. L., & Duff, R. E. (2005). The use of rewards and
punishment in early childhood classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood
Teacher Education, 25(4), 359-366. doi:10.1080/1090102050250410
Monaghan, C. (2016). Differentiation is responsive teaching. Prime Number, 31(3),
10-11.
Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori method (A. E. George, Trans.). New York,
USA: Frederick A. Stokes Company.
Montroy, J., Bowles, R., Skibbe, L., & Foster, T. (2014). Social skills and problem
behaviors as mediators of the relationship between behavioral self-regulation
and academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(3), 298-
309. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.03.002
Bibliography 277
Montroy, J., Bowles, R., Skibbe, L., McClelland, M., & Morrison, F. (2016). The
development of self-regulation across early childhood. Developmental
Psychology, 52(11), 1744-1762. doi:10.1037/dev0000159
Mooney, M., Dobia, B., Yeung, A., Barker, K., Power, A., Watson, K., & Yeung, A.
S. (2008). Positive behaviour for learning: Investigating the transfer of a
united states system into the new south wales department of education and
training western sydney region schools: Report. Retrieved from Sydney,
Australia: http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/19702
Moore, T. (2006). Early childhood and long term development: The importance of the
early years (pp. 1-22). Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Community Child
Health, Murdoch Children’s Research Centre.
Morgan, H. (Ed.) (2007). Early childhood education. History, theory, and practice.
Maryland, USA: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
Murray, D., Rosanbalm, K., & Christopoulos, C. (2016). Self-regulation and toxic
stress report 4: Implications for programs and practice. OPRE Report #2015-
97 Retrieved from Washington, USA: fpg.unc.edu/news/federal-report-
recommends-teaching-self-regulation-schools
Muscott, H. S., Szczesiul, S., Berk, B., Staub, K., Hoover, J., & Perry-Chisholm, P.
(2008). Creating home-school partnerships by engaging families in schoolwide
positive behavior supports. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(6), 6-14.
Mustard, F. (2008). Investing in the early years: Closing the gap between what we
know and what we do. Adelaide, SA: Department of the Premier and Cabinet.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Position statement:
Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving
children from birth through age 8 (pp. 1-32). Washington, USA: National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, &
Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. (2015). National statement on
ethical conduct in human research 2007. Canberra, ACT: National Health and
Medical Research Council Retrieved from
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e72.pdf.
National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, &
Universities Australia. (2007). Australian code for the responsible conduct of
research. ACT, Canberra: Australian Government. Retrieved from
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf.
Network, R. C. (2016). Using time-out to guide your child’s behaviour. Retrieved
from http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/using_time-
out_to_guide_your_childs_behaviour.html
Nichols, S., & Parsons, J. (2011). Dewey’s dream of democracy for teachers. New
Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 8(1), 47-54.
278 Bibliography
Nores, M., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Benefits of early childhood interventions across
the world: (Under) Investing in the very young. Economics of Education
Review, 29(2), 271-282. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.09.001
Nundah State School. (2016). Nundah State School responsible behaviour plan for
students. Brisbane, Queensland: Nundah State School.
O'Gorman, L. (2007). An even better start?: Parent conceptions of the preparatory
year in a non-government school in Queensland. (PhD), QUT, Brisbane.
O'Gorman, L., & Ailwood, J. (2012). 'They get fed up with playing' : parents' views
on play-based learning in the preparatory year. Contemporary Issues in Early
Childhood, 13(4), 266-275.
O'Gorman, L., & Hard, L. (2013). Looking back and looking forward: exploring
distributed leadership with Queensland Prep teachers. Australasian Journal of
Early Childhood, 38(3), 77-84.
O'Neill, S. C., & Stephenson, J. (2014). Evidence-based classroom and behaviour
management content in Australian pre-service primary teachers' coursework:
Wherefore art thou? Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 39(4),
1-22. doi:10.14221/ajte.2014v39n4.4
OECD. (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2017).
Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx
Opdenakker, M., Maulana, R., & Den Brok, P. (2012). Teacher-student interpersonal
relationships and academic motivation within one school year: Developmental
changes and linkage. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(1), 95-
119.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Early childhood
education and care. Education today 2010: The OECD perspective (pp. 11-16).
Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). New insights from
TALIS 2013. Teaching and learning in primary and upper secondary
education. Teaching and Learning International Study. Paris, France: OECD
Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Starting strong
IV: Monitoring quality in early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (2015). Skills for Social
Progress: The Power of Social and Emotional Skills OECD Skills Studies:
OECD Publishing.
Bibliography 279
Orsati, F. T., & Causton-Theoharis, J. (2013). Challenging control: Inclusive teachers
and teaching assistants discourse on students with challenging behaviour.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(5), 507-525.
doi:10.1080/13603116.2012.689016
Overton, J. (2009). Early childhood teachers in contexts of power: Empowerment and
a voice. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(2), 1-10.
Overton, L., & Sullivan, A. M. (2008). Non-compliance in a democratic classroom: Is
it prevalent? Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in
Education International Education Research Conference, Brisbane, Australia.
http://ocs.sfu.ca/aare/index.php/AARE_2008/AARE/paper/viewFile/528/277
http://www.aare.edu.au/08pap/ove08528.pdf
Pakarinen, E., Kiuru, N., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Poikkeus, A.-M., Ahonen, T., & Nurmi,
J.-E. (2011). Instructional support predicts children's task avoidance in
kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(3), 376-386.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.11.003
Palardy, J. M. (1996). Taking another look at behavior modification and assertive
discipline. NASSP Bulletin, 80(581), 66-70.
doi:10.1177/019263659608058118
Palaszczuk, A., & Jones, K. (2016). Prep year now compulsory in Queensland.
Retrieved from http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2016/9/1/prep-year-
now-compulsory-in-queensland
Paley, J. (2008). Empiricism. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative
research methods (pp. 256-262). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Pane, D., & Rocco, T. (2014). Transforming the school-to-prison pipeline: lessons
from the classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.
Pang, M. (2003). Two faces of variation: On continuity in the phenomenographic
movement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 145-156.
Patrick, K. (2000). Exploring conceptions: Phenomenography and the object of study.
In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 117-136).
Melbourne: RMIT Publishing.
Payton, J., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger,
K. B., & Pachan, M. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional
learning for kindergarten to eighth-grade students. Technical report. Findings
from three scientific reviews. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social,
and Emotional Learning.
Peguero, A., & Bracy, N. (2015). School order, justice, and education: Climate,
discipline practices, and dropping out. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
25(3), 412-426. doi:10.1111/jora.12138
Peters, J. H. (2012). Are they ready? Final year pre-service teachers' learning about
managing student behaviour. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(9).
280 Bibliography
Petriwskyj, A., Thorpe, K., & Tayler, C. (2014). Towards inclusion: provision for
diversity in the transition to school. International Journal of Early Years
Education, 22(4), 359-379. doi:10.1080/09669760.2014.911078
Pioneer State High School. (2013). Teaching and learning at Pioneer: Our school-
wide pedagogical framework. Mackay, Queensland: Pioneer State High
School.
Polat, S., Kaya, S., & Akdag, M. (2013). Investigating pre-service teachers' beliefs
about classroom discipline. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2),
885-890.
Porter, L. (2004). Principles of guiding children's behaviour. Rattler, 69, 13-16.
Porter, L. (2006). Student behaviour: Theory and practice for teachers. Crows Nest,
NSW: Allen and Unwin.
Porter, L. (2014). A comprehensive guide to classroom management. Facilitating
engagement and learning in schools. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Poulou, M. S. (2009). Classroom interactions: Teachers' and students' perceptions.
Research in Education, 82(1), 103-106.
Powell, R., McIntyre, E., & Rightmyer, E. (2006). Johnny won't read, and Susie won't
either: Reading instrcution and student resistance. Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy, 6(1), 5-31. doi:10.1177/1468798406062172
Pramling, I. (1983). The child's conception of learning Goteborg: Acta Universitatis
Gothoburgensis.
Prosser, M. (1993). Phenomenography and the principles and practices of learning.
Higher Education Research and Development, 12(1), 21-31.
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of
academics' conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and
Instruction, 4(3), 217-231.
Queensland Audit Office. (2016). Early childhood education: Report 19: 2015–16.
Brisbane, Queensland: Queensland Audit Office.
Queensland College of Teachers. (2013). Attrition of recent Queensland graduate
teachers. Retrieved from Brisbane, Australia:
http://www.qct.edu.au/about/research-reports
Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2017). Catering for diversity.
Retrieved from https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/p-10/catering-diversity
Queensland Department of Education, & Richmond, C. (1996). Behaviour
management skill training handbook. Brisbane, Queensland: Queensland
Department of Education.
Bibliography 281
Queensland Government. (2002). Queensland the smart state - Education and training
reforms for the future: A white paper. Brisbane, Australia: The State of
Queensland.
Queensland Government. (2017a). Disciplinary absences by demographic. Brisbane,
Queensland: Queensland Government Retrieved from
https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/school-disciplinary-
absences/resource/47d1e40b-8483-4e82-849a-6b18c790e269.
Queensland Government. (2017b). Enrolment age requirements. Retrieved from
https://www.qld.gov.au/education/schools/find/enrolment/pages/age
Queensland Government. (2017c). Prep enrolments. Retrieved from
https://www.qld.gov.au/education/earlychildhood/prep/pages/enrolments
Queensland Studies Authority. (2006). Early years curriculum guidelines. Spring Hill,
Queensland: Queensland Studies Authority. Retrieved from
http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/early_middle/ey_cg_06.pdf.
Queensland Studies Authority. (2009). Student assessment regimes: Getting the
balance right for Australia. A draft discussion paper. Brisbane, Australia:
Queensland Studies Authority. Retrieved from
http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/publications/qsa_paper_assess_balance
_aust.pdf.
Quin, D. (2017). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher-student
relationships and student engagement: A systematic review. Review of
Educational Research, 87(2), 345-387.
Rainworth State School. (2012). Rainworth state school responsible behaviour plan
for students (pp. 1-14). Brisbane, Queensland: Rainworth State School.
Ramos, F. (2012). Steering a drifting ship: Improving the preparation of first-year
catholic school teachers through self-reflection. Patroneando un barco a la
deriva: Mejorando la preparación de los maestros de los colegios católicos
durante el primer año a través de la autorreflexión.(22), 73-91.
Ramritu, P. L., & Barnard, A. (2001). New nurse graduates' understanding of
competence. International Nursing Review, 48(1), 47-57.
Ravet, J. (2007a). Are we listening? Making sense of classroom behaviour with pupils
and parents. Stoke-on-Trent, England: Trentham Books.
Ravet, J. (2007b). Making sense of disengagement in the primary classroom: A study
of pupil, teacher and parent perceptions. Research Papers in Education, 22(3),
333-362.
Ravi Babu, M. (2014). Building teacher student relationship through positive
discipline. Integrated Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 24-27.
Reese, S. (2010). Bringing effective professional development to educators.
Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 85(6), 38-43.
282 Bibliography
Reid, A. (2014). Decisions about teaching methods should be made by educators not
politicians. Retrieved from https://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?p=221
Reynolds, K., Stephenson, J., & Beaman, R. (2011). Teacher perceptions of non-
compliance in rural primary schools in New South Wales. Education in Rural
Australia, 21(2), 105-124.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research.
Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 53-82.
doi:10.3102/00346543069001053
Rigoni, D., & Walford, G. (1998). Questioning the quick fix: assertive discipline and
the 1991 Education White Paper. Journal of Education Policy, 13(3), 443-452.
doi:10.1080/0268093980130310
Rimm-Kaufman, S., Curby, T., Grimm, K., Nathanson, L., & Brock, L. (2009). The
contribution of children’s self-regulation and classroom quality to children’s
adaptive behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Developmental Psychology,
45(4), 958-972. doi:10.1037/a0015861
Rimm Kaufman, S., La Paro, K., Downer, J., & Pianta, R. (2005). The contribution of
classroom setting and quality of instruction to children’s behavior in
kindergarten classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 105(4), 377-394.
Roache, J. (2008). Teacher stress and discipline strategies. Principal Matters(77), 41-
44.
Roache, J., & Lewis, R. (2011a). The carrot, the stick, or the relationship: What are
the effective disciplinary strategies? European Journal of Teacher Education,
34(2), 233-248.
Roache, J., & Lewis, R. (2011b). Teachers' views on the impact of classroom
management on student responsibility. Australian Journal of Education, 55(2),
132-146.
Roberts-Holmes, G., & Bradbury, A. (2016). The datafication of early years education
and its impact upon pedagogy. Improving Schools, 19(2), 119-128.
doi:10.1177/1365480216651519
Robinson, G., & Maines, B. (1994). Who manages pupil behaviour? Assertive
discipline-a blunt instrument for a fine task. Pastoral Care in Education, 12(3),
30-35. doi:10.1080/02643949409470884
Roffey, S. (2012). Pupil wellbeing-teacher wellbeing: Two sides of the same coin?
Educational and Child Psychology, 29(4), 8-17.
Rogers, B., & McPherson, E. (2009). Critical first steps. Behaviour management in
the early years. Victoria, Australia: Curriculum Corporation.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, USA:
Oxford University Press.
Bibliography 283
Roopnarine, J. L., & Johnson, J. E. (2005). Approaches to early childhood education
(4 ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education
Roorda, D., Helma, M., Spilt, J., & Oort, F. (2011). The influence of affective teacher-
student relationships on students' school engagement and achievement: A
meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493-529.
doi:10.3102/0034654311421793
Rosas, C., & West, M. (2009). Teachers beliefs about classroom management: pre-
service and inservice teachers' beliefs about classroom management.
International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 5(1), 54.
Rovio-Johansson, A., & Ingerman, Å. (2016). Continuity and development in the
phenomenography and variation theory tradition. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 60(3), 257-271. doi:10.1080/00313831.2016.1148074
Ryan, S., & Grieshaber, S. (2005). Shifting from developmental to postmodern
practices in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
56(1), 34-45. doi:10.1177/0022487104272057
Sailor, W., Stowe, M. J., Turnbull, H. R., & Kleinhammer-Tramill, P. J. (2007). A case
for adding a social-behavioral standard to standards-based education with
schoolwide positive behavior support as its basis. Remedial and Special
Education, 28(6), 366-376.
Säljö, R. (1997). Talk as data and practice - a critical look at phenomenographic
inquiry and the appeal to experience. Higher Education Research &
Development, 16(2), 173-190. doi:10.1080/0729436970160205
Samples, J. (2010). Family engagement in learning works. Professional Voice, 8(2),
27-30.
Sandberg, J. (1994). Human competence at work: An interpretivist approach.
Goteborg University, Sweden Bas.
Sandberg, J. (1997). Are phenomenographic results reliable? Higher Education
Research & Development, 16(2), 203-212.
Sandholtz, J. H. (2011). Preservice teachers' conceptions of effective and ineffective
teaching practices. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(3), 27-47.
Schaubman, A., Stetson, E., & Plog, A. (2011). Reducing teacher stress by
implementing collaborative problem solving in a school setting. School Social
Work Journal, 35(2), 72-92.
Schröder, A., Ahlström, G., & Larsson, B. W. (2005). Patients’ perceptions of the
concept of the quality of care in the psychiatric setting: A phenomenographic
study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 15(1), 93-102.
Scrivener, J., & Thornbury, S. (2012). Classroom management techniques: Cambridge
University Press.
284 Bibliography
Shaddock, A., Neill, J., Limbeek, V., & Hoffman-Raap. (2007). What adaptations do
classroom teachers make for students with disabilities in their classrooms and
why/why not? A project to improve the learning outcomes of students with
disabilities in the early, middle and post compulsory years of schooling. Part
1: Research objectives, methodology, analyses, outcomes and findings, and
implications for classroom practice (pp. 1-322). Canberra: Australian
Government Department of Education, Science & Training.
Shaddock, A., Nielsen, T., Giorcelli, L., Kilham, C., & Hoffman-Raap. (2007). What
are the critical factors in ensuring successful collaboration between mainstream
teachers and teaching assistants? A project to improve the learning outcomes
of students with disabilities in the early, middle and post compulsory years of
schooling. Part 1: Research objectives, methodology, analyses, outcomes and
findings, and implications for classroom practice (pp. 209-259). Canberra:
Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training.
Shaddock, A., Packer, S., & Roy, A. (2015). Schools for all children and young people.
Report of the expert panel on students with complex needs and challenging
behaviour. ACT, Australia: Australian Capital Territory Education and
Training Directorate, Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn & Association of
Independent Schools of the ACT.
Shen, J., Zhang, N., Zhang, C., Caldarella, P., Richardson, M. J., & Shatzer, R. H.
(2009). Chinese elementary school teachers' perceptions of students' classroom
behaviour problems. Educational Psychology, 29(2), 187-201.
Shiller, V., O'Flynn, J., Reineke, J., Sonsteng, K., & Gartrell, D. (2008). Should
rewards have a place in early childhood programs? Young Children, 63(6), 88.
Shillingford, M. A., & Edwards, O. W. (2008). Professional school counselors using
choice theory to meet the needs of children of prisoners. Professional School
Counseling, 12(1), 62-65. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-12.62
Shin, A. M. (2015). The Australian national curriculum: An early childhood
perspective. Professional Educator, 14(1), 11-13.
Shumate, E. D., & Wills, H. P. (2010). Classroom-based functional analysis and
intervention for disruptive and off-task behaviors. Education and Treatment of
Children, 33(1), 23-48.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. London, England: Penguin Group.
Slavin, R. E. (2009). Educational psychology. Theory and practice. (9th ed.). New
Jersey, USA: Pearson Education.
Slee, P., Lawson, M., Russell, A., Askell-Williams, H., Dix, K., Owens, L., . . . Spears,
B. (2009). KidsMatter primary evaluation final report. South Australia:
Flinders University of South Australia.
Slee, R. (2014). Discourses of inclusion and exclusion: Drawing wider margins. Power
and Education, 6(1), 7-17. doi:10.2304/power.2014.6.1.7
Bibliography 285
Smit, J., van Eerde, H. A. A., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole-class
scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817-834.
doi:10.1002/berj.3007
Smith, A., Guzman-Alvarez, A., Westover, T., Keller, S., & Fuller, S. (2012). Mindful
schools program evaluation. California, USA: University of California at
Davis: Center for Education and Evaluation Services.
Sonter, L. J. (2014). Challenges to play in Queensland prep classrooms. Every Child,
20(1), 26-27.
Spivak, A., & Farran, D. (2012). First-grade teacher behaviors and children's prosocial
actions in classrooms. Early Education & Development, 23(5), 623-639.
doi:10.1080/10409289.2011.566164
Spooner-Lane, R. (2017). Mentoring beginning teachers in primary schools: research
review. Professional Development in Education, 43(2), 253-273.
doi:10.1080/19415257.2016.1148624
Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood. (2013). National safe
schools framework. All australian schools are safe, supportive and respectful
teaching and learning communities that promote student wellbeing. Victoria,
Australia: Education Services Australia. Retrieved from
www.safeschoolshub.edu.au.
Stansberry-Brusnahan, L., & Neilsen-Gatti, S. (2009). Schoolwide positive behavior
supports: Empowering parents to participate fully. Exceptional Parent, 39, 3.
Stanton-Chapman, T. L., Walker, V. L., Voorhees, M. D., & Snell, M. E. (2016). The
evaluation of a three-tier model of positive behavior interventions and supports
for preschoolers in Head Start. Remedial and Special Education, 37(6), 333-
344.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide
positive behavior supports. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 24(1/2), 23-
50.
Sugai, G., & Simonsen, B. (2012). Positive behavioral interventions and supports:
History, defining features, and misconceptions PBIS Revisited. University of
Connecticut: Center for PBIS & Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports.
Sullivan, A. M., Johnson, B., Owens, L., & Conway, R. (2014). Punish them or engage
them? Teachers' views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 43-56.
Sunshine Beach State School. (2017). Glasser Quality School. Retrieved from
https://sunshinebeachss.eq.edu.au/Ourschool/Whychooseourschool/Pages/Gla
sser-Quality-School.aspx
286 Bibliography
Svennson, L. (1994, 7-9th November, 1994). Theoretical foundations of
phenomenography. Paper presented at the Phenomenography: Philosophy and
Practice Conference, Brisbane, Australia.
Svensson, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. Higher Education
Research & Development, 16(2), 159-171. doi:10.1080/0729436970160204
Swain-Bradway, J., Swoszowski, N., Boden, L., & Sprague, J. (2013). Voices from
the field: Stakeholder perspectives on PBIS implementation in alternative
educational settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(3), 31-46.
doi:10.1353/etc.2013.0020
Swartling, M., Peterson, S., & Wahlström, R. (2007). Views on sick-listing practice
among Swedish general practitioners - a phenomenographic study. BMC
Family Practice, 8(1), 44.
Tas, Y. (2016). The contribution of perceived classroom learning environment and
motivation to student engagement in science. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 31(4), 557-577. doi:10.1007/s10212-016-0303-z
Taylor, Z. E., Conger, R. D., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2015). Parenting
practices and perceived social support: Longitudinal relations with the social
competence of Mexican-origin children. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 3(4),
193-208. doi:10.1037/lat0000038
The Albert Ellis Institute. (2014). Rational emotive and cognitive-behavior therapy.
Retrieved from http://albertellis.org/rebt-cbt-therapy/
The Queensland Cabinet of Ministerial Directory. (2016). Media statement: Prep year
now compulsory in Queensland. Retrieved from
http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2016/9/1/prep-year-now-compulsory-
in-queensland
The State of Queensland Public Service Commission. (2011). Code of conduct for the
Queensland public service. Brisbane, Australia: Public Service Commission.
Retrieved from http://www.psc.qld.gov.au/library/document/catalogue/equity-
ethics-grievance/qps-code-conduct.pdf.
Thomson, P., Lingard, B., & Wrigley, T. (2012). Ideas for changing educational
systems, educational policy and schools. Critical Studies in Education, 53(1),
1-7. doi:10.1080/17508487.2011.636451
Thorpe, K., Tayler, C., Bridgstock, R., Grieshaber, S., Skoien, P., Danby, S., &
Petriwskyj, A. (2005). Preparing for school: Report of the Queensland
preparing for school trials 2003/4. (0734519079). Brisbane, Queensland:
Queensland University of Technology: School of Early Childhood,
Queensland Early Childhood Consortium.
Thorsborne, M., & Vinegrad, D. (2008). Rethinking behaviour management.
Restorative practices in classrooms (2nd ed.). UK: Speechmark Publishing
Ltd.
Bibliography 287
Tillery, A. D., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Collins, A. S. (2010). General education
teachers' perceptions of behavior management and intervention strategies.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(2), 86-102.
Timperley, H. (2011). Insights: A background paper to inform the development of a
national professional development framework for teachers and school leaders.
Melbourne, Australia: AITSL.
Timperley, H. (2015). Insights: Professional conversations and improvement-focused
feedback. A review of the research literature and the impact on practice and
student outcomes. Melbourne, Australia: AITSL.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2016). Why differentiation is difficult: Reflections from years in
the trenches. Australian Educational Leader, 38(3), 6-8.
Trigwell, K. (1999). Phenomenography: Variation and discernment. Paper presented
at the Improving Student Learning: Improving Student Learning Through the
Disciplines, York, England.
Trigwell, K. (2000). A phenomenographic interview on phenomenography. In J.
Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography. Melbourne, Australia: RMIT
Publishing.
Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K.
(2010). Exploring the association between teachers' perceived student
misbehaviour and emotional exhaustion: The importance of teacher efficacy
beliefs and emotion regulation. Educational Psychology, 30(2), 173-189.
doi:10.1080/01443410903494460
Tyre, A. D., & Feuerborn, L. L. (2017a). The minority report: The concerns of staff
opposed to schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports in their
schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 27(2), 145-
172. doi:10.1080/10474412.2016.1235977
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2016). Early
childhood care and education. Retrieved from
http://en.unesco.org/themes/early-childhood-care-and-education
Urbina, I., Villares, E., & Mariani, M. (2017). Examining the efficacy of the Spanish
cultural translation of the student success skills program to improve academic
achievement. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 56(2), 127-143.
doi:10.1002/johc.12048
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in Teacher - Student
Interaction: A Decade of Research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3),
271-296. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
Van Ness, D. W., & Strong, K. H. (2010). Restoring justice: An introduction to
restorative justice (4 ed.). New Jersey, USA: Anderson Publishing.
288 Bibliography
Vaughn, M. (2014). Teaching self-regulation skills to improve academic achievement.
International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 5(1),
1618-1625.
Vijayan, P., Chakravarthi, S., & Arul Philips, J. (2016). The role of teachers’ behaviour
and strategies in managing a classroom environment. International Journal of
Social Science and Humanity, 6(3), 208-215. doi:10.7763/IJSSH.2016.V6.644
Villanova College. (2017). RP at Villanova. Retrieved from
https://www.vnc.qld.edu.au/student-life/pastoral-care/rp-villanova/
Villares, E., Brigman, G., & Peluso, P. (2008). Ready to learn: An evidence-based
individual psychology linked curriculum for prekindergarten through first
grade. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 64(4), 403-415.
Villares, E., Lemberger, M., Brigman, G., & Webb, L. (2011). Student success skills:
An evidence-based school counseling program grounded in humanistic theory.
Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 50(1), 42-53.
Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An international
review of the literature. Paris, France: UNESCO: International Institute for
Educational Planning.
Von Oppell, M. A. (2016). Investigating factors that influence change from a
traditional to a socio-constructive teaching paradigm: Teachers’ beliefs,
alternate conceptions and external factors. (Doctor of Philosophy), Curtin
University, Perth, Western Australia.
Walker, J., Shea.T, & Bauer, A. (2007). Behaviour management. A practical approach
for educators (9th ed.). New Jersey, USA: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Walsh, E. (2000). Phenomenographic analysis of interview transcripts. In J. A.
Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography. Melbourne, Vic: RMIT
Publishing.
Walter, S. M., Lambie, G. W., & Ngazimbi, E. E. (2008). A choice theory counseling
group succeeds with middle school students who displayed disciplinary
problems. Middle School Journal, 40(2), 4-12.
Wardle, D. (2012). A practical guide to behaviour management: Book 2: behaviour
modification and management strategies. Laughton, U.K; Invercargill, N.Z:
Essential Resources.
Warren, S. (2014). A non-authoritarian approach to secondary school pedagogy: A
critical action research project (Doctor of Philosophy), The University of
Worcester, Worcester, UK.
Warwick West State School. (2014). Pedagogical framework 2014. Warwick,
Queensland: Warwick West State School.
Waters, J. (2004). A study of mathematical patterning in early childhood settings.
Paper presented at the Mathematics Education for the 3rd Milllennium:
Bibliography 289
Towards 2010. The 27th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australasia, Townsville, Australia.
Waters, L., Barsky, A., Ridd, A., & Allen, K. (2015). Contemplative education: A
systematic, evidence-based review of the effect of meditation interventions in
schools. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 103-134.
Webb, L., Lemberger, M., & Brigman, G. (2008). Student success skills: A review of
a school counselor intervention influenced by individual psychology. The
Journal of Individual Psychology, 64(3), 339-352.
White, K. R. (2009). Using preservice teacher emotion to encourage critical
engagement with diversity. Studying Teacher Education, 5(1), 5-20.
doi:10.1080/17425960902830369
Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and
participation: Results from PISA 2000: Publications de l'OCDE.
Wood, K. (2000). The experience of learning to teach: changing student teachers' ways
of understanding teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(1), 75-93.
Wood, P., Spandagou, I., & Evans, D. (2012). Principals' confidence in managing
disruptive student behaviour. Exploring geographical context in NSW primary
schools. School Leadership & Management, 32(4), 375-395.
doi:10.1080/13632434.2012.708329
Yahya, R. (2016). Bridging home and school: understanding immigrant mothers’
cultural capital and concerns about play-based learning. Early Years: Journal
of International Research & Development, 36(4), 340-352.
doi:10.1080/09575146.2015.1110786
Zakaria, Z., Care, E., & Griffin, P. (2016). Scaffolding instruction where it matters:
Teachers' shift from deficit approach to developmental model of learning.
Journal of Education and Practice, 7(23), 144.
Zeeman, R. D. (2006). Glasser's choice theory and Purkey's invitational education-
allied approaches to counseling and schooling. Journal of Invitational Theory
and Practice, 12, 46-51.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory
Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Zuckerman, G. (2003). The learning activity in the first Years of schooling: The
developmental path toward reflection. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev,
& S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp.
1-14). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Appendices 291
Appendices
Appendix A
QUT Ethics Application Approval
292 Appendices
Appendix B
Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE) Approval Letter
Appendices 293
Appendix C
Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form
294 Appendices
Appendix D
Interview Script
Appendices 295
Appendix E
Permission Email
296 Appendices
Appendix F
Recruitment Email
Appendices 297
Appendix G
P-3 Discussion List Recruitment Email
298 Appendices
Appendix H
DETE Recruitment Email Document
Appendices 299
Appendix I
Interview Schedule
300 Appendices