In this section, a comparative analysis between NVC and the PB4L programme is presented. This starts with an examination of the similarities between the two approaches, with five common points being identified. Following this, an outline of the differences between each approaches are made, with four distinct points separating NVC and PB4L. A summary is then given which draws together the information presented.
1 Mana refers to power and authority, which “in a western paradigm … shares characteristics of self-esteem and community standing” (Webb & Jones, 2008, p. 49).
32
Table 1: Similarities between NVC and PB4L in dealing with challenging behaviours
ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF NVC AND PB4L
1. Focus on communication that facilitates learning, as well as positive relationships
2. Emphasises that the problem is not the student, it is the behaviour
3. Addresses the purpose, or function, of behaviour
4. Educates students (alongside teachers) on finding better strategies to create cohesive classrooms
5. Adopts restorative principles
As Table 1 highlights, NVC and PB4L are alike in a number of ways. First, they both emphasise the value of creating positive relationships when dealing with challenging behaviours. Within this idea, communication skills are valued highly. In the PB4L programme, teachers are taught to use “effective questioning, listening, clarifying,
summarising, and … language that students (in particular) relate to” (MOE, 2014c, p. 5). Part of this involves being able to distinguish between positive and negative comments, asking and telling, as well as learning how to make observations. In NVC, teachers are also encouraged to use language that is centred on creating positive relationships (Rosenberg, 2003). For instance, differences between communicating in a judgemental and objective way are outlined. In addition, empathetic language is a cornerstone of this approach, which is used to facilitate positive relationships.
A second way these two approaches are similar is that they both emphasise that it is the behaviour, not the student, which can be challenging. The MOE (2014a) states that, “it’s not about changing the students; it’s about changing the environment, systems, and practices you have in place to support them to make positive behaviour choices” (para.3). Through
focussing on behaviour, distinct from the student, NVC and PB4L address challenging behaviours in relation to a specific time and context. This helps teachers to take a more objective stance when faced with these types of situations as they focus on rectifying the behaviour, rather than assigning blame or judgement to the student (Rosenberg, 2003a).
33
This leads on to the third similarity: By being objective, teachers are able to address the function of behaviour, rather than getting caught up in its effects. Through a PB4L approach, stimuli that precede challenging behaviours are identified as well as consequences that may be contributing to the behaviours. These are observed in a way that illuminates the function of behaviour, rather than merely attribute it to a student’s disposition (Alberto & Trout, 2009). In the same way, NVC looks beyond students’ actions and explores the reasons that motivate them. This is done through examining how a student’s preference for certain types of behaviours, which are referred to as strategies, indicates an attempt to meet an underlying need. Through both an NVC and PB4L viewpoint, challenging behaviour often reflect a
student’s misguided way of trying to meet an underlying need in a socially unacceptable way.
Building on the above principle of addressing the function of behaviour, the fourth similarity demonstrates how both approaches look to find better strategies to create more cohesive classrooms. In PB4L, these strategies are centred on identifying relationships between challenging behaviours and student motivation. A range of different reinforcements (i.e., social or academic) is used to either increase or decrease behaviour. In addition, since
competing reinforcers in the classroom may offer a greater incentive to students than what the teachers may offer, PB4L advises teachers to find reinforcers that students value (Alberto &
Troutman, 2009). In a similar way, NVC looks to create awareness in students (and teachers) of the feelings and needs which reinforce certain behaviours (Hart & Kindle Hodson, 2003).
For example, when a student is aware of what behaviours stimulate positive feelings which in turn meet underlying needs, this represents positive reinforcement. In addition, when the students realise that by ceasing behaviour, they are able to alleviate negative feelings, which indicate unmet needs, this represents negative reinforcement. This teaches students to manage their own behaviour through reflective methods and is prominent in both NVC and PB4L.
In the final comparison, both NVC and PB4L adopt restorative principles as opposed to punitive ones. According to Little (2008), NVC is positioned within a restorative practice through its focus on English language patterns and creating a socio-linguistic change from a retributive paradigm to a restorative one. The main way that NVC employs these principles is through focussing on empathy and conflict resolution skills at an interpersonal level. This aligns with the current restorative practices used by the MOE in its PB4L programme. In terms of the differences between NVC and PB4L, there are four instances which are relevant (see Table 2).
34
Table 2: Differences between NVC and PB4L in dealing with challenging behaviours
NVC ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF PB4L
Primary goal is to create more honest and open relationships that facilitate compassionate giving and receiving
Primary goal is to create socially useful behaviour inside of the classroom
Emphasis is on emotions Emphasis is on behaviours
In-depth behavioural assessments are not used
In-depth assessments behavioural are used
Does not advocate the use of punishment Punishment is suitable in some circumstances, however, is not a preferred method
First, while many of the goals between both approaches are similar, they differ in what is regarded as fundamental. In NVC, the primary goal is to create more open and honest relationships. Rosenberg (2003) states that NVC’s primary focus is not on changing
behaviours, it is instead centred on creating a quality of connection that allows for everyone’s needs to be met through “compassionate giving and receiving” (CNVC, 2015, para 2).
However, several authors (Cox & Dannahy, 2005; Jones, 2009; Little, 2008) have noted that as a consequence of interacting this way, behaviours do change in ways that are socially appropriate and beneficial. In contrast, through PB4L’s use of ABA as a major method inside of the programme, attention is largely placed on the behaviours that students’ exhibit
(Savage, Lewis, & Colless, 2011). As a result, the effects of changing behaviours through an in-depth and individualised way help create more positive relationships inside of the
classroom. This demonstrates that, while both approaches have different foci, they align through a mutual interest in creating positive relationships inside of the classroom.
Second, building on the above idea of the goals of each approach, NVC’s primary focus is on building relationships, whereas PB4L’s primary focus is on altering behaviour. In NVC, emphasis is placed on understanding emotions, which are expressed through the feelings and needs of each student. Once a student’s emotional state is acknowledged, the teacher is able to explore ways that may meet the student’s emotional needs. In contrast to this, while PB4L also recognises the importance of emotions within the classroom, emphasis is placed on understanding the behaviours. In doing so, this also allows teachers to gain an understanding of the needs that are driving the student to act in certain ways (Alberto & Troutman, 2007).
35
While this difference demonstrates that each approach places value in different areas, alignment is still shown through a common interest in finding strategies that spark student motivation, with NVC preferring emotional motivation and PB4L preferring behavioural motivation.
Third, one major divergence between both approaches is seen in the use of assessment tools.
On the one hand, while NVC does apply principles of reflective and critical analysis, there are no formal assessment tools that teachers can utilise. On the other hand, PB4L is strongly based on the use of ABA type assessment tools. While assessment tools do provide a distinct advantage, in terms of the large amounts of specific data that can be gathered, there are potential disadvantages. These involve issues such as whether teachers are able to learn and implement assessment tools correctly, alongside the notion that while some teachers will embrace these methods, others will prefer a more human-centred approach.
The last difference concerns the use of punishments. While both approaches avoid
punishments based on punitive practices, PB4L describes some contexts where punishment is acceptable. For example, reprimanding the student or removing a reinforcer (such as another student). From a behaviourist perspective, this is typically done as a last resort. However, teachers who take on ABA methods may use punishment more frequently, especially if it is already a habitual reaction (Chance, 1998). In contrast, NVC prefers to motivate students without the use of punishment, because “when we submit to doing something solely for the purpose of avoiding punishment, our attention is distracted from the value of the action itself”
(Rosenberg, 2003, p. 164). While Rosenberg acknowledges that punishment is a powerful motivational force, he believes that the moral aspects, such as a decrease in self-esteem and compassion, do not warrant its use in the classroom. Instead, empathy is used to connect with the feelings and needs of students in order to find better behavioural strategies.
In summary, while both NVC and PB4L do show differences in the way they examine, interpret, and respond to challenging behaviours, the commonalities they share overshadow their divergence in theory and present possible paths of complimentary use when managing challenging behaviours. In acknowledging that having multiple teaching strategies is both necessary and beneficial for teachers, an argument is made that supports the inclusion of methods that focus on emotions, as well as behaviours (Orlich et al., 2013).
36