Whilst teachers often develop their own classroom management strategies, programmes based in theoretical and empirical evidence may be implemented nationally and internationally with reasonable expectations (from teachers, managers, funders, and providers) of positive outcomes. As indicated earlier in chapter 1, the current study focuses on the IY TCM programme, for which a small, but growing, number of studies provide compelling evidence. However, other classroom management programmes purport to deliver similarly positive outcomes. A discussion of all of these is beyond the scope of this chapter and so the programmes covered here have been selected on the basis of their similarity to the TCM programme. Thus, they were required to fulfil the following criteria:
1. The sole (or primary) focus should be on the development of pro-social, emotional, and behavioural outcomes in the classroom. Those programmes which focus primarily on other issues (e.g., bullying, substance abuse) are excluded as these are outside the direct remit of TCM training. Programmes which emphasise child emotional development through proactive problem- solving or identification of emotions are eligible for inclusion.
2. Teachers must receive training in the programme. Post-training, the programme principles and strategies must be deliverable by teachers in the classroom.
3. There must be a focus on the early education years; hence programmes which are specifically developed for later childhood or adolescence are excluded.
4. The programmes must have a basis in psychological theory and be supported by empirical evidence emanating, for example, from evaluations of effectiveness and with results published in peer-reviewed journals.
On the basis of the above, three mainstream programmes were selected for inclusion in this chapter, all of which are considered to be evidence-based by Stiegler and Lever (2008), and which are comparable with the TCM programme7. The selected programmes are as follows:
1. Good Behavior Game (GBG; Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969) 2. Responsive Classroom (RC; Charney, 1992)
3. Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS; Kusché & Greenberg, 1994)
5.1.1 Good Behavior Game (GBG)
The Good Behavior Game (GBG) incorporates principles of behaviourism and social learning theory, and attempts to reduce disruptive classroom behaviour by fostering competition between groups of students. Teachers inform students about unacceptable classroom behaviours that lose privilege, such as non-compliance with teacher requests, physical violence, and other forms of classroom disruption. At each occurrence of negative behaviour, the teacher places a mark or sticker on a chart. The group, which at the end of the school day has remained within an allowable range of marks, is rewarded. Groups who have an excessive number of marks (i.e., who have displayed unacceptable behaviours) do not receive a reward; importantly, neither are they punished. The developers reported high levels of student and teacher satisfaction with this programme (Barrish et al., 1969). The GBG has shown to be effective in terms of reducing behaviours associated with ADHD (van Lier, Muthén, van der Sar, & Crijnen, 2004) and disruptive / oppositional behaviours (Donaldson, Vollmer, Krous, Downs, & Berard, 2011; Leflot, van Lier, Onghena, & Colpin,
7
The PATHS programme is recognised as a Blueprints ‘model’ programme, a title which signifies programme effectiveness, whilst the TCM and GBG are regarded as ‘promising’ programmes. Blueprints programmes are selected following a critical examination of foundation theory, goals, evaluated outcomes (analysis of statistically significant and sustained effects) from several trials/ sites, and cost-benefit analyses (Mihalic, Irwin, Elliott, Fagan, & Hansen, 2001).
2010). Further evidence suggests a longer term reduction in the likelihood of antisocial personality disorder, delinquency, and substance abuse (Kellam et al., 2011).
Although the focus of the GBG is firmly on positive child behaviour, it does not aim to foster positive social relationships between the teacher and child, and it is heavily contingent on behaviour-response. Improvements in child behaviour do not necessarily bring about a concomitant increase in teacher praise (Lannie & McCurdy, 2007). The potential absence of praise and lack of information about types of desirable behaviour are potential barriers to child cognition. In other words, even though the GBG specifies constituents of undesirable classroom behaviour, it does not provide clear, positive alternatives. As suggested by Barbetta et al. (2005), the elimination of negative behaviour should be accompanied by information regarding appropriate behaviour. Moreover, the GBG focuses on school behaviour and does not acknowledge the most proximal ecological system to which a child belongs, the family. In the absence of parental involvement, positive outcomes may not extend beyond the classroom. This may be particularly the case if this system conflicts, in any way, with normative practice in the home, or if weak school-home relations exist. As with other interventions, the GBG should be actively embedded into daily classroom practice. The teacher-coach relationship has been shown to strongly relate to post-training classroom practice (Wehby, Maggin, Partin, & Robertson, 2012). Without this, initial positive effects may be temporary. Early improvement in classroom behaviour declined once ‘behavioural coaches’ stopped visiting the classroom to encourage programme use (Johnson, Turner, & Konarski, as cited in Tingstrom, Sterling-Turner, & Wilczynski, 2006). The success of the GBG would appear to stem from the social demands placed upon children by their teacher and peers; that is, they should attend to their work and socialise appropriately (Kellam et al., 2011). Peer encouragement is a main component in the success of GBG and can lead to social adaptation. As previously noted, positive peer relations play an important role in adjustment to school. Although not evident in the literature, it is possible that in some cases peer pressure may serve to further marginalise children who, due to developmental delay, may be unable to engage in the GBG as effectively as their classmates. The possibility of deteriorating student-peer relations is also a real concern. Nonetheless, the appeal of this programme is apparent and indeed,
Embry (2002) referred to it as a ‘behavioural vaccine’. As GBG training is delivered over one day, this programme does not demand long-term training commitment on the part of teachers. It is simple but effective in its design and implementation, making it an attractive option for teachers, who may not have access to long-term programmes which require advanced training.
5.1.2 Responsive Classroom (RC)
The Responsive Classroom (RC) was developed by the Northeast Foundation for Children, a US-based collaboration between teachers to enhance child social and academic growth. This programme regards social skills as intrinsic to academic development; it has a focus on relationship building, with the teacher-child relationship at its centre. Furthermore, the programme emphasises socio-emotional development and views the creation of positive home-school links as essential towards achieving this goal. Teacher training consists of one-day workshops and one-week ‘institutes’, delivered by RC-certified ‘presenters’ who are also experienced classroom teachers. The development of positive classroom relationships centres on a daily ‘greeting and morning meeting’ during which children can develop conversational and relational skills with their peers. Other strategies inherent to the RC approach include ‘rules and logical consequences’ which were termed ‘habits of goodness’ by Charney (1997), ‘guided discovery’ which involves the acquisition of academic and social skills, ‘assessment and reporting to parents’, and ‘classroom organisation’. The RC is used to model positive behaviour (including language) and assist children in problem-solving strategies.
This programme has been widely researched, but (even within studies) has displayed divergent findings. For example, in one multi-site study, it was stated that outcomes “... looked so different from school to school” (Horsch, Chen, & Wagner, 2002, p. 365). These authors reported that in some schools, RC was regarded as a useful and generative approach, but in others as an ‘ivory tower’ programme unsuitable for inner-city schools with inner-city issues. Whilst research by Elliott (1995, 1999) showed increased social, behavioural, and academic functioning due to RC exposure, recent research evidence predominantly points toward academic, rather than socio- emotional gains (Ottmar, Rimm-Kaufman, & Larsen, 2012; Rimm-Kaufman, Fan, Chiu, & You, 2007). Nonetheless, the RC appears to be well-grounded in a number
of constructivist and developmental theories (e.g., Vygotskian and Piagetian) and has much in common with the Incredible Years (IY) TCM programme such as a focus on teacher change, the importance of home-school links, and improvement of child socio-emotional competence.
5.1.3 Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS)
Similar to RC and TCM, the PATHS curriculum focuses on the early childhood promotion of socio-emotional competence. In so doing (as with RC), it aims to strengthen academic processes. It is also regarded as an effective aggression and behavioural problem prevention programme, focused predominantly in schools, although also inclusive of parental activities. PATHS implementation typically occurs on a whole-school basis, where a coordinator (with access to ongoing training) encourages classroom teachers in programme delivery (Seifer, Gouley, Miller, & Zakriski, 2004). The programme is delivered by teachers to children in class daily, in 20-30 minute blocks. The premise of PATHS is largely neurocognitive, recognising that child emotional development is the precursor of cognitive development (Riggs, Greenberg, Kusché, & Pentz, 2006). It has a number of inter-related objectives, including the development of child emotional recognition and communication, self-control, problem-solving, and the promotion of positive peer relationships. The creation of a positive classroom environment is at the core of the PATHS curriculum (Domitrovich, Cortes, & Greenberg, 2007).
Among typically developing children and those with additional needs, the PATHS curriculum has been shown to reduce externalising and internalising behaviours (Kam, Greenberg, & Kusché, 2004; Riggs et al., 2006). Hamre, Pianta, Mashburn, and Downer (2012) noted that until recently, almost all studies into the effectiveness of the PATHS curriculum have involved the developers, and that further independent replication is warranted. However, an independent study is currently underway- a longitudinal evaluation of a culturally adapted version of the PATHS curriculum (Together 4 All) - in Northern Ireland. Early findings show that teachers, students, and parents reacted positively towards the programme (Ross, Sheard, Cheung, Elliott, & Slavin, 2011). Although programme effects on socio-emotional development were inconsistent, some improvements were found in both emotional labelling and pro-social behaviour. These results differ from another independent
study examining PATHS implementation within an urban US primary school (Seifer et al., 2004). Whilst children in the PATHS intervention group displayed better socio-emotional competence than controls, the authors found that teachers and school personnel engaged only modestly with the programme. They further reported a teacher-held belief that PATHS materials had “low production value” (i.e., inadequate quality), highlighting the potential impact of teacher ‘buy-in’ and engagement with training programmes of this kind. Recent findings from a cluster randomised trial in the UK, showed that children in intervention (PATHS) schools displayed modest improvements in emotional and behavioural outcomes, compared with control group schools at 12-month follow-up (Little et al., 2012). However, the authors note that these improvements were not evident at 2-year follow-up, thereby demonstrating a clear need for extended longitudinal study of programme outcomes.