Strategy selection

The second questionnaire (Appendix 4) included a question asking respondents to give their views on a teacher’s use of a whole class sanction. The question was originally chosen because of its potential to give some indication of how a teacher decides on whether or not a particular strategy is appropriate to implement. It assumed particular relevance in light of the strong view emerging that the respondents learned from school based experience and had also accessed relatively little by way of external sources. One implication of this could be that what is right to emulate or incorporate into the teacher’s repertoire of strategies is anything that appears to work in practice. The responses are shown in Table 6.7.1.

175

Strategy Percentage

selecting

It’s not an ideal strategy, but when you can’t identify the individual culprits you have to do something.

26.9

It’s not a strategy to be used frequently but occasional use to make a point is ok.

18.7

It’s a useful strategy with a class whose behaviour is not particularly bad, but who are very talkative or lively.

10.5

Though this strategy achieved compliance it risked damaging teacher-pupil relationships and so cannot be justified.

9.9

Whole group punishments like this are unfair and so should never be used.

8.8

It’s a good strategy – it makes effective use of peer-pressure from the more responsible students.

7.0

Though this strategy achieved compliance it risks modelling to pupils that a person in a position of authority has the right to be unfair. Therefore it cannot be justified.

5.8

This strategy should not be used. It risks promoting the wrong sort of peer group pressure, e.g. After the lesson pupils may socially isolate or threaten physical violence towards those considered to be to blame for the class having to stay in.

4.1

I wouldn’t do this with my age range, but it might be appropriate for a different age range.

1.8

The teacher got them quiet so this is an effective technique. 1.2

No response or incorrectly completed. 5.3

Table 6.7.1: Strategy selected in response to behaviour scenario (n=171)

In the context of recommendations in government guidance (e.g. DES 1989a, DCSF 2009) the ‘right’ answers could be viewed as either Whole group punishments like this are unfair and so should never be used, Though this strategy achieved compliance it risked damaging teacher-pupil relationships and so cannot be justified or This strategy should not be used. It risks promoting the wrong sort of peer group pressure. Only 22.8% chose one of these three answers. The most frequently selected answers were It’s not an ideal strategy, but when you can’t identify the culprits you have to do something and It’s not a strategy to be used frequently but occasional use to make a point is ok. Very few opted for the simple notion that The teacher got them quiet so this is an effective technique. A feature of the most popular

176

options was that there was a degree of reservation in the wording – the strategy was portrayed as less than ideal or not to be used often. Ultimately it appeared that pragmatism generally took precedence in guiding practice over reservations or considerations in relation to how the sanction might be experienced and interpreted by pupils.

In the context of a general consideration of how new teachers select strategies, more important than notions of right and wrong answers in response to this question is the fact that it drew a range of different responses. As a group of students exposed to the same PGCE course they viewed this scenario and gave responses that ranged from rejection based on a principled stance through to acceptance that this was an appropriate strategy for the teacher to adopt.

6.8 Summary

Collectively the data gathered via the two questionnaires raised some important questions about the established discourse of behaviour as a concern for trainees (DfE 2012a) and an area in which training is weak (NFER 2008, 2012).

The perception amongst many respondents was that the university based elements of the PGCE course made a limited contribution to their learning about behaviour. Though this needs to be understood as a reflection of a group perception rather than necessarily an indication of the actual contribution, there is an implied criticism of the university based elements of their preparation on the PGCE course. In understanding the responses, it is also important to recognise that there was an indication that it was not only in relation to learning about behaviour where respondents indicated that the university based elements made a less significant contribution to their professional learning. This resonates with findings from Hobson et al’s (2009) research that suggested many beginning teachers hold the view that they will learn how to teach and manage classroom behaviour by experiencing and ‘doing’. The case study respondents in Hobson et al’s (2009) study reported that the advice and guidance they received from experienced teachers in the placement schools, together with any INSET opportunities available to them whilst placed there, was of more value than the lectures.

177

The implied criticism within the second questionnaire needs to be viewed as part of a broader, more positive message conveyed by the fact that approximately three quarters of respondents considered that overall the combination of university and school based elements had provided them with a knowledge and understanding of a range of behaviour management strategies and prepared them to establish a clear framework for classroom discipline with which to manage learners’ behaviour constructively. Though a broadly positive message in terms of proportions, a question that arises is why approximately one quarter on the same PGCE course felt it had not prepared them sufficiently in these two areas. Though it is necessary to recognise there may have been some variation in experience related to specific university tutors, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the university based elements of the course were broadly similar for all respondents. It is possible to speculate therefore that factors related to the individual PGCE student and experiences in placement schools might be factors affecting the perception of the overall experience of the PGCE course.

Collectively, the reported confidence of the cohort was relatively high both in terms of the general ability to establish and maintain a good standard of behaviour in the classroom and in relation to specific, named behaviours. Whilst confidence ratings were lower for more extreme behaviours such as physical aggression, there was also a recognition by the majority of respondents that these would occur infrequently.

Though confidence ratings in the first and second questionnaires did not suggest that behaviour was the great concern for trainees that it is sometimes reported to be (e.g. DfE 2012a), there was an indication that establishing and maintaining a good standard of behaviour in the classroom was one of a number of areas prominent in trainees’ minds as an important area for coverage on their course. It became the most frequently identified top five priority for coverage as part of their professional development during their first year of practice.

The data suggested that trainees generally emerged from the PGCE course as a whole feeling confident and sufficiently well prepared in relation to pupil

178

behaviour but were less convinced about the contribution of the university based elements as part of this preparation. There was also not a sense that they believed there to be a widespread or growing problem with behaviour in schools as their prediction of the frequency of certain behaviours reflected the established message that ‘Incidents of serious misbehaviour, and especially acts of extreme violence remain exceptionally rare and are carried out by a very small proportion of pupils’ (DfES 2005b: 5).

The established discourse of poor standards of behaviour in schools, behaviour as the major concern for trainees and weaknesses in the coverage of behaviour during initial teacher training has typically been informed and reinforced by the use of broad surveys. The use of questionnaires for this phase of the research, in a sense, sought to compete on the same terms when exploring trainees’ views on pupil behaviour and the training received. The study of individuals through the case study phase was an attempt to achieve a richer understanding of what might lie behind the tick or other response that a respondent records in such surveys.

The findings from the two questionnaires were used to inform the first round of interviews in the case study phase. A number of the findings from the questionnaires reported in this chapter seemed to bring into question some of the assumptions regarding behaviour as the major concern for beginning teachers and their general sense of preparedness. However, there was also an indication that university based elements of the course made less of a contribution than the school-based elements. Coupled with possible evidence of limited reading, this began to suggest that beginning teachers’ thinking and practice in relation to behaviour was largely influenced by experiences in schools. In light of these emerging issues, the first round of interviews sought to examine further, sources of professional learning, general confidence and confidence in relation to specific behaviours, experiences of pupil behaviour during the NQT year and how strategies for responding to behaviour were selected.

179