Evaluative critique, construction and reflection on guidance approaches
Introduction
Learning and development of the child is dependent on the environmental exposure that the child is exposed to. This means that the childhood experiences, corrections and directions given to the child count a lot in shaping the character and behavior of the child. This paper attempts to evaluate the child behavioral management approaches adopted by a teacher in managing the learners. The paper adopts a bias towards a critique of the counseling approaches used by the teacher and recommends new and better ways of managing the child’s behavior. This done through advancing an argument based on the child learning and management theory. There is also an evaluative exposition into a pro-social model of counseling and managing the children, through elaborative examples which are augmented with research and theoretical inclinations. A reflection into the approaches specified is also observed.
Behavior Evaluation
Just as earlier stated, the behavior of the child is determined by the nature of the experience that the child is exposed to (Marion, 2011). The management of the behavior of the kid, and shaping their behavioral inclination can be reached through advancing some approaches that will lead to positive reinforcement of the desired attitude or behavior and negative reinforcement for the undesired attributes. McInerney and McInerney (2010) argue that positive reinforcement is responsible for the development of the wanted character in the children. Correction should therefore be launched at the first instance before the kids develop a recalcitrant behavior. First hand correction is effective as the learner is able to associate the bad behavior to the punishment issued (Rogers, 2011). Therefore, this model is well placed in as far as the correction of the kid is concerned. It adopts the principle of action reaction. The behavioral classical conditional theory advances that learning is developed through the action reaction response. If the student portrays a bad behavior, he should directly be corrected so that the process elicits a response which will be used to change their behavior. It is through the same following that this mechanism is pegged. The teacher spots the student dismantling the sandcastle that was built by the other playing children and adopts a quick response to rectify the situation and thus correct the bad behavior that is being manifested by the child. This is the first step in the behavior correction.
Krause et al. (2010) develops that for one to have effective behavior control and management, they should seize the first opportunity where the child manifests problems or issues worth correction. The action reaction principle seems to be well utilized in this scenario, therefore confirming the sense of urgency of the model’s approach used. The teacher then moved further to call the name of the student so that he she could get her back and directly confronts him for the bad behavior that the kid had portrayed. The movement of the teacher to the running student and getting him back is a good approach since the learner will be forced to evaluate the context at which the mistakes and the bad behavior is done. McInerney and McInerney (2010) acknowledge that for the punishment to be effective and have a positive impact on the child, the parent or teacher should ensure that the context and pragmatism of the incident is incorporated in the corrective approach adopted. In this case, the teacher is the center of the correction by instilling discipline into the kid. The act of running after the kid and directly confronting him by showing him the repercussions of his actions is a cognizant of the context-based behavior change and correction. The approach is also cognizant of the social-emotional concern of the child.
Seal et al. (2011) speculate that the emotional attribute of the child should make part and parcel of the corrective approach that is adopted in the behavior rectification models. This is done by ensuring that the child is not intimidated by the approach and adopting a friendly yet firm influence on the correction of the behavior spotted. The teacher in this case, grabs the child on the hand and commands him to clean the sand while at the same time pointing at the eminence at which the kid has been involved in the misdemeanor, noted as “I am so sick of calling your name”. The discipline master then moves on to explain to Jackson the consequences of his behavior. In this explanation, it is evident that the learner’s emotional stability is taken care of by ensuring that there is no emotional injury (Rogers, 2011). The explanation of the mistakes and the consequences are reminiscent of the fact that the approach respects the emotional stability of the child. This as Kaiser and Rasminsky (2007) note is responsible for correcting purely the mistakes that are committed by the child while maintaining the good relations between the teacher and the pupil. The advantage of this approach is that the teacher is able to rectify the mistakes of the leaner while at the same times remain friendly to the pupil. This therefore safeguards the emotional inclination and the social capacity of the learner to effectively take part in learning from the consequences that are faced as a result of the indulgence (Krause et al. (2010).
According to Kaiser and Rasminsky (2007) in the classical conditioning model of approach, the learner should be positively reinforced for the desired behavior to be effected. The teacher reinforces the action that Jackson takes by allowing him to go and sit on the quiet mat after wiping the sand. The learner feels that he has accomplished the requirements of the teacher and goes to sit as instructed. The permission to proceed to the next activity is an extrinsic motivation which helps develop the behavioural inclination of the child. This will help shape the character of the student by informing that if they do what is right they will be allowed to proceed to the next level without any impediments (Wheeler, 2008).The other pupils involved in the building of the sand castle do not react hysterically at the action of Jackson. Instead they watch and continue playing. This a merit as the bad behaved learner draws his attention by noticing that he is the only one misbehaving.
According to behaviorists, the approach taken by the teacher by negatively reinforcing the behavior is inappropriate. Although Hemmeter et al. (2006) point out that the correction that avoids direct confrontation with the student is the best, the learner here should have been negatively reinforced by being drawn away from the activity that the rest were doing. The other students should have been shown that they should not behave like Jackson. If they did, they would be isolated from the play. This would have served more in rectifying the behavior of the learners as a whole rather than by merely explaining and scolding in a veneer state.
The immediacy in the correction of the behavior of the student should be maintained so that the rectification may have effect of the desired magnitude. Wheeler (2008) asserts that enforcing the correction measures immediately after the action has been performed is the best approach to be adopted by the parent or teacher. During the formative stages of development, the learner’s memory is limited to the number of things and scenarios it can vividly recall after a short while (Seal et al., 2011). This therefore means that the immediacy and instant punishment should be evoked every time the leaner manifests or portrays bad behavior. The student will therefore draw a relationship between his bad behavior and the punishment that is associated with the behavior(Baroody& Dobbs-Oates, 2011). Adopting such an approach will mean that the action undertaken by Jackson will see the teacher instantly instill discipline by making the learner face the consequences of bad behavior. However, this should be advanced after the student has repeated the action. The student should be given a benefit of doubt. Only if the action repeats itself, then the teacher should make correctional remarks (Reynolds, 2008).
Proposed corrective model/approach
The first option for correcting the behavior should involve the explanation to the child as to why they are being punished. This will draw their conscience to the problem so that they can associate bitter or the pain experienced to the bad action they undertook. This can be done by questioning the child’s misdemeanor as in the detailed explanation script, “It is very bad to interfere with other children’s work. Do you know why? The teacher here will then proceed to explain the reasons as to why it is very bad to for the child to behave so. Advancing this method will enable the teacher to draw a candid explanation of the reasons as to why the indulgence is wrong. Punishment should be pointed out as the consequence of the behavior. This will help them avoid the bad behavior. Consequential punishment is deemed to be the most effective mode of correction among children (Hemmeter et al., 2006). This is done by avoiding punitive models but instead one adopts an approach where the learner is made to feel the consequence of the behavior which he/she portrays. The teacher should have only imposed timeout for the behavior that is portrayed by Jackson after all actions were exhausted without Jackson portraying any signs of behavior change. This is because the student has been repeating the action as earlier seen. For instance, in this case, Jackson would have been isolated from the rest of the students. He would be denied the chance to play by explaining to him why he is being sidelined from the rest.
The second stage of correction should involve demonstration. According to Piasta and Wagner (2010), demonstration serves the purpose of practically showing the child where the problem is and how it can be avoided. In this case demonstration can be done through gathering the children together and showing them the bad behavior that is portrayed by Jackson. In the appendix attached, the teacher mentions to the children, “.class as you can see this is Jackson. .we are isolating him from the rest because of ” Ormrod (2011) observes that the demonstration serves as the control keg in harnessing a reconstructive approach to the behavior. Demonstration serves the Purpose of controlling the damage that can be caused by the isolation of the student from the rest. When demonstration is done before all the children, the whole class is involved min learning and all the children will have a better behavior correction as they will tend to be behave better so that they can be among the well behaved. Motivation should be at the center stage in this level. This is done by way of rewards for those who portray good behavior and negative reinforcement for those who go against the conventions.
Performance is another procedure that should be taken by the teacher. This should be done through asking the child to undertake an action that is geared towards correcting the vice. For instance, in the appendix script, the teacher instructs Jackson to go and wipe their hands off the sand and wait for further instructions. This serves as an avenue to evaluate whether the kid follows instructions or is simply obstinate (Piasta & Wagner 2010). Feedback of the correction should be given. If the child responds negatively to the correction adopted, he or she should be punished again until they learn to avoid the behavior. Feedback is essential in correcting the behavior and counseling the child (Whittaker & Harden, 2010). Parental guidance should be sought at this level. Baroody and Dobbs-Oates (2011) understand that the family is the most influential organization that influences the development and growth of the child. Therefore, permission should be sought after by the teacher and recommendations for the child’s rectification made. This approach can fit in the case of Jackson because he has for a while portrayed some bad behavior especially as pertains to the other students. The teacher in this case says that he was tired of shouting his name every time. This is reminiscent of the extent to which the frequency of misdemeanor is portrayed by the learner. Committing the case to the parents will ensure that the parent enforces the reconstructive measures even at home. The widespread re-affirmative effects of the correction model will most likely have the reconstructive effect on the learner’s behavior.
Discussion with the parents should be launched by the both the parents and the learner. This helps in enhancing positive communication between the learner, parents and the teacher. Learners should be well counseled to a level where they manifest good character. If this fails there should be adoption of timeout. At this point their behavior is not condoned and they are separated from the rest. An explanation is given so that they are impelled to reflect on their insolence. Robinson (2011) speculates that positive communication with the learners when correcting their behaviors is more effective than a negative approach. This is because the emotional effect on the learners is taken care of. Just as earlier advanced, children are very emotional beings. Therefore, the extent to which the negative reference should be made when correcting them should be checked. An overflow of the approach taken may kill the interest of the child in the specific activity (Bulotsky-Shearer &Fantuzzo, 2011). The positive communication helps the teacher to avoid professional issues like stereotypes. When one maintains the tone of their voice and a positive direction of the conversation, the members will definitely be motivated to change their behavior. This will ensure that there is no misinterpretation the action as unjustified or based on prejudice. The child would therefore understand that the correction is based on the bad posture or effect that it brings about rather than external view. The action is therefore understood as bad on its own. Reinforcements should also play a vital role in the correction of the behavior by the members. This is done through a number of approaches. This approach is best suited for the correction of the child’s behavior as it takes cognizance of the emotional inclination of the student and acknowledges the vulnerability with which the action taken may influence the general development and view of the child (Porter, 2008). Reinforcements will help the learner to grow and strive to be the best, thereby achieving the best behavior.
Reflection on the model chosen
William Rogers devised the Decisive discipline model by emphasizing on the various approaches to follow. The above explication of an alternative model is based on the Rogers model of decision making in regard to instilling discipline into the learners. The first proposition of the model advances that the teacher should ignore the first instance when the child commits a mistake. While trying to give a point of doubt, the second elicitation of the mistake should not be let go. Here the teacher should be involved in the process of rule restatement and explanations. The teacher here should call on Jackson and explain to him why it is wrong to kick other children’s playing sand castles (Refer to the appendix attached). The child should be informed of the rule of the game, by being told to stop whatever activity he was doing. Doing this will ensure that the child has a clue that whatever activity he is doing is wrong and it needs change. This will lead to a complete stop when it comes to step three where the teacher is required to give a clear choice of command through demonstrations. Withall and Rittenhouse (2000) hold that at the level of clear choice, there should be no reason advanced for the behavior, A concrete stand is taken and therefore shaped in the way the teacher wants it to go. Demonstrations involving all children is advanced and shaped towards correcting all the behavior in the children. Demonstrations should be followed with performance where the children are given an activity to indulge in. The teacher takes not of the feedback of the way the kids respond. If there is wrong perception from the activity, the child can then be isolated and undertaken through the process of discussion and counseling. When this fails, the child should the application of timeout should be enforced. Piasta and Wagner (2010) claim that time out is not a punishment but rather a time when the members should be reflective of the activities which they are involved in. The student will normally be isolated from the rest so that he or she can feel the consequence of the action. It is after this activity that the members are forced to take a self-re-examination of their actions and make concrete changes before being reaccepted back into the group (Jolivette& Steed, 2010). For instance, in this case, the student should be isolated from the rest after all efforts have failed. This influences me in terms of instituting the alternative approach by factoring the role of a psychoanalytic approach of self analysis by the learner.
Adopting the model advanced will mean that my professional practice will be pegged on a re-observation of the whole student behavior. This means that there will be more time dedicated towards the study of the learner’s behavior on noticing a bad behavior. Once the action repeats itself, I will be forced to follow the procedural practice as advanced by Rogers. This means that students will be given a chance to change their behavior before imposition of timeout. After timeout, there will be no further condoning of the recalcitrant behaviors from the students.
Conclusion
Andrius, J.2011. The William Rogers Discipline Model. Retrieved from http://www.teachermatters.com/classroom-discipline/models-of-discipline/the-william-rogers-model.html
Baroody, A. E., & Dobbs-Oates, J. (2011). Child and parent characteristics, parental expectations, and child behaviors related to preschool children's interest in literacy. Early Child Development & Care, 181(3), 345-359. Doi: 10.1080/03004430903387693
Bulotsky-Shearer, R. J., &Fantuzzo, J. W. (2011).Preschool behavior problems in classroom learning situations and literacy outcomes in kindergarten and first grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1), 61-73. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.04.004
Hemmeter, M., Ostrosky, M., & Fox, L. (2006). Social and emotional foundations for early learning: A conceptual model for intervention. School Psychology Review, 35 (4), 583-601.
Jolivette, K., & Steed, E. (2010).Classroom management strategies for young children with challenging behavior within early childhood settings, NHSA Dialog, 13 (3), 198-213.
Kaiser, B., &Rasminsky, J. (2007).Challenging behavior in young children: understanding, preventing, and responding effectively. Boston, Mass.: Pearson.
Krause, K., Bochner, S., Duchesne, S., &McMaugh, A. (2010). Educational psychology for learning and teaching (3rd Ed.). Victoria: Cengage Learning Australia.
Marion, M. (2011).Guidance of young children (8th Ed.). Boston, MA: Merrill Prentice Hall.
McInerney, D. M., &McInerney, V. (2010). Educational psychology: Constructing learning (5th Ed.). Sydney: Prentice-Hall.
Ormrod, J. E. (2011). Educational psychology: Developing learners (7th Ed.). USA: Pearson.
Piasta, S. B., & Wagner, R. K. (2010).Learning letter names and sounds: Effects of instruction, letter type, and phonological processing skill. Journal Of Experimental Child Psychology, 105(4), 324-344. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.12.008
Porter, L. (2008). Young children’s behavior: Practical approaches for caregivers and teachers (3rd ed.). Sydney: McLennan and Petty.
Reynolds, E. (2008). Guiding young children: A problem solving approach (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Robinson, M. (2011). Understanding behavior and development in early childhood a guide to theory and practice, from http://ezproxy.uws.edu.au/login?url=http://lib.myilibrary.com/detail.asp?id=288595
Rogers, B. (2011). Classroom behavior: A practical guide to effective teaching, behavior management and colleague support. (3rd Ed.). London: SAGE.
Seal, C. R., Naumann, S. E., Scott, A. N., & Royce-Davis, J. (2011). Social emotional development: A new model of student learning in higher education. Research in Higher Education Journal, 10, 1-13. http://search.proquest.com/docview/847386603?accountid=45049
Stormont, M., &Reinke, W. (2009).The importance of pre-corrective statements and behavior-specific praise and strategies to increase their use.BeyondBehavior, 18 (3), 26-32.
Wheeler, J. V. (2008). The impact of social environments on emotional, social, and cognitive competency development. The Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 129-145. Doi: 10.1108/02621710810840802
Whittaker, J., & Harden, B. (2010). Beyond ABCs and 123s: enhancing teacher-child relationship quality to promote children’s behavioral development. NHSA Dialog, 13 (3), 185-191.
Withall, J., & Rittenhouse, A. A. (2000).Child Therapy — A Frame of Reference. Exceptional Children, 21(4), 122-149.
The behavior correction approach should take a perspective as indicated below.
Explanation
Child Says: I don’t know
Child: How do I avoid being punished?
Demonstration
(The teacher should demonstrate to the other students how the bad behavior is bad and the consequences).
Children: We are sorry teacher; we will behave very well so that we can avoid problems as the one that Jackson has gotten into.
Performance
(The student is instructed to undertake an activity. This could be a punishment or a general observation by the teacher in order to instill discipline).For instance,
Child: yes teacher .Will I be free to go after that
Child: yes teacher
Feedback
(The feedback from the punishment is viewed i.e. whether the child has learnt from the mistake punished. Explanations can further be advanced based on this)
Child: Yes teacher I will be well behaved from now onwards
Child: Thanks teacher, I will do what is always right.
Discussion
(The discussion is meant to give the teacher a larger space in terms of addressing the problem. Here there is a discussion of the problem with the child in details. After which conclusions are made. The child should generally manifest good character, failure to which application of timeout can be applied).
