EPGS619/EPGS719 Professional Studies Assessment Sheet First Marker: JLS

High Level 7 Low Level 7 High Level 6 Low Level 6 Fail

Critical reading
Shows knowledge and
understanding of the key
concepts in current literature
on a suitable topic.
There is a clear rationale that shows
extensive knowledge and
understanding of the choice of topic.
Excellent selection and use of an
extensive range of literature and
evidence within the writing, including
books, book chapters, reports,
Government documentation, journal
articles and web sources.
There is a rationale for the
choice of a sufficiently complex
topic. There is evidence of good
knowledge of critical
understanding of main concepts
and issues in the area of study.
The writing is contextualised
within a good range of recent
and relevant research and
professional literature.
Inadequate rationale offered for the
choice of topic.
Knowledge and understanding of key
concepts are sufficient to inquire into
different perspectives on the topic.
Literature used is mostly relevant and
sufficiently varied.
Shows some knowledge and
understanding of key concepts.
Literature used has some
limitations regarding range,
currency and/or appropriateness.
Knowledge and
understanding of key
concepts display major gaps,
inaccuracies and/or serious
misconceptions. Literature
base seriously limited;
insufficiently current and/or
inappropriate.

Analysis of Views
Shows ability to dissect the
views raised by the literature
review in regard to the specific
area of study
Synthesis and
Evaluation
Shows ability to relate views
identified in the literature to
practice and make sound and
balanced judgements to arrive
at a conclusion.
Overall Coherence and
Conformity
Shows ability to write with
clarity, fluency and coherence.
Assignment has structure and
effective communication of
intended meanings.
Referencing is accurate and
consistent.
Overall Comment
Critical analysis of views arising from
the literature raises a range of
original ideas and insights. Well-
developed, evidenced argument that
synthesises multiple perspectives and
shows a critical appreciation of the
issues raised
There are clear statements regarding
the relevance, importance and the
potential impact of the analysis upon
teaching and learning. A clear
conclusion is reached through a
balanced critical understanding of
theory in your practice.
The work is very well organised and
the argument is signposted in a
logical and cogent written style.
Written expression is engaging and
articulate throughout. Referencing
conventions are carefully and
accurately used without error.
An EXCELLENT piece of work. With
modification has the potential for
wider dissemination.
Analysis demonstrates a good
awareness and understanding of
the issues raised in the literature
in relation to the chosen topic.
The argument shows some
synthesise between the concepts
and theories identified in the
literature, but may lack critical
depth and/or evidence.
Teaching and learning is
considered in relation to the
views raised, which enables a
conclusion to be reached that
shows an awareness of theory in
your practice.
The work is well-structured and
presented to provide clear and
effective communication of
intended meaning. Written
expression is mostly clear with
few grammatical errors.
References are mostly accurate
and consistent.
A GOOD piece of work. Some
particular strengths. Minor issues
may need addressing.
There are a number of points drawn
from the literature. An argument is
attempted with limited critical
awareness. Some descriptive
sections.
There are a number of points made
that are then related to teaching and
learning. A conclusion is reached, but
needs development in aspects of
theory in your practice.
The work is structured and presented
to communicate ideas. Written
expression is generally clear and
coherent throughout with some
grammatical errors. References used
are generally accurate and consistent.
A SOUND piece of work. Some
engaging features. Some aspects
need addressing.
Some consideration is
demonstrated of issues arising
from the literature. Some
descriptive sections.
Aspects of teaching and learning
may be implicit, rather than
explicit in relation to points
made. The conclusion tends to
summarise points made and
implies theory in practice.
Work follows a structure, but
may at times become unclear or
confused. Some grammatical
errors may impair
communication at times.
References are attempted, but
may contain errors and/or are
used inconsistently.
An ACCEPTABLE piece of work.
Specific aspects require
attention.
Offers few distinct ideas, or
interpretations; few
implications drawn from the
literature review. Poor line
of argument. Mainly
descriptive.
There is insufficient
attention to how this work
may impact upon teaching
and learning. The
conclusion is very weak or
absent and shows no
awareness of theory in
practice.
Work weakly ordered and/or
presented. Grammatical
errors significantly impair
communication. References
are mostly inaccurate and/or
inconsistent.
An INADEQUATE piece of
work. Significant aspects
requiring attention.

1
 Level 7 Outcome Meets the L7 Assessed Learning Meets the L7 Assessed Learning
Outcomes for EPGS719 Outcomes for EPGS719
Level 6 Outcome Meets the L6 Assessed Learning Meets the L6 Assessed Learning Does not meet the L6
Outcomes for EPGS619 Outcomes for EPGS619 Assessed Learning
Outcomes

Summary Comments

Your introduction considers the topic of the assignment focus well and you use a broad range of relevant and robust literature to establish and justify your choice. This is
developed well through rhetorical questions that help to signpost your critical thinking and direction of the argument. I would like you to do the same of the
behaviourist/humanist approach as the focus though as you do not engage with this aspect in the wider educational sense, so I am not as sure why you have chosen it.

You are at your best when you engage with multiple perspectives on a related issue to introduce and develop your argument, but this isn’t always applied consistently.
When you discuss behaviourist approaches you rely on singular sources and at times use large quotations to speak for you. There is also some confusion over what the
humanist perspective is, and you tend to apply the approach to literature that is not overtly discussing it. For example, you discuss approaches that could easily apply to a
behaviourist approach with assertive teaching (Canter and Canter), see page 12 for further comments.

You note your limitations on the research before your conclusions and this is clearly an issue as your conclusions favour humanist approaches over behaviourist at times,
but you lack the valid evidence to support these claims. You do however, reach some limited conclusions that you link to future practice, but this could be developed more
by making the links to each approach more explicit in your decision making to show your understanding of how and when to take a more blended approach.

Feedforward Actions

Don’t forget to justify the focus for the assignment within the introduction.
Avoid long quotations as you leave them to speak for you and as such are not able to add to the complexity. Be selective, paraphrase where you can.
Try to use multiple perspective in literature more consistently to inform your critical analysis.
Ensure you have robust evidence in literature to support conclusions.

Second Marker’s Comments

2
 Signature: Date:

Please read the Assessment Grid, Summary Comments, Feedforward Actions and the in-text comments for further feedback on this assignment.

3
Contents
Rationale...............................................................................................................................................1
Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1
What is the behaviourist approach?......................................................................................................7
What is the humanist approach?........................................................................................................10
Limitations...........................................................................................................................................14
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................14
Bibliography........................................................................................................................................18

0
Rationale

This essay seeks to understand the influences of behaviourist and humanist behaviour

management approaches on the student-teacher relationship. My interest in this grew as a

result of the wide discrepancy in behaviour witnessed at my second school placement.

Some teachers had established impeccable standards of behaviour whilst others did not

seem to address pupils talking over them, refusing to engage with work and generally being

disruptive. One teacher responded to poor behaviour with a sustained barrage of shouting.

The first time I witnessed this I could physically feel the class climate change as some pupils

withdrew to avoid becoming targets for the teacher’s aggression whilst others reacted more

combatively. At the other extreme I saw a teacher allow poor behaviour to remain unchecked

as they felt that addressing the issues would result in conflict and student disengagement.

These approaches represent two extremes on a continuum with hostile behaviour

management at one end and the avoidance of behaviour management for the sake of the

student-teacher relationship at the other. The implication being that strong behaviour

management and a flourishing student-teacher relationship are mutually exclusive. If this is

the case which should we favour? Does one offer significant advantages over the

other or is there was a way in which these could co-exist to maximise the benefits of both

and thereby maximise pupil progress?

Introduction

Research has shown that a positive teacher–student relationship can improve academic

performance and lessen aggressive tendencies. Students who feel their teachers are

supportive, experience better outcomes in Maths and English (Midgley et al, 1989;

Goodenow, 1993 cited in Gehlbach et al, 2012, P.691) whilst teacher–student conflict is

consistently linked to lower grades in Maths and English. (Hamre and Pianta, 2001 cited in

1
Gehlbach, 2012, p.691). Wang et al (2015, pp.221,231) found that adolescents were less

likely to perpetrate acts of bullying if they had positive relationships with their teachers and

good student-teacher relations may even help correct poor behaviour originating outside of

the school environment (Kessner, 2000 cited in Lander, 2009, p.231).

The student-teacher relationship might also offer a means by which students’ social

competence could be improved as Rucinski et al (2018 p.993) identify a link between the

quality of the student-teacher relationship and the student’s social-emotional functioning.

Additionally, Meehan et al (2003, p.1146) suggest that the social competence of preschool

children is related to the quality of their relationships with their teacher.

Student engagement is also improved by increasing the number of positive teacher-student

relationships across the range of school subjects (Martin et al, 2019, p.862). Studies show

that teachers who are perceived as supportive and caring have more attentive and motivated

students (Goodenow, 1993; Murdock & Miller, 2003; Wentze 1997 cited in Gehlbach et al,

2012, p.691). Conversely students who have a weaker relationship with their teachers are

more likely to be disengaged (Murdock, 1999 cited in Gelbach et al, 2012, p.691) whilst a

poor relationship with a teacher at secondary school can lead to a poor relationship with the

curriculum (Ellis and Todd, 2018, p.195).

Of course, the research cited above could simply be showing that more academically able,

less aggressive students naturally develop better relationships with teachers due to their

shared love of the teacher’s subject and similar views on socially appropriate behaviour. Or

perhaps more socially able children can foster better relationships with their teachers?

However, the research of Uitto et al (2018, p.54) shows that student-teachers relationships

influence students’ academic and social development by building positive emotional

experiences. It therefore seems counterintuitive that the same benefits can be realised by

2
exercising strong and consistent behaviour management strategies; an exercise which can

result in negative emotional experiences.

However, the establishment of good behaviour is considered to be a key ingredient in

successful outcomes at school (Bennett, 2017, p.12) and in later life including increased

earnings and better health (Bennett, 2017, p.22). A teacher who has successfully

established good behaviour, has more time available for actual teaching as Ofsted (2014,

p.4) has shown that disruption in classes can result in some pupils losing an hour of learning

each day which aggregates to 38 days of lost learning across a year. Poor behaviour also

increases teacher stress with 40% of teachers surveyed saying they had considered leaving

the profession due to student behaviour (Bennett, 2017), whereas good behaviour

contributes to improved job satisfaction, promotes the retention of staff and makes

recruitment easier (Bennet, p.6). Finally, Bennet (2017) links the promotion of good

behaviour to the establishment of a safe school environment indicating that unchecked

behaviour can escalate, threatening students’ and teachers’ safety as well as damage to

personal property and school resources. It can be seen that like the student-teacher

relationship, establishing good behaviour can confer many benefits. But how do we define

behavioural standards?

Poor behaviour could be generalised as behaviour which prevents learning, impairs the

development of good character or limits the preparation of children to become productive

citizens who will contribute positively to society. Bennett (2017, p.13) implies that poor

behaviour is “antisocial, selfish, or self-destructive behaviour” whilst Ofsted (2014, p.4) offers

explicit examples of bad behaviour including:

 Talking unnecessarily or chatting

 Calling out without permission

3
  Being slow to start work or follow instructions

 Showing a lack of respect for each other and staff

 Not bringing the right equipment

 Using mobile devices inappropriately

However, there is some disagreement. Kyriacou (2007, p.83) considers these to be trivial

examples of bad behaviour which could be remedied through “skilfull teaching” and “by

establishing routines and conventions for behaviour which are followed through” (Kyriacou,

2007, p.84). This inconsistency in defining bad behaviour is further reinforced with the

observation that each teacher will have their own ideas of what constitutes bad behaviour

(Kyriacou, 2007, p.84). This is an issue for student-teacher relationships as the inconsistent

enforcement of school rules can lead to conflict with pupils (Ellis and Todd, 2018, p.205).

Inconsistency in applying behaviour policies is a source of annoyance for pupils (Ofsted,

2014, p.5). This implies that any behaviour management strategy you implement could

cause conflict if it differs significantly from those of your colleagues. Behaviour management

styles exist on a continuum from aggressively coercive to liberally permissive, so is it really

the inconsistency of approach between teachers which annoys pupils (and jeopardises

relationships) or is it the frustration of being faced with a strict disciplinarian after being with

a more liberal teacher? Would pupils genuinely be happier if strict discipline was enforced in

every class? I have witnessed a school in which every teacher exercised high behaviour

expectations consistently and another school in which behaviour expectations varied

considerably between teachers. In the former school, there were fewer incidents of bad

behaviour (as defined above) and those pupils displayed more tolerance when being

disciplined. My limited personal observations agree with Bennett’s statement that

“consistently high expectations are the only high expectations that have long-term impact”

(2017, p.53) and calls into question Kyriacou’s assertion that the previously defined

4
examples of bad behaviour are trivial. However, establishing good behaviour should go

further than simply minimising bad behaviour (Bennett, 2017, p.24).

Didau (2012) , Bennet (2017) and Cook et al (2016) argue that minimising bad behaviour is

just a starting point from which to establish the habits of good behaviour as identified by the

PEEL Project (PEEL, 2009). To display good behaviour for learning, the student should:

1.                  Check personal comprehension for instruction and material.  Request further

information if needed.  Tell the teacher what they don't understand.

2.                  Seek reasons for aspects of the work at hand.

3.                  Plan a general strategy before starting.

4.                  Anticipate and predict possible outcomes.

5.                  Check teacher's work for errors; offer corrections.

6.                  Offer or seek links between:

               - different activities and ideas

               - different topics or subjects

               - schoolwork and personal life

7.                  Search for weaknesses in their own understandings; check the consistency of

their explanations across different situations.

8.                  Suggest new activities and alternative procedures.

9.                  Challenge the text or challenge an answer the teacher offers as correct.

10.               Offer ideas, new insights and alternative explanations.

11.               Justify opinions.

12.               React and refer to comments of other students.

However, Didau (2012) also suggests that in minimising bad behaviour, you can inhibit the

establishment of good behaviour for learning. Cooke (2016) expands this idea by asserting

5
that in some specific learning contexts the expectations of good behaviour might conflict with

the type of behaviour needed for learning. It is possible that an overly dominant or

aggressive behaviour management style may limit students’ willingness to risk engaging with

behaviours for learning. However, that is not the result of high behavioural expectations but

rather the way in which standards are enforced as Bennett (2017, p.24) claims that a calm,

safe classroom is a prerequisite to the inculcation of good behaviour for learning.

We can see that the strong, consistent management of student behaviour is essential to

improve student outcomes through increased teaching time, the retention of good staff and

the development of independent learners. If improved student-teacher relationships also

deliver similar benefits it is possible that a combination of effective behaviour management

with good student-teacher relationships ensures the most effective way achieving pupil

progress. Therefore, it is important to understand whether any behaviour management

strategies enhance the student-teacher relationship or conversely whether any might

actually harm it. From the teacher’s perspective, behavioural issues with a specific student

can weaken that student’s standing with the teacher (Newberry, 2010, p.204). Could the

reverse also be true? Could the management of poor behaviour weaken the student-teacher

relationship from the perspective of the ‘wrongdoer’? Can the teacher alienate the entire

class through the application of their behaviour management strategy?

In order to answer this question, we need to investigate the influence a behaviourist

approach has on the student-teacher relationship and compare it with the influence of a

humanist approach. In doing this we hope to understand if either approach influences pupil

progress by inhibiting or promoting the development of a productive relationship between the

student and the teacher. In order to answer these questions, we first need to understand the

mechanisms underlying both behaviour management approaches.

6
What is the behaviourist approach?

The behaviourist approach is based around the concept that students have to be trained to

behave in a certain manner. This approach finds its roots in the work of Pavlov and Skinner

who initially focused on animal behaviour and operant conditioning. According to Landrum et

al (2006), the Behaviourist approach achieves its outcomes through five basic operations:

 Positive reinforcement – good behaviour is rewarded with something desirable.

 Negative reinforcement – good behaviour is rewarded with the removal of something

unpleasant.

 Extinction – removal of a behavioural reinforcer

 Response cost punishment – a promised reward is removed

 Punishment involving aversives – the application of a consequence students find

aversive

Positive reinforcement is intended to strengthen a desirable behaviour by attaching a benefit

to that behaviour. These benefits can include stickers, desirable activities, tangible objects or

verbal praise. This last reinforcer is considered to be the most effective form of positive

reinforcement (Hart, 2010, p. 355; Landrum, 2006, p.48; Rogers, 2011 cited in Ellis and

Todd, 2018). Although the specific reasons are not mentioned explicitly in the literature

reviewed, it would seem that this approach works by focusing attention on desired

behaviours thereby reducing the likelihood for the conflict and escalation associated with

addressing negative behaviour. Therefore positive reinforcement fosters a positive class

climate whilst laying the foundations for a positive student-teacher relationship.

Where positive reinforcement introduces a desirable consequence, negative reinforcement is

the removal of something unpleasant in response to good behaviour. For example, a teacher

may reward a hardworking class by waiving homework for that evening (Landrum et al,

2006, p.49). The removal of something unpleasant demonstrates the teacher’s

understanding of the students’ perspective which Gehlbach et al (2012, p.692) refer to as

7
‘social perspective taking’ before identifying it as an effective first step in building student-

teacher relationships.

Extinction as defined by Landrum et al (2006) is simply ‘tactical ignoring’. A behaviour such

as calling out can become reinforced by any response from the teacher if the student’s aim

was to gain attention. By ignoring the behaviour, the teacher is withdrawing that attention.

However, extinction can lead to escalating disruption as the student implements increasingly

poor behaviour to solicit the attention they crave (Shukla-Mehta et al, 2003, p.159).

Generally this strategy would be accompanied by positive reinforcement with the teaching

praising students who are on-task and contributing sensibly whilst ignoring those are not. Of

course, behaviours which are not maintained by the teacher’s attention will not be

extinguished by the withdrawal of that attention, for example a student being disruptive in an

attempt to gain the attention of peers.

Response cost punishment is the removal of a promised reward. For example, a class has

been promised five minutes of computer games as a reward for finishing a class activity.

Those who were disruptive may have this time cut down to 3 minutes. However, this strategy

first requires the presence of a suitable reward.

The final strategy of ‘punishment involving aversives’ comprises the application of an

unpleasant consequence. Historically this would have been verbal dressing down or corporal

punishment but today it more often involves removal to a special room. My first placement

school used this strategy as a very effective deterrent but there was always the danger that

students would misbehave in order to be removed from a situation they found unpleasant

such as challenging classwork. This approach can also escalate into a refusal to go to

the ‘reset room’ and begin a power struggle between student and teacher.

Furthermore, temporary removal from the classroom can academically disadvantage a

student ensuring that the work remains challenging. They could then enter a negative cycle

8
whereby they consistently respond to academic challenge through misbehaviour as an

avoidance strategy.

To examine how the theoretical underpinnings of a behaviourist approach can be realised

practically, we can examine Canter and Canter’s Assertive Discipline. This model of

behaviour management was initially published in the 1970s by Lee and Marlene Cantor and

although it has been refined since, the behaviourist principle of teaching students how to

behave remains at the core. Discipline is entrained primarily through the use of positive

reinforcement of desired behaviour. Cantor and Cantor state that this creates a positive

classroom climate and builds self-esteem through verbal praise in addition to serving as a

tacit restatement of the expected behaviour (Cantor and Cantor, 1992, cited in Charles,

2005, p.46).). Furthermore if a consequence has to be issued for poor behaviour, Cantor

and Cantor suggest finding the first opportunity to offer that same student praise (Cantor and

Cantor, 1992, cited in Charles, 2005, p.46). Similarly, teachers should ensure they only issue

consequences after praising the correct behaviour of at least two students (Canter, 1989,

p.59). This approach seems to have the student-teacher relationship in mind and the

Cantors assert that teachers should continually strive to build trust between students and

ourselves because good discipline grows out of mutual trust and respect (Cantor and

Cantor, 1996 cited in Charles, 2005, p.41).

Cantor and Cantor’s critics have questioned the evidence underpinning their approach

(Render et al, 1989) and it is certainly true that Assertive Discipline is now a business as

much as an academic endeavour. However, Robinson’s criticism that Assertive Discipline’s

hierarchical approach could not allow mutual trust to flourish (Robinson, 1994) is founded on

the original publication and ignores the subsequent editions which seem to have refined the

approach to acknowledge the growing understanding of the importance of student-teacher

relationships.

9
What is the humanist approach?

Humanism is based on Maslow’s idea that all humans desire self-actualisation but that basic

needs must be met before this can be achieved (Sage et al, 2012, p.206).This hierarchy of

needs is typically represented as a pyramid:

Maslow states that students need to have physiological and safety needs met before they

can develop relationships. A student who is not getting enough to eat or who does not feel

safe at home, may not be able to develop a good relationship with their teacher until those

needs are met. Therefore, in some cases teachers will have to resolve issues originating

outside of school before relationships can be built inside the classroom.

Within the classroom, humanist behaviour management is founded on the idea that humans

have an “innate desire to learn” and that learning is not simply a “performance based

endeavour” but represents “human needs, goals, desires, hopes and fears” (Sage et al,

2012, p.206). Poor behaviour is not seen as defiance or a reluctance to learn but as the

result of unmet needs (Sage et al, 2012, p.214) and humanist behaviour management seeks

to understand and meet those needs as far as possible. In this analysis we shall examine

the following humanist behaviour management strategies:

10
  Pre-emptive teaching

 Investigative Counselling

 Reprimanding

 Punishment

The humanist view is that teaching and behaviour management are the same. We ensure

good discipline by teaching well, delivering an engaging lesson and helping when difficulties

arise (Kyriacou, 2002, p.1). Behaviour management is seen as proceeding from good

teaching rather than a separate skill to be exerted when the situation arises (Ellis and Todd,

2018, p.193) and this is an especially effective strategy in multicultural settings where

minorities suffer from low attainment (Meehan et al, 2003, p.1155). This approach is

partnered with other pre-emptive strategies such as vigilant classroom monitoring and

questioning strategies to ensure understanding, engagement and challenge (Dean, 1996;

Kyriacou, 1998; Robertson, 1996 cited in Kyriacou, 2002, p.3). Ellis and Todd (2018, p.90)

identify several proactive ways to pre-empt issues including:

 Frequently scanning the class to identify nascent behavioural issues

 Moving around the room, pausing next to students who are off-task or beginning to

misbehave

 Showing misbehaving students that you have noticed misbehaviour via eye contact

 Adjusting lesson pace to alleviate boredom or prevent overwhelm

It can be seen that the humanist approach initially places the blame for misbehaviour on the

teacher’s lack of competency. Kyriacou and others believe that good teaching

establishes authority (Kyriacou, 2002, p.3; Kyriacou, 2007, p.88, Ellis and Todd,2018,

p.193), whilst inadequate teaching is perceived by students as ‘insulting’ and results in

11
negativity and behavioural issues (Kyriacou, 2007, p.88). This claim would benefit from

greater academic justification but it should be self evident that good lessons will foster

engagement, enable progress, increase self-esteem and engender an interest in the subject

thereby building the student’s relationship with both the teacher and the subject. The

important idea is that good teaching pre-empts misbehaviour, preventing small infractions

from escalating into larger issues.

When misbehaviour occurs, the humanist teacher should investigate the cause by asking the

pupil a question such as “How are you getting on?” or “Do you know what you should be

doing?” (Kyriacou, 2007, p.97). When done with care and concern, this establishes whether

the behaviour is resulting from academic difficulties or possibly a SEND need (Bennett,

2017, p.41) in an unthreatening manner which does not imply that a misbehaviour has

occurred (Kyriacou, 1998; McGuiness, 1993; Porter, 2000 cited in Kyriacou, 2002, p.3). By

seeking first to understand, the teacher invokes social perspective taking and improves their

relationship with the student (Gehlbach et al, 2012, p.692).

If the investigation is not sufficient to mitigate the behaviour, the teacher can use counselling

to get the pupil to understand how their behaviour creates problems for themselves and

others. The ultimate goal of this approach is that students gain this understanding through

their own agency. Sage et al (2012, p.215) believe that by encouraging self-reflection and

developing self-government, students feel accepted, capable and that they matter, and as a

result develop a positive relationship with their teacher. However Kyriacou seems conflicted

on this technique, describing it initially as a primary tool for behaviour management (2002,

p.8) and later as only useful in a minority of cases (2007, p.93). This might reflect the

acknowledged difficultly in translating humanist theory into practice in a live classroom

(Kyriacou and Cheng, 1993) which has wider implications for the impact of the humanist

12
approach on student-teacher relationships. However, Kyriacou does offer reprimands as a

practical alternative.

A reprimand is a verbal statement of disapproval concerning misbehaviour and Kyriacou

offers clear guidelines (Kyriacou, 2002; Kyriacou, 2007) :

 Reprimand privately where possible to avoid public humiliation

 Use infrequently or they can erode mutual respect and trust.

 Always target the instigator not the person reacting to the provocation

 Reprimand should convey concern for the pupils best interest being harmed by the

misbehaviour

Positive correction (Kyriacou, 2007, p.94; Ellis and Todd, 2018, p. 194) could ensure that the

reprimand minimises damage to the student-teacher relationship by stating the behaviour

you want rather than that which you do not. If this fails then your last resort is to issue a

punishment.

Kyriacou (2002) asserts that new teachers place too much faith in official punishments as

pupils who have resisted correction with the previous strategies are unlikely to be affected by

more punitive measures. Conversely, he observes that those pupils most likely to see official

sanctions as a deterrent are also those for whom the less punitive strategies would also be

effective. If punishments are to be affective they need to be aversive and this needs to be

assessed on a per pupil basis. For some pupils being sent to the ‘reset’ room is devastating

whilst others may enjoy being removed from a challenging or boring lesson. Kyriacou (2007)

also recommends that a teacher ensures the pupil understands that the punishment is in

their own interests (rather than being an expression of teacher hostility) and also that the

pupil accepts the punishment as ‘just’. In my practice I have seen pupils accept punishments

as just only when the sanctions are applied consistently throughout the whole school.

13
Schools where the application of punishments varies between teachers are not providing

pupils with a solid model from which they can learn ideas of justice. In this way punishments

can be seen as unjust, weakening the mutual trust and respect foundational to the student-

teacher relationship.

Limitations

Before concluding, it is worth noting the limitations of this review. Firstly, a literature

review’s value is contingent on the quality and variety of literature examined. To this

end, I found it difficult to obtain literature on the humanist approach from authors

other than Kyriacou. As a result my representation of the humanist perspective may

be one-dimensional. Also, I could not access the primary text for Assertive Discipline

so was reliant on other sources.

Secondly, whilst there is a good deal of research on the benefits of the student-

teacher relationship, much less has been said on the means by which this

relationship can be built or damaged. To this end, the impact of each approach has

been assessed against a narrow range of ideas. It is also worth noting that much of

the research on the student-teacher relationship used here has originated in the US.

There may subtle cultural differences in the expectations of student-teacher

relationships between the UK and US.

Conclusion

Behaviourism is hierarchical with the teacher at the top exerting control over the

pupils in an effort to ‘train’ them how to behave. This is achieved either by the

provision of something pleasant, the removal of something pleasant or the provision

of something unpleasant. Whilst positive correction could mitigate conflict, the

14
dominance of the teacher could well impinge on the mutuality required for a

successful teacher-student relationship.

Although empathy is encouraged in small ways through negative reinforcement,

behaviourism could damage relationships through a reliance on punishment and

extrinsic motivation (Van Tartwijk et al, 2009). The behaviourist approach only sees

the child’s behaviour and makes no attempt to engage with the underlying cause.

This contrasts with the humanist approach which encourages the teacher to teach so

engagingly that behavioural issues rarely occur. On those occasions where they do

the teacher is to investigate the reasons behind the behaviour, remedy them if

possible and help the child to see how their behaviour limits themselves and others.

This central idea embodies the mutual trust and respect required for flourishing

student-teacher relationships.

It could be deduced that humanist ideals offer a better alternative to behaviourism for

managing behaviour whilst improving the student-teacher relationship. However, it

has been stated that humanist ideals are difficult to implement in practice (Kyriacou

and Cheng, 1993) while behavioural approaches such as Assertive Discipline have

been shown to make improvements in the student-teacher relationship (Ellis and

Todd, 2018, p.167).

There are many who believe these approaches can be complimentary rather

contradictory (Hart, 2010, p.369). As such I am going to experiment with a ‘blended-

approach’ in my own practice. This will consist of humanistic pre-emptive

approaches used alongside behaviouristic positive correction when issues arise. If

15
those issues persist then I will consider private reprimands or punishment involving

aversives but as part of those more punitive measures I would also initiate a

restorative conversation to understand why the student misbehaved and help them

understand the impact of their actions. Ultimately I want to maintain discipline in a

way which allows or even promotes a flourishing student-teacher relationship as I

believe that in realising the benefits of good behaviour management and good

student-teacher relationships, I will be able to promote the best pupil progress.

The key to unlocking the power of a blended approach will be in knowing when to

apply a behaviouristic strategy or a humanistic strategy. To this end, my

methodology will be shaped by regular personal reflection. I have already found this

useful when a child who struggled with regulation left my lesson early whilst I was

waiting for the remainder of the class to stand behind their desks in silence before

dismissing them. After reflecting on this I came to understand that she was frustrated

as she was standing quietly and that other people were causing her to stay behind. I

have since decided that a fairer strategy is to let individuals go once they are stood

quietly behind their desks, rather than wait for the whole class. This may prove to be

a flawed solution too but through reflection I can evolve my approach and acquire

the skill set required to blend behaviourist and humanist strategies into a coherent

whole which enables the student-teacher relationship to flourish and the pupil to

make maximum progress.

Word Count: 4375

16
17
Bibliography

Bennett, T. (2017) Creating a Culture: How school leaders can optimise behaviour.

Available at:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach

ment_data/file/602487/Tom_Bennett_Independent_Review_of_Behaviour_in_School

s.pdf (Accessed: 21 January 2020)

Canter, L. (1989) “Assertive Discipline: More than Just Names on a Board and Marbles in a

Jar”, The Phi Delta Kappan, 71(1), pp. 57-61

Charles, C. (2005) Building Classroom Discipline (8th Edn), Harlow: Pearson, pp.37-

54

Cooke, C. (2016), ‘Behaviour for Musical Learning’, in Cooke, C., Evans, K., Philpott,

C., & Spruce, G. (eds) Learning to Teach Music in the Secondary School : A

Companion to School Experience, London: Routledge, pp. 94-108

Didau, D. (2012) ‘Children are at school to learn, not to behave’, The Guardian, 13

February, Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-

network/2012/feb/13/learning-behaviour-teaching (Accessed: 13 February 2020)

Ellis, S. and Todd, J. (2018) Behaviour for Learning : Promoting Positive

Relationships in the Classroom, London: Routledge

Gehlbach, H. et al. (2012) ‘Changes in teacher–student relationships’, British Journal

of Educational Psychology, 82(4), pp. 690–704

18
Hart, R. (2010) ‘Classroom behaviour management: educational psychologists' views

on effective practice’, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 15(4), pp. 353-371

Kyriacou, C. et al. (1993) ‘Student teachers' attitudes towards the humanistic

approach to learning and learning in schools.’, European Journal of Teacher

Education, 16(2), pp 163–168.

Kyriacou, C. (2002), ‘A Humanistic View of Discipline’, in Rogers, B (ed) Teacher Leadership

and Behaviour Management, London: SAGE, pp. 40-52

Kyriacou, C. (2007), Essential Teaching Skills, Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes

Lander, I. (2009) ‘Repairing Discordant Student—Teacher Relationships: A Case

Study Using Emotion-Focused Therapy’, Children and Schools, 31(4) , pp. 229-238

Landrum, T. and Kauffman J. (2006), ‘Behavioural Approaches to Classroom

Management’ in Evertson, C. and Weinstein, C. (eds) Handbook of Classroom

Management, London: Routledge, pp. 47-71

Martin, A. et al. (2019) ‘Teacher–student relationships and students’ engagement in

high school: Does the number of negative and positive relationships with teachers

matter?’ Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), pp. 861-876, DOI:

10.1037/edu0000317.

Meehan, B. et al. (2003) , ‘Teacher–Student Relationships as Compensatory

Resources for Aggressive Children’, Child Development, 74(4), pp. 1145–1157

19
Newberry, M. (2010), ‘Identified phases in the building and maintaining of positive

teacher-student relationships’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), pp. 1695-

1703

Ofsted (2014) Below the Radar. Low level disruption in the country’s classroom.

Available at:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach

ment_data/file/379249/Below_20the_20radar_20-_20low-

level_20disruption_20in_20the_20country_E2_80_99s_20classrooms.pdf

(Accessed: 24 January 2020)

PEEL (2009) Good Learning Behaviours. Available at :

https://www.peelweb.org/index.cfm?resource=good%20behaviours

(Accessed: 19 February 2020)

Render, G. et al. (1989) 'What research really shows about assertive discipline',

Educational Leadership, 46(6), pp. 72-75.

Robinson .G, et al. (1994) ‘Assertive Discipline: Jumping on a Dated Wagon’,

Educational Psychology in Practice, 9(4), pp. 195-200

Rucinski, C. et al. (2018) ‘Teacher-Child Relationships, Classroom Climate, and

Children’s Social-Emotional and Academic Development’, Journal of Educational

Psychology, 110(7), pp. 992–1004

20
Sage, S. et al. (2012) ‘Why Humanistic Teacher Education Still Matters’, Action in

Teacher Education, 34(3), pp. 204-220

Shukla-Mehta, S. et al. (2003) ‘Twelve Practical Strategies to Prevent Behavioral

Escalation in Classroom Settings’, Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education

for Children and Youth, 47(4), pp. 156-161, DOI:10.1080/10459880309603361

Uitto, M. et al. (2018) ‘Recalling life-changing teachers: Positive memories of

teacher-student relationships and the emotions involved’, International Journal of

Educational Research, 87, p.47–56, doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2017.11.004

Van Tartwijk, J. et al. (2009) ‘Teachers’ practical knowledge about classroom

management in multicultural classrooms’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3),

pp. 453-460

Wang, C. et al. (2015) ‘Teachers Matter: An Examination of Student-Teacher

Relationships, Attitudes Toward Bullying, and Bullying Behavior’, Journal of Applied

School Psychology, 31(3) pp. 219-238, doi:10.1080/15377903.2015.1056923

21