teachers ways of seeing their approaches ...student behaviour in preparatory (prep) classrooms in...

TEACHERS’ WAYS OF SEEING THEIR

APPROACHES WITH STUDENT

BEHAVIOUR IN THE PREPARATORY YEAR

Suzy Tamone

B.Teach (EC), B.Ed, M.Ed (SGC)

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Faculty of Education

Queensland University of Technology

2018

Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year i

Keywords

Behaviour, approaches, students, ways of seeing, conceptions, experience,

phenomenography, Prep, Preparatory year.

ii Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year

Abstract

This PhD study researched teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with

student behaviour in Preparatory (Prep) classrooms in Queensland State schools. Prep

was introduced to Queensland’s education system in 2007, and is now recognized as

the first formal year of schooling for children aged 4.5 - 6.5 years of age. Since this

reform, Prep teachers have been required to accommodate a more explicit, standards-

based curriculum, resulting in challenges with implementing pedagogical approaches

that uphold early childhood philosophical ideals (Gaedtke, 2010). Additionally, this

reform has included the mandated adoption of school-wide policies, processes and

approaches for student behaviour in Prep. Using a phenomenographic approach and

variation theory with individual interviews (n=21), this study sought to reveal Prep

teachers’ conceptions of their approaches with student behaviour. More specifically,

it aimed to identify what Prep teachers do when they approach student behaviour, and

to describe variation in their ways of seeing (or conceptualizing) approaches with

student behaviour. The results of this study show that Prep teachers’ approaches with

student behaviour are experienced in both fragmented and holistic ways. This study

adds important in-depth perspectives to the body of literature on teacher professional

development with regard to supporting student behaviour in the early years of school.

Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year iii

Table of Contents

Keywords .................................................................................................................................. i

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... iii

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... vii

Statement of Original Authorship ......................................................................................... viii

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. ix

Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background .....................................................................................................................3

1.2 Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................6

1.3 Context ..........................................................................................................................12

1.4 Purposes ........................................................................................................................13

1.5 Significance and Scope .................................................................................................13

1.6 Thesis Outline ...............................................................................................................15

Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................... 17

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................17

2.2 The Australian Educational Context .............................................................................19

2.3 School Behaviour Policy ..............................................................................................25

2.4 The Preparatory Year in Queensland ............................................................................30

2.5 Student Behaviour and the Preparatory Year ...............................................................34

2.6 Behaviour Approaches and Theories ............................................................................38

2.7 Curriculum, Pedagogy and Student Behaviour .............................................................57

2.8 Student Motivation, Engagement and Student Behaviour ............................................60

2.9 Teachers’ Perceptions, Beliefs and Attitudes Toward Student Behaviour ...................65

2.10 Teacher Professional Development and Learning on Behaviour Approaches .............70

2.11 Chapter Summary .........................................................................................................73

Chapter 3: Methodology .................................................................................... 75

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................75

3.2 Overview of Phenomenography ...................................................................................76

3.3 Coming to Terms with Phenomenography ...................................................................79

3.4 Rationale for Phenomenography ..................................................................................84

3.5 Ontological and Epistemological Basis of Phenomenography .....................................90

3.6 First and Second Order Perspective ..............................................................................95

3.7 Phenomenography and Variation Theory .....................................................................96

iv Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year

3.8 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 97

3.9 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 106

3.10 Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................... 128

Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................ 129

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 129

4.2 Categories of Description ........................................................................................... 130

4.3 Analysis of Variation ................................................................................................. 160

4.4 Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................... 162

Chapter 5: Discussion ...................................................................................... 165

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 165

5.2 The Prep Year as a Foundation Year ......................................................................... 166

5.3 Teachers’ Approaches with Student Behaviour - An Overview of the Categories .... 169

5.4 Fragmented and Holistic Ways of Seeing Approaches with Student Behaviour ....... 172

5.5 Discussion of Categories ............................................................................................ 173

5.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 224

Chapter 6: Conclusion ..................................................................................... 225

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 225

6.2 Implications for Student Behaviour Policy ................................................................ 225

6.3 Implications for Students and Teachers ..................................................................... 229

6.4 Implications for Initial and Continuing Teacher Education ....................................... 234

6.5 Contribution to the Phenomenographic Research Methodology ............................... 238

6.6 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 240

6.7 Strengths of the Study ................................................................................................ 246

6.8 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................. 248

6.9 Future Research Opportunities ................................................................................... 250

6.10 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 252

Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 255

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 291

Appendix A QUT Ethics Application Approval ................................................................. 291

Appendix B Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE) Approval

Letter .................................................................................................................................... 292

Appendix C Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form ........................................... 293

Appendix D Interview Script .............................................................................................. 294

Appendix E Permission Email ............................................................................................. 295

Appendix F Recruitment Email ............................................................................................ 296

Appendix G P-3 Discussion List Recruitment Email .......................................................... 297

Appendix H DETE Recruitment Email Document ............................................................. 298

Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year v

Appendix I Interview Schedule............................................................................................299

vi Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Student disciplinary absences (SDAs) in Queensland Government

schools by year (data from Queensland Government, 2017a). .................... 35

Figure 3.1. A way of experiencing (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 309). ....................... 78

Figure 3.2. Trigwell’s (1999) phenomenography defined using points of

departure (p.77). ........................................................................................... 89

Figure 3.3. Analysis of transcript excerpt. ............................................................... 109

Figure 3.4. Analysis theme: Student compliance. ................................................... 111

Figure 3.5. Analysis theme: Students’ intrinsic motivation. .................................... 112

Figure 3.6. Preliminary category: Engaging to learn. .............................................. 117

Figure 3.7. Preliminary category: Learning to engage. ........................................... 119

Figure 3.8. Preliminary category: Towards independent engagement with

learning. ...................................................................................................... 119

Figure 3.9. Long table data analysis process. .......................................................... 120

Figure 3.10. The five categories. ............................................................................. 124

Figure 3.11. Analysis of ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour ......... 125

Figure 4.1. Category1: Not engaging. ...................................................................... 132

Figure 4.2.Category 2: Engaging to learn. ............................................................... 137

Figure 4.3. Category 3: Adapting to engage. ........................................................... 143

Figure 4.4. Category 4: Learning to engage. ........................................................... 150

Figure 4.5. Category 5: Towards independent engagement. ................................... 154

Figure 4.6. Analysis of variation. ............................................................................ 161

Figure 5.1. The Department of Education and Training’s (2015) teacher

reflection framework on the use of a balance of pedagogical

approaches (p.5). ........................................................................................ 219

Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year vii

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Demographic details of study participants (n=21) .................................. 102

Table 3.2 Dimensions of variation .......................................................................... 126

Table 4.1 Analysis of variance and invariance ....................................................... 162

viii Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best

of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or

written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature:

Date: 20th May, 2018

QUT Verified Signature

Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year ix

Acknowledgements

First and foremost I would like to acknowledge my wonderful supervision team,

Associate Professor Kerryann Walsh, Dr Lyndal O’Gorman and Dr Leanne Croswell,

for their expert guidance, patience, support and feedback. I am so thankful to have had

their wise counsel on my side. I would also like to acknowledge academics from

Gothenburg University for sharing their knowledge of phenomenography and

variation theory with me. I would like to acknowledge Niklas Pramling and Ingrid

Pramling Samuelsson whose advice contributed positively to the design of this study

and Ference Marton who provided me with clarification on variation theory and its

application to phenomenographic research. Most importantly, I thank Åke Ingerman

who so generously gave of his time to help me understand the phenomenographic

theoretical framework and skilfully mentored me throughout the analysis stage of my

study. The rich conversations we had have contributed to my enduring passion for

phenomenography.

I would like to acknowledge Cara Fletcher and Pacific Solutions for assisting with

transcription. I also acknowledge the services of professional editor Dr Jo Carr, who

provided copyediting and proofreading services, according to the guidelines laid out

in the university-endorsed national ‘Guidelines for editing research theses’. I thank Dr

Emma Caukill and Greg Roads for their assistance with formatting and Gillian

Harrison for her help with Endnote.

I would like to acknowledge my ‘village’ who sustained me throughout this seven

year-long process. In particular I thank Barbara Green-Roads for her friendship,

unwavering support and quiche dinners. I would like to acknowledge my family for

allowing me this time to wallow in my research. I thank my gorgeous girls, Peggy,

Esther and Mabel for their encouragement, and my loving husband Michael for

tolerating my cognitive absences. I also thank my parents, Janette and Trevor for

instilling in me a love of learning and always believing in me.

I would like to acknowledge the Department of Education and Training for approving

this study and thank the school Principals for allowing me to conduct this study on

site. Finally, I would like to thank the participants of this study, the amazing Prep

x Teachers’ Ways of Seeing their Approaches with Student Behaviour in the Preparatory Year

teachers, for their involvement in this project and for so honestly sharing their

experiences with approaching student behaviour with me. Let their voices be heard!

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Worldwide there is a paucity of research that seeks to understand teachers’

experiences with student behaviour in the early years of school. In Australia, generally,

and in Queensland in particular, we know little about teachers’ practices with student

behaviour in early years classrooms and about how they conceptualise their

approaches. This is important because without this knowledge we cannot fully

comprehend student behaviour as a phenomenon, or develop strategies, approaches, or

professional learning which will effectively meet the needs of teachers who have the

challenging task of supporting student behaviour in classrooms. This study addresses

this significant gap in the research literature by eliciting accounts of teachers’

experiences with student behaviour. It seeks to understand how teachers conceptualise

their approaches with student behaviour in their daily teaching. In so doing it

contributes to the bodies of literature on student behaviour and teaching in the early

years generally and in Queensland’s’ Preparatory (Prep) year in particular.

Some previous research has sought to elicit teacher views and perceptions of

student behaviour in classrooms (Alter, Walker, & Landers, 2013; Arbuckle & Little,

2004; Axup & Gersch, 2008; Belt & Belt, 2017; Grieve, 2009; Kyriacou & Ortega

Martín, 2010; McCready & Soloway, 2010; Ravet, 2007b; Roache & Lewis, 2011b;

Rosas & West, 2009; Sandholtz, 2011; Shen et al., 2009; Sullivan, Johnson, Owens,

& Conway, 2014; Tillery, Varjas, Meyers, & Collins, 2010). Studies have also

examined student behaviours that teachers find most concerning (Alter et al., 2013;

Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Clunies-Ross, Little, & Kienhuis, 2008; Sullivan et al., 2014).

Many studies have exposed the effect of disruptive student behaviour on teacher stress,

well-being and confidence (Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Rosas

& West, 2009; Tillery et al., 2010) and others have reported a lack of shared meaning

on behaviour between students and teachers (McCready & Soloway, 2010; Ravet,

2007b). Many of these studies have relied on quantitative methodologies employing

teacher surveys and questionnaires. Others have used mixed methods, utilizing

interviews and observations in combination with teacher surveys or questionnaires.

Studies, especially those examining the lack of shared meaning on student behaviour

between students and teachers, are mainly qualitative (McCready & Soloway, 2010;

2 Chapter 1: Introduction

Ravet, 2007b). However, little empirical research exists on teachers’ approaches with

student behaviour, especially in the early years of school.

The study of student behaviour has gained momentum over the years. Teachers

continue to find classroom management challenging (Alter et al., 2013; Arbuckle &

Little, 2004; Axup & Gersch, 2008; Butler & Monda-Amaya, 2016; Clunies-Ross et

al., 2008; McCready & Soloway, 2010), and what is theoretically understood as quality

practice in supporting student behaviour is not always consistently reflected in

classrooms (Dunlap et al., 2006; Sullivan et al., 2014). In a study on teacher

perceptions of behaviour management and intervention strategies, researchers found

that teachers did not have a clear understanding of models or systems for preventing

and intervening in student behaviour (Tillery et al., 2010). To determine the

perceptions of 20 participants teaching in the kindergarten and first grade across five

schools in a largely rural school system in South-eastern America, Tillery et al.’s

(2010) study used a grounded theory approach, with in-depth qualitative interviews.

In this study, teachers commonly stated that their teacher training was sorely lacking

with regard to behaviour management and they felt it had to be learned on the job.

Tillery et al. (2010) suggested that on-the-job learning of behaviour management

approaches may contribute to recycling of ineffective practices and traditional

perspectives. These findings demonstrate the importance of developing further in-

depth understandings of how teachers conceptualise their approaches with student

behaviour in their daily teaching, so that preservice and inservice teacher professional

learning can better prepare teachers for this work.

This current study utilised the qualitative methodology of phenomenography to

report on teacher conceptions of or ways of seeing their approaches with student

behaviour. The methodology of phenomenography aims to gain understandings from

exploring and analysing the lived experience of participants (Bowden, 2000b;

Dall'Alba et al., 1989; Marton, 1981, 2015; Marton & Booth, 1997; Svensson, 1997).

The methodology of phenomenography has been specifically selected for this study

due to the lack of empirical research that exists in the current literature concerning

teachers’ experiences and understandings of their approaches with student behaviour

in classrooms. Phenomenography has seldom been used to explore teacher experiences

of their approaches with student behaviour in the early years of school. Therefore this

thesis presents an opportunity to explore how teachers approach student behaviour in


the context of their daily teaching and how they conceptualise and understand their

practice. Literature and research on phenomenography will be further discussed in

Chapter 3 in which the research design that addresses the research aims will be

presented.

This chapter will now provide an orientation to the background of the study; a

definition of key terms; description of the research context and the research purpose;

and the significance of this research topic.

1.1 BACKGROUND

Student behaviour has long been an enduring and serious problem within

teaching. Teachers have found student behaviour challenging to deal with. At the time

this study was first considered, the Australian Education Union published the National

Educator Survey 2008 Results: Public Release Summary (Australian Education Union,

2008a), which showed that beginning teachers in Australia rated behaviour

management as their second highest concern, with workload being the first. In

addition, many teachers, including preservice teachers, beginning teachers, and

experienced teachers, have felt ill-prepared to support student behaviour in the

classroom (Axup & Gersch, 2008; Jackson, Simoncini, & Davidson, 2013; McKenzie,

Weldon, Rowley, Murphy, & McMillan, 2014). The literature suggests that teachers

appear to form most of their behaviour approaches and strategies ‘on the go’ or through

‘experience’, and it seems there is little time or professional support available to assist

teachers in their day-to-day experiences with students’ behaviour (Arbuckle & Little,

2004; Buchanan, 2010; McCready & Soloway, 2010).

At the time of this study, student behaviour had also featured frequently in the

mass media, with much debate generated over the most effective or appropriate

behaviour approaches (Chilcott, 2011a). For example, in 2011 news reports called

attention to the ‘out of control’ behaviour of Queensland’s Prep year students, with

online blogs showing a diverse range of views about who was responsible for this

behaviour and what should be done. This “out-of-control” student behaviour centred

on increased reports of the “physical abuse” of teachers by Prep year students

(Chilcott, 2011b, para 1 & 6). The Queensland Teachers Union blamed the parents for

these out-of-control students, while online community responses suggest the blame

should be shared by teachers, students and/or the educational system (Chilcott, 2011a,


2011c). Within these fervent discussions, teachers’ voices remained largely unheard.

This absence of voice provided somewhat of a catalyst for this study, which begins

from the position that teachers have a voice. It sets out to ensure that the voices of

teachers are expressed and that their experiences and practices with student behaviour

in the Preparatory year are understood through a phenomenographic lens.

There are myriad influences on student behaviour. These include educational

policies, guidelines and curriculum documents. In Australia at a national level, the Safe

Schools Framework: All Australian Schools are Safe, Supportive and Respectful

Teaching and Learning Communities that Promote Student Wellbeing (Standing

Council on School Education and Early Childhood [SCSEEC], 2013) has provided a

vision for safe and supportive school communities which encompass principles to

promote student well-being and respectful relationships. In Queensland, the Code of

School Behaviour: Better Behaviour, Better Learning (Department of Education

Training and Employment, 2006) and the Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students

(Department of Education and Training, 2014b) have been developed to assist

teachers, schools and school communities to understand and articulate the

responsibilities and approaches that should support student behaviour in schools.

These policies have a significant influence on teacher practices. Queensland

government schools are free to adapt the Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students

(Department of Education and Training, 2014b) with input from teachers, parents and

students, and then all are expected to comply with what is decided.

In recent years a nation-wide, major reform to Australian education has been

implemented, namely the Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum Assessment

and Reporting Authority, 2016a). This reform has influenced the way teachers support

student behaviour. The Queensland Department of Education and Training developed

a State-based resource to support the implementation of the Australian Curriculum,

known as Curriculum into the Classroom or C2C. The Australian Curriculum was

developed as an outcomes-based, explicit curriculum and, at the time of this study, the

wide-spread use of the C2C had resulted in government schools favouring whole-class

teaching and direct-instruction teaching methods, even in the first year of school

(Department of Education and Training, 2015b). This challenged early years teachers’

philosophical notions and meant that Prep teachers working with children aged 4-6

years in particular were engaged in continually adapting their pedagogy to


accommodate the constraints of the curriculum in order to meet the developmental,

social and emotional needs of their students (Department of Education and Training,

2015b; Gaedtke, 2010). In response to these challenges, the Department of Education

and Training (2015b) introduced a significant policy movement called Age-

appropriate pedagogies. The reform sought to address the whole-class teaching and

direct instruction approaches that were a result of the C2C implementation and instead

to promote a range and balance of teaching approaches that maximize children’s

engagement with learning.

Queensland Prep teachers have long understood the value of the pedagogy of

play in early learning and have catered for this in their teaching, as promoted in the

Early Years Curriculum Guidelines (Queensland Studies Authority [QSA], 2006), the

Queensland-based curriculum framework that was developed and written specifically

for the implementation of the Prep year, to support teachers to plan, teach, assess and

report on children’s learning. The Early Years Curriculum Guidelines advocated for

teachers to plan for extended periods of play in the early years of school. Play has,

importantly, been acknowledged as effective in developing students’ oral language,

thinking processes and social competence, all of which are foundational for successful

outcomes in school (QSA, 2006). Hyson and Taylor (2011) state that play promotes

prosocial skills, which is important, as the development of these skills plays a powerful

role in facilitating students’ positive classroom behaviour. The introduction of the

Australian Curriculum created issues for many Prep teachers as it gradually

superseded the Early Years Curriculum Guidelines and teachers grappled with

implementing the heavy content expectations of the Australian Curriculum and the

explicit nature of the C2C units of work alongside pedagogies that they knew best

supported children’s social and emotional development (Department of Education and

Training, 2015b).

My particular interest in undertaking this study emerged from my work as an

early years teacher, my Master of Education studies in the field of School Guidance

and Counselling, and my work as a sessional academic in the School of Early

Childhood and Inclusive Education at Queensland University of Technology (QUT).

My own insatiable curiosity about student behaviour has led me down this research

path. As an early career teacher, I was confronted in my work with challenging student

behaviour across a range of settings. This led me to study School Guidance and


Counselling as I wanted to gain deeper understandings of approaches that supported

student behaviour, to understand their associated theoretical underpinnings, and to

implement approaches that would fit harmoniously with my early childhood

philosophy.

As a sessional academic at QUT, my need to understand more about student

behaviour approaches was again illuminated as I witnessed the struggles of preservice

teachers grappling with developing understandings about behaviour theories and

approaches, and putting all this into practice. From my time spent in schools

supporting preservice students and subsequent discussions with supervising teachers

around the difficulties students experienced approaching student behaviour in practice,

I noted that many did not seem to be able to say exactly what drives their practice in

terms of behaviour theories. Additionally teachers seemed to have limited access to a

narrow range of information and professional learning opportunities on behaviour

approaches with which to develop their understandings of the varied approaches and

their theoretical underpinnings. Although education systems focus their teacher

professional learning opportunities on specific packaged programs and approaches

which they feel best suit their goals and which reflect current educational trends, many

other approaches exist that may enhance teacher practices with student behaviour and

promote positive student outcomes. As a starting point then, this study set out to

investigate variation in teachers’ approaches with student behaviour.

Before progressing, however, it is necessary to clearly define several terms that

are linked to this research topic. Key terms will be defined and will provide an

orientation to important ideas around student behaviour, approaches with behaviour

and, specifically, early childhood education.

1.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS

For the purpose of this study it is important to define several terms. These terms

include: (i) early childhood; (ii) student behaviour; and (iii) approaches to behaviour.

Early Childhood

First, early childhood will be defined. The early childhood years are those

recognised as being between the ages of birth and 8 years (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009;

Council of Australian Governments [COAG], 2008; Fleer et al., 2006; Morgan, 2007;

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO], 2016).


This period of early life experiences is universally recognised as an important and

rapid period of development. A focus on child development is what makes early

childhood education fundamentally unique (Berk, 2006). Child development

knowledge is recognised as foundational to the professional knowledge required for

early childhood educators to work effectively in the field.

From a different perspective, Rogoff (2003), a United States researcher on the

cultural aspects of learning, has argued that child development should always be

understood in light of cultural and community experiences. This broader

communitarian perspective has come to be seen as an alternative to narrow and

individual child development perspectives. Fleer et al. (2006) advocated for a shift to

a new worldview that can account, in more inclusive ways, for the cultural-historical

development of children. Hence, the term early childhood must be understood in its

complexity, recognising the dynamic and transformative characteristics of children,

culture and early childhood settings rather than the normative constraints of lock-step

age and stage views (Fleer et al., 2006).

Early Childhood Australia’s (ECA) (2016) Code of Ethics acknowledges the

shift in understanding to more balanced contemporary perspectives, stating that socio-

cultural theories have illuminated the importance of children’s social contexts to their

learning and development. Families and communities play a vital part in children’s

learning and development and children in turn influence their family and community.

Theoretical perspectives shape how this specific period of childhood is viewed and

defined. For the purpose of this study, the early childhood years are considered beyond

a developmental stage, to a more complex and dynamic interaction between young

children, their families, cultures, and communities.

Student Behaviour

Second, definitions of behaviour will be provided. Bergner (2011) argues that

there is little consensus in the psychological literature over the term ‘behaviour’, and

suggests elements common to such a definition to include: “observable overt” actions,

“verbal behaviour” and “physical movements” (p.147). Thinking about behaviour in

relation to students though requires deeper inspection. Glasser (1998) asserts that

behaviour is inherently and profoundly connected to human needs, “from birth, our

behaviour is always our best attempt at the time to do what we believe will best satisfy

one or more of our needs” (p.47).


These definitions suggest that behaviour is an action: something students ‘do’;

however, for this study an even more nuanced definition is required. A routine

database search using the search term student behaviour inevitably reveals a plethora

of literature that reports on approaches and programs to reduce negative behaviour or

increase positive behaviour. These search results suggests that behaviour is perceived

as something troubling and something that requires attention and/ or intervention.

The selection of a single term to describe behaviour in this study is not an easy

one, as behaviour can be interpreted and labelled in many ways, depending on

individuals’ perceptions and prior experiences (Porter, 2006, 2014; Ravet, 2007b).

Many terms have been used in the literature to describe student behaviour; such as,

disengaged, disruptive, inappropriate, misbehaviour, challenging and off-task.

Inappropriate behaviour, misbehaviour, unacceptable behaviour or problem

behaviour (Department of Education Training and Employment, 2006, 2013;

Education Queensland, 2007a). These terms are used to explain actions that are

considered to be contextually inappropriate and which disrupt learning, violate the

rights of others and challenge social standards.

Terms that describe student behaviour as oppositional or disruptive suggest that

behaviour is something that a child ‘does’ in a purposeful way. For example, the term

misbehaviour implies wrongdoing by a child and invites moral labelling (Gartrell,

2014). Such terms can be viewed as arising from some kind of deficit within the child.

The terms favoured by guidance advocates such as Dan Gartrell are mistaken

behaviour or challenging behaviour. Gartrell (2014) argues that such terms encourage

teachers to view behaviour from a more positive ‘enabling’ perspective, and thus to

see students as competent and thereby decrease their own harmful judgements of

students.

Writers such as Ravet (2007a) and Sullivan et al. (2014) suggest disruptive or

disengaged behaviour and productive or unproductive behaviour respectively as the

preferred terms to describe student behaviour in classrooms, due to their association

with the curriculum, teaching and learning. That is, if children are not effectively

engaged in learning (i.e. they are disruptive, disengaged or unproductive), their

opportunities to develop key curriculum concepts may be missed (Domínguez,

Vitiello, Fuccillo, Greenfield, & Bulotsky-Shearer, 2011). A snowballing effect on


peers may occur, meaning that other children who are impacted by these behaviours

may also have their learning compromised (L. Overton & Sullivan, 2008).

Disruptive and disengaged behaviours are those reported as most troublesome

by teachers (Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Sullivan et al., 2014).

Such behaviours range from passive behaviours, such as daydreaming and

inattentiveness, to active behaviours such as calling out, walking around the classroom

and physically or verbally hindering other children. Shumate and Wills (2010) provide

definitions of disruptive and off-task behaviours. Disruptive behaviours are behaviours

that interfere with learning, impede instructional delivery, or both. Off-task behaviours

include not attending to or participating in instructional activities as requested by the

teacher (Shumate & Wills, 2010). These types of behaviours are noted as common

occurrences in classrooms. Empirical studies have shown that in any given classroom

at any given time between ten and 66 per cent of children may be off task or disengaged

(Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Domínguez et al., 2011; Powell, McIntyre, & Rightmyer,

2006; Willms, 2003).

In this study, the terms that are used to talk about student behaviour will be those

used by the teacher participants themselves as they discuss their experiences with

student behaviour and the approaches they use. Staying true to teachers’ experiences

is important, so as to develop conceptions (or ways of seeing) that remain as close as

possible to their lived experience.

Behaviour Approaches

Third, behaviour approaches will be defined. Definitions also pull apart terms

associated with specific behaviour approaches adopted in schools. Terms such as

classroom management, discipline, guidance and behaviour support are frequently

used in the literature. One such term, discipline, requires teachers to ensure that

classrooms are safe environments where learning can take place. Oftentimes this is

referred to as maintaining classroom discipline. For example, internationally

acclaimed behaviour, leadership and discipline management expert Bill Rogers

(Rogers & McPherson, 2009) stated that good school discipline has several functions

including:


provision of a safe, relational context whereby teachers teach

responsible and cooperative behaviour through explanation and

discussion with students;

teaching good behaviour and discipline with dignity;

preventing disruptive behaviour; and

protecting the rights of all.

Dreikurs, Cassel and Dreikurs Ferguson (2004) and Rogers and McPherson

(2009) stated that discipline is primarily concerned with enabling students to be aware

of their own behaviour. John Dewey’s view on Interest and Discipline in Democracy

and Education suggests that disciplined people are those who are considerate of their

actions and undertake them deliberately (Dewey, 2007). In addition, Dewey suggested

that discipline leads a child ‘to think’ rather than ‘to act’ in a way desired by an adult

(Dewey, 2007). The responsibility for student behaviour in Dewey’s approach rests

with teachers as they guide their students’ awareness and development of prosocial

behaviour.

Classroom or behaviour management are terms which are frequently found in

writing about student behaviour approaches for classroom teachers. Kohn (2006)

stated that the term management originated from the business world and was framed

around the control and direction of employees. Walker, Shea, and Bauer (2007)

defined behaviour management as being those interventions and actions in which

teachers engage to enhance the likelihood that children will develop effective,

productive and socially acceptable behaviours. The premise of classroom or behaviour

management seems to centre then on teachers’ responsibilities through their actions to

control student behaviour. Sue Cowley (2010) in the book Getting the Buggers to

Behave acknowledged that with a badly-behaved class it is difficult for teachers to do

their job and enjoy it. She suggested that teachers need to learn, develop and possess

a range of techniques and strategies to manage classroom behaviour. She talked about

the importance of teachers asserting themselves in the classroom and the necessity of

delivering sanctions in the form of time outs and detentions to students when rules

were violated. Perusal of a range of other literature that employs the term behaviour

management further confirms the application of behavioural techniques, strategies and

procedures in an effort to manage behaviour (Bullock & Brownhill, 2011; Hook, 2014;


Martella, Newlson, & Marchand-Martella, 2003; Scrivener & Thornbury, 2012;

Walker et al., 2007; Wardle, 2012).

A guidance approach to behaviour is a relatively new term pertaining to the

positive and democratic guidance of children’s behaviour, including the teaching of

social and emotional skills in all facets of early childhood classrooms (Fields, Perry,

& Fields, 2010; Gartrell, 2014; Marion, 2007; Miller, 2007; Porter, 2004, 2006, 2014).

The guidance approach was pioneered by those from the fields of developmental

psychology (Gartrell, 2014). Those promulgating a guidance approach reject use of

the term discipline due to its perceived inference of punishment (Gartrell, 2014). A

guidance approach sees a shift away from the idea of teachers controlling student

behaviour to teachers empowering students to manage their own behaviour.

Importantly for this study, the Queensland Department of Education and

Training, the government education authority in the State in which this study is set,

currently favours the terms Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) and Positive Behaviour

for Learning (PBL) when referring to steps taken by educators to support students in

meeting expectations of appropriate behaviour in schools or classroom settings

(Department of Education and Training, 2016g; 2007a). The Department states that

PBS “uses preventative, teaching and reinforcement-based strategies to achieve

meaningful and durable behaviour outcomes” (Department of Education and Training,

2015c, para 1). A more contemporary approach to PBS and PBL favours intentional

teaching of behaviours and fits with the more egalitarian or democratic approaches

with student behaviour. However, theoretically the origins of PBS and PBL are

authoritarian in nature (Porter, 2006).

For the purpose of this thesis, it is important to consider the way terms are used

to describe student behaviour and behaviour approaches as these can, in turn, impact

the ways in which teachers view student behaviour and how behaviour approaches are

selected and implemented in classrooms (Porter, 2006). The terms pertaining to

behaviour approaches used in this thesis will be guided by the particular teacher-

participant terms expressed during data collection. This is in line with the research

methodology of phenomenography which aims to capture the most authentic

conceptions of participants’ experience.


1.3 CONTEXT

The context for this study is the Preparatory (Prep) year in Queensland

government schools. The introduction of the Prep year in Queensland was a significant

reform in 2007. The Prep year has recently been recognised by the Queensland

government as the first compulsory, formal full time year of school for children aged

4.5-6.5 years in Queensland (Palaszczuk & Jones, 2016). The Prep year is equivalent

to Year 1 in England and to Kindergarten in the United States of America.

The topic of student behaviour has been heavily researched across a variety of

educational contexts. Elementary or primary schools, middle schools and high schools

have received much attention from international researchers (Alter et al., 2013; Belt &

Belt, 2017; Gillen, Wright, & Spink, 2011; Sullivan et al., 2014; Tsouloupas, Carson,

Matthews, Grawitch, & Barber, 2010). In Australia, researchers such as Arbuckle and

Little (2004), De Jong (2005), and Sullivan et al. (2014) have focused their efforts on

student behaviour in primary schools and high schools. These seem to be contexts

where teachers face particular challenges in supporting student behaviour in the

classroom.

Although studies on prior to school educational contexts such as kindergarten

and preschool centres have also become more common in the research literature

(DellaMattera, 2011; Dunlap et al., 2006; Gonzales, 2012), neglected in the Australian

context are studies which specifically aim to investigate student behaviour approaches

in the early years. In the Preparatory year in Queensland no studies to date have

explored student behaviour or teachers experiences with approaching student

behaviour. It is therefore apparent that there is a gap in the research around knowledge

of what is happening in this area. An opportunity to explore this context in this present

study has presented itself, developing (i) understandings related to student behaviour

approaches; and (ii) investigating Prep teachers’ experiences with and understanding

of this phenomenon. Eliciting these teacher conceptions will lead to increased

understandings of how teachers experience and conceptualise their approaches with

student behaviour and hopefully influence future professional learning on student

behaviour approaches.


1.4 PURPOSES

The aim of this study is to investigate teachers’ conceptions or ways of seeing

their behaviour approaches in the Preparatory year. It is hoped it will contribute unique

perspectives and understandings of teachers’ experiences of their practices with

student behaviour. In line with the phenomenographic methodology, this study’s focus

is on understanding the lived experience of teachers. The central research question

reflects the focus of the study and links clearly to the methodology. The research

question is:

How do teachers in the Preparatory year in Queensland government

schools experience and conceptualise their approaches with student

behaviour in the classroom?

This study set out to achieve its aim and answer the research question through

interviewing Prep teachers and engaging in phenomenographic analysis, using

Marton’s (2015) and Marton and Booth’s (1997) theoretical frameworks, which will

be discussed in detail in Chapter 3. It was intended that from this process an awareness

of how teachers understand their approaches with student behaviour would be

obtained, and in-depth knowledge of these teachers’ conceptions of their approaches

would be generated to inform future directions in the area of teacher professional

learning.

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE AND SCOPE

The study of teachers’ experiences of their practice with student behaviour is

important and timely, as teachers spend a significant amount of time on behaviour

management issues (Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Sullivan et al., 2014). Research has also

shown that student misbehaviour is positively associated with teachers’ emotional

exhaustion and is a significant stressor affecting teacher well-being (Aydin & Kaya,

2016; Karaj & Rapti, 2013; Tsouloupas et al., 2010). Additionally, in a study of 21

mid-career ex-teachers, Buchanan (2010) found that classroom discipline served as a

catalyst for teachers leaving the profession. Similarly, Goddard and Goddard (2006)

identified in a Queensland study of 121 first or second year teachers that 12% were

seriously considering leaving the profession. This research highlights the importance

for this study to focus on understanding teachers’ experiences of student behaviour in

their day-to-day teaching.


The study of teacher conceptions of student behaviour approaches in the Prep

year is important because there is limited knowledge on this topic with regard to how

behaviour approaches are currently practised by teachers in the classroom. Developing

this knowledge will contribute to broader understandings for the field of preservice

and inservice teacher education and more specifically early childhood education.

Studies have shown that teachers perceive themselves as strong influences on student

behaviour (McKenzie et al., 2014; Tillery et al., 2010). This finding is important and

provides a strong rationale for this study. It promotes teachers as agents of change and

positions them as powerful in supporting student behaviour.

This study, employing phenomenography as its methodology to gain teacher

conceptions on student behaviour approaches in the Prep year, fills a gap in the

literature around how behaviour is experienced by teachers in their classrooms.

Currently there is little empirical evidence on this topic and this study thus makes a

unique contribution to the research on how teachers in the Preparatory year experience

and understand their behaviour approaches.

The aim of phenomenographic research is not to describe any particular

individual’s understandings but rather to capture a range of understandings across a

particular group (Åkerlind, Bowden, & Green, 2005). In this study, it was expected

that this range or variation in understandings would engender findings with rich

description of how student behaviour was experienced by teachers in Prep classrooms

and how they understood their practice or approaches with student behaviour.

Phenomenography has not been widely used in research on this subject and its

selection as a methodology in this study is a good fit with the research question, as

phenomenography is a methodology that aims at description, analysis and

understanding of experiences (Marton, 1981). This study therefore aimed to

understand and analyse teachers’ experiences with student behaviour approaches in

the Prep year and to describe their conceptions of this phenomenon.

Typically, phenomenographic studies have a relatively small sample size of

around 20-30 participants (Åkerlind et al., 2005; Larsson & Holmström, 2007). A

larger sample size is generally not feasible for this type of study as phenomenography

lends itself to in-depth analysis. As such, it must be acknowledged that the findings of

this study have represented a point-in-time view of teachers’ conceptions of student

behaviour, as related to this particular group of participants. If the study were to be


repeated with a different group of teachers, in a different time or place, the findings

may well be different.

1.6 THESIS OUTLINE

To understand student behaviour approaches and set the context for this study,

it is necessary to explore current literature and research relating to the topic. Behaviour

as a concept in itself is complex. Thinking about behaviour and how it relates to

students and teaching requires investigation of a range of important ideas in order to

fully appreciate and comprehend the phenomenon. Literature which details behaviour

theory and approaches to student behaviour are presented in this study. This literature

is central to understanding behaviour and to identifying the range of ways teachers

may support student behaviour in the classroom.

This thesis has six chapters. This chapter, Chapter 1, has provided a background

to the study, defined key terms, presented the research question and discussed the

context and purpose of the study. In Chapter 2, an overview of the Australian

educational context is offered, school behaviour policy is presented, common

behaviour theories and approaches are discussed and an examination of a wide body

of literature related to student behaviour and teachers’ behaviour approaches is

provided. Chapter 3 presents the research design and theoretical framework for this

study, namely phenomenography and variation theory, and a detailed step-by-step

outline of the phenomenographic analysis. Chapter 4 presents the results of this study

of teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour by way of five

categories of description, along with an analysis of variation that highlights teachers’

conceptions and dimensions of variation (that is, the variation seen both within and

across the categories). Chapter 5 presents an in-depth discussion of each of the five

categories, with reference to the research and literature on student behaviour, policy,

curriculum and the theory behind behaviour approaches evidenced in the categories.

Finally, Chapter 6 draws conclusions about the study by way of implications from the

research and highlights its contribution to advancing knowledge of approaches with

student behaviour in the Prep year and to phenomenographic research.

Recommendations from the study findings and implications are then presented, along

with the strengths and limitations, and suggestions for future research.

Chapter 2: Literature Review 17

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This literature review examines several bodies of literature with direct relevance

to teachers’ experiences and conceptions of student behaviour and their approaches

with student behaviour. In doing so, it builds a strong argument for the importance of

researching teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour.

First, in section 2.2, the literature review describes the general current

educational landscape in Australian schools. It provides important contextual

information concerning recent reforms to the Australian educational system, with

particular reference to Queensland, and explains the impact these reforms have had on

the work of early childhood teachers. Next, in section 2.3, the literature discussing

school behaviour policy current at the time of this study is detailed. Since the

introduction and implementation of the Code of School Behaviour: Better Behaviour,

Better Learning policy in Queensland government schools in 2006, the expectations

of student behaviour have lifted, as have the subsequent responsibilities of teachers to

effectively manage classroom behaviour (Department of Education Training and

Employment, 2006). These high expectations of student behaviour extend to the

Preparatory (Prep) year, where Prep students are expected to comply with whole-

school rules and procedures.

In section 2.4, The Preparatory year in Queensland, the context for this study is

introduced. This section provides information on the inception of the Prep year and

explains the Queensland government’s motivation for implementing this first formal

year of schooling. Section 2.5 follows, explaining issues related to student behaviour

and the Preparatory year. This section reveals that since the roll-out of the Prep year,

student behaviour has been increasingly regarded as problematic (Chilcott, 2011a;

Department of Education Training and Employment, 2014). The issue of such

perceived challenging student behaviour in the Prep year and the associated negative

impact on students and teachers provided a catalyst for this study. Next, section 2.6

provides a synthesis and summary of behaviour approaches that are evidenced in many

Queensland government schools. Behaviour approaches are examined and critiqued in

an effort to understand historical and theoretical influences and applications. Benefits,

18 Chapter 2: Literature Review

challenges and limitations of the range of behaviour approaches that are commonly

implemented by classroom teachers are also presented.

Next, in section 2.7, literature is reviewed that discusses the impact of curriculum

and pedagogy on student behaviour. Research and policy in this area advocate for an

integrated approach to supporting student behaviour that includes effective teaching

strategies and attention to curriculum, which is matched to the learning needs of

students (Ministerial Council on Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth

Affairs [MCEECDYA], 2011; SCSEEC, 2013; Sullivan et al., 2014).

In section 2.8, research on student motivation, behaviour and engagement are

considered, followed by an examination of the growing body of research examining

perceptions of student behaviour. A review of research on teachers’ perceptions of

student behaviour in section 2.9 reveals the challenges teachers face supporting student

behaviour in the classroom (Alter et al., 2013; Belt & Belt, 2017; Conley, Marchant,

& Caldarella, 2014; Grieve, 2009; Kyriacou & Ortega Martín, 2010; McCready &

Soloway, 2010; Shen et al., 2009; Tsouloupas et al., 2010). This section reveals a gap

in the research in the areas of understanding the range of ways teachers approach

student behaviour and their conceptions of their approaches.

Finally in this chapter, in section 2.10, a discussion of the literature concerning

teacher professional development and training for supporting student behaviour is

presented. Managing student behaviour is widely recognised as a challenging aspect

of teaching and is noted as a growing priority in both preservice teacher education and

teacher training in Queensland (Department of Education and Training, 2011; Flower,

McKenna, & Haring, 2017; Peters, 2012; Sullivan et al., 2014; Tsouloupas et al.,

2010). A challenge and opportunity presents itself to effectively increase

understandings about how teachers experience and approach student behaviour in the

Prep year. Investigating how and why teachers approach behaviour in the way they do

will further develop professional awareness and knowledge on this topic. Identifying

teacher conceptions of behaviour approaches and particularly developing more

understandings around how Prep teachers experience, think about and respond to

behaviour are central to this project.


2.2 THE AUSTRALIAN EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT

This section will outline major current national reforms to the Australian

educational system that relate to Prep settings at the time of this study, namely; (i)

Investing in the Early Years: A National Early Childhood Development Strategy

(COAG, 2009); (ii) the implementation of the Australian Curriculum (ACARA,

2016a); and (iii) the introduction of Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

(Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], 2014). For this

study it is important to review these major reforms, as they frame and shape the work

of teachers and may influence the ways they think about and approach student

behaviour in their classrooms. The Investing in the Early Years: Early Childhood

Development Strategy is reviewed first, followed by the Australian Curriculum, then

the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.

2.2.1 Investing in the Early Years

The Investing in the Early Years strategy recognised that children with a poor

start in life are more likely to face emotional, behavioural or learning difficulties

(COAG, 2009). The strategy, focusing on children in prior-to-school settings and their

transition to school, clearly identified high quality early childhood educational

programs in both before-school and school contexts as producing positive outcomes

for children. In addition, the strategy proclaimed the importance of producing an

integrated and inclusive approach to the provision of services to support children and

families. This strategy provided guidance to services in the form of information to

minimise risk factors as well as proactive early intervention delivery to ensure that all

Australian children had the best possible health and educational opportunities for the

future.

Investing in the early years is important as this delivers long-term benefits by

way of economic and social value for communities (Mustard, 2008). Heckman (2011)

stated that investment in early education for disadvantaged children “helps reduce the

achievement gap, reduce the need for special education, increase the likelihood of

healthier lifestyles, lower crime rate and reduce overall social costs” (p.5). Nores and

Barnett’s (2010) meta-analysis of early childhood interventions across 23 countries in

Europe, Asia, Africa, Central and South America found that interventions such as

education, nutrition, parenting education and income supplementation delivered

substantial benefits to children’s cognition, behaviour, health and schooling, and that


these benefits were sustained over time. In the study, interventions that had an

educational component showed the highest average effect size on cognitive outcomes.

Students exhibiting challenging behaviours may evidence poor outcomes and

consequences later in life (Moore, 2006). Challenging student behaviours also have a

negative impact on the work of teachers. The Investing in the Early Years strategy

advocated for quality early childhood educational programs and effective teaching

resulting in more positive social and emotional student behaviours. The aims of this

strategy add weight to the importance of this study which focuses on student behaviour

in these crucial early years.

2.2.2 Australian Curriculum

Australia’s education system has recently undergone one of the largest reforms

of curriculum of its time. The Australian Curriculum, developed for all Australian

schools, sets out the knowledge, understanding, skills and general capabilities

identified as important for students in school contexts (ACARA, 2016a). Alongside

this, the implementation of the Early Years Learning Framework (Department of

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR], 2009) in prior-to-school

settings has also been a corresponding major reform in early childhood education

services. This section, however, will focus on the Australian Curriculum, as it relates

specifically to the Preparatory context.

Prior to 2012, Australian States and Territories had each been responsible for

designing, delivering and supporting the implementation of curriculum and assessment

in their respective educational systems. In 2008, Australian State and Territory

Education Ministers agreed to collaborate to improve upon the educational outcomes

of all young Australians. The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young

Australians (Ministerial Council for Education Early Childhood Development and

Youth Affairs [MCEETYA], 2008) identified goals and committed to actions to

improve educational outcomes for all young Australians in a globalised economy. The

goals nominated were: (i) “Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence”; and

(ii) “All young Australians become: successful learners, confident and creative

individuals, and active and informed citizens” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 7).

The Melbourne Declaration reinforced the vital role schools play in promoting

the well-being and social and emotional development of young Australians and in


ensuring social cohesion. The Declaration proposed a commitment to high quality

early childhood education, recognising the period between birth to 8 years of age as

the foundation for children’s social, emotional, physical and cognitive development.

The Declaration stated that students will develop self-worth, gain self-awareness to

manage their well-being, relate well to others and maintain healthy relationships

(MCEETYA, 2008). Importantly for this study, commitment to student well-being has

been acknowledged as central to student behaviour, with the National Safe Schools

Framework: All Australian Schools are Safe, Supportive and Respectful Teaching and

Learning Communities that Promote Student Wellbeing (SCSEEC, 2013) clearly

recognising student behaviour as supported when schools cater for the social and

emotional development of students and promote healthy relationships.

From the Melbourne Declaration came the design and implementation of the

Australian Curriculum, a national curriculum which promised a consistent approach

to learning in the 21st Century across the Australian States and Territories. The

Australian Curriculum makes clear to teachers what is to be taught across the years of

schooling, what students are to learn and the quality of learning expected of them

(ACARA, 2012). The Shape of the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2012) states that

schools are able to decide how best to deliver the curriculum, drawing upon integrated

approaches and pedagogies which meet students’ needs and interests, as well as

considering the particular school and community context. To support this notion, each

of the Australian States and Territories have retained their own curriculum authority

body, responsible for providing advice to schools on curriculum delivery, including

pedagogical and assessment recommendations.

One of the Australian Curriculum general capabilities to be integrated with the

learning (subject) areas, that of “personal and social capability”, supports the

development of student practices that include:

recognising and regulating emotions, developing empathy for others and

understanding relationships, establishing and building positive relationships,

making responsible decisions, working effectively in teams, handling

challenging situations constructively and developing leadership skills.

(ACARA, 2012, p. 17)


This particular capability has clear links to student behaviour, and draws attention to

approaches teachers should adopt when supporting students’ personal and social

development.

When this study began in 2011, the development and impending implementation

of the Australian Curriculum had created tensions for early years educators

(Breathnach, O'Gorman, & Danby, 2016; Gaedtke, 2010; Sonter, 2014). Among the

tensions identified was the fact that early childhood educators found themselves

pushed and pulled in a number of uncertain directions with Queensland’s move to a

full-time Preparatory year (Breathnach et al., 2016; Hard & O'Gorman, 2007). With

further and more recent changes to the implementation of the Australian Curriculum,

early childhood teachers have expressed concerns about the push-down of the

curriculum and the challenges of catering for the diverse developmental needs of Prep

aged children under a curriculum which raises the bar concerning educational

expectations and achievement (Martyn-Jones, 2016).

The Early Years Curriculum Guidelines, the curriculum framework being

implemented alongside the Australian Curriculum at the time of this study, supported

the use of five contexts for learning for a well-planned and balanced Prep program:

play; real-life; situations; investigations; routines and transitions; and focused teaching

and learning. The investigations context for learning encouraged Prep children to

inquire, seek information, make connections and test their ideas (QSA, 2006). This

context was analogous with Gartrell’s (2014) guidance approach, where children’s

mistaken behaviour was seen as children’s attempts to investigate, test and construct

social understandings. Further, the focused teaching and learning context advocated

for teacher support of children’s individual needs as evidenced in the strengths based

model which underlies humanism (QSA, 2006).

The Early Years Curriculum Guidelines (QSA,2006) placed an emphasis on

children’s prior social and cultural understandings, constructions and learning; the

development of higher order thinking skills; and enrichment of learning through

negotiated and collaborative approaches to learning which is individually relevant,

challenging and engaging (p. 17). These understandings are important to good teaching

practice, and should shape how early years teachers approach their teaching of the

Australian Curriculum. At the time of implementation of this study, Luke (2010) stated

that the test for the Australian Curriculum would be whether it set conditions for yet


another back to basics movement or whether it would succeed in delivering on matters

of intellectual demand; cultural meaning and substance; exploration of complex and

critical issues; content which represents the discipline as well as community

knowledge; the development of traditional and radical ideas, and designs and

knowledges for new economies.

Another important reform around the time of this study, and one that provided

educators with similar reservations to the introduction of the Australian Curriculum,

was the introduction in 2008 of Australia’s national testing program, the National

Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) (ACARA, 2016c).

NAPLAN tests Australian students’ skills in literacy and numeracy that are developed

over time through the school curriculum in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 (ACARA, 2016b).

ACARA stated that NAPLAN is the gauge by which schools and governments could

establish the educational outcomes of young Australians (ACARA, 2016c).

Queensland Studies Authority, the state body responsible for the implementation of

the curriculum frameworks in Queensland at the time of this study, proposed principles

for a “balanced” (p.1) national assessment regime for Australia in its draft paper

Student Assessment Regimes: Getting the Balance Right for Australia (QSA, 2009).

QSA stated that there was compelling evidence from other countries that when

accountability for educational outcomes is weighed purely on national full-cohort

testing, negative effects on teaching and student learning outweigh the positive

intentions. The paper examined evidence from the United Kingdom, United States of

America and Australia, and advocated for a more balanced assessment program where

accountability for student learning is shared by teachers, schools, schooling authorities

and government agencies (QSA, 2009).

At the time of this study, with the growing national emphasis on teacher

accountability gained from national data collection of full-cohort testing, there was a

very real threat of a narrowing of the curriculum. Teaching to the test has been one

such outcome of the national testing regime and has had grave implications for student

engagement with learning, a professed measure of teaching quality (Luke, 2010; QSA,

2009). While the development of student responsibility and children’s long term

learning outcomes are strongly advocated for in schools, the increased pressure of

testing and standards has provided teachers with less time and energy for assisting

students to develop decision making skills; and may have served to limit children’s


holistic development and to constrain their long term learning (Curwin, Mendler, &

Mendler, 2008; Department of Education and Training, 2015b). This in turn may

impact on students’ behaviour and teachers’ ability to support student behaviour.

2.2.3 Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

Along with the major curriculum reforms in Australia, the Australian

Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2014) for the first time publically

defined what constitutes teaching quality. The standards provide a framework that

communicates the knowledge, practices and professional engagement that are

expected across teachers’ careers. The seven standards are sequenced according to four

career stages: (i) graduate; (ii) proficient; (iii) highly accomplished; and (iv) lead

standards. Standard 4: Create and maintain safe, inclusive and challenging learning

environments (AITSL, 2014) is significant to this study, in particular, focus areas 4.2,

creating and maintaining supportive and safe learning environments and 4.3,

managing challenging behaviour. At one end of their careers, teachers at the graduate

level for standard 4.2 are expected to manage classroom activities and provide clear

directions to students. Later in their careers, the expectation of highly accomplished

teachers is that they possess a flexible repertoire of strategies for classroom

management to ensure student engagement. Such highly accomplished teachers will

also promote student responsibility through the implementation of effective classroom

management (AITSL, 2014).

In the standards focus area 4.3, managing challenging behaviour, it is stated that

graduate teachers will demonstrate practical behaviour approaches. Proficient teachers

will address discipline issues promptly, fairly, and respectfully, and will negotiate clear

expectations with students; while highly accomplished teachers will collaborate with

colleagues to develop a flexible repertoire of behaviour management strategies. These

standards suggest that teachers will develop proficiency over time and move from

more explicit and teacher-enforced strategies for supporting student behaviour to

strategies that take into account students’ individual circumstances and needs and

support student responsibility and engagement with learning. Australian education

policies related to student behaviour, such as the National Safe Schools Framework

(MCEECDYA, 2011), also reinforce these strategies. However, individual State

policies, such as Queensland’s Code of School Behaviour (Department of Education


Training and Employment, 2006), also vary in focus. This will be discussed in detail

in the next section which reviews school behaviour policies.

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, along with contemporary

curriculum reforms, send a strong message to teachers about what skills, knowledge

and attitudes they should be demonstrating in their classrooms to support student

behaviour. These factors influence teachers and the ways that they conceptualise

approaches with student behaviour, which is a central focus of this study and represents

an important step towards understanding how teachers can best be supported to fulfil

policy and Australian Professional Standards obligations with respect to student

behaviour. This study, using the qualitative methodology of phenomenography to

elicit these understandings, has provided a comprehensive and original perspective on

how teachers in the Prep year comprehend and approach student behaviour in this time

of great change.

2.3 SCHOOL BEHAVIOUR POLICY

School behaviour policy in Australia forms the basis for school systems,

individual schools, and teacher decision-making regarding classroom and behaviour

management. Educational policy in Australia, however, has been propelled by both

national and State government political agendas and this has impacted on the work of

teachers, with flow on effects for students (Bown, 2009, 2014; Porter, 2014; Reid,

2014). The differing national and State political agendas create a lack of cohesion,

making this landscape difficult for teachers to navigate. In this section, behaviour

policy at both a national and State level is reviewed, highlighting the federated nature

of policy implementation in Australia, and in particular presenting Queensland’s

behaviour policy position as a backcloth to this study. At a federal level the guiding

policy, the National Safe Schools Framework, was endorsed in 2010 by the Australian

State and Territory Education Ministers through the then Ministerial Council for

Education Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA) and

updated by the Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood (SCSEEC)

in 2013. The aim of this framework was to provide a set of guiding principles for safe,

supportive school communities, to promote student well-being, and to promote

respectful relationships (SCSEEC, 2013).


The National Safe Schools Framework espouses a whole-school approach to

safety and well-being and sets out what it denotes as a set of evidence-informed

practices to guide schools in the prevention and response to behavioural incidents,

bullying and child protection. The framework supports an inclusive approach aiming

for caring, respectful and supportive teaching and learning communities, resulting in

a reduction in harassment, aggression, violence and bullying. The National Safe

Schools Framework Resource Manual cites a positive school culture as essential, and

this is characterised by teachers modelling inclusive and respectful approaches to

behaviour rather than strategies which are based on dominance and submission

(MCEECDYA, 2011).

Central to the National Safe Schools Framework is the notion of students’

satisfaction with their learning experiences, as well as active engagement and

participation of all school community members in the creation of safe schools.

Importantly for this study, element five, Positive Behaviour Management, is

characterised by evidenced-informed positive behaviour management approaches;

recognition of positive student behaviour; consistency of approaches in schools; and

effective risk prevention (SCSEEC, 2013).

In the National Safe Schools Framework, element 6, Engagement, skill

development and safe school curriculum (SCSEEC, 2013), places a strong focus on

the enhancement of student engagement with learning, cooperative learning and peer

learning, as well as the intentional and integrated teaching of social and emotional

skills. Furthermore provisions for student ownership, decision making and student

voice, as well as partnerships with families, are strongly advocated for.

Effective practices such as school leadership, a supportive and connected school

culture, clear policies and procedures and a commitment to the provision of ongoing

professional learning are listed as approaches which will support the implementation

of the framework (SCSEEC, 2013). In addition, the National Safe Schools Framework

Resource Manual (MCEECDYA, 2011) identifies a range of evidenced-based

behaviour management approaches seen to assist the effective implementation of the

framework. Such cited strategies include: (i) positive behaviour support (PBS); (ii)

restorative practices; and (iii) the use of awards and recognition to support positive

student behaviour.


The National Safe Schools Framework (SCSEEC, 2013) clearly defines the role

of schools in creating safe, supportive environments. In particular, the role of school

leadership and teachers as proactive, collaborative and positive behaviour models is

made very explicit. This contrasts with Queensland’s Code of School Behaviour

(Department of Education Training and Employment, 2006), which places the onus

for student behaviour on students and parents/ carers.

2.3.1 Queensland Policy

At State-level, in Queensland government schools policy which centres on a

safe, supportive and disciplined environment that respects individual rights is seen as

essential to effective learning. School communities use the Code of School Behaviour

(Department of Education Training and Employment, 2006) as the base policy for

providing positive support to promote high standards of behaviour and achievement as

well as clearly articulated responses and consequences for inappropriate behaviour.

Additionally, under the Queensland Public Service Commission’s (2011) Code of

Conduct, staff must maintain high standards of ethical behaviour in their decision

making and engage with the community in a manner that is consultative, respectful

and fair (The State of Queensland Public Service Commission, 2011). However, the

teacher’s role in promoting positive student behaviour and the development of a

positive school culture as a means to prevent disengaged behaviours was not addressed

in Queensland’s Code of School Behaviour, (Department of Education Training and

Employment, 2006). This shows a lack of alignment with the National Safe Schools

Framework, which emphasized the teacher’s role in supporting student behaviour

(such as modelling behaviours and creating respectful relationships with students) and

the development of a positive, caring, respectful and supportive school culture

(SCSEEC, 2013).

Under the Code of School Behaviour, Queensland government schools must

develop an approved Responsible Behaviour Plan in consultation with the school

community, to be approved by the school Parents and Citizens Committee (P&C) and

the school’s Regional Executive Director. This must be processed in a proforma

template with prescribed categories of information which arguably supports

consistency (Department of Education and Training, 2014b). In the Responsible

Behaviour Plan, schools must outline their beliefs about student learning and

behaviour. Using a three-tiered approach known as the Response to Intervention (RTI)


model, schools are required to demonstrate how they will facilitate standards of

positive behaviour and respond to unacceptable behaviour. This approach originated

from the School-Wide Positive Behaviour Support model that the Department of

Education and Training had adopted at the time of this study, whereby government

schools demonstrated their whole-school provision of universal, targeted and intensive

supports, including the consequences for unacceptable behaviour (Department of

Education and Training, 2014b).

Currently in Queensland, the Department of Education and Training has two

additional policies to support the Code of School Behaviour implementation in schools,

including the Statement of Expectations for a Disciplined School Environment

(Department of Education Training and Employment, 2013) and the Safe, Supportive

and Disciplined School Environment procedure (Department of Education and

Training, 2017e). These two policies reflect the greater disciplinary powers afforded

to Principals in response to ongoing reports of ‘out of control’ student behaviour

(Chilcott, 2011a, 2011b; Langbroek, 2013). These disciplinary powers have allowed

school Principals to autonomously make decisions concerning the use of detentions,

student disciplinary absences (SDAs), community service and discipline improvement

plans to manage disruptive student behaviour.

In 2012, the Department of Education and Training for the first time introduced

a Learning and Wellbeing Framework, recognising that schooling has an impact on

students’ well-being and behaviour (Department of Education Training and

Employment, 2012). The Learning and Wellbeing Framework helps guide schools in

developing a positive learning culture and enhancing students’ social and emotional

functioning, and acknowledges that students with high well-being are more likely to

engage in appropriate behaviour. Queensland policies related to student behaviour thus

require teachers to implement a range of principles and procedures that may at times

seem contradictory in nature.

To summarise, Australian national and State behaviour policy at the time of this

study was quite varied in its approach and ideals although there was a common thread

of positive behaviour. Although the National Safe Schools Framework espoused

student engagement through constructivist approaches to teaching and learning,

Queensland policy documents de-emphasised student engagement with learning and

attention to curriculum and pedagogy (Department of Education Training and


Employment, 2006; SCSEEC, 2013). The potential influence of these policies on

teachers’ practice with student behaviour will be explored in further detail in Chapter

5.

Although the influence of specific aspects of behaviour policy is unclear,

educational policy research suggests that teachers’ practice is changed by policy (Ball,

2003). United Kingdom Policy researcher Ball (2003) stated that “what it means to

teach and what it means to be a teacher are subtly but decisively changed in the

processes of reform” (p.218). Maguire, Ball, and Braun (2010) also acknowledged that

policy impacts on teachers’ practice, asserting that the standards agenda has seen a

move to a ‘behaviour for learning’ policy position where teachers’ focus is on student

achievement. This ‘student achievement’ focus has the potential to impact on the ways

teachers conceptualise their approaches with student behaviour. In the following

section, the Queensland Government’s Better Behaviour Better Learning initiative is

outlined.

2.3.2 Better Behaviour, Better Learning

This section examines the Queensland Government’s classroom management

approach, the Better Behaviour Better Learning initiative which was designed to assist

Queensland government schools to provide safe, supportive and disciplined learning

environments (Education Queensland, 2007b). As mentioned in section 2.3, initiatives

included the Code of School Behaviour and the Responsible Behaviour Plan for

Students. In 2007, professional development packages were developed, including an

online course comprising (i) Essential Skills for Classroom Management; and (ii)

Professional Development Suite of modules (Education Queensland, 2007a, 2007b).

These professional learning materials arguably shape teachers’ approaches to student

behaviour in the Prep year.

The Essential Skills for Classroom Management originally designed by

Christine Richmond, Senior Guidance Officer, Behaviour Management, was based on

the use of micro-skills described in the Behaviour Management Skill Training

Handbook (Queensland Department of Education & Richmond, 1996). In 2006, the

handbook was revised by Paul Leitch, Logan-Albert Beaudesert Behaviour Advisory

Team member, with 10 Essential Skills for good classroom management explained and

defined. The 10 Essential Skills were suggested for use within the context of a well-

planned, innovative and engaging curriculum. The core elements include setting clear


expectations, acknowledging appropriate behaviour and the correction of

inappropriate behaviour (Education Queensland, 2007b). These Essential Skills are

currently implemented in Queensland government schools as a professional

development package, delivered by trained facilitators (Department of Education and

Training, 2016d).

Supporting the implementation of the Essential Skills was the Better Behaviour

Better Learning Professional Development Suite (Education Queensland, 2007a). The

Professional Development Suite acknowledged approaches to behaviour which placed

an emphasis on the management of teaching practice, the development of positive and

productive student-teacher relationships, and the careful structuring and modification

of the classroom environment. Approaches were advocated for that were preventative

in nature, that promoted student self-responsibility and attended to the teaching and

promotion of positive behaviours (Education Queensland, 2007a).

Behaviour approaches in both the Essential Skills for Classroom Management

and Professional Development Suite were grounded in behaviour support models.

Choice Theory; Restorative Justice; School Wide Positive Behaviour Support

(SWPBS); Democratic Discipline; Responsible Thinking Process; and Positive

Behaviour Leadership were models which were said to contribute to effective school-

wide behaviour support programs in Australian schools at that time (Education

Queensland, 2007a, 2007b). Behaviour Modification and Assertive Discipline are

models which have in the past (and present) contributed to behaviour management

planning; however, Education Queensland (2007a) stated they were not considered

models of best practice in Australian schools. These approaches will be detailed and

critiqued in section 2.6.1. In the following section, the literature pertaining to the Prep

year in Queensland is detailed.

2.4 THE PREPARATORY YEAR IN QUEENSLAND

The Queensland Preparatory (Prep) year is the context of this study of teachers’

ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour. This section will outline the

inception of the Prep year, and provide information about the kindergarten year, the

year which precedes Prep in Queensland. The announcement of Queensland’s

intention to trial a Preparatory year was publicised by the Queensland Government in

its Education and Training Reforms for the Future (Queensland Government, 2002).


After initial trials beginning in 2003, the Preparatory year in Queensland was “rolled

out” across the State in 2007 to a half-year cohort of children as a non-compulsory

year of education prior to the start of formal primary school.

Previous to the introduction of the Prep year in Queensland, children had entered

school at Year 1, after participating in government or non-government preschools,

child care programs or home-based care arrangements, for example, family day care.

Preschool programs, staffed by qualified early childhood teachers and teacher aides,

were offered on a part-time basis; however, at the time there was a strong demand from

parents for a full-time preschool year (Hard & O'Gorman, 2007). Compared to other

States and Territories at the time, Queensland was the only State not providing full-

time, full-day programs in the year prior to Year 1 (Thorpe et al., 2005). In the report

of the Queensland Preparing for School trial in 2003/04, Thorpe and colleagues (2005)

reported that children who had attended a Preparatory year were viewed by parents

and teachers as more socially skilled and adaptive to school settings upon entering

formal school than those who had attended preschool.

After the trial in 2007, the Prep year was implemented to a full cohort of

Queensland children in all government and non-government (i.e. State, Catholic and

Independent) schools. Although preschool teachers were retained in the move from

preschool to Prep, and newly-qualified early childhood graduates were also employed,

many primary-trained teachers were also employed in the role of Prep teachers due to

the great demand for Prep teachers at the time (Department of Education Training and

Employment, 2008). With the Prep year introduced as a full-time, non-compulsory

year of school, the school starting age was increased by 6 months, bringing Queensland

into line with other Australian States (Hard & O'Gorman, 2007). Government policy

stipulated that children eligible for the Prep year in Queensland must turn five years

of age by 30 June in the year they enter the Preparatory Year (Queensland Government,

2017b). Hence Prep children are aged between 4.5-6.5 years.

In 2011 the Queensland Government announced reforms to Queensland

education in A Flying Start for Queensland Children: Queensland Government

Education White Paper (Department of Education and Training, 2011). The Prep year

was recognised as the “first year” of school (rather than the year before formal school)

in an effort to maximise attendance and advance student achievement. As such, the

policies, guidelines and regulations governing the education of Queensland school-


aged children were applied to children attending Prep. In 2016, the Queensland

government formally announced that legislation had passed marking the Prep year as

a compulsory first year of schooling (The Queensland Cabinet of Ministerial

Directory, 2016).

COAG, in its National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education,

agreed to a universal access commitment, stating that by 2013 every child in Australia

will have had access to an educational program in the year before school (i.e. the year

before the Prep year), to be delivered by a four-year university-qualified early

childhood teacher (COAG, 2008). In 2010, approximately 40% of Queensland

children were enrolled in an early childhood kindergarten program delivered by a

qualified early childhood teacher (Department of Education and Training, 2011). By

2015 this increased to 95.4% of children enrolled in kindergarten programs

(Queensland Audit Office, 2016). The Queensland State Government’s target for

2020, as set out in A Flying Start for Queensland Children: Queensland Education

Government White Paper (2011) was for all Queensland children to have access to

high-quality kindergarten programs in the year before Prep, so this aim has essentially

been achieved. The decision to provide universal access to kindergarten programs was

influenced by the Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care (OECD,

2006) review of early childhood education and care (ECEC) in twenty OECD

countries, and supported by the results from the 2009 Australian Early Development

Index (AEDI) (Centre for Community Child Health, & Telethon Institute for Child

Health Research [CCCH & TICHR], 2011). The Starting Strong II: Early Childhood

Education and Care review indicated that Australia lagged behind comparable

countries in terms of access to quality early learning. The 2009 Australian Early

Development Index showed that Queensland children were more developmentally-

vulnerable than their interstate equivalents before they start school (CCCH & TICHR,

2011; Department of Education and Training, 2011).

As background to the Australian Early Development Index (AEDI), COAG

recognised a need for information about early childhood development relating to five

developmental domains:

physical health and well-being;

social competence;


emotional maturity;

language and cognitive skills; and

communication skills and general knowledge (CCCH & TICHR, 2011;

COAG, 2008).

The AEDI was a national progress measure of children’s development as they

enter school. Data were collected nationally from teachers who completed a checklist

for children in their first year of full-time school. Information was collected on 97.5%

of the population of Australian five year olds. In Australia, the average age of children

at the time the AEDI checklists were completed was 5 years and 7 months.

Queensland, Western Australia, and Northern Territory children were the youngest

participants with a mean age of 5 years and 5 months (CCCH & TICHR, 2011).

In 2009, Queensland was reported to have the lowest proportion of children

enrolled in a preschool program. In 2008/2009, only 29% of Queensland children

attended a structured play-based ‘pre-prep’ or kindergarten early childhood program

(as it is now known) in the year before school. This figure was significantly lower

when compared to other States such as New South Wales, where 81.9% of children

attended a preschool program (CCCH & TICHR, 2011). In response to the AEDI

results, the Queensland government released its strategy to boost the attendance of

children in kindergarten programs. Kindergarten services located on the grounds of

government schools were introduced. As well, funding was allocated to long day care

services to deliver approved kindergarten programs (COAG, 2008; Department of

Education and Training, 2017g).

In July 2014, the AEDI programme became known as the Australian Early

Development Census (AEDC). The Australian Early Development Census National

Report 2015 (Department of Education and Training, 2016a) showed that nation-wide

in the area of social competence, the proportion of children who were developmentally

vulnerable increased from 9.5 in 2009 and 9.3% in 2012, to 9.9 % in 2015 (Department

of Education and Training, 2016a). This led to renewed commitment by COAG in the

form of the National Partnership Agreement on Universal Access to Early Childhood

Education to ensure access to affordable, quality early childhood education

programmes for all Australian children, including vulnerable and disadvantaged

children (COAG, 2016).


The implementation of the Prep year, along with universal access to the

Kindergarten year, have been credited with enhancing young children’s development

and learning in Queensland (Palaszczuk & Jones, 2016). However, student behaviour

in the Prep year has proved to be a growing concern.

2.5 STUDENT BEHAVIOUR AND THE PREPARATORY YEAR

Student behaviour in the Prep year has been seen as problematic. This context is

particularly important for this study. As previously noted in section 2.3, the rights and

obligations of students, parents and staff are detailed in the Queensland’s Code of

School Behaviour (Department of Education Training and Employment, 2006). The

Code of School Behaviour does not differentiate its expectations by the age of children.

Therefore expectations for its youngest students attending the Prep year are the same

as expectations for older children. Under the code it is expected that Prep students:

participate actively in the school’s educational program;

take responsibility for their own behaviour and learning;

demonstrate respect for themselves, other members of the school

community and environment;

behave in a manner that respects the rights of others, including their right

to learn;

cooperate with staff and others in authority. (Department of Education

Training and Employment, 2006)

Just prior to this study, in 2010, there were 379 student disciplinary absences

(SDAs) and incidents in the Prep year in Queensland. This had more than doubled

from the 184 disciplinary absences recorded in 2008, with the first full cohort of Prep

students (D. Blundell, personal communication, October 5, 2011). In Queensland,

SDAs are school-applied, short-term or long-term suspensions or exclusions that

prohibit students from attending their school for a nominated period of time due to

“breach of discipline or other reasons”. These are “viewed as only one of many

strategies for addressing serious student misbehaviour” (Department of Education

Training and Employment, 2014, p. 1). During this study, the Queensland Government

has continued to track SDAs and over the past five years there has been a worrying

incline in the number of SDAs in the Prep year, as shown in Figure 2.1.


Figure 2.1. Student disciplinary absences (SDAs) in Queensland Government schools by year (data

from Queensland Government, 2017a).

These data show that student behaviour in the Prep year is a growing concern,

providing further evidence of the relevance and timeliness of the present study.

At the time this study began, Prep student behaviour had captured media

attention. For example in May of 2011 a Brisbane newspaper, The Courier Mail,

published an article titled Terror Tots, stating that violent and out-of-control behaviour

among Prep students was rising. The article stated that teachers reported the main

reason for this behaviour was children being unprepared for school (Chilcott, 2011c).

The Queensland Teachers Union (QTU) agreed with this statement, attributing the

growing problem to parenting difficulties (Chilcott, 2011c). No mention was made or

discussion offered for other complex factors which may have contributed to the rise in

student disciplinary absences.

Responses to this article by the way of letters to the editor were enlightening and

reflected a multitude of views held by the community. These ranged from those in

agreement that children’s behaviour was out of control to the view that ineffective

parenting was the reason behind such behaviour. The following excerpt was

contributed by John McQueen (2011) from Redbank Plains:

WHAT sort of homes do these brats come from? Worse still, what sort of

parents have these brats got? As young as they may be, they have no place in

a civilised society. Until they can behave like human beings, they should be

forced to stay at home, where it is quite obvious from their behaviour there is


no discipline, no parenting and no child care… But all these brats need is a

good, old-fashioned kick up the arse. Oh, and that goes for the parents as well.

(McQueen, 2011, para. 3)

This view of behaviour suggests further violence as a solution. Teachers are

curiously absent from this view. Other public responses laid the blame for the

behaviour with educators and education policy, such as this from Kerry Lawson (2011)

from Carina:

Laying the blame entirely at the feet of parents is a convenient excuse not to

adopt the fundamental behavioural strategies that educators are supposed to

have embraced as part of their training at university. The Inclusive Education

policy in Queensland is impressive on paper, but the discrepancy between

policy and practice is monumental. (Lawson, 2011, para. 1)

In yet another response, Louis Bradfield (2011) from Taringa added his view

regarding the nature of the Prep program and governmental agendas:

YOUR headline "Terror Tots" should have instead been "System of Terror".

Whatever happened to prep being play-based? Nowhere in the article did it

question the quality of these prep programs or the adult agendas - the payouts

from the Federal Government for increases in NAPLAN results and the

(resultant) narrowing focus on literacy and numeracy. This is more about

children and the unrealistic expectations we have of them at such a young age.

How much longer will parents allow this "regime of terror" to reign over

children? (Bradfield, 2011, para. 2)

Public opinion on student behaviour is strong, but often reduces complex factors

to simple statements such as the ones above, rather than teasing out the range of

influences on the issue. The Queensland Teachers Union’s earlier response to this

news article in essence mirrors Queensland’s Code of School Behaviour. The code

advocates for a strong emphasis on expectations (Department of Education Training

and Employment, 2006). Parents are expected to cooperate with their children’s school

and to support school staff in maintaining a respectful and safe learning environment.

Students are also expected to demonstrate respect, take responsibility for their own

learning, and cooperate with staff and other adults in authority. This is understandably

difficult for young children aged 4.5-6.5 years.


It appears that the role of educators in proactively guiding behaviour or

strengthening partnerships with families to further support student behaviour has been

inferred rather than made explicit in the Code of School Behaviour document. In

addition, recognition that students in Prep bring with them a wide variety of

understandings shaped by their families, social and cultural experiences during the

early childhood years is not acknowledged in the Code of School Behaviour. In

contrast, an alternative view is present in the Early Years Learning Framework and in

the early childhood literature generally (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; DEEWR, 2009;

ECA, 2016; Fleer et al., 2006; Yahya, 2016), providing a potential mismatch between

school policy and early childhood pedagogy.

Student behaviour is shaped by many dynamic, complex and interacting factors.

It has influences that are much wider than the classroom itself. It is important that

schools acknowledge the social and cultural capital children bring with them into the

Prep year and seek to foster partnerships with families and communities in an effort to

understand their knowledge and support equitable and just outcomes for all students

(De Gioia, 2013; Yahya, 2016). This is important, due to Prep being the very first

contact children and families have with formal school in Queensland. Children arrive

at Prep with a wide variety of experiences, capabilities and dispositions that may be

shaped by attendance at prior-to-school educational programs such as kindergartens,

childcare and a wide range of other family, community and cultural experiences.

Petriwskyj, Thorpe, and Tayler (2014) argued that this diversity should be

acknowledged and appreciated in the transition prior to and in the early years of school.

Additionally the body of literature detailing self-regulation as a prime

developmental goal in the early childhood years is relevant to understanding student

behaviour. This skill is seen as vital to children’s later functioning in terms of problem

solving, attention, metacognition and in contributing to children’s success as learners

(Blair & Raver, 2015; J Montroy, Bowles, Skibbe, McClelland, & Morrison, 2016).

Central to the development of self-regulation are children’s understandings about

social behaviours. Social behaviours are influenced by family and wider community

experiences in the years prior to school. Through direct teaching from parents and

other important people in their lives, children adopt and/or reject rules about behaviour

(Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Murray, Rosanbalm, & Christopoulos, 2016; Taylor,

Conger, Robins, & Widaman, 2015). In the Prep year, teachers’ roles can therefore be


seen to encompass the consideration of children’s previous experience, the

developmental status of individual children and the shaping of children’s behaviour in

partnership with parents.

In early childhood education and care, Developmentally Appropriate Practice

(Copple & Bredekamp, 2009) has contributed significantly to the view that children’s

development follows individual patterns and timing. It has been advocated that early

childhood teachers provide relevant support, intervention and guidance in the

acquisition of self-regulation and responsibility, and that “…teachers consider how to

foster such development in their interactions with each child and in their curriculum

planning” (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, p. 16). This notion is supported by the

Australian Early Years Learning Framework, with educators encouraged to support

children’s understanding of self-regulation and self-control (DEEWR, 2009). Further,

teachers’ roles in supporting children’s behaviour include monitoring, anticipating,

preventing and redirecting children’s behaviours (Gartrell, 2014; Porter, 2014;

Vijayan, Chakravarthi, & Arul Philips, 2016). Additionally, Copple and Bredekamp

(2009) stated that developmentally appropriate practice involves teachers engaging

children in the development of community rules for behaviour and responding

respectfully to children’s feelings and frustrations by guiding, resolving, and

modelling skills to assist children in solving their own problems. Thus the teachers’

roles in supporting student behaviour in the Prep year seem complex. There are many

different considerations, as detailed above, that need to be taken into account to

effectively support the behaviour of the youngest students in the Queensland school

system.

This section has identified several important points concerning public opinion

and education, and the mismatch between policy and practice in early childhood.

Importantly it has drawn a way forward for this study to research how teachers

approach student behaviour in early childhood classrooms.

2.6 BEHAVIOUR APPROACHES AND THEORIES

A diverse range of behaviour approaches may be used by teachers to manage

and support appropriate classroom behaviour. First, important Australian research

relating to teachers’ behaviour approaches is reviewed and then the specific

approaches commonly used in early childhood and primary educational settings and


the theories that underpin these approaches are synthesised. This section of the

literature review is important to this study as it centres primarily on teachers’

behaviour approaches in the Prep year.

2.6.1 Behaviour Approaches

Research on student behaviour management approaches in Australia, although

limited, has been influential in generating understandings of the principles of good

behaviour practice (De Jong, 2003, 2005; Roache & Lewis, 2011a; Sullivan et al.,

2014). Australian researcher De Jong (2003) aimed to investigate what was said about

good behaviour management practice in the middle years of school. De Jong’s research

examined the literature discussing “good” behaviour practice and what teachers say

about such practice, and synthesised the views from these two sources using Miles and

Huberman's (1994) data-reduction, data-display and conclusion-drawing in the

analysis. Sixteen teachers or teacher administrators from nine government middle

schools in Western Australia were interviewed to elicit teachers’ experience and

understanding of good middle years behaviour practice (De Jong, 2003). The study

identified six themes related to successful behaviour management practice. These

included policy, school culture, educational philosophy, relationships, classroom

management and curriculum and pedagogy. These themes highlight the complex

nature of behaviour management practice.

In De Jong’s (2003) study participant views communicated the importance of

relationships, curriculum and pedagogy to good behaviour practice approaches. All

interviewees reported that their school had a whole-school behaviour management

policy. There was also evidence of the interviewees understanding that punishment

was inappropriate and ineffective in relation to young adolescents, even though

consequences were articulated in policy. Interviewees emphasised the importance of

students developing self-discipline and the use of positive reinforcement systems to

reward behaviour incrementally (De Jong, 2003). Additionally, De Jong (2003) found

that interviewees believed that successful behaviour management was dependent upon

teachers co-constructing classroom management plans that work best for particular

classes. Most teachers raised the need for capacity building and being able to manage

students more effectively in the classroom (De Jong, 2003). This may have important

implications for the provision of teacher agency within systemic and school-based

student behaviour policy and procedures, as this view suggests that teachers may value


developing their own individually responsive behaviour systems rather than adopting

a whole-school approach.

More recently, researchers Roache and Lewis (2011a) and Sullivan et al. (2014)

studied the effectiveness of behaviour management strategies in Australian

classrooms. Roache and Lewis (2011a) aimed to investigate the effectiveness of

classroom management strategies from students’ perspectives. This research is novel,

as very little research has investigated student behaviours from the perspectives of

students themselves. The authors examined the responses from two interrelated

questionnaires of 1975 Melbourne students in years seven to ten, to glean their

reactions to classroom management strategies, their attitude to and interest in their

subjects, their misbehaviour levels, responsibility, connectedness and well-being. A

combination of behaviour strategies, which included discussion, hinting, involvement,

and recognition and rewards, represented the most effective classroom management

strategies that were perceived to reduce the impact and frequency of discipline and to

encourage students’ personal and communal responsibility. The strategy of

punishment failed to increase students’ reports of self-responsibility or their focus in

class, and teacher aggression had negative effects on students’ perceptions. These

findings represent an important view, that of the students who are at the coal face of

teacher-implemented behaviour approaches.

Sullivan et al. (2014), like De Jong, investigated perceptions of behaviour

management approaches; however, they did so from the perspectives of teachers. The

researchers surveyed 1380 Reception (equivalent to Prep) to year 12 teachers in South

Australia to investigate teachers’ classroom behaviour management strategies and

their perceived effectiveness. They found the most effective teacher perceived

behaviour management strategies were: following a step system, involving an

escalation of actions if behaviour did not change; reasoning with a student; and

deliberately ignoring minor disruptions or infringements. Teachers reported that

disengaged and low-level disruptive behaviours were the most challenging behaviours

to manage. Sullivan et al. (2014) found that when teachers responded to unproductive

student behaviour they utilised approaches that may not have addressed the underlying

causes of those behaviours, and proposed that teachers consider ecological factors and

focus on facilitating student engagement.


While this research provides a good overview of teachers’ perceptions of the

effectiveness of their behaviour management practice, it does not provide a qualitative

in-depth understanding of how teachers experience and - importantly - understand and

comprehend the impact of their approaches on student behaviour. In addition, it is

evident that limited attention has been placed on specifically researching student

behaviour approaches in the early years of schooling in Australia, particularly with

regard to the Prep year. Investigating and identifying how approaches with student

behaviour are experienced, conceptualised and understood by teachers, particularly in

the early years of school, will address a significant gap in the current research in

Australia.

2.6.2 Behaviour Theories

In the ensuing sections, a range of behaviour approaches and their theoretical

roots will be examined, with particular attention paid to approaches which have

previously been evidenced in Queensland schools.

Behavioural experts, including researchers, practitioners and advocates, have

developed theories and ideas that have influenced thinking on how to best manage

children’s behaviour in classrooms. In Australia, Louise Porter (2006) was influential

in mapping behaviour management theories and their related approaches along a

continuum. According to Porter (2006), theories and approaches can be organised

according to the extent to which teachers and children collaborate. On one end of the

continuum are egalitarian principles favoured by those who advocate sharing power

with children, or democratic approaches as exemplified by Choice Theory (Glasser,

2001) and the guidance approach to behaviour (Gartrell, 2014; Porter, 2006). On the

other end of the continuum are authoritarian principles, where teachers apply planned

strategies and procedures to control student behaviour, as exemplified by Assertive

Discipline (Canter & Canter, 1976) and Applied Behaviour Analysis (Alberto &

Troutman, 2006; Sugai & Horner, 2002). At various points along the continuum lie

other methods, such as cognitive behaviourism (A. Ellis & Joffe-Ellis, 2011) and

Adlerian approaches (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956; Balson, 1996), utilising a

combination of authoritarian and more egalitarian principles. Porter’s (2006)

continuum is a useful way to conceptualise behaviour theories, with its focus on the

amount of control teachers use in efforts to guide behaviour in the classroom and on

the extent of collaboration that exists between teachers and students.


For the purpose of this study, it is important to explore theories and approaches

that influence the design of behavioural interventions for young children in early

childhood classrooms. I have used Porter’s (2006) continuum as a point of entry into

a more detailed review of specific theories and approaches that have been commonly

used in early childhood settings and primary schools. Authoritarian approaches are

reviewed first, followed by egalitarian approaches, and then mixed approaches.

2.6.3 Authoritarian Approaches

Authoritarian forms of discipline gain student compliance through teacher

driven expectations, the application of consequences and the consistent monitoring and

evaluation of social behaviours (Sugai & Horner, 2002). Applied Behaviour Analysis

(ABA) is a commonly used authoritarian behaviour management approach. ABA has

its roots in behaviourism and has been influenced by the philosophical movement

known as positivism (Alberto & Troutman, 2006). This movement emphasised that

valid knowledge is only obtainable via objective observation.

Skinner (1974), whose work also focused on the relationship between behaviour

and its consequences, drew parallels between Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural

Selection concerning the ways species adapt to the environment, with the way an

individual adapts to a situation, as with operant conditioning, that is, the use of pleasant

and unpleasant consequences to alter behaviour (Slavin, 2009). Skinner’s (1974) work

influenced ABA with regard to the idea that phenomena must be observable in an effort

to be reliable. The efforts of Skinner and Darwin focused attention on mental processes

and led to a movement known as functionalism (Alberto & Troutman, 2006). This

progression in turn led to behaviourism, emphasising a practical, observable approach.

Elements of ABA’s approach to behaviour, such as the provision of rewards,

consequences, stimulus control and modelling have traditionally been adopted by

teachers and parents (Alberto & Troutman, 2006; Education Queensland, 2007a;

Slavin, 2009).

In 1968, Baer, Wolf and Risley laid the foundation for the application of ABA

to the study and improvement of human behaviour (as cited in Sugai & Horner, 2002).

ABA is based upon the fundamental premise that both adaptive and maladaptive

human behaviour are learned, and that behaviour that is followed by positive

consequences tends to be repeated and maintained (Alberto & Troutman, 2006).

Alberto and Troutman (2006) stated, however, that teachers need to become skilled in


ABA to be able to apply these techniques in such a way that environmental and

functional relationships are established and planned. ABA involves a complex process

of observation, including the planned recording and analysis of data, functional

assessment and analysis, and a range of carefully considered and applied planned

interventions, including the application of consequences and differential

reinforcement.

ABA has been adopted in essence by many educational authorities, both

internationally and in Australia. In America, amendments to the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) set Positive Behavioural Interventions and

Supports (PBIS), Functional Behavioural Assessment (FBA) and Positive Behaviour

Supports (PBS) into policy and practice in every school (Sugai & Horner, 2002). PBS

is described by Sugai and Horner (2002) as the “broad range of systemic and

individualised strategies for achieving important social and learning outcomes while

preventing problem behaviour” (p. 29). There is also a body of evidence from research

into the effectiveness of this approach in schools (Curtis, Van Horne, Robertson, &

Karvonen, 2010; Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010; Shumate & Wills, 2010). Few

other approaches to behaviour in schools have been subject to such detailed study as

ABA.

Importantly for this study, the Queensland government educational authority

currently provides support for an ABA influenced approach to behaviour in

Queensland State schools. Since 2005, more than 400 Queensland government schools

embraced School Wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS), an organisational

framework for behaviour based on the United States’ SWPBS model of ABA (Horner

et al., 2010; Maleny State School, 2017). In 2016, the Department of Education and

Training advised a change of name from SWPBS to Positive Behaviour for Learning

(PBL) (Department of Education and Training). The Department of Education and

Training’s (2014b) Responsible Plan for School Behaviour template is based on

Response to Intervention (RTI), a whole-school approach derived from ABA. RTI or

Recognition and Response (RnR) as it had been named in Queensland, is a multi-

dimensional approach to supporting student behaviour via a tiered model which caters

for whole-school behaviour support, targeted behaviour support, and intensive

behaviour support (Department of Education and Training, 2010).


ABA has provided teachers with many of the ideas which currently underpin

behavioural practices in classrooms (Alberto & Troutman, 2006). However, of

particular interest for this study is the interpretation and implementation of these ideas.

For example, the use of reward systems in classrooms is clearly popular amongst

primary school teachers as a way of attempting to increase positive student behaviour

(Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Education Queensland, 2007a; Ennis, Blair, & George,

2016; Roache & Lewis, 2011a; Tillery et al., 2010). However, when relating these

teacher practice-implemented strategies to ABA theory, it is probable that many

teachers are not aware of their origins. Many teachers use behaviour approaches which

derive from elements of ABA or other behaviour theories without receiving training

on the foundational principles of this approach in order for it to be enacted effectively

in practice (Alberto & Troutman, 2006).

A focus on PBS is important for this study because of its progression to School

Wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS), now known in Queensland as Positive

Behaviour for Learning (PBL), and its growing implementation in Australian schools.

Functional Behaviour Assessment (FBA), while evidenced in some Australian schools

as an effective model of individual behaviour assessment for students requiring

targeted behaviour support, will not be discussed further at this time as its use in

classrooms by teachers is limited by the necessity for specialist help for successful

implementation. Curtis et al. (2010) state that SWPBS programs are commonly

comprised of five basic components:

a leadership team;

an overriding school-wide philosophy;

specific behavioural principles for each area of the school;

individual classroom guidelines; and

specific strategies and interventions for students who require

additional attention.

These components encompass ongoing data collection and analysis to inform

planning (Curtis et al., 2010). Numerous studies have shown that the use of Positive

Behaviour Supports (PBS) is effective in reducing students’ problem behaviour

(Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Christofferson & Callahan, 2015; Curtis et al.,


2010; Horner et al., 2010; Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, & Feinberg, 2005; Mooney et

al., 2008; Stanton-Chapman, Walker, Voorhees, & Snell, 2016). Curtis et al. (2010),

reported results from a four year study of the effects from a School Wide Positive

Behaviour Support (SWPBS) program in a public K- 5 elementary school in North

Carolina, USA. The study uncovered a 40-67% decrease in behavioural referrals and

56.5% decrease in lost instructional days following implementation of SWPBS.

However, lost instructional days, out of school suspension and extended timeouts

increased in number slightly during the final year of the research. The researchers

attributed this increase to waning commitment to the program. They recommended the

continuing monitoring of data and use of student rewards in an effort to invigorate the

program. The longitudinal efficacy of SWPBS in elementary schools is yet to be

determined and there is a need to validate claims of academic achievement as a result

of the program in further research (Curtis et al., 2010).

Research critiquing SWPBS suggests that the approach is limited by the

dependence of a leadership team in establishing and maintaining the program, and by

difficulties in the maintenance and motivation of the program when staffing changes

occur (Carter, Van Norman, & Tredwell, 2011; Fallon, McCarthy, & Sanetti, 2014;

Feuerborn, Wallace, & Tyre, 2016; Flannery, Sugai, & Anderson, 2009). Carter et al.

(2011) documented the Program-Wide Positive Behaviour Support (PWPBS)

implementation process in an urban American preschool setting serving 250 children.

Although PWPBS was found to be a promising model for addressing the behavioural

needs of young children, lessons were learnt from the implementation phases.

Challenges such as establishing leadership teams, staff commitment to the program

and the need to individualize PWPBS to each school context were cited as necessary

considerations for others seeking to implement such a program (Carter et al., 2011).

In addition to these challenges, findings of another study examining teacher

perceptions of PBIS and RTI revealed that while viewing themselves as strong

influences on student behaviour, teachers lacked understanding about Positive

Behaviour Intervention Support (PBIS) and Response to Intervention (RTI), despite

receiving training (Tillery et al., 2010). This suggests that even with such an approach

being implemented across an entire educational system, there are some challenges with

teachers understanding and adopting the approach.


Research shows that the effectiveness of SWPBS may be variable depending on

the school, staff commitment and resources (Feuerborn et al., 2016; Tillery et al., 2010;

Tyre & Feuerborn, 2017b). The program is labour intensive and requires a significant

long term commitment of all school staff to continually revise the program and uphold

its priorities (Carter et al., 2011). There also seems to be little voice given to students

in the delivery of the program, with children positioned as passive recipients of an

adult-driven intervention.

Current approaches to SWPBS in the literature demonstrate a ‘softening’ of the

‘hard’ behaviourist elements of the approach, such as the use of strict rewards and

punishments. Considerations such as the involvement of families and students in

decision making and behaviour assessment, along with consideration of student

demographics and the particular cultural context of the school, have seen SWPBS

adopt a more democratic flavour, as noted by Betters-Bubon, Brunner, and Kansteiner

(2016), Muscott et al. (2008) and Stansberry-Brusnahan and Neilsen-Gatti (2009).

Additionally, attention focused on the assessment of teaching and learning in SWPBS

programs has seen the model respond somewhat to the focus on standards-based

education in America (Sailor, Stowe, Turnbull, & Kleinhammer-Tramill, 2007).

Another authoritarian behaviour approach is Canter and Canter’s (1976) model

of Assertive Discipline. This classroom behaviour approach is based upon theoretical

and practical aspects of Assertion Training, a systematic approach designed to assist

individuals to express their feelings and desires and have their needs met. Canter and

Canter (1976) advocated strongly for a teacher’s right to take charge of their

classroom, to teach without disruption and to have their own needs met. They

suggested that the philosophies of Freud, Skinner, Glasser, and Gordon have been

distorted and misinterpreted by teachers, placing them in a position whereby they

question their own right to use assertive behavioural practices in the classroom, leading

to guilt, anxiety and frustration, impacting on their effectiveness. These authors argued

that assertive discipline allows teachers to increase control of their classrooms.

Assertive disciplinary practices such as providing children with firm limits,

consequences and time out, are practices that are familiar to and widely practiced by

teachers. A search of many Queensland State school Responsible Behaviour Plans

demonstrates the use of such strategies in planning for behaviour management (Albany

Creek State School, 2015; Nundah State School, 2016; Rainworth State School, 2012).


Examples of the assertive style of behavioural response typical of this approach are

labelled consequences, but Kohn (2006) and Porter (2014) suggest these resemble

punishments. Consequences are teacher decided and enforced, with the main goal to

meet the teacher’s need for order.

Assertive discipline as a behaviour approach in schools has a strong teacher-

directed focus. Little emphasis is placed on students’ needs or investigation of the other

influences contributing to students’ behaviour. This approach does not consider the

possible effects of teacher-student power imbalances. It does not afford students

participatory benefits associated with shared decision making. Canter and Canter

(1976) conceded that students may not like their assertive teacher, however, they stated

that teachers should try to maximise the potential for positive teacher-student

relationships. This seems contradictory, inferring that relationships do not require

reciprocity to be effective.

Authoritarian approaches use behavioural strategies which are decided upon and

controlled by the teacher. Many of these approaches are evidenced in classrooms today

and are supported, in essence, in Queensland government schools, especially with

regard to behaviour policy and procedures. Next, egalitarian approaches to student

behaviour will be presented, followed by discussion of mixed approaches.

2.6.4 Egalitarian Approaches

Egalitarian behaviour approaches have been favoured by some educators at

different points in time (Gartrell, 2014; Gebeke, 1996; Karp & Breslin, 2001; Marion,

2007; Miller, 2007; Porter, 2014). Egalitarian approaches are those that seek to engage

students and encourage self-regulation. These approaches have been influenced by

humanism, a progressive philosophical movement that has, in turn, been influenced by

Dewey (Dewey, 2007), Montessori (Montessori, 1912) and Froebel (W. T. Harris,

1974). Dewey (2007) critiqued historic disciplinary practice, cautioning that when

students are viewed as undisciplined the fault lies with them rather than with the study

or methods of teaching. This view emphasises the important relationship between

teachers, the curriculum, and student behaviour.

Influenced by humanists, those who follow egalitarian approaches reject the

concepts of rewards and punishments and instead seek to resolve issues through

assertiveness, listening and collaboration (Gartrell, 2014). Humanists also reject the


practice of analysing past history as a precursor to change. Instead the focus is on the

present, on adjusting the environment and encouraging the teaching of thinking,

behaving and acting, which results in better decision making, success, and happiness

(Zeeman, 2006).

Glasser’s (2001) Choice Theory is an example of an egalitarian approach.

Glasser (2001) stated that that living creatures do what they believe is satisfying. He

believed that a failure of schools is their refusal to acknowledge that students need to

be actively engaged in their learning and to gain some immediate satisfaction from the

work they do. Through Choice Theory, Glasser explained that behaviour is always our

best attempt to satisfy powerful forces which are built into our genetic structure,

namely love and belonging, power, freedom, fun and survival (Glasser, 2001). He

proposed that students, being driven by their needs, simply behave in a manner to fulfil

whatever needs they detect are unsatisfied. The concept of basic needs satisfaction as

reflected in Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs is embedded in Choice Theory. In

Choice Theory, motivation can be thought of as a drive to satisfy needs. Glasser

suggested that we act to meet our needs, and that all behaviour derives from this

starting point, clearly a derivative from Maslow’s work (Slavin, 2009).

Glasser (2001) identified successful classrooms as ones that incorporate teacher

collaboration with students, teacher commitment to ongoing self-reflection, and active

engagement of students in their learning. This approach differs greatly from Assertive

Discipline, as Choice Theory is concerned with the experiences of the students

themselves, a quality curriculum, and satisfying needs. Both students and teachers

have equal voice in the classroom, with decisions being collaboratively constructed;

thus reciprocal relationships are highly valued in such classrooms, Glasser (1998)

stating that our basic need to love and belong is satisfied in a teacher-fostered climate

of caring.

Although once in favour, Glasser’s approach is now less evidenced in

Queensland schools than behavioural approaches such as Positive Behaviour for

Learning (PBL). Additionally, there is a scarcity of research providing evidence of the

efficacy of Choice Theory implementation in classrooms. A recent search of one

popular education database (ERIC) using the search terms “Choice Theory” and

“behaviour” reveals one research project, a case study which investigated the use of

Choice Theory by one teacher in a year 3 classroom (J. Irvine, 2015), and studies


relating to counselling students in the middle years of school (Walter, Lambie, &

Ngazimbi, 2008) and to children of prisoners (Shillingford & Edwards, 2008). This

lack of empirical evidence on the efficacy of Choice Theory in classrooms may be a

result of the gradual shift to a greater emphasis on evidence-based practice

(Department of Education and Training, 2017a).

Queensland schools currently favour more data driven, teacher-directed and

decided approaches to behaviour (Department of Education and Training, 2014a).

However, Glasser inspired approaches to guiding behaviour have enjoyed past

attention in Queensland State school classrooms (Bryer et al., 2005), with Education

Queensland providing State-wide professional development on the Glasser based

Excellence in Teaching program to teachers and school leaders. There is evidence that

some Queensland government schools still adopt this egalitarian framework as part of

their Responsible Behaviour Plan. For example, Sunshine Beach State School in

Queensland was Australia’s first Glasser Quality School. It is currently the only school

in Queensland to fully embrace the William Glasser Institute’s accreditation standards

(Sunshine Beach State School, 2017). Further investigation as to why this well-known

democratic approach has not continued to be widely adopted in Queensland schools

would be valuable, as there is no information publicly available regarding why it fell

out of favour with Queensland schools.

Another egalitarian approach that appears to have acceptance in early childhood

education and care is the guidance approach. Early childhood educators have long

asserted their independence from traditional roles and functions associated with

authoritarian behaviour approaches like classroom discipline (Gartrell, 2014; Katz,

1972; Polat, Kaya, & Akdag, 2013). Dan Gartrell’s (2014) guidance approach has

much synergy with early childhood philosophy. It promotes a developmental view of

behaviour, as well as the teaching and learning of democratic life skills.

The guidance approach is closely linked with the Developmentally Appropriate

Practice (DAP) literature (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Gartrell, 2014). The DAP

movement describes children aged 0-8 years as unique people, with varying individual

patterns for growth. In DAP, curriculum and pedagogy should be responsive to

individual differences among children’s abilities and interests (Copple & Bredekamp,

2009). The guidance approach bases behavioural strategies on children’s individual

characteristics and needs, where behaviour is tailored to meet particular children’s


circumstances and requirements. Guidance approaches are viewed as collaborative,

involving both children and families in developing solutions to problems. Positive

teacher-child relations are central to the guidance approach, where teachers are

responsible for communicating respectfully with children and forging strong

reciprocal partnerships with their families (Gartrell, 2014).

In early childhood education and care discourses, developmental explanations

for behaviour have been critiqued for proposing a predictable series of fixed

developmental milestones that can be used to explain children’s behaviours; these have

their roots in Jean Piaget’s stage theory and the psychoanalytic theories of Sigmund

Freud (Alberto & Troutman, 2006). Cannella (2005) and Ryan and Grieshaber (2005)

have challenged the view of children’s lock-step developmental progressions and

raised reconceptualist and postmodernist perspectives respectively to provide an

awareness that children possess a range of knowledges that derive from diverse

contexts, cultures and social experiences. Despite such challenges to

developmentalism, Piaget viewed autonomy as a central goal of education, an idea

adopted by Gartrell in the guidance approach (2014). Gartrell found additional

relevance for the guidance approach in Piaget’s theory of cognitive development,

which proposes that children develop schemes or patterns of thinking when dealing

with objects in the world; and that they adjust and adapt these processes when

developing understandings about new objects and events (Gruber & Voneche, 1977).

Hence, in a guidance approach teachers support children’s interactions with objects

and people as they construct knowledge from these transactions. Vygotsky’s view of

children’s cognitive development and socio-cultural learning is also synonymous with

a guidance approach to behaviour, where adults scaffold, support and teach new

behaviours with the aim of increasing the children’s autonomy in their ability to

regulate their own behaviour. This is in opposition to views that support the use of

corrections or punishment to control children’s behaviour (Gartrell, 2014).

Gartrell (2014) stated that the term discipline has proved controversial due to its

close tie with the term punishment. Punishment is not a practice that is used in the

guidance approach, as the focus is on the teaching of democratic life skills in what is

promoted as an encouraging classroom. Gartrell (2014) proposed the term ‘mistaken’

behaviour when discussing children’s behaviour, stating that with the learning of new

skills and concepts, behavioural mistakes inevitably occur. Teachers see mistakes as


quite appropriate when looking at children’s academic errors, providing children with

assistance and practice of skills to master these new concepts. However this same view

and support of learning is often not afforded to the social errors that children make

(Gartrell, 2014). The three levels of mistaken behaviour developed by Gartrell (2014)

have contributed a system for understanding these behaviours. These are, (i)

experimentation: where children due to their natural curiosity and lack of experience

may be involved in unintentional conflict; (ii) social influence: that is where children’s

actions (mistaken behaviours) are unintentionally reinforced by others; and (iii) strong

needs, where children’s behaviour is a reaction to difficulty or pain in their life that is

beyond their coping capacity (Gartrell, 2014).

Gartrell’s (2014) guidance approach has much synergy with early childhood

pedagogy and curriculum. The approach advocates for strategies and considerations

necessary for optimal teaching and learning in the early years, such as attention to the

classroom environment, routines, management of transitions, as well as effective

communication, conflict resolution and problem solving skills which are seen as

necessary to address mistaken behaviour. Interventions to assist crisis management in

this approach consist of, (i) being direct: describing the behaviour without labelling,

expressing displeasure without insult, and correction by direction; (ii) commanding a

choice: which includes inviting (prevention), requesting (problem solving) and

commanding (imminent crisis-level) choice making; (iii) calming and teaching: the

use of calming techniques (such as acknowledging feelings) and teaching children self-

removal; and (iv) supportive physical restraint: where as a last resort teachers use “the

passive bear hug” to help calm children in crisis and to minimise harm (to self or

others).

Gartrell (2011) promoted a shift away from time out as a punishment to a “cool-

down time” (p.151). This provides an opportunity for teachers to assist students to

settle by prompting retreat from a situation. Mediation can then be effectively

implemented. A challenge for teachers may be the lack of training in developing

appropriate communication skills, successful conflict resolution and the problem

solving skills needed for this approach. Gartrell (2014) defined the encouraging

classroom as beginning within the minds of its teachers. This may be the approach’s

largest pitfall, as it requires a shift of thinking for teachers who may be more familiar


with the traditional behavioural strategies of rewarding and punishing behaviour and

the school-based behaviour policies which often support this practice.

Yet another egalitarian behaviour approach recently introduced into some

Australian schools is that of Restorative Justice (RJ). Sometimes also known as

Restorative Practices (RP), RJ is an approach to managing student behaviour that has

been adopted in some Queensland Independent schools (see for example Bethany

Lutheran Primary School, 2017; Villanova College, 2017). Thought to have first

emerged from criminal justice, RJ focuses on the harmful effects of offenders’ actions,

actively involving victims and offenders in reparation and rehabilitation (Van Ness &

Strong, 2010). Howard Zehr is known as one of the first articulators of restorative

justice theory and was one of the initial writers on the first of three key programs that

influenced the development of restorative justice. These three key programs are: (i)

victim-offender mediation; (ii) conferencing; and (iii) circles (Van Ness & Strong,

2010).

Van Ness and Strong (2010) stated that victim-offender mediation evolved from

the criminal justice system and began as a community-based program in America. Its

purpose was to impact offenders, helping them to understand the harm caused to their

victims, and to promote healing. Conferencing, based in social welfare rather than

criminal justice, emerged from New Zealand around 1989, and was introduced as an

approach to replace the Youth Court for most young offenders (Van Ness & Strong,

2010). It demonstrated some likeness with the Maori process for families taking

collective responsibility for offenders and making things right with the victim and the

victim’s family. This approach was adapted by police in Australia as an alternative to

charging young offenders with juvenile offences. In Canada, emerging around the

same time as conferencing were circles, also known as sentencing circles, community

circles, and healing circles, which drew on Aboriginal understandings of justice.

These circles promoted a sense of shared responsibility, led to a search for new options,

encouraged participation and understanding of underlying causes (Van Ness & Strong,

2010).

RJ or RP has been adapted for use in classrooms and is characterised by high

levels of teacher support, clear boundaries and collaborative problem solving. This

conversational approach to managing student behaviour focuses on fair process,

responsibility and accountability, and the repair of relationships that have been


damaged (Thorsborne & Vinegrad, 2008). An RJ approach favours collaborative rule

setting in the classroom and promotes teacher development of an interesting, engaging

curriculum which is well organised and prepared (Thorsborne & Vinegrad, 2008).

Classroom conferences are a key strategy and serve to establish links between

curriculum, pedagogy and behaviour management. Like the guidance approach, RJ

rejects punishments. González (2012) and Thorsborne and Vinegrad (2008) stated that

punitive approaches such as punishing wrongdoings are often in contrast to the beliefs

and values that underpin school curricula and pedagogical practices. The notion of RJ

or RP in practice then seems complementary to early childhood pedagogy and

philosophy.

As a set of approaches, egalitarian approaches are those that seek to engage

students and encourage self-awareness and self-reflection. They aim at teaching

students the skills they need to regulate their own behaviour, engage meaningfully with

learning and interact effectively with others. These approaches contrast greatly with

the authoritarian approaches summarised in the previous section, which are more about

teachers controlling student behaviour in order to minimise classroom distractions.

This next section will examine mixed approaches to behaviour.

2.6.5 Mixed Approaches

Approaches to behaviour that mix approaches share the strengths and

weaknesses of whichever approaches are adopted. They may allow for a high degree

of adult control of behaviour but can also be child-centred, effectively teaching self-

management skills (Porter, 2006). Elements from Bandura’s (1969) social learning

theory can be seen in mixed approaches to behaviour. Observing behaviours,

modelling and self-regulated learning are seen to place students in a position of control

regarding their learning. Opportunities for students to set goals, self-evaluate, and self-

monitor, and adult reinforcement of their successes are hallmarks of Bandura’s social

learning theory as applied in classrooms (Bandura, 1969).

In a slightly different vein, Meichenbaum’s (1977) model of self-regulated

learning centres on both behavioural and cognitive principles for behavioural change.

Meichenbaum advocated for teaching students to think about their own thinking as a

way to encourage self-regulated learning. Biemiller and Meichenbaum (1992)

proposed that teachers be good observers and listeners of students’ task-directive

speech, provide students with tasks that just exceed their present abilities, and employ


instructional techniques like “teacher think-alouds, labelling of student meta-cognitive

behaviour, explicit cognitive instruction with feedback, and evaluative discussions,

reciprocal teaching, scaffolding and cooperative learning” (p.77-78). Meichenbaum’s

model has influenced the cognitive behavioural approaches for the management of

behaviour in schools (Slavin, 2009).

Cognitive behaviourism has enjoyed some significant attention in schools in the

past. This has been evidenced in social cognitive training programs being made

available. These have been usually delivered in Australian schools through individual

therapy sessions conducted by guidance officers. Cognitive behaviourism aims to

correct student behaviour by retraining students’ thinking, and centres on the logical

construction of knowledge rather than the social construction of knowledge (Bertrand,

1995). Albert Ellis’s Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy (REBT), the pioneering

form of cognitive behaviour therapy, is an action-oriented approach to managing

cognitive, emotional or behavioural disturbances (The Albert Ellis Institute, 2014).

Drawn from behaviourism, REBT seeks to teach students that their emotions are

generated by their thoughts. It helps them to be aware of and to correct faulty thinking

that contributes to their emotional unease (A. Ellis & Joffe-Ellis, 2011). Cognitive

behaviourism supports the teaching of self-discipline; while the behavioural

component engages external controls in the form of encouragement and consequences

to reinforce behaviour.

Psychodynamic theories have been evidenced within the foundations of school-

based Adlerian behaviour intervention programs. Adler (as cited in Ansbacher &

Ansbacher, 1956), along with Freud (1938) and Jung (2005), were major contributors

to the development of the psychodynamic approaches to therapy. Adler’s social-

psychological and teleological view of human nature differed to Freud’s biological and

deterministic points of view (Corey, 1996). Adlerian orientation was described by

Corey (1996) as phenomenological, with an emphasis on understanding the

individual’s own beliefs and reality (Corey, 1996). A number of school counsellor led

intervention programs have been influenced by Individual Psychology and an Adlerian

approach, and claim to positively affect student academic and social effectiveness. One

such approach is called Ready to Learn (RTL), which includes an Adlerian emphasis

on the need for belonging, encouragement and the attainment of social skills. Villares,

Brigman and Peluso (2008) provided an overview of the research on Ready to Learn


and reported that students who received the RTL intervention scored significantly

higher on listening comprehension and behaviour related to academic and social skills.

While RTL was purported to be an innovative evidence-based approach for

introducing critical learning and social skills to early-elementary aged students, this

approach required guidance counsellors and RTL trained teachers to implement it.

Although results had shown a positive effect, the program’s long term effectiveness

for students had not been established via comparison studies (Villares et al., 2008).

Another example of a program drawing from Adlerian theory is Student Success

Skills (SSS) (Urbina, Villares, & Mariani, 2017; Villares, Lemberger, Brigman, &

Webb, 2011; Webb, Lemberger, & Brigman, 2008). The SSS program was developed

around academic, social and self-management skill-sets and focused on goal setting

with reflection on students’ thinking and feelings (Webb et al., 2008). Optimism was

taught, with students learning to challenge pessimistic thinking, replacing unhelpful

thoughts with optimistic language. In addition, the building of cognition and memory

skills, and the ability to perform under pressure, to manage test anxiety, as well as to

build a community of caring, support and encouragement, were delivered in large and

small group interventions. This program was evaluated in a study that involved 336

fifth-grade students from one Florida school district using a pre-post quasi-

experimental cohort group study design (Mariani, Webb, Villares, & Brigman, 2015).

In this study, which examined prosocial behaviours, bullying behaviours, engagement

in school success skills, and perceptions of classroom climates, the treatment group

outperformed the comparison group of students. Results showed that the teaching of

cognitive, social and self-management skills increased students’ prosocial skills,

reduced bullying behaviour and promoted a positive classroom climate (Mariani et al.,

2015). This intervention program showed promise; however, like RTL, it required the

support of trained school counsellors to deliver the program. This in itself may limit

the scope of its effectiveness as it is dependent on appropriate funding and personnel.

Maurice Balson’s (1996) work on Understanding Classroom Behaviour was an

Adlerian approach to behaviour that was popular in Australian schools in the 1990s.

Balson (1996) believed that students are active decision makers who develop their own

personalities by their phenomenological view of experience; and that all behaviour is

purposeful and represents an attempt at meeting their present and future needs (Lyons,

Ford, & Aurthur-Kelly, 2011). Balson (1996) claimed that belonging is a key


motivation for behaviour and that students’ feelings of inadequacy and fear of rejection

were a central factor in learning failure and behavioural challenges. Further, he

proposed that all behaviour has goals and that teachers need to understand and reflect

upon the goal of the behaviour in order to intervene appropriately. Balson

conceptualised the goals of student misbehaviour as: attention seeking; power;

revenge; and escape by withdrawal (Balson, 1996).

These behaviour goals, according to Balson (1996), can be understood by

teachers paying attention to their own feelings and observing how students react to

their attempts to guide their behaviour. Such an approach assumes that teachers have

the capacity to understand their emotions in the hurly burly of classroom activities;

and that they also have the ability to observe the interplay between their emotions and

student behaviour during teaching. This seemed a complex task given the expectations

of the teaching day. A clear limitation of this approach was the ability for teachers to

make errors when assessing the goals of misbehaviour. Indeed it seems that during the

identification and diagnosis of these goals, a range of teacher interpretations may have

been possible. This interpretative approach is a departure from the behaviourist

approach where teachers are to be impartial in observing students’ behaviour.

In Balson’s (1996) approach, the use of encouragement (rather than praise) and

the application of both natural and logical behavioural consequences were seen to

enhance students’ feelings of self-worth, to develop student responsibility and to foster

positive teacher-student relationships. In addition, teaching approaches aimed to

emphasise individual student success, focusing on students’ strengths and

competencies, rather than on their deficits. Whilst behaviour approaches in school such

as those advocated by Balson (1996) and Dreikurs, et al. (2004) aspired to humanism

in its preventative measures, elements of authoritarian management were evident in its

behaviourist interventions (Porter, 2006). For example, Balson’s (1996) view of

parents as major contributors to children’s misbehaviour, and of children’s motives as

being intentional, suggests a distrust which may further elevate teacher authoritarian

interventions. Neo-Adlerians also largely ignore socio-cultural and environmental

considerations to behaviour which are emphasised in the more egalitarian approaches.

2.6.6 Summary of Behaviour Approaches and Theories

In summary, authoritarian approaches suggest that behaviour rests with the child

and that we must do something to the child to change the behaviour. This differs


greatly from egalitarian approaches, which emphasise the importance of relationships

and the social construction of behaviour. The latter fits well within early childhood

pedagogy, where constructivism has been a large influence in the development of

appropriate pedagogies for children in the birth to eight years period. In the next

section, we look at how pedagogy and curriculum impact on student behaviour.

2.7 CURRICULUM, PEDAGOGY AND STUDENT BEHAVIOUR

For this study it is important to discuss the interplay between curriculum,

pedagogy, student behaviour and behaviour approaches. In studying teachers’

conceptions of student behaviour and of the approaches they employ, teaching cannot

be separated from these elements. A core component of teaching is the teaching of

curriculum along with the selection of pedagogies teachers employ to enact it. Policies

state the importance of curriculum and pedagogy to the successful support of student

behaviour (SCSEEC, 2009; DEEWR, 2009; Department of Education Training and

Employment, 2006, 2012; SCSEEC, 2013).

Educational theory, research and policy have acknowledged the relationship

between curriculum, pedagogy and children’s behaviour. Teachers are required to

ensure that students are engaged in learning, and it has been widely acknowledged that

this engagement - or lack of - it affects student behaviour (Archambault,

Vandenbossche-Makombo, & Fraser, 2017; Department of Education Training and

Employment, 2006; S. Ellis & Tod, 2010; Ministerial Advisory Committee for

Educational Renewal [MACER], 2005; L. Overton & Sullivan, 2008; Ravet, 2007b;

SCSEEC, 2013; Sullivan et al., 2014).

Links between curriculum, pedagogy and student behaviour have been made by

behaviour theorists and advocates. Porter’s (2006) text on behaviour in schools, which

had been widely used as a resource in pre-service teacher education in Australia at the

time of this study, advised teachers that views about children as passive learners have

evolved to views of children as active learners and agents of and in their own learning.

From the traditional perspective of children as passive learners, the teacher’s task was

to ensure orderly behaviour as necessary for learning to occur. In contrast, an emphasis

on children as active learners placed teachers’ attention on catering for their

educational and developmental needs, recognising their unique capabilities and their


role as active agents in their learning (Department of Education and Training, 2015b;

Porter, 2014).

Glasser (1998) also theorised the linkages between curriculum, pedagogy and

student behaviour, arguing that behavioural disruptions in classrooms should be

recognised as an educational issue rather than a behavioural difficulty attributed to

students. He advocated for the adjustment of teaching and learning processes to make

them more engaging for students. Glasser (1998) believed that when learning is

engaging and relevant to students’ needs and interests, with students actively involved

with teachers in the educational process, there will be little need for coercion (Glasser,

1998; L. Overton & Sullivan, 2008). Porter (2006) concurred with this stance, stating,

“…young people will both learn and desist disrupting learning when what they are

asked to learn meets their intellectual, social and emotional needs.” (Porter, 2006, p.

21)

Discussing learning and achievement, Glasser (1998) suggested that school

administrators fall into the trap of thinking that discipline problems, rather than

unsatisfying education, are the cause of low levels of achievement. He suggested that

teachers, fearing their students’ failure on testing and measure fragments, tend to

narrow the curriculum and teach to the test, rather than provide an engaging and rich

curriculum (Glasser, 1998). Similarly, the current dilemma of Prep teachers being

challenged by the constraints of the Australian Curriculum at the time of this study

meant that the development of an engaging and relevant curriculum which supports

student behaviour through engagement with learning may have been compromised.

Empirical research has also shown links between curriculum, pedagogy and

student behaviour and acknowledged that effective teachers have a considerable

impact on learning (Hattie, 2003). For example, Pakarinen et al. (2011) showed that

teachers were central to effective student learning and student engagement. In a large

study of 1268 kindergarten children and 137 kindergarten teachers from Finland a

multi-method approach was adopted to examine the role of observed classroom quality

in children’s task-avoidant behaviour and math skills. Results suggested that

kindergarten teachers should pay close attention to the quality of their language use,

provision of individualised task-specific feedback, careful scaffolding of students and

the implementation of challenging tasks and activities to support student engagement

and enthusiasm for learning (Pakarinen et al., 2011).


Other research has identified the challenges associated with teachers

understanding the link between curriculum, pedagogy and student behaviour. Gore and

Parkes (2008) argued that ‘management’ is mistreated in discourses of teaching and

teacher education, deriving in part from a misunderstanding of pedagogy. Adopting a

theoretical lens provided by the work of Michel Foucault, they argued that there is a

particular conception of the ‘good teacher’ as ‘classroom manager’ which produces a

situation in which teachers are likely to desire classroom order over the creation of an

intellectually engaging learning environment. Teachers are judged to be successful by

colleagues and parents if they are good classroom managers, irrespective of whether

the learning is high or not. Thus the authors clearly saw the separation of behaviour

management from pedagogy (Gore & Parkes, 2008). Additionally Ravet’s (2007b)

study on student disengagement and Sullivan et al.’s (2014) Behaviour at School Study

(BASS) found that teachers did not acknowledge curriculum as a consideration in

relation to disengagement, further adding weight to this argument. In line with socio-

constructivist views of learning in early childhood education, which support the

relationship between curriculum, pedagogy and student behaviour, the more

egalitarian theories, such as that of Gartrell (2014) and Glasser (2001), can be

recognised as influential to behaviour approaches that support this relationship

(Education Queensland, 2007a; Millei, 2011).

Finally, policy in Queensland has also acknowledged the relationship between

curriculum, pedagogy and behaviour. For example, in Queensland, the Ministerial

Advisory Council for Educational Renewal [MACER] (2005) acknowledged that the

foundation of classroom management was effective instruction and curriculum design.

The Smart Schools, Smart Behaviour report was commissioned by the Queensland

Minister for Education and the Arts in 2005 after concerns about behaviour and

behaviour management in Queensland schools were discussed by the MACER in its

inaugural 2004 meeting. They resolved at this time to establish a Behaviour

Management Sub-Committee. Membership included teacher unions and academic,

education, wider social sciences and human services experts. Terms of reference were

developed to make recommendations to the Minister to redefine the field of behaviour

management to include ‘student achievement’ and to identify preferred practices and

principles for behaviour management in schools (MACER, 2005). The committee has

since been disbanded under a subsequent government change.


In acknowledging the relationship between learning and behaviour, the

committee (2005) identified incidents ranging from minor infringements to serious

misdemeanours as likely to occur in schools due to the maturation of students and a

lack of fit between curriculum and students’ interests and experiences. The committee

were influenced by Grunseit, Weatherburn, and Donnelly’s (2005) research that

reported the probability of a student physically attacking other students at school

increasing under certain conditions, including if students spent a lot of time copying

out of textbooks or from the blackboard, if the teacher spent more time controlling the

class than teaching, if the student felt his fellow students were racist, or if the teacher

had less than five years of teaching experience. The committee (2005) importantly

acknowledged the connections between behaviour management, the management of

teaching and learning, and relationships between teachers and students in promoting

the academic, social, economic and personal benefits of education. These connections

are central also to this study.

2.8 STUDENT MOTIVATION, ENGAGEMENT AND STUDENT

BEHAVIOUR

The research on student motivation and engagement is important to this study

because of the close relationship between motivation, academic engagement and

positive student behaviour. In a study of 566 secondary students in The Netherlands,

Opdenakker, Maulana, and Den Brok (2012) sought to understand teachers’ influence

on the development of academic motivation. The study found that positive student

perceptions of their relationships with teachers were significant predictors of students’

autonomous motivation, suggesting that teachers’ relationships with students are

influential to students’ motivational engagement with their learning. Importantly for

this study, student motivation and engagement with learning was seen to decrease

levels of disruptive behaviour (Archambault et al., 2017; McKissick, Hawkins, Lentz,

Hailley, & McGuire, 2010).

First in this section (2.8.1) is a review of the literature on engagement and student

behaviour, followed by a review of the literature on motivation and student behaviour

in section 2.8.2.


2.8.1 Engagement and Student Behaviour

Educational literature in the area of student engagement has revealed that a high

level of student support reduces the likelihood of problem student behaviours and

promotes engagement with learning, leading to better academic outcomes (Glasser,

1998; Quin, 2017; Rimm Kaufman, La Paro, Downer, & Pianta, 2005). High levels of

emotional and instructional support for student learning have been seen to contribute

positively to students’ academic outcomes. In a systematic review of 46 published

studies, Quin (2017) examined adolescent students’ engagement and associated school

teacher-student relationships. He found that better quality student-teacher relationships

were associated with a lower rate of disruptive student behaviour and suspensions and

with a higher rate of psychological engagement, academic achievement and

attendance.

Research has also shown that positive relationships between teachers and

students and a democratic style of teaching can support student engagement. Ravet

(2007b), who studied student, parent and teacher perceptions of classroom behaviour,

strongly emphasised that teachers’ positive approaches to relationships and styles of

teaching contribute positively to students’ willingness to engage in learning. Ravet’s

(2007b) research reported on a case study example where a teacher’s positive approach

to relationships and democratic style of teaching contributed positively to her

understanding of students, resulting in positive outcomes for disengaged students.

Effective student-teacher relationships are thus central to student engagement.

Student engagement is supported in democratic classrooms with an engaging

curriculum. Overton and Sullivan’s (2008) interpretive study in a democratic

classroom revealed that non-compliance was most often reported by students when

teachers shared less power, and when students lacked a clear, meaningful purpose to

their activities and learning. Overton and Sullivan (2008) sought the perceptions of

students and their teacher in an Australian year 4/5 classroom whilst examining

compliance. They attempted to gain insights into students’ perspectives on those

occasions when they did not comply with the teacher’s directives. It was found that

student explanations for disengagement centred on a lack of interest or boredom with

an activity. Additionally, off-task behaviour was seen by students to escalate, creating

peer conflict and power struggles between class members when clear expectations,

outcomes and deadlines were not made explicit (L. Overton & Sullivan, 2008).


Overton and Sullivan (2008) found that a democratic classroom, with the teacher

implementing shared decision-making with students and enabling child choice,

provided for greater compliance and on-task behaviours.

In one of the few phenomenographic studies of teacher conceptions of student

engagement in learning, Harris (2008) uncovered a conception of behavioural

understandings. In this study of secondary teachers working in Queensland

government schools in the Central Coast District, a category emerged from the data

where having students who were ‘behaving properly’ was important to teachers. This

category centred on the perception that when students were engaged in learning, they

were no longer a management problem to the teachers. Harris (2008) stated that this

view depicted learning as teacher-prescribed and teacher-directed, where students

meet the behavioural requirements of their teachers.

Student engagement increases when teachers use positive behaviour approaches,

however teachers are more often inclined to respond negatively. As part of an

Australian study, Roache and Lewis (2011b) compared data from two interrelated

questionnaires from 3500 secondary students. They found that these students listed

punishment as the teaching strategy occurring most frequently to address challenging

behaviours in classrooms. Accordingly, students who perceived greater use of

aggressive teacher strategies felt less connected or interested in their school work. In

another Australian research study conducted in Melbourne primary schools, Clunies-

Ross et al. (2008) examined the use of proactive and reactive teaching strategies in

responding to student behaviour. Using questionnaires and teacher observation with

97 teachers, findings reported that although teachers responded to students’ academic

behaviours more positively than negatively, there was a higher than average number

of negative responses observed in relation to students’ social behaviours. This implied

that teachers used predominantly more reactive than positive strategies when

addressing challenging behaviours (Clunies-Ross et al., 2008). With research

illustrating that student on-task behaviour is shown to increase through the use of

positive management strategies, rather than disapproval or reactive strategies, it is

curious that reactive or negative responses are so often employed by teachers when

addressing these social behaviours (Garcia & Hoang, 2015; Hollingshead, Kroeger,

Altus, & Trytten, 2016; J. Overton, 2009; Ravet, 2007b).


Not only are negative responses to behaviour unhelpful for student engagement,

research has also shown that less student engagement is evidenced if the teacher is

more goal focused (Hughes, Wu, & West, 2011). Hughes et al. (2011) studied

longitudinally the performance goal practices in the early elementary years of school

(from grades 2-5) in Texas, proposing that teacher instructional goal practices may

have implications for student engagement in learning. In their study, they explored the

effect of teacher-reported performance goal practices on growth trajectories for

teacher-reported behavioural engagement of students. Ratings of student behaviour

engagement for low achieving students (n=497) showed that as students moved to

classrooms with new teachers who placed less emphasis on performance-oriented goal

structures, they became more behaviourally engaged. From these findings, Hughes et

al. (2011) concluded that it was important to support teachers to increase the use of

mastery-oriented practices, such as rewarding effort, providing private performance

feedback and utilizing cooperative learning tasks for increasing behavioural

engagement (Hughes et al., 2011).

It seems from this research that teachers struggle with understanding how to

effectively support student behaviour and engagement in learning. This review of

literature adds emphasis to the need to further study and understand teachers’

approaches with student behaviour in their classrooms.

2.8.2 Motivation and Student Behaviour

Approaches to motivate student behaviour, such as rewards, stickers and charts,

can be observed in early years classrooms, implemented by teachers as a way of

generating student compliance and motivation (Moberly, Waddle, & Duff, 2005).

Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001) agreed, stating that motivational methods in

education have long delivered teaching approaches such as gold stars, tokens, best

student awards and other systems to reward behaviour. The use of rewards, however,

has been hotly debated in the literature on motivation (Doidge, 2005; Hidi, 2016;

Moberly et al., 2005). While behaviourists argue for the effectiveness of these

approaches, other researchers and progressive education writers such as Alfie Kohn

contend that extrinsic rewards serve to undermine intrinsic motivation in students

(Deci et al., 2001; Kelsey, 2011; Kohn, 2001). In a meta-analysis of 96 experimental

studies using between-group designs to compare reward subjects to non-reward

controls for four measures of intrinsic motivation, Cameron and Pierce (1994) found


that the use of rewards significantly weakened intrinsic motivation. This research

reveals a theory-practice divide, where what is known as good practice is not widely

evidenced. In a more contemporary meta-analysis of 154 research articles, conference

papers, dissertations and unpublished research on intrinsic motivation and task-

performance, Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford (2014) found that extrinsic incentives are

better predictors of quantity than of quality performance. This finding has important

implications for education settings, as the development of high quality student work is

a major educational goal in schools.

Taking into account students’ learning preferences or interests and providing

students with choice, helps to motivate and engage them in learning. Gillen, Wright

and Spink’s (2011) study of 116 year 7 and 8 students in one UK middle-school found

that students were more likely to be motivated when their preferences for learning were

acknowledged. This mixed-methods study, which involved focus group interviews and

questionnaires, sought student perceptions on positive learning environments and

showed that motivation increased when students were involved in making choices, and

in particular could choose who they would work with. Similarly, Tas (2016) researched

315 Turkish sixth and seventh grade middle-school students’ perceptions of

engagement in science as related to classroom learning, environment variables and

motivational factors. Tas (2016) used the What is Happening in This Class?

questionnaire to gather students’ perceptions of the classroom learning environment

(that is, teacher support, student cohesiveness and equity) and of motivation (their self-

efficacy beliefs and achievement goals). From the data it was found that students

receiving teacher support reported high levels of cognitive, behavioural, emotional and

agentic engagement. This finding has important implications for this study, as it

positions the teachers’ role as pivotal to the successful engagement of students.

From a Vygotskian perspective, Zuckerman (2003) has articulated the

relationship between motivation and students’ engagement with learning specifically

in the early years of school. She stated that educators must seek to motivate students

through authentic learning contexts in an effort to combat boring, meaningless

learning. When children learn through active engagement with each other, teachers

gain pertinent information about individuals and groups, and student motivation for

learning is increased (Roopnarine & Johnson, 2005). Research on the relationship

between motivation, engagement and behaviour has also shown the importance of


collaborative learning, explicit outcomes, student feedback in the form of positive

acknowledgement, teacher attention to academic engagement and teachers being able

to connect with children’s perspectives (Gillen et al., 2011; J. Overton, 2009; Ravet,

2007b; Sullivan et al., 2014).

The research presented in this section sheds light on the relationship between

motivation, engagement with learning and student behaviour; however it does not

specifically address teachers’ perceptions of student behaviour. The next section

addresses this body of literature.

2.9 TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS, BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES TOWARD

STUDENT BEHAVIOUR

Teachers’ views of student behaviour along with the approaches they use, are

important to this study. Many studies have focused on teacher perceptions of

disengaged or disruptive student behaviour in the classroom. Mostly these studies

centre on the difficulties teachers experience and the effect of these behaviours on

teacher well-being, classroom order and student learning. These studies provide an

important perspective: that of teachers’ everyday classroom experiences with student

behaviour. In section 2.9.1, research related to teachers’ perceptions of student

behaviour that hold implications for teacher well-being are first reviewed. In section

2.9.2, research revealing teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards student behaviour is

examined; and, finally, literature that shows a theory practice divide is reviewed in

section 2.9.3.

2.9.1 Teachers’ Well-Being

The effects of disruptive behaviour on teachers are well documented in the

literature. Teacher stress, well-being and confidence are seen to be impacted by

disruptive and disengaged student behaviour (Arbuckle & Little, 2004; De Nobile,

London, & El Baba, 2015). These disruptive behaviours have also served as a catalyst

for teachers to exit the profession (Buchanan, 2010). The findings of Clunies-Ross et

al.’s (2008) study showed that teachers perceived workload and student misbehaviour

to be the two highest sources of stress, and that teachers’ use of reactive strategies to

address behavioural disruptions was a significant predictor of stress. Additionally, in

the 2013 Staff in Australia’s Schools Study, the most commonly perceived need for


professional learning expressed by early career teachers was dealing with difficult

student behaviours (McKenzie et al., 2014).

The results from four Australian studies have indicated the behaviours that

concern teachers most are those that are minor in intensity but occur frequently

(Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Crawshaw, 2015; J. Overton,

2009). Talking out of turn (TOOT) was cited by teachers as the most frequent and

troublesome behaviour, followed by hindering other children (HOC). In Ravet’s

(2007b) study, teachers reported that disengaged students were those who persistently

rejected, resisted or refused formal learning tasks, resulting in regular off-task

behaviours such as chatting, daydreaming, walking around, playing and fighting.

Both inservice and preservice teachers seem to struggle with disruptive student

behaviours and this affects teachers’ confidence. Rosas and West (2009) found that

while preservice teachers held positive beliefs about classroom management, they

indicated a low level of confidence in their ability to guide an unruly student to on-

task behaviour. Research has indicated that teacher confidence is often related to

classroom behaviour (Arbuckle & Little, 2004). Tillery et al. (2010) reported that

teachers directly viewed their competency as dependent on their ability to manage the

classroom and student behaviour. While research on teacher confidence reports that

teachers generally feel confident in managing behaviours in the classroom across a

variety of school contexts, there are also limitations to these studies due to the

predominant use of surveys to gather data (Butler & Monda-Amaya, 2016; McKenzie

et al., 2014; Ravet, 2007b; Tillery et al., 2010).

Challenging student behaviour impacts negatively on teacher-student

relationships, with implications for both student and teacher well-being. Axup and

Gersch’s (2008) small scale study of nine year-8 teachers in London, using open-ended

questionnaires, sought to elicit attitudes regarding the impact of behaviour on their

professional and personal lives. The study revealed that teachers tended to distance

themselves emotionally from students when dealing with behaviour as a ‘survival’

technique. This research suggests that teachers are not aware of students’ perceptions

and feeling states and this may serve as a barrier to creating appropriate relationships

based on mutual understandings between students and teachers, and may further

contribute to disengaged classroom behaviours and a decline in teacher well-being.


2.9.2 Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes

Teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about student behaviour influence how they

approach behaviour. Research has continually reported that teachers are far more likely

to attribute student disengagement to ‘self’ factors, such as student deficits and family

background, rather than to their teaching (Grieve, 2009; Ravet, 2007b; Sullivan et al.,

2014). Teachers have made sense of behaviour using a variety of deficit models

implying that behaviour is beyond the direct influence of the classroom or the teacher

(Orsati & Causton-Theoharis, 2013). A deficit approach has been described in the

literature as a focus on what students cannot do, with teachers responding with

attempts to fix the deficit (Zakaria, Care, & Griffin, 2016).

Findings from research into teachers’ perceptions of inclusion suggest that

teachers do not consider adapting their curriculum or pedagogy to accommodate the

needs of students with behavioural difficulties. For example, Grieve (2009) found

through a two-part qualitative study on practitioners’ beliefs that many teachers

favoured the term ‘normal’ children, implying that those with social, emotional and

behavioural difficulties were in some way abnormal. Using principles from grounded

theory and aspects from phenomenology, Grieve (2009) sought to elicit teacher

attitudes towards supporting children with challenging behaviour. Findings in this

study reported that one third of all teachers felt that inclusion of students with social,

emotional or behavioural difficulties was detrimental to the education of others, and

suggested that teachers felt students had to fit the system. This is contrary to current

educational literature and policy which cites the importance of accommodating diverse

learners’ needs (Department of Education and Training, 2017c; Grieve, 2009; Orsati

& Causton-Theoharis, 2013; Petriwskyj et al., 2014).

Fundamental to teachers’ practices are their beliefs about children and their

behaviours, and their personal and professional values, and practices which are

informed by the two bodies of knowledge: discipline and education (Porter, 2006,

2014). It was timely then that this study sought to investigate teachers’ practice with

student behaviour at a deeper level, to fully comprehend what teachers do with student

behaviour in the classroom and the intentional attitude behind these practices.


2.9.3 Theory-Practice Divide

Research has uncovered the fact that teachers’ beliefs may not particularly align

with their practice. Through a synthesis of the literature, it was found that teachers

struggle with implementing what is known as good practice in supporting student

behaviour. For example, building upon their previous study, Roache and Lewis

(2011b) examined views of 145 primary and 363 secondary school teachers from

Victoria, Australia, on their behaviour management styles. Findings from a

questionnaire suggested that when students misbehave, teachers become concerned

and appear to respond with a style of management that combines punishments with

aggressive and hostile behaviour. This management style was consequently seen to

escalate misbehaviour and increase student distraction (Roache & Lewis, 2011b). In a

similar vein, Sullivan et al.’s (2014) study revealed that teachers found low-level

disruptive and disengaged behaviours challenging to manage and surmised that they

often employed strategies that were not necessarily effective.

It seems that preservice teachers’ beliefs about how children learn best do not

align with their practice. DellaMattera’s (2011) qualitative study on the perceptions of

61 preservice early educators in American universities found a disconnect between

beliefs on how children best learn social skills and what adults reported they would do

to support social behaviour. Preservice teachers believed that students best learn these

social behaviours through modelling, however they believed the best way to address

social difficulties is through direct instruction. These findings suggest that teachers’

beliefs may not actually match their practice and beg further investigation.

Additionally, preservice teachers did not seem to understand the importance of pre-

schoolers experimenting with a wide range of emotions. This suggests a

misunderstanding about the role behaviour plays in the lives of children in relation to

expressing their needs and discontents (DellaMattera, 2011; Gartrell, 2014).

Research has uncovered a divide between what researchers suggest as effective

behaviour management and what is actually occurring in classrooms (Dunlap et al.,

2006; Sullivan et al., 2014). For example, Dunlap et al. (2006) presented an important

review of literature, developed through a consensus building process. This included an

analysis of the evidence pertaining to the impact, prevention and intervention of

challenging behaviour in young children. The authors argued that there was a lack of

correspondence between what is known from research about effective behavioural


practices and what practices were implemented with young children with challenging

behaviour (Dunlap et al., 2006). In their quasi-experimental research Dunlap et al.

(2006) developed summary statements from the wide body of existing evidence. This

empirical work included collaboration from academics from a range of university

faculties in America, as well as other policy makers and family groups. The intention

of this study was to begin to address the theory-practice divide by formulating a strong

set of messages from the field about current knowledge, with a strong focus on both

prevention and intervention concerns (Dunlap et al., 2006).

The authors found that at a micro school level, students with severe, challenging

behaviours were seldom praised for appropriate behaviour or afforded academic

instruction, with these students often subjected to ineffective, reactive and punitive

measures. Consensus showed that the identification and provision of appropriate

services for children were also very limited (Dunlap et al., 2006). Dunlap et al. (2006)

identified future research directions to address the knowledge gaps. Intervention

research on program procedures, system components and public policies that support

the use of evidence-based practices was seen as warranted due to evidence that

indicated that the majority of research mainly centres on the variables affecting

individual children. The authors advocated for further research and the adoption of a

range of methodological approaches, including action research and multi-disciplinary

efforts (Dunlap et al., 2006).

More recently, in South Australia, Sullivan et al. (2014) used the Behaviour at

School Study Teacher Survey to probe 1380 reception to year 12 teachers’ perceptions

of the most frequently encountered student behaviours and the effectiveness of their

behaviour management strategies. Teachers reported most frequently encountering

disengaged and low-level disruptive student behaviours. Sullivan et al. (2014)

suggested that teachers most commonly used strategies of reasoning with a student and

that using a ‘step’ system may not address the underlying causes of the behaviour, that

is, the reasons for the student disengagement. The authors recommended teachers

attend to ecological factors that positively influence student engagement.

In another Australian research study conducted in Melbourne primary schools,

Clunies-Ross et al. (2008) examined the use of proactive and reactive teaching

strategies in responding to student behaviour. Using questionnaires and observations

of 97 teachers, findings reported that although teachers responded to students’


academic behaviours more positively than negatively, there was a higher than average

number of negative responses observed in relation to students’ social behaviours. This

implied that teachers used predominantly more reactive than positive strategies when

addressing challenging behaviours (Clunies-Ross et al., 2008). With research

illustrating that student on-task behaviour is shown to increase through the use of

positive management strategies, rather than disapproval or reactive strategies, it is

curious that reactive or negative responses are so often employed by teachers when

addressing these social behaviours (Garcia & Hoang, 2015; Hollingshead et al., 2016;

J. Overton, 2009; Ravet, 2007b).

Despite research findings showing negative teacher responses to student

behaviour, it is evident that teachers perceive themselves as strong influences on the

development of positive student behaviour (McKenzie et al., 2014; Tillery et al.,

2010). But although teachers’ perceptions highlight their awareness of their influence,

the prevalence of the use of ineffective strategies for guiding behaviour is of concern

(McCready & Soloway, 2010; Poulou, 2009; Ravet, 2007b; Sullivan et al., 2014).

It is evident that research into teachers’ perspectives on student behaviour have

helped to develop a picture of teachers’ classroom practice with student behaviour.

What is needed now is to investigate teachers’ behaviour approaches, to develop an

enhanced understanding of effective behaviour practice and the factors contributing to

teachers’ success with behaviour approaches. This is the focus of the current study.

2.10 TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING ON

BEHAVIOUR APPROACHES

Teacher professional development and learning is essential to effective teaching

(Earl & Timperley, 2008; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Timperley, 2011, 2015).

Internationally, professional development for teachers has been seen by Villegas-

Reimers (2003) as one of the key elements to current major world-wide educational

reform. Teachers are seen as agents of change, with professional development and

learning assisting them to adapt to new knowledge and improve educational outcomes

for students (Timperley, 2011; Villegas-Reimers, 2003).

In Australia, the Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership

(AITSL) currently drives the national agenda for teacher professional development

and learning. It is responsible for promoting and leading high quality professional


development for teachers and school leaders, and it states that quality of teaching is

the most significant in-school factor affecting student outcomes (AITSL, 2014, p. 1).

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2014) recognises the

importance of ongoing professional renewal through commitment to ongoing teacher

professional development and learning activities.

At the outset of this study, the Ministerial Advisory Committee for Educational

Renewal in Queensland (2005) had recommended to the Minister of Education and the

Arts to mandate professional development for all Queensland classroom teachers on

the combination of pedagogy, curriculum and behaviour. This recommendation was

accepted by the then Department of Education and the Arts, with the implementation

of the Code of School Behaviour in 2006 and the subsequent Better Behaviour Better

Learning package being rolled out in 2007 (Department of Education Training and

Employment, 2006; Education Queensland, 2007a). Professional development

sessions for teachers on approaching student behaviour became available via their

Learning Place online learning portal; but decision-making regarding how schools

individually spent their funding in Queensland government schools has increasingly

been the responsibility of school Principals and regional offices, rather than centrally

via head office. Therefore, provision for training of Queensland government school

teachers to address the MACERs recommendation has often been limited to individual

schools that retain this as a priority (Department of Education and Training, 2011).

Thus it seems that this particular proposal from the MACER report has since been

displaced in practice. This lost opportunity for Queensland teachers to advance their

knowledge and understandings regarding the fusing of behaviour with pedagogy and

curriculum may have served to inhibit meaningful and relevant teacher learning,

leading to subsequent disengagement of students.

The importance of professional development and learning for teachers is

apparent when reviewing research on teachers’ perceptions of student behaviour.

Many teachers feel that this is one area of their teacher preparation that has not been

adequately addressed, with many beginning teachers feeling ill-prepared to manage

classrooms (Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Buchanan, 2010; DellaMattera, 2011; Rosas &

West, 2009). Tillery et al. (2010) suggested the need for more research on the

effectiveness of professional development training, noting teachers’ limited

knowledge regarding behaviour management and the lack of quality professional


development around system-based initiatives. This study aims to contribute to the

knowledge base on teachers’ professional learning, generating understandings of how

Prep teachers experience student behaviour in an effort to develop awareness of the

range of ways teachers approach student behaviour that may lead to pedagogical

change.

Research has called for attention to the provision of professional development

and learning opportunities for teachers, to address their concerns around challenging

student behaviour (Marquez et al., 2016; McCready & Soloway, 2010; MACER, 2005;

Tsouloupas et al., 2010). Clunies-Ross et al. (2008) found that teachers regarded

professional development on student behaviour positively when it was delivered via

staff meetings or other school-based initiatives, rather than by experts. Teachers

desired more positive, practical classroom strategies for managing disruptive and

disengaged behaviour as well as additional practical support with regard to disruptive

student behaviour (Clunies-Ross et al., 2008). This finding is synonymous with

Timperley’s (2011) first principle for quality effective professional learning, where

professional learning is said to be best situated in the physical and social context in

which teaching takes place, and is part of a teacher inquiry and knowledge building

cycle that promotes important outcomes for students.

Teacher professional development and learning on approaching student

behaviour may increase teacher confidence and well-being. New teachers in schools

often develop feelings of isolation as they are left to manage disengaged and disruptive

behaviours with little classroom support (Ballantyne, 2005; Buchanan, 2010). Both

Ballantyne (2005) and Buchanan (2010) have reported a ‘culture of silence’, where

teachers seem unwilling to ask for support due to fears of being seen as incompetent.

Teachers who are provided with little classroom support to manage challenging

student behaviours may experience frustration, emotional exhaustion and stress.

Tsouloupas et al.’s (2010) study of 610 teachers from four school districts in America

elicited responses via an online study on the issue of teachers’ emotional regulation.

The research found that teachers who engaged in cognitive reappraisal, that is, where

they were able to reinterpret and decrease their negative emotions and behavioural

expressions by altering thoughts of potentially inducing events, experienced less

emotional exhaustion. Teachers who engaged in expressive suppression (shutting

down of emotions), however, reported more emotional exhaustion. Professional


development that explores strategies such as that of cognitive appraisal and

mindfulness may serve to increase teacher efficacy regarding managing disruptive

behaviours and increase teacher well-being (McCready & Soloway, 2010; Tsouloupas

et al., 2010).

It has been found that teacher professional development related to student

behaviour which centres on helping teachers to generate context-specific solutions

positively influences classroom practice. McCready and Soloway’s (2010) two-year

interpretive research project aimed to understand 50 Canadian teachers’ perceptions

of challenging student behaviour and of the strategies they employed in addressing

these behaviours. A distinction was made in this study between technical and adaptive

problems. The authors argued that teachers should not be offered technical solutions

to behavioural problems, but rather be challenged to explore the complexities of

relationships and the social and cultural dynamics in classrooms. As such, the

development of these adaptive skills was found by teachers to be pivotal in effecting

change in the classroom. McCready and Soloway (2010) promoted a professional

development model whereby experts facilitate an inquiry approach with teachers rather

than provide solutions to problems. The generation of context specific solutions to

challenging behaviours is perceived by teachers and professional development and

learning experts as particularly favourable (McCready & Soloway, 2010; Timperley,

2011). These findings are important to this study, as school-based professional

development regarding student behaviour in Queensland currently has a focus on

equipping teachers with strategies (such as the Essential Skills), rather than following

an enquiry-based process for generating individualised responses to behaviour. This

theory-practice divide provides yet another justification for examining teachers’

approaches with student behaviour.

2.11 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter has evidenced literature across the broad areas of (i) the Australian

educational context; (ii) school behaviour policy; (iii) the Prep year in Queensland;

(iv) student behaviour and the Preparatory year; (v) behaviour theories and

approaches; (vi) pedagogy, curriculum, and student behaviour; (vii) student

motivation, engagement, and student behaviour; (viii) teachers’ perceptions, beliefs

and attitudes in relation to student behaviour; and (ix) teacher professional

development and learning.


A review of the literature on teacher perceptions of student behaviour has called

for an increased emphasis on teachers’ perceptions of the interrelationship between

pedagogy, curriculum and student behaviour, particularly in the early years of

schooling in Queensland, where little current research has occurred. Research has also

indicated the necessity to further explore teachers’ actions, beliefs and values relating

to their chosen approaches to behaviour, as well as what barriers exist when enacting

their pedagogy. The theory-practice divide has also required investigation, with

attention to what teachers understand about appropriate behavioural guidance

strategies, democratic approaches and collaborative relationships with students. This

study aimed to elicit such conceptions of teachers’ approaches with student behaviour

with implications for teacher professional development and learning.

In this study, teachers’ approaches with student behaviour have been

investigated through a phenomenographic methodology. This methodology allows for

in-depth analysis of teachers’ experiences with student behaviour approaches in the

Preparatory year and reveals the range of qualitatively different ways that teachers

experience and understand their approaches. These emerging conceptions have

generated new knowledge that may ultimately influence teacher practice. The research

methodology will be presented next, in Chapter 3.

Chapter 3: Methodology 75

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Phenomenography has been chosen as the methodology for this study that

investigated teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour in the

Preparatory (Prep) year. In this chapter I will present the phenomenographic

methodology and theoretical framework, namely variation theory, and describe the

methods that were used to conduct this study. The chapter has two parts.

First, an overview of the phenomenographic methodology will be presented in

section 3.2, before introducing key terms associated with phenomenography and

variation theory that relate to this study (section 3.3). Next a rationale for using

phenomenography will be outlined in section 3.4, followed by a discussion of the

ontological and epistemological bases of phenomenography in section 3.5. In section

3.6, first and second order perspectives will be discussed, then the relationship between

phenomenography and variation theory will be unpacked (section 3.7).

Second, the data collection process and approach to data analysis are presented

in section 3.8. The ethical considerations associated with this phenomenographic study

are outlined in section 3.8.1, followed by the participant overview (3.8.2), the study

procedure (3.8.3) and the conduct of the semi-structured interviews (3.8.4). Finally a

detailed account of the conduct of analysis is provided in section 3.9, along with

explanations and examples of how the final outcome space (or findings) were derived.

Australian phenomenographer, Bowden (2000b), stated that researchers should

commence a study with a clear intention and purpose. This purpose should provide a

focus and guide researchers’ actions throughout the study. The purpose of this study

was to explore how Prep teachers experience and conceptualise their approaches with

student behaviour in their day-to-day teaching. Through conducting

phenomenographic teacher interviews, applying phenomenographic methods and

analysing the data using variation theory, the range of ways that Prep teachers

approach student behaviour is revealed. This provides a catalyst for reflection upon

76 Chapter 3: Methodology

these approaches, which can in turn generate an awareness of how to best support

teacher professional learning on behaviour approaches.

3.2 OVERVIEW OF PHENOMENOGRAPHY

Phenomenography is an empirical research tradition. The central claim of

empiricism is that experience is the only source of knowledge (Paley, 2008); and it is

this notion of experience as knowledge that is a key aspect of phenomenography. The

aim of phenomenographic research is to describe qualitatively different ways of

experiencing and understanding various phenomena, with interviews being the most

common method employed to understand participants’ experiences of phenomena

(Åkerlind, 2005d; Green, 2005).

The methodology of phenomenography emerged from a research group in the

Department of Education at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden in the late 1960s

and early 1970s (Ashworth & Lucas, 1998; Pang, 2003). Phenomenography’s founder,

Ference Marton, advocated for research that would describe, analyse and understand

learners’ experiences of learning. Examples of early phenomenographic studies that

investigated students’ learning include physics students’ experiences or understanding

of concepts related to kinematics, that is, the study of motion (Dall'Alba et al., 1989),

children’s conceptions of learning (Pramling, 1983), and students’ conceptualizations

of sound (Linder & Erickson, 1989).

Due to the international partnerships forged by Swedish phenomenographers and

other interested researchers, phenomenography has gained popularity outside of

Sweden over the past 40 years, with research emerging from the United Kingdom,

Hong Kong and Australia in the late 1990s (Åkerlind, 2005d). This methodology has

expanded its application to a variety of other fields outside education, such as health,

science, engineering, music and general issues in society (Bowden, 2000b). More

recent topics of phenomenographic research outside education include work in such

diverse fields as middle-aged women's perceptions of lifestyle (Elgán & Fridlund,

2011) and investigating television via social networking (P. Booth, 2012).

Over time, phenomenography has grown from a methodology originally being

understood as a “research programme” (Dahlin, 2007, p. 327) intended to map out

variation in ways of experiencing and understanding phenomena, to the application of

variation theory, with its concepts of discernment, variation and simultaneity. This


growth has shifted phenomenography’s focus to a methodology with a strong

theoretical basis (Pang, 2003).

Central to phenomenography’s theoretical underpinnings is the notion of how

we experience phenomena. In phenomenography, the investigation of how people

experience something comprises the relationship between the person and the

phenomenon under investigation. Ekeblad and Bond (1994) stated that the nature of

the relation between the person and the phenomenon is dynamic, as there are

individual, historical and situational contexts pertaining to both the phenomenon and

the person. Limberg (2008) stated that a way of experiencing something is a distinct

way of being aware of something in the here and now. The here and now, however,

can only be experienced with reference to previous experiences, and with reflection

upon the similarities and differences of these experiences. This focus on experience as

an awareness is the essence of the theoretical framework of phenomenography as

discussed by Marton and Booth (1997) in their landmark work Learning and

Awareness.

Marton and Booth (1997) stated that in phenomenographic approaches,

experience and situation cannot be separated. The situation comprises a context, time

and place. Phenomena are described as entities, “that transcend the situation, which

link it with other situations and lend meaning to it (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 83). In

phenomenography the phenomena and situation are importantly intertwined in

experience. In this study, I sought to understand the experiences of Prep teachers. The

phenomenon under investigation was approaches with student behaviour and the

situation was the Prep year in Queensland government schools. Whilst maintaining the

focus on exploring the experience of the phenomenon as described by the participants,

participants may be oriented towards situational aspects in which the phenomenon is

embedded (Marton & Booth, 1997). This means that in this study the context of Prep

classrooms and the nature of schools are connected with the phenomenon of

approaches with student behaviour, with teachers’ experiences likely to reflect such

situational aspects.

The phenomenographic notion of how we experience something requires further

explanation at this point. Drawing upon phenomenology to derive their conceptual

learning and awareness framework, Marton and Booth (1997) stated, “to experience

something emanating from its environment is, for the first thing, to discern it from its


context” (p.86). That which surrounds the phenomenon experienced is known in the

phenomenographic framework as the external horizon. In relation to this study, this

means Prep teachers’ experience of approaches with student behaviour as discerned

from its context (or surrounds) within Preparatory classrooms in Queensland

government schools, and all other contexts in which teachers have experienced related

occurrences with these approaches. For instance, teachers in this study were asked to

reflect not just upon their current experience with their approaches with student

behaviour in the Prep year, but also upon their teaching in other year levels (if relevant

to participants), in other schools in which they had worked, and over time (for example

at the beginning of the school year or at different points in their teaching careers).

In the phenomenographic framework, as shown in Figure 3.1, the external

horizon (that which surrounds the phenomenon) is complemented by an internal

horizon. This internal horizon comprises the structural presence; all the parts of the

phenomenon itself (namely approaches to student behaviour) and their relationships

together, along with the contours or surrounds of the phenomenon (the external

horizon). The external horizon, along with the internal horizon, create the structural

aspect of phenomenography. This structural aspect relates to discerning the

phenomenon from its context, but also to discerning its parts, the way they relate to

one another and to the whole (Marton & Booth, 1997).

Figure 3.1. A way of experiencing (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 309).

Marton and Booth (1997) stated that intertwined with the structural aspect of the

experience is the referential aspect, that is the meaning. Marton and Booth (1997)

argued that an individual’s awareness of this meaning is brought to a reflective state

through the researcher’s interventions during the course of an interview, with in-depth

questioning enabling participants to articulate their experience. This clearly illustrates


another key concept of the structure of awareness, that is that structure presupposes

meaning (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 309).

The aims of phenomenographic investigations are not just to describe or define

experience, but to capture variation in the ways phenomena are experienced, and to

group these conceptions (or ways of seeing) together into categories for the purpose of

description. The way that these conceptions are described in phenomenographic

studies is via categories of description (Bowden, 2000b; Marton, 1981). These

categories of description constitute a reduction of the data and are intended to express

a summary of the content or meaning of the data that is as close to the data as possible

(Svennson, 1994). The “complex” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 125) of categories of

description, capturing the different ways of experiencing the phenomenon is the

outcome space. Marton and Booth (1997) stated that these qualitatively different ways

of experiencing a phenomenon typically form a hierarchy, as was found during the

analysis phase of this study. This hierarchical structure presents the “increasing

complexity, in which the different ways of experiencing the phenomenon in question

can be defined as subsets of the component parts and relationships within more

inclusive or complex ways of seeing the phenomenon” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p.

125). The phenomenographic terms are now discussed in more detail.

3.3 COMING TO TERMS WITH PHENOMENOGRAPHY

This section will introduce and critique key phenomenographic terms, before

presenting the particular terms that will feature most prominently in this study.

The terms most commonly used to represent the unit of phenomenographic

research within Marton and Booth’s (1997) phenomenographic framework are

experiences, understandings, meanings and conceptions. These phenomenographic

terms, along with other terms such as ways of seeing, perceive and view, are used

interchangeably in many studies, which provides for much confusion when coming to

terms with the methodology. Therefore a deeper exploration of these terms is

warranted.

In the phenomenographic research literature, there is much variation in the way

in which the unit of phenomenographic research is described. This demonstrates the

wide range of ways that phenomenographers have interpreted, adapted and applied this

methodology to their particular studies. Some studies have favoured the term


experiences (Åkerlind, 2005a; C. S. Bruce, 1999; Ramritu & Barnard, 2001; K. Wood,

2000); others conceptions (Broström, Strömberg, Dahlström, & Fridlund, 2001;

Loughland, Reid, & Petocz, 2002; Prosser, Trigwell, & Taylor, 1994); while another

group of researchers have aimed at the study of perceptions (Boström, Sandh,

Lundberg, & Fridlund, 2004; Cope & Ward, 2002; Schröder, Ahlström, & Larsson,

2005). Furthermore, other terms such as meanings (Åkerlind, 2005d) and views

(Swartling, Peterson, & Wahlström, 2007) are used, in addition to terms such as

thinking (Marton, 1986), seeing (Green, 2005), interpret (Marton, 1981), apprehend

(Ashworth & Lucas, 1998), remember (Boström et al., 2004), and perceive, articulate,

and handle (S. Booth, 2008). Many of these terms have been evidenced alongside the

term experiences and used interchangeably to describe what is to be studied. To the

novice phenomenographer this could suggest that: (i) there is some confusion around

the nature of the approach; (ii) there has perhaps been some slippage in translation of

the terms, for example, from Swedish to English; and perhaps (iii) there has also been

considerable stretching of the methodology, with researchers making adaptations to

answer a range of research questions.

However, prominent phenomenographers such as Gerlese Åkerlind and Ference

Marton offered another perspective. Åkerlind (2005a), in her study on how university

academics experience academic growth and development, stated, “as is common with

phenomenographic research, I use terms such as meanings, understandings,

experience, awareness, perceptions, views, etc. interchangeably” (p.6). Most

commonly used in her study, however, were the terms experience, meanings and

understandings. Åkerlind’s (2005a) methodology was in part drawn from Marton and

Booth’s (1997) work, which explains her preference for the use of these specific terms;

but her work was also influenced by research such as that by fellow

phenomenographer, Keith Wood (2000), who investigated teaching from the

perspectives of teachers, examining their conceptions and approaches to teaching.

Marton, like Akerlind, advocated for a wide range of terms when referring to the

basic unit of phenomenography. In Marton’s (2015) most recent work, Necessary

Conditions of Learning, he stated that phenomenographic descriptions can be:

…phrased in terms of different ways of seeing something, or different ways

in which something appears or, simply, meanings. We can also add

conceptions, different ways of experiencing something as well as the lived


(experienced) objects of learning. The different labels do not refer to different

kinds of things; they are used as synonyms and they refer to the basic unit of

phenomenography (see Marton & Pong, 2005). The reason that many terms

are used is that none of them is perfect for the purpose (they are words or

expressions that have many other connotations and point to different aspects

of what is meant to be the basic unit of phenomenography). (p.106)

Marton’s (2015) point here is most valid. Phenomenographers require a range of

terms, carefully selected to describe their particular approach and study, to articulate

the different aspects of the basic unit of phenomenography. No two studies are the

same, therefore the terms used will also vary. What is important, especially in light of

such wide variation of use of phenomenographic terms, is that phenomenographic

researchers clearly articulate and explain the terms they use and how they relate to the

particular phenomena investigated.

Swedish phenomenographer Dahlin (2007) and Ashworth and Lucas (1998)

from the United Kingdom are researchers interested in the development of

phenomenography and variation theory, who have contributed to the literature by

clarifying the meaning of common phenomenographic terms and their relation to

particular aspects within the phenomenographic approach. For instance, Dahlin (2007)

stated that the terms experience and understanding are often used interchangeably in

studies, but he provides a helpful example to explain the difference between the two:

My experience of a phenomenon may be crucially different from my

understanding of the same phenomenon. For instance, if you ask me how I

experience a particular blue colour painting, I may say that I perceive it as a

cold and hard instance of blueness. But if you ask me how I understand that

colour, I may say that it is painted with a chemical substance that reflects a

particular wavelength of light and absorbs all others, or that the quality of this

blueness reflects the artist’s intention with the painting. Thus, at least in this

case, my answer to the question of experience would be different from that to

the question of understanding, and so would my conceptions. (p.332)

This quote shows the distinction between what is experienced and what is

understood, based upon the phenomenographic theoretical foundations established in

Marton and Booth’s (1997) Learning and Awareness. Adding to this, Ashworth and

Lucas (1998) stated that:


…many mental processes (perceiving, conceptualizing, apprehending,

understanding and so on) were all taken as referring to ‘experience’, though it

was recognised that the emphasis was on experience that has been reflected

on to the extent that it could be discussed and described by the experiencer.

(p.415)

Thus, participants’ experiences and understandings as described by the

researcher comprise the conceptions of the phenomenon investigated in

phenomenographic studies.

The term conceptions is commonly used in phenomenographic studies.

Conceptions are understood as aspects of an individual’s awareness that can be brought

to a “reflected” or “thematized” state through the researcher’s interventions during the

course of phenomenographic interviews (Marton & Booth, 1997, pp. 130-131).

Although the term conceptions has been used in phenomenographic literature

interchangeably with experiences, experiences focus on awareness, whereas

conceptions linguistically have a strong link to knowledge and this forms the

epistemological basis of phenomenography (S. Booth, 2008).

Conceptions, knowledge and thinking are inextricably linked. Prominent

Swedish phenomenographer Lennart Svensson (1997) stated that conceptions are

closely related to the nature of knowledge and thinking, and are created through human

thinking and activity. Conceptions, however, are also based upon the world or reality

external to the individual (Svensson, 1997). The character of a conception may vary,

from the meaning of a reality that is immediately experienced to a fragment of reality

as a more general thought. Conceptions are accessible through language, and in

phenomenographic studies are expressed by participants, with the researcher

describing them.

Svensson (1997) stated that, during data analysis decisions have to be made

about what is and is not a conception, and whether or not the conceptions vary as to

their character or nature. This is where phenomenography’s theoretical framework

comes into play. To be classified as a conception, some whole-parts of the meaning of

the phenomenon have to exist. Ekeblad and Bond (1994) discussed conceptions as

being the object within the participant’s focal awareness. That is, what is prominent to

them. Marton and Pong (2005) described conceptions as being characterised by the


particular meaning of an object (the referential aspect) and the combination of features

recognized and focused upon by the participant (the structural aspect).

Phenomenological perspectives of consciousness have been influential to the

development of variation theory as applied to phenomenographic studies, resulting in

researchers of student learning becoming interested in drawing attention to the

variation of conceptions (Dahlin, 2007). This variation has meant that,

…in order for learning to take place, the learner has to discern a critical aspect

of dimension of variation in the phenomenon; she has to see how this aspect

can vary; and she has to become simultaneously aware of the possible “values”

along this dimension of variation in order to compare them. (Dahlin, 2007, p.

328)

The intentional level of reflection creates varying conceptions. This forms the

so-called outcome space that is often described in phenomenographic studies. Swedish

phenomenographer Dahlin (2007) depicted this as, “a map of conceptions or, if you

like, a map of (a certain part of) the human mind” (p.338). During the conduct of this

present study, this intentional level of reflection was reached by encouraging

participants to talk about their current approaches with student behaviour and then

asking them to contrast these experiences against previous experiences. This included

a reflective line of questioning for participants to tease out any variation in their

responses, for example, why a participant might use a particular approach during a

whole-class lesson, but not use that approach during individual interactions with

students.

More recently, Marton’s (2015) work on variation theory introduced the term

way of seeing (p.112). In gaining access to individuals’ experiences within

phenomenographic studies, there is recognition of a logical relationship between what

people see (their way of seeing things) and what they do. Marton (2015) further

describes the term way of seeing in relation to critical aspects that are discerned by the

learner/research participant:

…seeing, as I use the term here, means making distinctions, and making a

distinction is an act (i.e., it is “doing”). In this case, there is no seeing separate

from doing, where the former explains the latter. There is one thing only:

making distinctions (i.e., “doing” which is read by the teacher or researcher as

expressing “seeing”). (p.112)


The term way of seeing links what Marton (2015) calls the acts of learning (p.

111) to how a phenomenon is understood or conceptualised by the learner/research

participant as analysed by the researcher. This term way of seeing is particularly

important to this study as during the data collection phase I sought to probe what

Preparatory teachers actually ‘do’ in the classroom with student behaviour (the acts of

learning or, in other words, their approaches) in an effort to appreciate their

experiences and understandings of this phenomenon (that is their way of seeing

approaches with student behaviour in the Prep year). In this study seeing and doing are

inextricably linked, thus the term way/s of seeing has been adopted when discussing

conceptions.

In this study, phenomenographic methods were used to investigate how teachers

experience their approaches with student behaviour in Prep classrooms. Employing

variation theory in the analysis phase has meant that the categories of description and

outcome space communicate variation in teachers’ way of seeing (or conceptions of)

their approaches. Experiences, understandings, conceptions and way/s of seeing will

be the terms used. This reflects the chosen approach (phenomenography) and

theoretical framework (variation theory) based upon the work of Marton and Booth

(1997) and Marton (2015). Unlike the studies discussed in Marton and Booth (1997)

and Marton’s (2015) work, however, this study did not focus on student learning, but

instead drew upon the work of phenomenographers like Åkerlind (2005a) and Harris

(2008) who studied the experiences and conceptions of academics and teachers.

Although this is not a study of student learning, it is, however, a study that has realised

phenomenography’s “pedagogical potential” (Kroksmark 1987, in Marton, 2015

p.118), that is, the potential to contribute to learning, in this case, to teacher

professional learning. The pedagogical potential of this study will be communicated

via its outcomes, which will be presented in chapters 4 and 5.

The next section provides a rationale for the use of phenomenography in this

study.

3.4 RATIONALE FOR PHENOMENOGRAPHY

The rationale for using phenomenography in this study can be made on several

grounds. A review of the literature on student behaviour in the previous chapter has

shown that there is insufficient empirical evidence, from teachers’ perspectives of how


they experience student behaviour in their day-to-day teaching, and how they

understand their approaches, particularly in the early years of school. In Queensland,

the State in which this study is located, little attention has been placed on investigating

how teachers approach student behaviour in Prep classrooms, even though student

behaviour has been flagged as a problem by the premier teachers’ advocacy group, the

Queensland Teachers’ Union (Chilcott, 2011a, 2011c). Additionally, as discussed in

Chapter 2, Prep disciplinary absences and incidents have continued to increase in the

Preparatory year in the period between 2008 to 2016 (Blundell, 2011; Queensland

Government, 2017a), further highlighting approaches with student behaviour as a

significant issue.

Few studies of what is happening in the Queensland Prep year have been

conducted to date. Examples of phenomenographic research that have been undertaken

in this context include studies on learning, such as A Justification for Mathematical

Modelling Experiences in the Preparatory Classroom (Fox, 2006), and A Study of

Mathematical Patterning in Early Childhood Settings (J. Waters, 2004). Other studies

by Irvine (2005) and O’Gorman (2007) have sought to understand the experiences of

parents in the Prep year. However, none have investigated teachers’ approaches with

student behaviour in the Prep year. Given the perceived observations of student

behaviour reported in the print media, and the worrying trend of student disciplinary

absences increasing in the Prep year, it seemed timely and necessary to undertake an

investigation of teachers’ approaches with student behaviour and to report the findings

from the perspectives of teachers themselves.

It is pertinent at this point to reiterate how student behaviour has been studied

previously, as this will make clear the rationale for approaching this study from the

vantage point of teachers’ experiences of how they approach student behaviour.

Research by Arbuckle and Little (2004), Clunies-Ross et al. (2008) and Rosas and

West (2009) reported on the student behaviours that teachers find most challenging to

manage in classrooms. While it is helpful to be aware of which student behaviours

teachers find most troublesome, and to examine the effect of these challenging

behaviours, investigating how teachers actually experience student behaviour may

lead to new understandings about teachers and about the nature of teaching. These

understandings in turn may be helpful to inform future teacher preparation and

professional development and learning around student behaviour.


In deciding how to best study teachers’ experiences with student behaviour,

research traditions must be considered. Åkerlind (2005b) stated that quantitative

research has historically been the most dominant and prestigious research paradigm.

This is clearly evidenced in studies around student behaviour. There are numerous

quantitative studies investigating student behaviour, such as those by Carter et al.

(2011), Curtis et al. (2010) and Horner et al. (2010), that have reported on the outcomes

of Schoolwide Positive Behaviour Support programs. These quantitative studies have

used questionnaires and other forms of numerical data to report on the successes and

challenges associated with behavioural-based interventions. While there has been a

steady increase in the use of such quantitative studies over time, little empirical

research of a qualitative nature has been carried out in education settings to explore

teachers’ experiences with student behaviour. The benefit of qualitative research is the

in-depth examination of phenomena, which Cooley (2013, p. 250) stated provides

richness of detail, giving “insights into the complicated nature of teaching and learning

that would be missed through other means.”

Studies that have examined student behaviour in educational settings

qualitatively have generally explored teachers’ perceptions of student behaviour, using

methods such as grounded theory (Tillery et al., 2010) and other interpretive methods

involving individual and group interviews (McCready & Soloway, 2010). The study

of perceptions, however, is more closely aligned with the use of phenomenology rather

than phenomenography. Interestingly, the majority of studies that have investigated

student behaviour, whether qualitative or quantitative, have positioned the

phenomenon of student behaviour as being problematic for teachers. These studies

have primarily sought to expose the challenges and investigate the difficulties that

teachers face in managing student behaviour. In contrast, this present study has not

assumed student behaviour as problematic, but rather has been open to investigating

the various conceptions that Prep teachers have when approaching this phenomenon.

Marton (1981) argued that phenomenography is a methodology that is

complementary to other forms of research. Åkerlind (2005b), a strong advocate for

phenomenography, said its advantage lies in another way of viewing knowledge,

research and reality. Central to phenomenography is its aim to capture experience as

the internal relation between people and phenomena. Marton (1981) suggested that

outcomes of studies that explore this internal relation are of sufficient interest in


themselves, but phenomenography’s focus on variation, and its particular focus on

capturing the range of ways that people can experience a phenomenon, cannot be

obtained in any other way (Marton, 1981). Phenomenography then as a methodology

employed to answer the current research question is likely to make a unique

contribution to the body of literature on teaching in relation to approaches with student

behaviour in the Preparatory year. Teachers’ voices are yet to be clearly articulated

and the variation in the way they approach student behaviour yet to be understood.

Phenomenographic studies often contribute new insights to phenomena which

may lead to identifying solutions to pedagogical problems. A further rationale for the

conduct of this study lies in its potential to influence preservice and inservice teacher

education by generating new understandings of how teachers experience their

approaches with student behaviour. Trigwell (1999) stated that phenomenography has

a number of key aspects which differentiate it from other research methodologies such

as grounded theory, phenomenology and content analysis (Figure 3.2), and that these

points of departure provide rich potential for application to educational practice.

First, its philosophy is non-dualist, setting it apart from methodologies such as

surveys and case studies. By non-dualist Trigwell (1999) meant that reality is not seen

as external to the individual, but rather as a relationship between the individual and the

phenomenon under investigation. This internal relation is a key theoretical

underpinning of this methodology. In the present study this means that approaches

with student behaviour cannot be viewed in isolation. They are inextricably linked to

teachers and teaching and inseparable from associated contextual factors related to

teachers, teaching and schools.

Second, phenomenography is qualitative rather than quantitative, although

quantitative methods have been employed alongside phenomenographic methods

(Jones, 2004). For example, Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas, and Prosser (1998)

investigated students’ experiences of learning mathematics at university using

questionnaires to build upon understandings gained from phenomenographic analysis.

Third, phenomenography espouses a second order rather than a first order

approach, differentiating it from case studies and grounded theory (Trigwell, 1999). In

a first order approach, the phenomenon is described by the researcher. It is the

researcher’s analyses of that phenomenon that constitute the outcomes. In a second-

order approach, however, the researcher’s aim is to describe the phenomenon as


expressed by the participants. For this study the aim was to describe approaches with

student behaviour as experienced by Preparatory teachers.

Fourth, phenomenography focuses on variation, which makes it different to most

other qualitative research approaches, such as phenomenology, case studies and

grounded theory (Trigwell, 1999). Emphasis is placed on the key aspects of variation

in the way the phenomenon is experienced by participants, the key focus being on

identifying the different ways of experiencing a phenomenon, rather than identifying

what is common across the whole sample. Trigwell (1999) used the phrase, points of

departure (see Figure 3.2), to depict where phenomenography differs from

phenomenology. Although both methodologies adopt a second-order approach, with

the researcher aiming to describe the participants’ experiences of a phenomenon,

phenomenography’s focus is on describing variation, specifically the limited number

of ways of experiencing a phenomenon, whereas phenomenology focuses on a full

description of the individual’s experience. In addition, whereas phenomenology is

concerned with “immediate experience”, phenomenography is concerned with both

experience and “conceptual thought” (Marton, 1981, p. 181).

Fifth, phenomenography investigates the internal relationships between the

different ways of experiencing a phenomenon. This is the final point of departure from

other methodologies. Phenomenographers explore the internal relations between and

within the categories of description (Trigwell, 1999). This differs from methodologies

such as content analysis. Like phenomenography, content analysis maintains a focus

on investigating meaning and developing categories of common themes through an

iterative process of analysing data, but does not provide the richness of

phenomenographic outcomes, where the relations between and within the categories

of description are also described (Julien, 2009; Trigwell, 1999). In this study, the

process of analysing the internal relations within and between the categories of

description has revealed variation in the ways Prep teachers understand their

approaches with student behaviour, the outcome of which has provided a unique view

of these teachers’ experiences.


Figure 3.2. Trigwell’s (1999) phenomenography defined using points of departure (p.77).

Phenomenography, then, is likely to produce new understandings of teachers’

experiences of student behaviour, particularly with regard to describing variation in

the ways teachers see or conceptualise their approaches. Supporting this statement,

Dahlin (2007) stated that,

the mapping out of a conceptual space through phenomenographic studies

increases the possibility of discovering, or even predicting, the likely existence

of “new” conceptions; that is, conceptions not found among the group of

people studied but which nevertheless are logically possible, considering the

dimensions of variation that have been constituted through phenomenographic

research. (p. 339)

Dahlin (2007) proposed that when people learn to see a significant part of the

world in a new way, consciousness changes. In teaching, there are myriad

opportunities for such changed consciousness. Changed consciousness or a new way

of seeing may be brought about by educators engaging with the findings of this study,

and may contribute to differences in the way teachers think about their approaches

with student behaviour. Preservice and inservice teacher education provide rich

contexts with potential for reconceptualising teachers’ practice with student behaviour.

This is important because studies to date, such as those by Axup and Gersh (2008) and

Tillery et al. (2010), have pointed out the inadequacies of preservice and inservice

teacher education in preparing teachers to respond to student behaviour.

Adding further justification for the focus on conceptions and their practical

applications, Marton and Booth (1997) stated that,


…in order to make sense of how people handle problems, situations, the

world, we have to understand the way in which they experience the problems,

situations, the world, that they are handling or in relation to which they are

acting. Accordingly, a capability for acting in a certain way reflects a

capability of experiencing something in a certain way. The latter does not

cause the former, but they are logically intertwined. You cannot act other than

in relation to the world as you experience it. (p. 111)

This quote provided further inspiration for this study. Gathering data which seek

to understand how teachers experience their approaches with student behaviour has

provided valuable insights into Prep teachers’ actions (or approaches) with student

behaviour in the classroom. This in turn has generated new knowledge that will enable

teachers and teacher educators to reflect on the appropriateness of these approaches to

achieving goals with student behaviour, thus realising the pedagogical potential of

phenomenography. Next, the ontological and epistemological basis of

phenomenography will be discussed.

3.5 ONTOLOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL BASIS OF

PHENOMENOGRAPHY

Some writers have argued that phenomenography has had a limited theoretical

basis (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000; Richardson, 1999). For instance, Richardson (1999)

stated that early in its emergence as a research approach phenomenography lacked a

clear articulation of methods used for the collection and analysis of data and the

conceptual foundations of these methods. More recently, Harris (2011) reviewed 56

phenomenographic studies and found many had not provided clear definitions of the

theoretical frameworks underpinning the studies, further demonstrating that

phenomenography is not well understood, communicated or utilised. However, since

its inception, phenomenography has gradually developed clearer theoretical

assumptions and frameworks to underpin its methods.

Marton and Booth’s (1997) work, Learning and Awareness, as well as ongoing

contributions to the literature by researchers such as Ekeblad (1994), Hasselgren

(1997), Prosser (1993), Saljo (1997), Svensson (1997), Trigwell (1999), Bowden

(2000b), Åkerlind (2005c), and Marton’s (2015) more recent work, have contributed

to the contemporary development of phenomenography. This section will explore

some of the particular schools of thought that have influenced phenomenography, such


as Plato’s theory of recollection, behavioural psychology, Gestalt, Piaget, cognitivism,

individual constructivism, social constructivism and phenomenology, as well as

providing a discussion on phenomenography’s ontology and epistemology.

In Learning and Awareness, Marton and Booth (1997) discussed the

epistemological basis of phenomenography. They stated, “epistemology has to

do with the question of gaining knowledge but also with the question of the

truth value of the knowledge gained” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 2). Here they

discussed the acquisition of knowledge, describing schools of thought that have

influenced their thinking in their quest to understand student learning (Marton

& Booth, 1997; Richardson, 1999). They were particularly interested in finding

out “what it takes to learn something” (p. 1). They discussed Plato’s theory of

recollection, drawing upon the premise that all knowledge is inherent in the

soul; that it does not originate from the world or outside (externally), but rather

from within (internally) (Gulley, 1954). Marton and Booth (1997) thought this

to be a valid idea, but turned to a range of other sources of knowledge to seek

more comprehensive insights into their questions about learning.

Through their work on student learning, Marton and Booth (1997) were

influenced by behavioural psychology. Behavioural psychology focused on the role

that reflexes, memory and functional behaviour had on learning. But Marton and Booth

(1997) felt its limitation was an inability to contribute inclusive understandings of

student learning. While behavioural psychology contributed an appreciation of the

impact of environments and external factors on learning, it did not answer their

question of what it takes to learn something. Marton and Booth (1997) sought a

broader understanding of learning, one that encompassed both internal and external

factors, and the relationship between the two.

In the phenomenographic literature, reference is also made to the influence of

the school of Gestalt on phenomenography’s ontology and epistemology. Marton

(1981) charted this influence, focusing in particular on Wertheimer’s psychological

analysis of how people structure and understand the content of various problems. This

is synonymous with phenomenography’s particular focus on understanding the content

and the quality of experience. Marton (1981) stated that learning must be described in

terms of its content. Therefore content is seen to be focal: “there can be no process

without content and there can be no content except in terms of mental activity”


(Marton, 1981, p. 184). The description and analysis of experience is central to

phenomenography. The description provides “an understanding of knowledge as a

matter of meaning, and similarities and differences in meaning” (Svensson, 1997, p.

16). The description of the content of participants’ experiences with phenomena

comprise the categories of description, with phenomenography’s aim being to develop

a summary expression of the content or meaning of the data (Svensson, 1997).

Also influential to the development of phenomenography were Piaget’s studies

of children’s qualitatively different conceptions of various aspects of their reality

(Marton & Booth, 1997). Both individual constructivism and cognitivism’s emphasis

on the learner’s active role in the development of knowledge were seen to contribute

to Marton and Booth’s (1997) thinking on how knowledge is acquired, and how more

sophisticated levels of knowledge might replace less advanced levels. Marton and

Booth (1997) also mentioned social constructivism’s influence on their thinking,

stating, “studies with a situated action orientation are characterised by human acts

being explained, not in terms of an individual’s or several individuals’ mental states,

but in terms of what goes on between individuals, and between individuals and

situations” (p. 11). They were clearly interested in the social construction of

knowledge, with its emphasis on cultural practices, language and social contexts. The

foundation for their studies on student learning arose from these influences and was

focused towards the relationship between people’s internal reality (thinking) and

external experiences (actions, environment, culture) and their associated meanings.

While the ontological and epistemological basis for phenomenography was

influenced by Plato, Piaget, cognitivism, individual constructivism and social

constructivism, Marton and Booth (1997) also noted the influence of phenomenology.

Phenomenography was informed by the theoretical understandings of intentionality,

originating from the work of German philosopher and psychologist Franz Brentano

(Marton & Booth, 1997), whose influence is also noted in phenomenology’s

theoretical position. Brentano (1943) held that intentional objects were mind-

dependent, that is “existing in the mind” (Calabi, 1987, p. 1), meaning that thought can

only be identified in relation to an object.

Phenomenography is sometimes confused with phenomenology. Positioning

phenomenography as a particular school of thought with its own methodology and

therefore theoretically different to phenomenology has been fraught with tension.


Theorists have been at pains to differentiate the two approaches. In Marton’s (1981)

early work, Phenomenography: Describing Conceptions of the World Around Us, he

rejected phenomenography’s likeness to phenomenology, although he later noted the

similarities of the two approaches, describing both as being relational, experiential,

content-oriented and qualitative (Richardson, 1999). Distinguishing approaches,

Marton (1981) stated that people can only access the world through experience. While

phenomenology adopts a first order perspective (i.e. describing the world),

phenomenography adopts a second order perspective (i.e. describing people’s

experience of the world). This is a key distinction, as this present study does not aim

to describe approaches with student behaviour, but rather to describe teachers’

experiences of their approaches with student behaviour through investigating what

they do and how they go about it, and how they talk about it.

The present study offers the opportunity to demonstrate phenomenography’s

four points of departure from phenomenology. The first point of departure is that

phenomenologists would aim at learning about approaches with student behaviour,

while phenomenographers would aim at learning about teachers’ experiences of their

approaches with student behaviour. A second point of departure is that in

phenomenography it is believed that there is a limited number of qualitatively different

ways of experiencing phenomena, with phenomenography seeking to explore the

variation in these conceptions. Phenomenology, however, seeks to “explicate the

general, necessary and invariant features of objects - their essences” (Richardson,

1999, p. 61). Marton (1981) saw a third point of departure as phenomenography being

“substance-oriented” (p. 181), referring to its aim of understanding how people

experience and conceptualise phenomena. Finally, while phenomenology is a

philosophical approach directed towards a “pre-reflective level of consciousness”,

phenomenography deals with:

…both the conceptual and the experiential, as well as with what is thought of

as that which is lived. We would also deal with what is culturally learned and

with what are individually developed ways of relating ourselves to the world

around us. (Marton, 1981, p. 181)

It is this focus on understanding people’s lived experiences of phenomena (the

what), with reflection upon their experiences and actions (the how), and the

relationship between the two (the meaning) that forms the theoretical framework of


the phenomenographic approach. The framework also comprises structural and

referential aspects where “reality presents itself in human thinking as different related

entities having the character of forming units or wholes” (Svensson, 1997, p. 14). In

this study, phenomenographic interview methods were employed to elicit Prep

teachers’ experiences of their approaches (actions) with student behaviour. A carefully

designed interview framework coupled with analysis that allowed for both what and

how aspects, and structural and referential aspects to be revealed, was essential to the

design of this study. The interview techniques and analysis that were used are detailed

later in this chapter.

As phenomenography deals with both the conceptual and experiential,

phenomenography’s epistemology can therefore be seen to be directly related to its

ontology. Phenomenography’s ontology is non-dualist, that is, “… there is no

differentiation between an objective ‘real world’ and a subjective experienced world.

The subject and object (phenomenon) are linked, not separate, existing together in a

space both subjective and objective” (Lois Harris, 2008). Marton and Booth (1997)

stated that in phenomenography, the outer and the inner disappear:

The world is not constructed by the learner, not is it imposed upon her; it is

constituted as an internal relation between them. There is only one world, but

it is a world that we experience, a world in which we live, a world that is ours.

(p.13)

The ontological and epistemological assumptions of phenomenography are

particularly concerned with the nature of conceptions and their relationship to

knowledge. Knowledge is seen to be created through human activity and thinking, with

conceptions the central form of knowledge (Svensson, 1997). This position differs

from “empirical and positivistic assumptions about observations as facts and

knowledge as inductively based on facts” (Svensson, 1997, p. 8). As discussed, it also

differs from “rationalistic, mentalistic and constructivistic assumptions” (Svensson,

1997, p. 165) about knowledge as a rational or mental construction. Knowledge is seen

as relational, created through thinking about external reality, but also dependent upon

context and awareness.

In this study I have adopted Marton and Booth’s (1997) phenomenographic

framework, along with the application of variation theory (Marton, 2015), which is

underpinned by phenomenography’s ontology and epistemology. An overview of


these methods and their application to this study will be presented in subsequent

chapter sections.

3.6 FIRST AND SECOND ORDER PERSPECTIVE

To further clarify the phenomenographic approach, it is important to highlight

Marton’s (1981) distinction between what is known as first order and second order

perspectives. Marton stated that a first order perspective seeks to describe various

aspects of the world, whereas a second order perspective aims to describe people’s

experiences of the various aspects of the world (Marton, 1981). Where first order

perspectives aim to elicit descriptions of a particular phenomenon from participants, a

second order perspective exposes the internal relationship between the world (or

phenomenon) and the learner or participant (Åkerlind, 2005b). Trigwell (1999) stated

that this is the basis of phenomenography’s non-dualist ontology, where reality is

constituted as the relation between the individual and the phenomenon.

Marton (1981) drew links from the phenomenographic second order perspective

to the work of Piaget, suggesting that Piaget’s empirical work has been carried out

from this second order perspective. Marton asserted that Piaget was pivotal in

presenting original descriptions of “children’s qualitatively different conceptions of

various aspects of their reality” (Marton, 1981, p. 191). Piaget shifted the focus from

the child to the child’s world, which is analogous to a second order perspective

(Marton, 1981).

In phenomenography, the second order perspective as described by the

participants forms the basis of the researcher’s description. This second order

perspective is foundational to this study, as it seeks to explore peoples’ (in this case,

teachers’) experiences of an aspect of their world, namely approaches with student

behaviour. Approaches with student behaviour as a phenomenon are more complex

than the current research on this topic has so far been able to capture. There are many

studies that attend to a first order perspective, such as those on the acceptability of

student behaviours (Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Dunlap et al., 2006; Grieve, 2009;

Liljequist & Renk, 2007; McCready & Soloway, 2010; Reynolds, Stephenson, &

Beaman, 2011; Shen et al., 2009); the effects of student behaviour on teacher stress

and attrition (Axup & Gersch, 2008; Brackenreed & Barnett, 2006; Buchanan, 2010;

Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Ferguson, Frost, & Hall, 2012; Fernet, Guay, Senécal, &


Austin, 2012; Roache, 2008; Schaubman, Stetson, & Plog, 2011); to what teachers

attribute challenging student behaviour (Grieve, 2009; Tillery et al., 2010); and

strategies teachers use to support behaviour in the classroom (Clunies-Ross et al.,

2008; Gillen et al., 2011; L. Overton & Sullivan, 2008; Tillery et al., 2010). However,

a second order perspective which explores the relationship between the phenomenon

and participant has seldom been researched.

A second order perspective is necessary in research that seeks to understand the

different ways that people experience their world (Marton, 1981). Ultimately, deeper

understandings of how teachers experience approaches with student behaviour may

contribute to the design of programs that effectively target the education and

professional learning needs of preservice and inservice teachers in relation to these

approaches.

3.7 PHENOMENOGRAPHY AND VARIATION THEORY

Some aspects of the theoretical underpinnings of the phenomenographic

approach have created confusion for researchers in the past. Harris (2011), in her

review of 56 studies using the phenomenographic framework, found that there was

considerable variation in the way phenomenography was interpreted and used within

studies, stating that “few authors give serious treatment to the theories underpinning

the use of the frameworks” (p. 115). Åkerlind (2005), like Harris (2011), also

acknowledged variation in phenomenographic practice, and attributed this to a lack of

rigorous published discussion on the methodology.

Indeed, confusion prevails around phenomenography and its theoretical

counterpart variation theory. This can be attributed to the ongoing evolution of

phenomenography and variation theory by Marton (2015). In 1997, Hasselgren and

Beach (1997) provided an overview of what they termed traditional types of

phenomenography, by pointing out that what differs most in phenomenography is the

way the data are produced and what phenomena are studied. Hasselgren and Beach

(1997) argued that there were five recognisable phenomenographic context-types:

experimental; discursive; naturalistic; hermeneutic; and phenomenological. However,

phenomenography’s evolvement, and the critical time points in its development, is

more likely to have influenced how phenomenography has been used in studies. In

recent times, variation theory has built upon phenomenographic specialisation


(Marton, 2015) and is often seen applied to both phenomenographic and learning

studies. The application of variation theory to phenomenographic studies realises the

methodology’s pedagogical potential, as understanding learning (or in this study how

we experience something) provides rich understandings that can be applied to teaching

practice (in this case, supporting professional development and learning for preservice

and inservice teachers). To explain the importance of understanding learning through

the application of variation theory, Marton (2015) states:

Experiencing patterns of variation and invariance in learning illuminates what

a deep approach to learning is like. In order to develop a powerful way of

seeing something, the learner must decompose the object of learning and bring

it together again. Such decomposition happens in two ways: through

delimitating parts and wholes and through discernment of critical aspects.

Towards such an end, the learner has to create the necessary patterns of

variation and invariance. This is the deep approach to learning in terms of the

theory of variation. (p.145)

This quote embodies the essence of the analytical framework adopted in this

study, namely phenomenography and variation theory. While the study has not directly

focused on learning (although it is certainly clearly linked to teachers’ professional

understandings of their approaches with student behaviour), it has aimed to reveal the

variation and invariance in the ways Prep teachers see their approaches with student

behaviour. Variation theory was applied in the data analysis phase of this

phenomenographic study and will be further discussed in the next section.

3.8 DATA COLLECTION

This section outlines the research design and procedure for this study, including

information on ethics approval, recruitment of participants and the conduct of

interviews, as well as detailing the analysis undertaken and how results are

communicated.

3.8.1 Research Ethics

The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (National

Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, & Australian

Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, 2015) and the Australian Code for the Responsible

Conduct of Research (National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian


Research Council, & Universities Australia, 2007) contain important guiding

principles to ensure ethical responsibility. Important in the ethical conduct of this study

were processes to ensure participants’ informed and voluntary consent, and

confidentiality and privacy.

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was gained from the Queensland

University of Technology Human Research Ethics Committee in April 2013 (Approval

number: 1300000308, see Appendix A). A copy of the approval email is included in

Appendix A. This application was approved as a low-risk research project involving

human participants. An application for conducting research in the then Queensland

Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE) sites was submitted for

approval to recruit participants from Queensland government schools. Approval was

obtained from the Department of Education, Training and Employment in November

2013 (see Appendix B: Approval letter).

Ethical issues considered important in the conduct of this study included: (i)

informed consent; (ii) protection of participant identities; and (iii) management,

storage and disposal of data. First, informed consent will be detailed. During the

recruitment phase of this study, when potential participants initially expressed their

interest in taking part in this research project, they were emailed a Participant

Information Sheet and Consent Form (see Appendix C). At the commencement of

each interview, the researcher used a script (Appendix D: Interview Script) to

communicate to participants the purpose, methods, demands, risks and potential

benefits of the research study. Participants were provided with an opportunity to ask

questions and discuss the information further if they desired.

Participants were then invited to complete a hard paper copy of the Participant

Information Sheet and Consent Form. This indicated their agreement to volunteer in

the research project. It was communicated clearly to participants on this form and at

the outset of each interview that participation in the research project was entirely

voluntary, and that consent may be withdrawn by the participant at any time.

Permission to conduct interviews on the school sites was sought from each school

Principal prior to the teacher interviews (Appendix E: Permission email), Consent

forms were collected from participants and stored, securely, by the researcher.

Second, protection of participants’ identities was also prioritised and managed.

Participants were requested where possible to avoid using actual names during the


recorded interview. During transcription, names and identifying information were

removed and replaced with a numerical code. When writing up the study, a decision

was made to not provide demographical information about the schools in which the

teachers worked, so as to further protect participant identities.

Third, also important to the ethical conduct of this study was the management,

storage and disposal of data (National Health and Medical Research Council et al.,

2015). Individually identifiable data collected during interviews were transferred from

the electronic audio recording device to the QUT password protected estore network

drive. The individually identifiable audio recordings were stored on estore for the

purpose of transcription and verification of transcripts where needed, and were

destroyed at the end of the project. Data were de-identified at the time of transcription.

Non-identifiable transcripts were stored on the password protected QUT estore

network drive for the duration of the project. Paper copies of the non-identifiable

transcripts were also used during data analysis. These were stored at the researcher’s

home office in a locked filing cabinet, accessible only by the researcher.

In addition to the ethical guidelines and policies as detailed above, it was

important that a rigorous and transparent approach be taken throughout the data

collection process, analysis and dissemination of results. This approach will be

detailed next.

3.8.2 Participants

Phenomenography typically uses small samples, with maximum variation

sought across key indicators such as age, gender and experience (Åkerlind et al., 2005).

This is seen to promote the research goal of searching for variation in experience of

the phenomenon under investigation (Åkerlind, 2005b).

In the phenomenographic literature, there has been considerable inconsistency

in recommended sample sizes. Larsson (2007) stated that experience from a large

number of phenomenographic studies has shown that “data from 20 informants is

usually enough to discover all the different ways of understanding the phenomenon in

question” (p. 56). Trigwell (2000) suggested 10-15 participants as being an appropriate

sample size to create a reasonable chance of finding variation in the range. This smaller

sample size was also seen as helpful in managing the large volume of data that is

typical of phenomenographic studies, allowing the researcher to effectively treat the


data as a whole during analysis. To increase the chance of variation in his studies,

Trigwell (2000) purposefully selected participants using this smaller sample size,

saying, “If it is suspected that person X might describe an interesting conception or

one which might be considered extreme, that person could be included in the sample”

(p.66). However, other phenomenographers have employed differing rules of thumb.

Åkerlind et al. (2005) preferred phenomenographic studies to typically have

between 20-30 participants. Åkerlind’s (2005a) study of university academics’

experiences of their own growth and development had a sample size of 28 academics.

It is unclear however, why 20-30 participants is seen as an effective sample size.

Åkerlind et al. (2005) suggested that Åkerlind herself was comfortable with larger

sample sizes due to her prior background in quantitative research. Other studies with

traditional phenomenographic sample sizes included O’Gorman’s (2005) study on

parent conceptions of the Preparatory year and Irvine’s (2005) study on parent

conceptions of their role in early childhood education and care, which both had sample

sizes of 26.

For this research project, participants (n=21) were Prep teachers currently

teaching in Queensland government schools. Maximum variation of participants was

sought through encouraging the participation of teachers with a range of different

teaching qualifications including Bachelor degrees, teaching Diplomas and Graduate

Diplomas, as well as teachers with both early childhood and primary specialisations.

In addition, it was intended that the sample reflect as much as possible variation in age

range between teachers, gender and varied teaching experience (such as beginning,

mid-career and experienced teachers). This variation was encouraged in the initial

recruitment email that was sent out to potential participants (see Appendix F:

recruitment email).

3.8.3 Procedure

Potential participants were approached initially via the Department of Education

Training and Employment (DETE) P-3 Discussion List. The P-3 Discussion List is a

user-subscribed email networking list of teachers working in Prep and years 1, 2 and

3 classrooms in Queensland. An email was sent on two occasions (Appendix G: P-3

Discussion List Recruitment Email) after seeking approval from the P-3 Discussion

List moderator. This recruitment email invited potential participants (i.e. any teachers

currently teaching in the Prep year in Queensland government schools) to reply to the


researcher directly (off list), to ensure that return emails did not inconvenience the

DETE P-3 Discussion List subscribers. When potential participants contacted the

researcher to communicate their interest, the Participant Information Sheet and

Consent Form was emailed to them. This explained the research study, the benefits

and potential risks to participants, and the contact details of the researcher. Interested

participants who responded to this email were contacted, with the researcher

negotiating an interview time with each participant. Thirteen participants were

recruited via the P-3 Discussion List. After recruiting via the P-3 Discussion List, the

sample size fell short of the participant targets recorded by Akerlind (2005) and

Larsson (2007). Additional participants were thus required for the study and were

approached via direct contact with Brisbane metropolitan DETE schools and snowball

sampling (Bowden, 2000a).

Brisbane metropolitan government schools were approached via an email to the

Principal of each school (see Appendix H: DETE Recruitment Email). The email

requested that the study information be forwarded on to Prep teachers if the Principal

agreed. Schools were approached in alphabetical order from the DETE Find a School

directory (Department of Education and Training, 2017b). When potential participants

contacted the researcher to communicate their interest in participating, a Participant

Information Sheet and Consent Form was emailed and an interview time negotiated

with each participant. At the end of each interview, participants were asked if they

knew of other Brisbane metropolitan government school Prep teachers who might be

interested in participating in this study. Participants were invited to forward the study

details to other potential participants, with a request for them to make contact with the

researcher if they were interested in participating.

Altogether, 128 schools were invited to participate in the study. Twenty-one

teachers from 12 schools in the Brisbane Metropolitan region of the Department of

Education and Training participated, with interviews being conducted in the first six

months of 2014. Table 3.1 shows demographic details of the study participants. Of the

21 teachers who volunteered, 19 (90%) were female and 2 were male. The mean age

of participants was 41 years and the mean length of teaching experience was 12.85

years. At the time of data collection, 18 participants were teaching in a Prep classroom,

while three others taught in combined Prep/ Year 1 or Prep/Year 1 and 2 classrooms.

Twelve teachers held a qualification with specialisation in early years education, while


another 8 were primary (elementary) trained, and one held a special education

qualification. Teachers in the sample had varied teaching experience in schools

regarding year levels taught, ranging from teaching in preschool through to year 12.

Table 3.1

Demographic details of study participants (n=21)

Demographics n

Age

<24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

2 (10%)

4 (19%)

7 (33%)

4 (19%)

4 (19%)

Gender

Female

Male

19 (90%)

2 (10%)

Qualification

Diploma of Teaching (Early Childhood)

Graduate Diploma of Teaching (Early Childhood)

Graduate Diploma of Teaching (Primary)

Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood)

Bachelor of Education (Primary)

Bachelor of Education (Special Education)

Master of Education (Early Childhood)

1 (5%)

3 (15%)

3 (15%)

7 (33%)

5 (24%)

1 (5%)

1 (5%)

Teaching experience

0-5 years

6-10 years

10-20 years

21-30 years

31+ years

6 (29%)

4 (19%)

5 (24%)

4 (19%)

2 (10%)

Year levels taught

Kindergarten

Preschool

Prep

P-3

P-7

P-12

1 (4%)

5 (19%)

4 (15%)

7 (27%)

6 (23%)

3 (12%)

Year level currently taught

Prep

Prep/1

Prep 1/2

18 (86%)

2 (10%)

1 (5%)

3.8.4 Interviews

In this study, data were gathered though interviews. This is the primary mode of

data collection in phenomenographic research (Åkerlind et al., 2005). Åkerlind et al.


(2005) recommended the use of pilot interviews to assist the researcher in learning the

required skills for phenomenographic interviewing and to aid the process of refining

planned questions. Three pilot interviews were undertaken prior to conducting the

interviews for this research study. This process provided an opportunity to refine

questions and gain feedback on the researcher’s interview skills. Pilot interviews were

conducted with three early years teachers known to the researcher. In addition, at this

point during my candidature I was fortunate to visit Gothenburg University for a study

school and met with experienced phenomenographers Ingrid Pramling Samuelsson,

Nikolas Pramling and Ake Ingerman who provided valuable expert feedback on the

study design, interview questions and schedule, which ensured that the interview

schedule and conduct of research aligned with phenomenography’s theoretical

framework.

The interviews began in March 2014 and concluded in June 2014. Each teacher

participant was interviewed in their own school setting after the school day had ended.

This minimised inconvenience associated with travel, allowed for participant comfort,

and assisted in fostering their ability to recall and reflect upon their classroom

experiences and practices with student behaviour in their everyday teaching context.

20 of the participants were interviewed in their own classroom and one in a school

staff room.

At the outset of the interview it was important to develop rapport with each

teacher participant to assist in gathering data as faithfully as possible to the lived

experiences communicated by the participants. Initial gathering of relevant contextual

information included an informal conversation about years of service to teaching,

qualifications etc. Åkerlind (2005c) found it favourable to make interviews as

comfortable and conversation-like as possible. In addition, phenomenographic

interviews invite deep reflection so it was important to build trust with participants.

This was done through showing empathy, providing reassurance and ensuring

confidentiality. It was important to ensure that trust was not compromised, and that

interview data did not identify interviewees (Åkerlind et al., 2005), so participants

were reassured from the outset that privacy would be protected by de-identifying

interview data at the point of transcription.

Each interview focused on gathering in-depth information about the participants’

experiences of their approaches with student behaviour. This was assured through the


use of open-ended questioning and prompting teachers to talk through examples of

how they approached student behaviour in the classroom. Svensson (1997) suggested

that the researcher should be sensitive to the participants’ ways of defining the objects

or phenomena. It was important in this study to adopt a supportive, curious and open

approach to interviewing. Interview questions, which will be outlined shortly,

followed a predictable structure; however allowances were made for focusing in on

areas of interest presented by the participants.

In phenomenographic interviews, researchers clearly set the topic and then use

a series of set structured questions and semi-structured questions to further explore

meaning (Åkerlind et al., 2005). Planned questions are used to ensure consistency so

that all interviewees are talking about the same phenomenon (Åkerlind, 2005c).

Åkerlind et al. (2005) stated that interviews must be conducted rigorously to ensure

integrity of the data. This means that the theoretical framework underpinning the

research should be clearly articulated and evidenced not just in the analysis but also

during data collection. The interviewer takes a lead role in defining the phenomenon,

with interviews consisting of initial contextual questions to set the scene for the

primary questions, followed by more open questions and situated examples (Åkerlind,

2005c). Bowden (2000b) stated that interview questions should centre on problem

questions in the field, encouraging participants to reflect upon their practice with the

phenomenon. The questions should be open-ended in nature and the interviewer should

allow participants to decide on which aspects of the phenomenon hold the most

relevance to them. Bowden (2000b), in his physics project interviews, cited Saljo’s

recommendation of posing problems that relate to the participants’ handling of the

phenomenon during data collection, to increase the likelihood of developing shared

definitions and helping to maximise a range of perspectives. Researchers should also

pose questions to participants which assist in clarifying and explaining their meaning

further, as well as asking them to comment on any apparent inconsistencies within

their expressed ideas (Bowden, 2000b).

The interviews in this study were carefully structured to probe Prep teachers’

experiences of their approaches with student behaviour and the meanings these

experiences held for them. The interviews commenced with gathering contextual and

demographic information. This included noting participants’ names, gender,


geographical location, age, qualifications, teaching experience and current and

previous year levels taught.

The interviews then progressed to questions about student behaviour in the

classroom, to hone in on the study phenomenon. Teachers were asked about ‘student

behaviour’ as a neutral term, to allow them to direct the focus of the interview onto the

particular student behaviours they wished to discuss. They talked about positive

behaviours they experienced in their classrooms and also about challenging ones. The

initial planned interview questions included primary prompts of:

Tell me about student behaviour in your classroom.

Can you give me some examples of the student behaviours you

encounter in a typical day in your classroom?

In this part of the interview the conversation angled towards what teachers

actually did in the classroom (“What did you do when that behaviour happened?”).

This line of questioning is based on Marton’s (2015) theoretical notion that a way of

acting (what teachers do) is a way of seeing or experiencing the phenomenon. This is

the essence of the phenomenographic framework adopted in this study. In addition, in

phenomenographic interviews participants are asked to provide examples to illustrate

their comments and further clarify meaning. For instance, asking teachers to “Tell me

about a time when you were pleased with how you approached student behaviour?”

allowed them an opportunity to elaborate on their experiences with their approaches

with student behaviour. Set questions included:

What do you do when you encounter these behaviours?

What are you trying to achieve?

Are you happy with the way you approach student behaviour?

Tell me about a time when you were pleased with how you

approached student behaviour.

Tell me about a time when you were not happy with how you

approached student behaviour.

It was also necessary to use secondary prompts during this part of the interview

to probe for the intention behind the action. Åkerlind et al. (2005) discussed the

researcher’s role and considerations during this unstructured stage of the interview.

The use of ‘Why’ questions instead of ‘What’ questions at this stage is thought to elicit

the underlying perspective or ‘internal attitude’ towards the phenomenon. ‘What’


questions during this stage would allow only for description of experience, and so not

provide depth to understanding their meaning (Åkerlind et al., 2005). For example, the

question, “Why do you go about it in that way?” encouraged teachers to reflect on their

experiences with student behaviour and articulate their attitude towards this

phenomenon.

Examples of secondary prompts included:

Why do you go about it in that way?

How would you describe your approach?

Would you/ could you put a label on it?

Tell me a little more about how you see your approach.

Is this always the way you’ve gone about it?

What has/ hasn’t changed? Why?

What specific things are you happy with/ not happy with? Why?

The use of clarification questions encouraged the explication of meanings which

were not immediately clear. Clarification questions included:

Could you tell me a little more about that?

Could you explain that further?

What do you mean by that?

Could you give me an example?

The full interview schedule for this study is located in Appendix I.

The conclusion of an interview must also be planned. Åkerlind (2005c) wrote

from her experiences as a researcher about knowing when to conclude interviews. She

found the interview to be exhausted when the interviewee started to repeat themselves

or had difficulty answering requests for further elaboration. Interviews in the present

study reached a conclusion quite naturally when participants exhausted talking about

examples of their approaches with student behaviour. Interviews lasted between forty

minutes to one hour, depending on the teachers and their discussions.

3.9 DATA ANALYSIS

3.9.1 An Overview of Phenomenographic Analysis

Key to phenomenographic data analysis is attention to the design of the

interviews, ensuring that the theoretical framework underpins the approach to data


gathering. Truthfully representing the ways individual participants have experienced

the phenomenon is also fundamental to phenomenographic analysis (Marton & Booth,

1997). To facilitate this, Marton and Booth (1997) suggested considering:

Have we really captured how they experience this phenomenon? Does the

research method do them justice? Would they have done this differently under

other circumstances? Can the findings be generalised to other situations at the

individual level, or to a population, or to other populations, at the group level?

(p.127).

This line of questioning highlights the importance of the study design.

Thoughtful data collection methods are directly linked to effective analysis. In

phenomenography, the unit of analysis is the distinctly different ways of experiencing

the phenomenon (Trigwell, 1999). The logical relations established from these

different understandings constitute the results.

Many phenomenographers have detailed the stages they use to analyse data in

phenomenographic studies (Åkerlind, 2005c; Dahlgren & Fallsberg, 1991; Marton,

Carlsson, & Halasz, 1992; Säljö, 1997; Sandberg, 1994). In the present study,

Åkerlind’s (2005c) 6 basic steps for analysing phenomenographic research were

adopted for their simplicity and precision. These are:

Step 1: Reading the transcripts

Step 2: Developing draft categories

Step 3: Re-reading the transcripts again, with challenge and testing

Step 4: Subsequent readings with a different focus

Step 5: Refining and modifying the outcome space

Step 6: Constituting structural relationships

3.9.2 Data Analysis Step By Step

The analysis for this study began with the transcription of the twenty-one

interviews. During the transcription phase it was important to de-identify data, check

that the audio interviews were represented accurately into text, and re-familiarise

myself with the data. Once transcription was completed, a further check was conducted

to ensure accurate transcription and to allow for further familiarisation with the data.

Next came an initial reading of the transcripts.


Step 1: Reading the Transcripts

In phenomenographic analysis, a whole of transcript approach is used. This

means that individual transcripts are not interpreted in isolation, but in light of the

group of transcripts as a whole (Åkerlind et al., 2005). Analysis must focus on the

central research question and transcripts be read with the research question in mind.

For this study, this meant that the analysis needed to be undertaken with the focus

question of, “How do Prep teachers experience their approaches with student

behaviour?”

Åkerlind (2005) stated that the analysis begins with the researcher undertaking

a first reading of the transcripts, searching for extracts from the data that are central to

the phenomenon, inspecting transcripts both as a whole and individually for related

themes (Marton & Booth, 1997). Barnacle, in Åkerlind et al.(2005), suggested posing

a question such as, “What does the phenomenon mean to the interviewees if this is

what they are saying?” (p. 85) as being helpful to the analysis. In this study the

questions that drove the analysis during the initial readings of the transcripts were,

“What do Prep teachers do when they approach student behaviour?” and “How do Prep

teachers see their approaches with student behaviour?”

After an initial reading of the transcripts, they were read again, but this time a

more analytically-focused approach was used. Combing through each transcript on the

computer screen using Microsoft Word, I first highlighted in yellow commentaries

relating to the teachers’ particular approaches with student behaviour. Concurrently, I

highlighted in green their actions, that is, what they actually did when they approached

the student behaviour (how they went about it); and their explanations of why they

went about it in that way (the meaning) were highlighted in blue. In addition, I used

the Microsoft Word facility track changes and comments to record my preliminary

thoughts about how teachers saw their approach. I approached all twenty-one

transcripts in this same way in this early stage of analysis. Take for example this

excerpt from transcript 9:

Interviewee: So I've reached a level with these children where they're

reflecting on their own behaviour and identifying things with me that they

would like to improve. Then they actually select it. I only did it today and

it's something that worked very nicely for the children that I chose. So I'll

continue that and I'll teach how to do that explicitly. Because I'd like to see What teachers actually did

when they approached

student behaviour.

Teachers’

approach with

student

behaviour


that self-reflection coming in. Because a lot of the behaviours when there

are problematic behaviours seem to be around impulse control. So I want

to cultivate children who have that moment of thought in their head about

what they're doing, what's happening around them, and then can navigate

that towards our positive outcome. As opposed to just going with that first

thing they want to do.

With some children they're ready to do that now. We saw that

in the kids who were immediately able to nominate something that they

wanted to do. For other kids it's going to be a lot of me modelling how to

do it. A lot of me talking them through it and teaching that process of, what's

something you think you can do today? How are you going to do rule six,

keep your teacher happy? Good. When they do that, I immediately reward

it on my super improvers chart. So up until this point the super improvers

chart over in the corner there has been me directed. I've told them something

I want to see. When I've seen it I put there. Or when I've just seen a

behaviour instantaneously then I'll put the mark there.

Now that we're reaching mid-way through the year and we're

getting that slightly deeper thinking about ourselves as kids who get along

and kids who understand the rules and kids who can follow them, I'm going

to start exploring that idea of them nominating how they want to get their

star that day and see how that works. Because I want that deeper thought

about myself as a chooser of my own behaviours, rather than, I'm doing it

because you're the boss and you've told me what to do. I want to indicate

that internal thought process, as opposed to an external thought process

from me.

Figure 3.3. Analysis of transcript excerpt.

My preliminary thoughts here were that this teacher, in this particular excerpt of

the transcript, adopted a reflective approach with student behaviour. She went about

this by questioning and talking with students, as well as supporting them to set goals.

She also talked about modelling and actively teaching this reflective behaviour. It was

evident that this approach was adopted to encourage students to ‘own their behaviours’

rather than behaviour being reliant on the teacher telling them what to do. This way of

analysing data is supported by Australian phenomenographer Bowden (2000), whose

research findings aimed to contribute to physics teaching and learning. Bowden

(2000b) adopted Marton’s phenomenographic approach to analysis, and recommended

Teachers’ explanations

of why they went about

it in that way.

Teachers’ approach with

student behaviour.


that during analysis utterances found to be of interest are selected and their meaning

analysed and interpreted. Selected quotes should be examined for embedded meaning,

with a focus on developing a pool of meanings (Bowden, 2000b).

After this initial process of analysis and interpretation with the 21 transcripts, the

next stage involved revisiting the transcripts to identify similar themes or aspects and

grouping them together, thus developing pools of meanings. An example of a dominant

theme or aspect that emerged early on during this phase was focused upon teachers’

thinking about and intentions towards student compliance. This emerging theme

centred on teachers acting in ways to encourage compliance in the classroom. The term

compliance came from the participants’ frequent use of this word. Take for example

these excerpts from transcripts 2, 3 and 11:

But at the same time, we’re adjusting his behaviour plan anyway, so it’s sort

of, we’re going to try and align him a little bit more with what we’ve got in

here. But bearing in mind that he, he’s so very non-compliant at the moment

that, you know… (Interviewee 2)

But I was going to say, so he was not very compliant, like I couldn’t get him

to do much. But slowly we have worked with him on it and slowly he’s doing

those things. (Interviewee 3)

So you've got a couple of children with hyperactivity or extreme non-

compliance, or the other side you've got those who are weeping all the time.

(Interviewee 1)

Teachers described a wide range of approaches they employed to achieve

compliance with students, such as the use of rewards, providing students with

reminders and consequences, raising their voice and removing students from the

classroom. In terms of this theme or aspect, it was evident that the use of teacher

control or power was central to achieving compliance and it was important to teachers

that the approach be quick to implement. From analysis of the first three transcripts,

the following theme of Student compliance was developed, shown below in Figure 3.4.

The dots points were derived from teacher approaches (actions) with student behaviour

that they detailed in the interviews and from their explanations or articulated goals for

using those approaches.


Student compliance:

Behaviour requests I2

Managing behaviour so learning can occur I2

The boss I2

Firm I2

Retraining I2

Request of admin to talk to child I2

Requesting assistance from others I2

Use of consequences I2

Warnings I2

Praise I2, I3

Child learning to modify their behaviour, but adult enforces I2

Stickers and rewards: First/then rewards I2, I3

Rewards adapted to individual students’ needs I2, I3

Based on observation I2

Raising voice; yelling I2, I3

Firm voice I2

Reminders I2, I3

Instructing I2, I3

Giving directions I2

Gesture I2

Counting down I2

Teacher means business I2

Power I2, I3

Rules I1, I3

Talking to child about behaviour: lecturing; trying to get the child to think about how the teacher

feels (developing empathy); trying to develop a ‘shared’ understanding I2, I3

Influenced by other professionals I2

Relationships: loving is important (mediates the firm approach?); building relationships to get

students to do what you want them to do (mutual respect) I2, I3

Seating consideration I2, I3

Students to think about their behaviour - independently I2

Removal of child: sitting out I2

Flexible, based on particular incident I2

Ignoring I2

Comply to routines and structure I2, I3

Physically looking for child I2

Visual schedule I2

Talk with parents I3

Move from stickers to just praise: stages, moving to self-regulation? I3

Learning to be compliant: gradual move I3

Individualised approaches to compliance I2

Need for student to engage with the rest of the class I2, I3

Task completion: physically making child complete task I3

Teacher adjusting expectations I3

Questioning student about behaviour I3

Teacher giving child a ‘look’ I3

Teacher compliant to school I3

About time management: quick approach to get the learning done (behaviour and learning not

linked) I3

Students must ‘look’ like they are listening/engaging I3

Figure 3.4. Analysis theme: Student compliance.


Bowden (2000) stated that themes or categories should emerge from the data,

developed from similarities and yet differentiated from each other in terms of their

variances. In contrast to the student compliance theme or aspect, another theme that

emerged based upon similarities in the data seemed to be focused on teachers thinking

about students’ intrinsic motivation. In this much smaller theme or aspect, teachers

described rejection of approaches that used rewards and consequences, and instead

preferred approaches that were aimed at student self-regulation. Specific approaches

included student self-reflection and attention to learning and relationships. This

emerging aspect or theme had a strong future focus. From analysis of the first three

transcripts, a theme centring on Students’ intrinsic motivation was pooled. This theme

is shown below in Figure 3.5. This theme again depicts the teachers’ details of their

approaches with student behaviour, along with the explanations or stated goals for

using those approaches.

Students’ intrinsic motivation:

About developing feeling of success I1

About the process: learning I1

Motivation to learn I1

Developing positive dispositions I1

About future personal growth I1

About children developing responsibility for their behaviour I3

Developing self-regulation I3

Rejects use of stickers I3

Relationships I3

Students knowing the right thing to do I3

Student self-reflection I3

Figure 3.5. Analysis theme: Students’ intrinsic motivation.

What was immediately interesting here in this emerging way of seeing

approaches to student behaviour was that teachers were less focused on themselves

and what they were doing and more focused on students and their learning. It was

becoming apparent in these initial emerging themes that variation was present. By the

time half the transcripts were analysed in this way, other different themes or aspects

had emerged including, student safety, student learning, understanding students,

shared knowledge, conflicts, thinking about their teaching and trial and error. From

here it was possible to progress data analysis to a draft set of categories.

Step 2: Developing draft categories


Phenomenographic researchers provide guidance for the process of developing

draft categories. Trigwell (1999) stated that the outcome of phenomenographic studies

is descriptions of the qualitative variation in the ways a group of people experience a

phenomenon. This is based upon the notion that there are a limited number of ways of

conceiving the object (or phenomenon) of the study. These ways of seeing

(conceptions) are characterised in terms of categories of description, which are

logically related to one another and may form hierarchies in relation to given criteria.

This produces the outcome space of the phenomenon (Trigwell, 1999).

Marton and Booth (1997) pointed out the difference between conceptions and

categories of description. They stated that conceptions are what is described, while

categories of description are the way in which it is described. Categories of description,

as developed by the researcher when analysing the data, represent the different ways

of seeing the phenomenon. Larson (2007) stated that, “The categories of description

are the researcher’s abstractions of the different ways of understanding, which have

been identified. They referred to a collective level and describe the different ways the

phenomenon can be understood” (p.56). It provided a system for looking at the

collective human experience of the phenomenon, even though the phenomenon may

be perceived “…differently by different people and under different circumstances”

(Åkerlind, 2005b).

On the issue of hierarchies of categories, Walsh (2000) stated that categories are

constructed through a set of logical relations. Some authors, like Marton (2015), stated

that in phenomenographic practice categories are usually presented in the form of a

hierarchy of conceptions, which reflects increasing levels of understanding and shows

the relation between the conceptions (Åkerlind et al., 2005; Bowden, 2000a). Other

researchers such as Patrick (2000), did not assume that a hierarchy will emerge. For

example Patrick (2000) explained that when considering the logical relations between

categories for her study with 18 physics teachers, she

…looked at the category descriptions to see whether, and how, they might be

structurally related to each other, and if so whether a hierarchy of categories

had emerged. Generally it seemed possible to order the categories from the

less complex and the less complete to the more complex and more complete;

in relation to teachers’ conceptions of physics and history, however, it seemed


prejudicial to assume that the ordering was hierarchical in advance of

exploring students’ experiences. (p. 130)

There seems to be some disagreement in the literature around whether or not to

actively search for a hierarchy. In Learning to do Phenomenography: A Reflective

Discussion, Åkerlind, et al. (2005) described the accounts of five individual

researchers using phenomenography. While Åkerlind (2005) herself believed that it is

commonly expected that the relationships between the categories form a structural

hierarchy of inclusiveness, Cherry (as cited in Åkerlind et al., 2005), reflecting on her

phenomenographic practice, felt that a search for structure would impose the

researcher’s views on the data; she therefore valued the idea of researchers simply

immersing “themselves in their data and see what themes emerge intuitively” (p.99).

Like Åkerlind (2005), Walsh (2000) also discussed potential issues with the

construction of the categories with regard to this search for structure. While the

researcher having control over the data allows the categories of description to be

developed in a logical fashion, a question is posed by Walsh (2000) related to whether

this approach is a faithful representation of the data. Walsh (2000) is acknowledging

here the tension that may exist between being truthful to the data - by allowing the

categories to emerge - and the need to create an orderly construction (Walsh, 2000).

She went on to say that when researchers develop categories from their own

framework or lens, a hazard lies in the possibility of adding or adjusting categories

which are not supported by the data. In addition, imposing a logical framework where

one does not exist may result in bias.

In the present study it was important to adopt an open and, as far as possible,

unbiased approach to analysis that allowed the voices of Prep teachers to emerge, to

faithfully represent their way of seeing approaches with student behaviour. However,

as the aim of this study was to reveal the fundamental variational structure of teachers’

ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour, and with the analysis being

influenced by the work of Marton (2015) and S. Booth and Ingerman (2002), data

analysis was approached with openness to the likelihood of an hierarchical structure.

During the process of identifying themes or aspects I began to reflect upon the

different meanings teachers may hold with reference to the phenomenographic

structure of experience and with consideration of the nature of knowledge (S. Booth

& Ingerman, 2002). Reflection upon these initial groupings at this time led me to think


about where teachers’ awareness of the phenomenon was centred. Teachers were

continually talking about approaches with student behaviour in relation to student

learning. Take for example these two excerpts from transcripts 8 and 1:

Just getting her to focus is the biggest thing for me. She's not ready, and there's

a whole lot of learning that she's just not getting. (Interviewee 8)

I’ve dug my heels in about behaviour, and about the social and emotional

learning, in that I think, like, it’s still got to be a focus. If I don’t get that right,

the rest of it’s not going to be okay. So for (child’s name), that little fellow

who escalates, if I don’t get his behaviour sorted and work with him to develop

those skills, the academics aren’t going to come. And I don’t understand,

people don’t understand that, like you’ve got to have children who are happy

to come to school, who feel successful, who can manage their own behaviour,

who can take turns, negotiate, work together, before any real learning

happens. (Interviewee 1)

These comments prompted me to reflect upon the relationship between student

behaviour and learning. Although I had focused the interviews around teachers’

experiences of approaches with student behaviour, it was evident that their focus was

on student behaviour in relation to student learning. This led to the use of the term

engagement to better describe teachers’ meanings. For example, when considering the

aspect of student compliance, I began to ponder: is teachers’ thinking on this aspect

centred on engaging students to learn? That is, are teachers thinking about ways to

ensure students are physically on-task and compliant to the teacher so that learning can

occur? Similarly, I reflected on the aspect of students’ intrinsic motivation, wondering:

are teachers thinking about independent student engagement and self-regulation; that

is, focused towards independent engagement with learning? This was the beginning

of the development of a preliminary draft set of categories of description.

Through the iterative process of going back to the data, examining what teachers

did when they approached student behaviour and considering how they described their

approaches with student behaviour (the what and how), meaning was found in terms

of the teachers’ way of seeing their approaches with student behaviour. Marton and

Booth (1997) stated that alternating between looking at one aspect of the phenomenon

at a time and then looking at the transcript as a whole will allow the researcher to bring

into focus different aspects against the background of the different situations. They


propose that this will lead to identifying the structural aspects of the study (Marton &

Booth, 1997), advocating inspecting the data from one perspective to another until

clarity is found. This results in identifying the number of qualitatively different ways

of experiencing the phenomenon, and the variation in the different ways in which each

of the ways of experiencing are expressed (Marton & Booth, 1997). This is the very

essence of phenomenography’s theoretical framework, and this was applied in this

case.

By employing this process, three early ways of seeing (or preliminary categories

of description) were beginning to emerge. For instance, in the theme or aspect of

student compliance, a way of seeing (or category) emerged that I labelled Engaging to

Learn. It was evident within this theme that teachers were focused on students’

compliance with their rules and directions so that students were on-task or engaged so

that learning could occur. There seemed to be a dual focus for teachers here, that is, on

compliance and learning. Figure 3.6 shows the teacher described approaches with

student behaviour and, in the blue text box, a preliminary category name, along with

an explanation of that theme. In red are the participant numbers (e.g. I2) that

contributed to this category.

Student compliance:

Behaviour requests I2

Managing behaviour so learning can occur I2, I7

The boss I2, I6

Firm I2

Retraining/training I2, I9

Request of admin to talk to child I2, I5

Requesting assistance from others I2

Use of consequences I2, I6, I7

Warnings I2, I9

Praise, reinforcement and parallel praise I2, I3, I4, I6, I7, I8, I9

Child learning to modify their behaviour, but adult enforces I2, I9

Stickers and rewards: First/then rewards I2, I3, I5, I6, I7, I9

Rewards are adapted to individual students’ needs I2, I3, I4

Based on observation I2

Raising voice; Yelling I2, I3, I9

Firm voice I2, I5

Reminders I2, I3, I6

Instructing I2, I3, I7

Giving directions I2

Gesture I2

Counting down I2, I9


Teacher means business I2

Power I2, I3

Rules I1, I3, I7, I8

Talking to child about behaviour: lecturing; trying to get the child to think about how the

teacher feels (developing empathy); trying to develop a ‘shared’ understanding I2, I3

Influenced by other professionals I2, I5

Relationships: loving is important (mediates the firm approach?); building relationships

to get students to do what you want them to do (mutual respect) I2, I3

Seating consideration I2, I3, I4, I8

Students to think about their behaviour- independently I2

Removal of child: sitting out I2

Flexible, based on particular incident I2

Ignoring I2, I4, I8

Comply to routines and structure I2, I3, I6

Physically looking for child I2

Visual schedule I2

Talk/notes to parents I3, I8

Move from stickers to just praise: stages, moving to self-regulation? I3

Learning to be compliant: gradual move I3

Individualised approaches to compliance I2, I6

Need for student to engage with the rest of the class I2, I3

Task completion: physically making child complete task I3

Teacher adjusting expectations I3

Questioning student about behaviour I3

Teacher giving child a ‘look’ I3, I8

Teacher compliant to school I3

About time management: quick approach to get the learning done (behaviour and

learning not linked) I3, I6, I7, I9

Students must ‘look’ like they are listening/engaging I3

Attention gaining strategies; keeping attention I9

Control I6

Removal/withdrawal: buddy class, removed from group, time-out, thinking chair I6, I8, I9

Missing out on playtime I7, I8

Expectations I5

Time of year I6

Students liking reward systems I7

Whole-class rewards: passport systems, pom pom jar, class party, happy sticks I4, I7, I8

Voice/acting/facial expression: engagement I9

Behaviour sheet I5

Fairness I6

School awards I7

Redirection I8

Keeping on task I7

Teacher decided I7

Future: compliance and support needed I4, I5, I7

Traffic lights: stepped system I4, I7, I8

Figure 3.6. Preliminary category: Engaging to learn.


Another way of seeing approaches with student behaviour emerged from the

aspect or theme of students’ learning. I named this way of seeing Learning to Engage,

as it was evident that teachers were thinking about students being on-task so that they

were learning, but were also focused upon teaching their students how to actually

engage with learning. Approaches teachers used included teacher modelling,

practising behaviours, the use of visual schedules and peer tutoring. The teachers’

focus had shifted from compliance to learning and teaching in this theme. Figure 3.7

shows the teacher described approaches with student behaviour and, in the blue text

box, the assigned preliminary category name along with an explanation of that theme.

In red are the participant numbers (e.g. I9) that contributed to this category.

Their students’ learning:

Behaviour linked to teaching and learning: thinking out loud with children I1, I3, I4

Empowering children I1

Importance of social and emotional learning as it influences academics I1, I9

Developing social awareness and conscience I1, I3

Students teaching their peers: reinforcing behaviour I1, I8

Student included in learning as much as capable: child/ class division? I2, I3

Use of resources to engage student I2

Play-based learning means engagement I3

Developing a work ethic in students I3

About the future and learning/ developing skills for future life I3

Modelling: leads to learning behaviour I1, I4, I8, I9

Developing independence I3

Visual schedule to support learning I2, I8

Learning compliance I2, I3

Move from stickers to praise I3

Student reflection- process of behaviour reflection sheet I3

Behaviour charts I7, I8

Building relationship with school I8, I9

Teaching rules though the use of consequences I7, I8

Explaining I6, I9

Peer tutoring I8, I9

Talking with students I7, I8, I9

Building relationships I9

Problem solving I9

Making an example of student I6,

Scaffolding I8

Practising behaviour I8, I9

Thinking about development I8

Positive feedback I7, I9

Teaching behaviour I4

Reinforcement I5, I9

Is this about LEARNING TO

ENGAGE?

Teachers thinking about teaching

their students how to engage in

learning?

About skill development and

intentional teaching?


Routines I5

Checking for understanding I9

Shadowing student I4

Repetition I5

Aligning behaviour approach with curriculum I9

Teaching parents: practising behaviour at home I4

Behaviour reflection: behaviour conferences; reflecting on rules; drawing reflection;

reflective questioning I4, I7, I9

Teaching/developing a work ethic I7

Figure 3.7. Preliminary category: Learning to engage.

As the theme or aspect of students’ intrinsic motivation was centred on teachers

thinking about students regulating their own behaviour, I formed a category I labelled

Towards Independent Engagement with Learning. It was apparent that teachers in this

way of seeing approaches with student behaviour were future focused, that is, more

concerned with approaches that would support students’ self-regulation and

engagement with learning, rather than approaches that relied on the teacher to regulate

student behaviour and engagement. Figure 3.8 shows the teacher described approaches

with student behaviour and, in the blue text box, the assigned preliminary category

name along with an explanation of that theme. In red are the participant numbers (e.g.

I7) that contributed to this category.

Students’ intrinsic motivation:

About developing feeling of success I1

About the process: learning I1

Motivation to learn I1

Developing positive dispositions I1

About future personal growth I1

About children developing responsibility for their behaviour I3

Developing self-regulation I3

Rejects use of stickers I3

Relationships I3

Students knowing the right thing to do I3

Student self-reflection I3

Students self-monitoring behaviour I4

Teacher thinking about her teaching: teacher enthusiasm towards love of learning I9

Students owning behaviour I7

Problem solving I7

Figure 3.8. Preliminary category: Towards independent engagement with learning.

It was becoming apparent that these themes or aspects were differentiated from

one another in terms of where the teachers’ focus was held.

Is this TOWARDS

INDEPENDENT ENGAGEMENT

WITH LEARNING?

Teachers thinking about independent

student engagement and self-

regulation.


At this point conducting analysis on the computer screen using Microsoft Word

was becoming unmanageable due to the size of the data. Although draft categories

were beginning to emerge, this approach no longer provided sufficient flexibility to be

able to re-look at data and adjust and re-test categories, so I searched for a different

way to look at the data.

Step 3: Re-reading the transcripts again, with challenge and testing

Akerlind (2005) stated that transcripts should be read and then re-read, leading

to iterative cycles between transcripts, interpretations of transcripts and then the

checking of interpretations back against the data. In this phase of analysis I decided to

physically cut up the highlighted parts (or meaning statements) of transcripts and

arrange the selected participant quotes into these three initial categories or ways of

seeing (see Figure 3.9, Long table data analysis process). This process allowed for

iterative cycles of reading, interpretation and testing of the draft categories.

Figure 3.9. Long table data analysis process.

During this ‘long table’ data analysis process, another way of seeing approaches

with student behaviour became evident. A very small but distinct theme emerged

where teachers were describing their approach with student behaviour in terms of not

doing anything with the behaviour. The student behaviours described in this category

by teachers were mainly high level behaviours that teachers did not feel equipped or

confident to handle. Teacher approaches centred on ignoring the behaviour or

removing the student (and thus the behaviour) to administration or a buddy class. I

named this way of seeing Not Engaging.


There were now four categories, and these were organised hierarchically in terms

of increasing complexity, influenced by Marton’s (2015) discussion on approaches to

learning and variation. The four categories were:

Category 1: Not Engaging

Category 2: Engaging to Learn

Category 3: Learning to Engage

Category 4: Towards Independent Engagement

These categories were then arranged on the long table to enable the process of

challenge and testing. This additional iterative process involved careful inspection of

the meaning statements, individually weighing them up against other categories to

ensure they fit with the particular category to which they had been assigned. At this

point the supervision team was engaged to question and challenge the construction of

categories to help ensure reliability.

Marton (2015) argued that a “less powerful, surface approach to learning is less

varied”, while “the more powerful deep approach to learning is more varied” (p.151).

This was evident in these four categories, as Not Engaging illustrated very little

variation in terms of the teachers’ focus or thinking, whilst Towards Independent

Engagement showed a great deal of variation. The mapping of this variance and

invariance, which is at the heart of variation theory, will be detailed in the next chapter.

Step 4: Subsequent readings with a different focus

Marton (1986) stated that categories should be adjusted, retested and adjusted

again during data analysis. Åkerlind (2005c) argued that although this iterative

analysis is time consuming, the researcher must be aware of not closing the analysis

too early. This was important in this analysis, as further iterations of the data revealed

yet another category or way of seeing approaches with student behaviour.

Upon further inspection of Category 2, Engaging to Learn, a distinct way of

approaching student behaviour within this category that centred on teachers adapting

something in order to engage students to learn was discovered. This category was

labelled Adapting to Engage and was nestled between two existing categories in the

hierarchy. Approaches included teachers adjusting their expectations of students and


changing or adjusting the activity for students, and saw teachers’ thinking focused on

individual students and flexibility. The five categories were now:



Category 3: Adapting to Engage



Further iterations were necessary at this point to ensure that categories were

indicative of teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour. The

doctorate supervision team were also involved at this point, to invite different

perspectives and to challenge the construction of the categories. It was suggested at

this time that perhaps Category 4 might potentially be split into two, as some of the

quotes within the category did not seem to fully fit. Further iterations revealed that

some of these quotes were better positioned in other categories. Take for instance this

quote, where a participant talks about the use of a traffic light behaviour system with

the class:

Because this class is particularly well-behaved, they’re horrified when they’re

on orange. One little fellow up there, actually from yesterday, burst into tears

and all he’d done was gone from green to orange and he hadn’t even gone to

red or time-out. But the thought of having his peg on orange was enough to

‘arrrh!’ Well, do as you’re told next time. (I14)

This quote was initially placed in Category 4, as I interpreted it as the teacher

using this traffic light system to help the student learn from the consequence of having

his name moved down to the orange. Re-examining this quote, and testing it against

other quotes within the category, it was evident that this statement fitted more

appropriately in Category 2 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, as

teacher control is in focus (e.g. “Well, do as you’re told next time”). Teacher control

is a feature of Category 2, but in Category 4 control is shared between teachers and

students. In addition, in Category 4 students’ expectations and needs are focal and

teachers are flexible in their approach, whereas in Category 2 the teachers’

expectations and needs are focal and a flexible approach is not evident. This justified


moving this quote and other similar ones to Category 2. This type of subsequent

reading and testing proved crucial to the reliability of the study.

Other quotes not fitting any of the five categories were relegated to Category 6.

While interesting, these quotes did not centre upon the phenomenon of approaches

with student behaviour and were therefore determined to be outside the scope of this

study. They were more geared towards an explanation of the dilemmas or barriers

teachers experienced when they approached student behaviour. Some examples of

such quotes are:

So why I was saying that is because the structure of school, we have

expectations and we’re told that we must do, we must do explicit teaching, we

must do these warm ups, we must do, we must do teaching in a certain way,

like we are being dictated to by the school how we do certain things. So I have

to follow suit with that, and it doesn’t fit well with lots of students, well lots

of students? …half the class probably do really well with it, then there’s

another quarter that you know struggle but you know they are getting there.

And then there is another little pocket that find that really, really difficult to

learn like that. So that’s how it impacts me is I guess what I was trying to say.

I have to do stuff that maybe sometimes feel philosophically I don’t believe

in but I’m part of the school, so I have to do it and to get them to learn I have

to use certain behaviour strategies that I maybe don’t use another time. (I3)

I think that's what's posing that big problem now because we are so busy and

we've got - with this Australian Curriculum we've got so much to get through

that almost if we don't have that perfect structure and perfect behaviour,

almost, it's almost proving - it just can't happen. (I15)

Akerlind (2005) stated that the end point of analysis is reached when the

researcher ceases to see the transcripts as a new experience and nothing new has

emerged. The categories, showing the different ways of understanding the

phenomenon, can then be seen to be stable (Akerlind, 2005). After multiple iterations

the five categories appeared stable, with no new ways of seeing aproaches to student

behaviour emerging (see Figure 3.10). The next step was then to refine and modify the

outcome space.


Figure 3.10. The five categories.

Step 5: Refining and modifying the outcome space

In the next step, the outcome space can be defined as a description of the

categories and their relationship to each other (Åkerlind et al., 2005). This focus on

description is characteristic of phenomenography and is related to necessary

understandings of the similarities and differences of meaning. In this study, the

categories, presented in an outcome space, provided a description of teachers’ varying

ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour and the relationship within and

between categories.

Marton and Booth (1997) stated that the outcome space is “the complex of

categories of description comprising distinct groupings of aspects of the phenomenon

and the relationships between them” (p. 125). The categories in this study have a

logical relationship with one another. The different ways of seeing the phenomenon

form a hierarchy which can be defined in terms of increasing complexity. Some ways

of experiencing phenomena can be more complex than others and may coincide with

other ways of experiencing, where the quality of each can be considered against the

others (Marton & Booth, 1997).

During this stage of the analysis, on the advice of Swedish phenomenographer

Ake Ingerman who mentored me during the analysis stage, I used S. Booth and

Ingerman’s (2002) Making Sense of Physics in the First Year of Study paper to guide

my thinking around the construction of the outcome space. This Swedish

phenomenographic study found six qualitatively different ways university students

experienced the first year of physics study, with variation analysed in terms of the

structure of experience, the nature of knowledge and an ethical aspect. I found S. Booth

and Ingerman’s (2002) detailed analysis of variation in this paper helped me to

understand how to reveal and communicate the structural and referential aspects in my

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5


study. Armed with this new knowledge I began to revisit the categories, further

refining these through thinking about the relationships within the categories as well as

what made each different from other categories. At this stage I began to detail this

variation in a way that explained the structural and referential aspects of the categories,

similar to the strategy used by S. Booth and Ingerman (2002). This is shown in figure

3.11. In the far left hand side of the figure are the category numbers (1-5). The second

column details the structural aspect, comprising the external horizon (what is focal)

and internal horizon (the details). The next column shows the referential aspect, that

is, the meaning. On the far right of the figure is the ethical aspect which describes

where the responsibility for approaches with student behaviour lies and the different

views of teacher knowledge.

Figure 3.11. Analysis of ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour

During the process of developing the analysis of variation, further checking and

retesting of the categories was required. It was at this stage that I began presenting my

tentative analysis to a wider audience for comment, feedback and critique. I presented

at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Higher Degree Research

Conference, a conference for higher degree research students to present their research

to fellow students and QUT researchers; the Australian Association for Research in

Education (AARE) conference for sharing educational research with fellow

researchers and educators; and the QUT Phenomenography Futures Symposium,

where researchers who hold a particular interest in the phenomenographic

methodology present their research and discuss phenomenographic methods and


theory. Soon after, I was fortunate to be able to present my categories of description

and preliminary analysis in a meeting with Swedish phenomenographer Ake Ingerman

(S. Booth & Ingerman, 2002; Collier-Reed & Ingerman, 2013). These experiences

encouraged me to further refine and explain in greater detail the outcome space,

including descriptions of the categories and dimensions of variation. These

descriptions are detailed in chapter 4, the results chapter.

Step 6: Constituting structural relationships.

While categories of description are logically related to one another through the

common phenomenon being experienced, the structural relationships between the

different categories are critical to the outcome space in phenomenographic studies. As

discussed previously in this chapter, this structure makes phenomenography unique

and is part of the theoretical basis of this approach (Åkerlind et al., 2005).

Analysis needs to focus on the structure of participants’ experiences, with the

researcher seeking both the meaning and structure of the phenomenon (Marton &

Booth, 1997). This is the essence of variation theory. The goal of phenomenographic

research is achieved by the researcher “applying the principle of focusing on one

aspect of the object and seeking its dimension of variation while holding other aspects

frozen” (p.133). Finally, in data analysis for this study, it was important to map these

dimensions of variation. The dimensions of variation for each of the categories are

presented and explained in the following table (3.2). There are fifteen dimensions of

variation in total, with the purple headings introducing each dimension name. The left

hand column lists the five categories for each dimension, and the right hand column

details the variation in teachers’ awareness and understanding for each dimension.

Table 3.2

Dimensions of variation

Dimension Category 1:

Not engaging

Category 2:

Engaging to

learn

Category 3:

Adapting to

engage

Category 4:

Learning to

engage

Category 5:

Towards

independent

engagement

Responsibility Teachers release

responsibility for

the student

behaviour in

some way

(admin; buddy

class; other

activities).

The teacher

holds

responsibility

for student

behaviour.

The teacher

holds

responsibility

for student

behaviour.

The teacher has

responsibility

for student

behaviour and

so do the

students (joint

responsibility).

The teacher is

releasing

responsibility

for behaviour to

the students

(student

responsibility).


Power/ control Teacher may or

may not have

power/ control.

Powerless if

behaviour is

taken out of

hands (e.g.

admin). Control

used if teacher is

making decisions

for what happens

with student

behaviour.

Teacher

controls

student

behaviour.

Teacher

controls

student

behaviour.

Joint teacher

and student

control.

Teacher

releasing

control. Moving

to student

control.

Individual vs

group

Considering

behaviour of

individuals.

Considering

behaviour of

individuals.

Considering

behaviour of

individuals or

group.

Considering

behaviour of

whole group.

Considering

behaviour of

whole group.

Consideration of

students’ needs

Limited

consideration of

students’ needs.

Limited

consideration

of students’

needs.

Consideration

of students’

needs

(individual and

group).

Understanding

of students is

central

(demonstrated

via

observation

and from

reflection on

individual

students).

Consideration of

students’ needs

(group).

Consideration of

students’ needs

(group).

Here and now/

Future

(temporal)

Future not focal. Future not

focal.

Future not

focal.

Future partially

focal.

Future focal.

Engagement Not concerned

with engagement.

Concerned

with

engagement.

Concerned

with

engagement.

Concerned with

engagement and

learning.

Concerned with

engagement and

learning.

Inclusion Students

excluded from

cohort.

Individual

students seen

in isolation

from the

cohort.

Individual

students seen

in isolation

from the

cohort.

Students seen as

a ‘community of

learners’.

Students seen as

a ‘community of

learners’.

Time (temporal) Quick to

implement.

Quick to

implement.

May be quick

or take time.

Takes time to

implement.

Takes time to

implement.

Flexibility No flexibility or

can contain pre-

considered

elements of

flexibility (e.g.

providing the

student with an

alternate

activity).

No flexibility. Flexibility. Flexibility. Flexibility.

Teaching Focus is on

teaching the

cohort (not the

individual

exhibiting the

behaviour).

Focus is on

teaching the

cohort and the

individual.

Focus is on

teaching the

cohort and the

individual.

Focus is on

teaching the

whole cohort.

Focus is on

teaching the

whole cohort.


3.10 CHAPTER SUMMARY

In this chapter an overview of the phenomenographic methodology has been

presented, key terms associated with phenomenography introduced, and variation

theory explained. Further, the rationale for using phenomenography in this study was

outlined, followed by a discussion of the ontological and epistemological bases of

phenomenography. The relationship between phenomenography and variation theory

was also described.

Also in this chapter, the data collection process and approach to analysis were

presented and ethical considerations associated with this phenomenographic study

outlined, followed by the participant overview and description of the conduct of the

semi-structured interviews. Finally, a detailed account of the conduct of analysis was

provided, along with explanations and examples of how the final outcome space (or

findings) were derived. In the following Results chapter the final categories of

description and analysis of variation will be presented.

Teacher

expectations and

needs

Teachers’

expectations and

needs are focal.

Teachers also

considering the

needs of the rest

of the cohort.

Teachers’

expectations

and needs are

focal.

Teachers’

expectations

and needs are

focal.

Students’

expectations and

needs are focal.

Students’

expectations and

needs are focal.

Behaviour Challenging; high

level behaviours

of individuals.

Challenging

behaviours of

individuals.

Behaviours of

individuals

and the whole

cohort.

Behaviour of

the cohort.

Behaviour of

the cohort.

Relationships

with students

Relationships not

focal.

Relationships

not focal.

Relationships

focal.

Relationships

focal.

Relationships

focal.

Reflection Teacher

reflection not

focal.

Teacher

reflection not

focal or

superficial.

Teacher

reflection

evident.

Teacher

reflection

evident.

Reflection focal.

Managing Management

focal.

Management

focal.

Management

focal.

Management

not focal, but

still aware of

need for

management.

Management

not focal, but

still aware of

need for

management.

Chapter 4: Results 129

Chapter 4: Results

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This phenomenographic study has sought to understand teachers’ ways of seeing

their approaches with student behaviour in Preparatory (Prep) classrooms in

Queensland government schools, and to capture the variation of their conceptions of

this phenomenon. Twenty-one Queensland Prep teachers from Brisbane metropolitan

schools were interviewed. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using

methods underpinned by the phenomenographic theoretical framework (Marton &

Booth, 1997) and variation theory (Marton, 2015).

In this chapter, the findings of this study of teachers’ ways of seeing approaches

with student behaviour are reported and explained. First, the phenomenographic

categories of description are presented, along with supporting participant examples

from the data and a detailed analysis of the dimensions of variation for each category.

It is important to remind the reader at this point that the findings of phenomenographic

studies do not categorise individual participants. Instead, the interview data are seen

as … “forming a ‘pool of meaning’ in which the variation in ways of experiencing the

phenomena of interest are to be seen” (S. Booth & Ingerman, 2002, p. 495). The

findings discussed in this chapter, therefore, comprise the experiences of this group of

teachers, and will be illustrated by representative individual statements.

The individual participant statements, excerpts, or quotes featuring in this

chapter were de-identified at the point of transcription and each participant was

allocated a number code. Thus in the presentation of the findings of the categories of

description, each participant quote contains the particular participant’s allocated

number code rather than their actual name (e.g. I4 indicates interviewee 4). As the

majority of participants were female, the pronoun ‘she’ is used in the discussion of the

individual statements to protect the identity of male participants (National Health and

Medical Research Council et al., 2007) and to ensure consistency.

To conclude this chapter, an analysis of variation is presented and explained.

This analysis provides a concise overview of the categories and shows clear evidence

of the phenomenographic framework within the analysis.

130 Chapter 4: Results

4.2 CATEGORIES OF DESCRIPTION

As discussed in the previous chapter, five stable hierarchically organised

categories, constructed by the researcher, emerged from the data. The categories are:



Category 3: Adapting to Engage



These five categories are presented in a hierarchically organised outcome space,

from compartmentalized ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour (Category

1) to holistic or integrative ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour

(Category 5). This hierarchical organisation reflects principles of phenomenographic

analysis and variation theory, with reference to Marton’s (2015) surface to deep

approaches to learning, as discussed in the previous chapter.

The categories present the varying ways teachers see their approaches with

student behaviour and are inclusive of the 21 teacher participants’ experiences. Evident

within each of these categories are several dimensions of variation which will soon be

explained. These dimensions, presented in Table 3.3 at the end of Chapter 3, are now

considered alongside excerpts from participant accounts of their experiences with

approaching student behaviour.

In this chapter, to illustrate the categories and the dimensions of variation within

the categories, a selection of quotes from individual participants is presented. It is

important to note that many of these 21 teachers’ experiences with approaching student

behaviour contributed to all 5 categories. A participant’s quote appearing in one

category does not imply that this participant can be discussed as ‘operating’ in only

that way of seeing. Rather, one of the interesting findings from this study is that many

participants can be discussed as operating in all categories at some point or other,

depending on where their focus was directed at that particular time.

This chapter is organised to present the study findings category by category,

beginning with Category 1. For each category a figure is presented, to provide a visual

snapshot of the dimensions of variation within that particular category. The category


figure colours transition from lighter to darker shades, representing hierarchically the

complexity of the categories, with the darkest shade (Category 5) being the most

complex way of seeing approaches with student behaviour. Each figure contains the

name of the category in the centre, along with each dimension of variation positioned

around the category name. For the dimensions where the participants’ focus was

strongest in that category, the text is darkest in colour. Where the text is faded into the

background, the participants’ focus was not evident in that particular dimension.

Where the colour is light in shade (in between the two) there was a partial focus. After

this figure, each category is then introduced with a category overview, followed by a

more in-depth explanation of the category with participant examples/quotes and finally

a conclusion that draws out the meaning of the category.

4.2.1 Category 1: Not Engaging

Figure 4.1 below shows a pictorial snapshot of the variation within Category 1.

In the centre of the figure is the category name. The fifteen dimension names surround

the category name and are bold or faded to varying degrees based upon the degree of

awareness placed by participants. For example, in Category 1 behaviour; managing;

individual; here and now; teacher expectations and needs; and time: quick are in bold

as these dimensions are foreground to participants. There is a slight emphasis placed

on power/control, showing that participant awareness is considered but not strong, like

the foregrounded dimensions above. The other dimensions are faded into the

background, showing participants do not have these dimensions open in their

awareness in this category. A full explanation of these dimensions in Category 1 is

provided after Figure 4.1.


Figure 4.1. Category1: Not engaging.

Overview of Category 1

In this category, the way of experiencing approaches with student behaviour is

seen as fragmented, with the management of student behaviour being the focal point

for teachers. Student behaviour is experienced in isolation and is seen as separate from

student engagement with learning and teaching. Challenging individual student

behaviour is supressed or removed in some way, so that learning with the rest of the

cohort can be achieved.

In this category, this way of seeing approaches with student behaviour contains

an individual component. That is, individual students are ‘drawn out’ for their

problematic behaviour. Difficult behaviour is seen as an individual characteristic of

the student, resulting in their exclusion from the class group and from learning with

their peer cohort. It is this compartmentalized view of behaviour that seems to support

the removal or exclusion of students. In this category teachers express dissatisfaction

with their approaches with student behaviour, and as a result they often report

experiencing stress.

Explanation of Category 1 with examples

In this category, student behaviour is recognised as problematic. This way of

experiencing centres on the teacher not engaging (that is, not doing anything or as little

as possible) with the student behaviour, often removing it or retreating from it.

Students with challenging behaviours were removed from the classroom, ignored or

referred onto administration, as they were seen to hinder the cohort’s learning. A


compartmentalized way of seeing student behaviour as isolated or cut off from

engagement with learning and teaching supports this removal and exclusion. With the

exclusion, removal or disregarding of problematic behaviours, the teacher could then

return her focus to what she considered to be her core role of teaching the

‘unproblematic’ students who were willing and ready to learn. In this category the

focus is also on managing for ‘here and now’. For instance:

Sometimes, with some kids, when their behaviours are so challenging, and

you don't have the parent support and you don't have the admin support, you

just end up giving them things to babysit them so that you can spend time with

the others, which is terrible. But if you try and set boundaries and they cross

them and you have no support, well, then you just pretty much need to leave

them, because you can't, at this time, do anything with them, and you have to

focus on the ones that are ready to learn. (I8)

Participant 8 experiences and expresses powerlessness with regards to

approaching student behaviour, suggesting that she really “can’t” do anything about

the behaviour. Her attention is then focused away from the challenging behaviours and

refocused on the rest of the class, as teaching these students is within her direct control.

This approach does not sit comfortably with the teacher, as evidenced by her comment

about the situation being “terrible” when through lack of support she has to give

“things to babysit them”. The perceived lack of support is from parents or school

leadership, and has contributed to her adopting such an approach. Another example

within this category is the following:

He’s really complex. But I made the choice that he cannot suck up more of

my time than that’s allotted. Because I have 24 children in my class. So I make

allowances for that, yes he’s high needs so he does get more time for that, but

I have 24 other children. Some of them are very high needs too. You know, I

have some really low functioning kids, I’ve got EAL kids, and they have just

as much need of my attention as well. So, you know, if he goes off, the other

teacher’s problem, not mine, and she has to deal with him running and the

violence and whatever. (I14)

In this example the teacher retreats from the problematic behaviour. It is evident

in this example that student behaviour is a concern for I14 and viewed in terms of what

she considers to be equitable and sustainable management. The student with

challenging behaviour is separated from his cohort rather than integrated with the


group. The teacher’s response is to retreat from the problem behaviour she experiences

and leave it for another teacher to handle so that she can return to teaching the rest of

the class and to meeting the individual learning needs of other children within her

group. In this quote behaviour is seen as a characteristic of the individual student

concerned, evidenced by the statement that “He’s really complex”. Here’s another

example where a teacher isolates the student behaviour, this time by providing the

student with separate learning activities:

And then he starts to disrupt the other children, so he has his own box that he

goes to. So I say to him, okay you need to go to do some work on your own,

so he just gets out his box and in it there’s his pencils and scissors and just

different activities that he can do and he’s quite happy to just sit on his own

and to do it, to leave me to keep on with the lesson. (I10)

Again this teacher removes the student with the disruptive behaviour from the

group by redirecting the student to a box of activities that will keep him occupied so

that she can get on with teaching her lesson. Here’s yet another example:

So, I was putting out fires all over the room, because these kids were idle.

When this guy started doing the wrong thing, the program was to - well, the

behaviour policy at the school was for the aide to ring the office or to send a

red card and they'd come down and get him. But in the meantime, I had to take

the children out because he was throwing fruit - he was just out of control. So,

yes, for that one, I had to get help from the school guidance officer and have

strategies in place for what we did with this little guy. (I8)

Participant 8 here talks about the school behaviour policy dictating the approach

taken (the red card system and removal of the student to “the office”) and she retreats

from the student behaviour, in the first instance by removing the whole-class from the

student concerned. The result is that the student is isolated from his peers, teacher and

eventually the Prep precinct too (when removed to the office).

The next four short examples from two teachers show teachers again talking

about not engaging with problematic student behaviour, but this time as a result of it

being taken out of their hands. Consider these:

Having that happen first, they went up to the Principal, they were taken up to

the Principal. So that was sort of out of my control that one. When they came

back they had time out at lunch time and that did involve sitting up there. I18


I need to send him to the office if he's violent towards other children but what

happens after that is - none of this is my decision. I try not to send him unless

I absolutely have to, one because I'm not sure how much good a day home is

doing him. (I21)

I have no idea they don't talk to us, we just get told he's being suspended.

You'd have to talk to admin and the people who do that. When I send him

down here it's because he's been physically violent towards other children and

sometimes he just ends up in time out. Sometimes - he actually doesn't get to

go out in the playground because he was so violent and rough in the

playground with the other children, he now goes to break space every break

which is a supervised play space. (I21)

Whether suspending him is making any difference I don't know but it does

give the other children a day's break from having him do things like that to

them. (I21)

These two teachers experienced a sense of powerlessness in the face of this

challenging student behaviour. The behaviour is retreated from and the students

excluded (in these cases by students being removed to administration, ‘break space’ or

suspended from school). Of interest are the second and fourth quotes by participant

21, where this teacher questioned the actual effectiveness of removing the student. She

acknowledged that the suspension does allow for respite for the rest of the class, but

again there is a clear exclusion of the student from his peers and the school in the case

of the suspension. Participant 21 recognised that this approach had far-reaching

ramifications, not only for the student, but for the student’s family as well.

In contrast, participant 11 uses an approach of removing a student to a buddy

class, also to provide respite from challenging student behaviour, but this is her own

decision:

Great kid but the behaviours can be extremely challenging and there's been a

couple of times when I've said to (teacher) next door, (child)'s going to come

in for a visit and sit in with you for a while just so we can all have space …

Sometimes it has to be, my experience in the past, they need to be removed

for a little while and if you've got a relationship with a teaching partner where


that happens, it just stops things from escalating, doesn't it? For everybody,

the teacher, the children, the child. (I11)

The removal of the student provides respite for all and in this case de-escalates

the challenging behaviour so that Participant 11 can focus back on teaching the rest of

the cohort.

Conclusions about Category 1

These examples illustrate the exclusionary strategies that typify this category,

with teachers in many cases expressing their powerlessness in the face of challenging

student behaviour. The stress that teachers experience in this way of seeing student

behaviour is palpable, as is their dissatisfaction with their approach. This way of seeing

shows teachers’ understanding of approaches with student behaviour as

compartmentalised. Student behaviour is focal in teachers’ awareness, ‘drawn-out’ and

viewed as problematic, resulting in student behaviour being experienced in isolation

and seen as an individual student characteristic in this category.

Alternatively, it is important to also consider the teachers and their ability to

support such challenging student behaviour in the face of diverse classroom needs and

high expectations for student learning outcomes, alongside a reported lack of support

for teachers with challenging student behaviour. The fact that schools support the use

of removal and exclusion of students with challenging behaviour as an approach within

policy and school-based processes also communicates to teachers that exclusion is

appropriate and necessary. This further compounds the view that ongoing problematic

behaviour needs to be isolated, and may contribute to teachers’ way of understanding

their approaches with student behaviour as compartmentalised.

4.2.2 Category 2: Engaging to Learn




awareness placed by participants. For example, in Category 2 teacher responsibility;

behaviour; managing; individual; here and now; power/control; engagement; teacher

expectations and needs; and time: quick are in bold, as these dimensions are

foreground to participants. The other dimensions are faded into the background,

showing participants do not have these dimensions open in their awareness in this


category. A full explanation of these dimensions in Category 2 is provided after Figure

4.2.

Figure 4.2.Category 2: Engaging to learn.


In this category, as in Category 1, the way of experiencing approaches with

student behaviour is fragmented. Student behaviour is still experienced in isolation,

with suppression or control of student behaviour, but in this category we also see a

focus on student engagement. Therefore in this category student behaviour and

engagement are simultaneously in focus (unlike the previous category where student

behaviour was experienced in isolation, and not linked to engagement with learning).

Like Category 1, behaviour is seen as an individual student characteristic. The

individual student is in the spotlight and foregrounded for their behaviour. Again the

teacher feels they must supress and contain the difficult behaviours of these individual

students to successfully return to teaching the remainder of the cohort.


In this category teachers’ way of seeing their approaches with student behaviour

focuses on acting in ways that engage students in learning as a way of keeping the

classroom manageable, that is, supressing or controlling student behaviour. Whereas

in Category 1 the focus was on keeping the classroom ‘manageable’ (by removing,

isolating or ignoring any behavioural challenges), in this category the focus shifts to

getting students engaged in learning (by supressing or controlling their behaviour) and

keeping them engaged (again by controlling behaviour). Behaviour is experienced in


isolation, but is linked to engagement with learning. With this way of experiencing, a

role of power is adopted by teachers in the classroom (i.e. ‘I am in charge and the

students will do as I say’), to keep the behaviour managed and at the same time

maintain students’ engagement with learning (through suppression or teacher control).

Rewards and punishments feature strongly, reminders are provided about behavioural

expectations, and how the environment shapes student behaviour is considered, for

instance by physically moving a student to what is perceived to be a better learning

position. The strategies used are quick to implement, focus on compliance and are

about the ‘here and now’. There is limited flexibility in this way of experiencing:

students must do as they are told. For instance:

I feel like if you’ve got the children under control, which is probably the

completely wrong word, but if you’ve got the children engaged and interested

and not worrying about all that other stuff - you know there’s not someone

rolling all over the floor that’s distracting them from something, or there’s not

someone calling out or yelling out that’s distracting them, you can just get so

much more learning time in. (I6)

Participant 6’s comment above exemplifies this category. The approach is about

keeping the classroom managed and controlled to achieve engagement with learning.

Another example of the power/control within this category:

Facilitator: Yeh, and what do you want to, what’s your aim with this approach,

like with using the thinking chair and then you know, like you said you use,

sometimes they miss out on play time and things like that? What is it that

you’re wanting to achieve with the children through that?

Interviewee: The first thing that comes to mind is control.

Facilitator: Yeh, right, yeh.

Interviewee: I guess you know in the end I want them to know that I'm in

charge. And they really do need to listen and do as they're told …does that

sound terrible? (I6)

Participant 6 describes a focus on management (the students need to ‘do as

they’re told’). A thinking chair strategy and applying a consequence of students

missing out on playtime to enforce behaviours that are conducive to learning are used

(in essence, I will punish them to engage them). Teacher control is central, and this is

a rigid approach. The question, “Does that sound terrible?” suggests that perhaps

Participant 6 is not confident with the appropriateness of this approach. Further:


But I do, from time to time, if someone hasn't got their work done, I'll say to

them, well, you know what? You didn't do your work during that session, so

you know how you really like PE? Well, today, you're not going if you don't

get your work done. (I8)

This is an example of the suppressing of student behaviour (the use of

punishment: missing out on a preferred learning activity) in an effort to enforce student

engagement with learning. The threat used here is the possibility of the student being

isolated, that is, if the student doesn’t complete their work, they will be kept back from

a preferred class activity. Here is another example of the use of control:

That in my head then became my super improvers chart. I use that to reward

an individual for doing a great thing. But I also use it very critically to get that

other child that I want to do that thing. So if I see a kid - we've got some kids

who like to have a loll down in the classroom, and at times not what we need

to do. So if I've got that child sitting next to the child who is having a lie down

and rolling around and touching people and picking their nose and putting

their hand where it shouldn't be, as you get with young people ... If I've got a

person next to them who is doing learning, sitting, who is showing the engaged

behaviours, who is thinking about their answers, I will give them the star. (I19)

Participant 19 uses rewards (the ‘super improvers chart’) as a way to supress

unwanted behaviour. This particular suppression strategy is what is commonly known

in Queensland government schools as cueing with parallel acknowledgement: “To

acknowledge students' on-task behaviour with the intention of prompting others to

copy” (Education Queensland, 2007b, p. 12). This is an advocated strategy for teachers

to covertly control student behaviour to achieve compliance. Consider:

But obviously, occasionally there are and there’s a couple of children that I

can think of that continue to talk or aren’t ready when I want them to be ready

and I'm quite strict on, you know, they need to be listening. Or they’re not

sitting with their legs crossed and again I stop every time they unfold their

legs or they get tired - of course they do because they're Prep and they try and

lie down and no, they’ve gotta sit up, and you know if that behaviour continues

they go and sit on the thinking chair. And if they do that I don’t enter into

conversation, I just say you’re going to the chair and there’s a sand timer next

to the chair, they turn the sand timer over, it goes for a minute, so it’s really

quick. They turn it over and when it’s done they come back and they sit down


and no one wants to go there, even though nothing terrible happens. I told a

boy the other day he had to go and sit on the thinking chair and he burst into

tears, even though it’s sitting on a chair with a sand timer for a minute, and he

was good as gold the rest of the day and that was last week and no one’s been

near it since. (I6)

This is another example of suppressing or controlling student behaviour but via

a different mechanism. This is achieved through the use of a ‘time-out’ strategy. It

seems this strategy is aimed at punishing non-engagement (students not sitting as

required by the teacher) by isolating the student. This approach is about complying

with the teacher’s expectations. Even when the teacher acknowledges that prep

students get tired and find sitting for long periods of time challenging, there is no

leeway for them. They must comply. The outcome of this strategy is that the behaviour

was successfully suppressed, so that Participant 6 could shift the focus back to student

learning. The following is another example of suppression using isolation:

If I can I'll put either myself or (name) my teacher aide on that group to keep

a lid on it a bit, but if all else fails, if I have work with a different group of

children, I'll remind them particularly and then if they keep on not doing the

right thing I'll move them out of their group and sit them by themselves, so

they still have to get their work finished but they don't have anyone to bounce

off. That tends – that generally tends to work. (I21)

In this category, control is central to this way of experiencing approaches with

student behaviour. Isolating a student to supress unwanted behaviour is discussed as

an effective way to ensure the student re-engages with learning and completes his

work. Participant 7 controls student behaviour by using rewards:

I think when I'm sitting in the chair and I'm teaching the kids on the carpet and

I'm able to say four names, Grab a high five stick, you're sitting beautifully,

and I always look for kids who are sitting beautifully and they're really

attentive, and it's like everyone else in the class snaps into focus and

everyone's engaged and everyone's on-board and I go Great that really works!

and it keeps on working which makes me really excited. So that kind of… yep

that makes me feel good every time that happens. (I7)

This is another example of experiencing approaches with student behaviour as

isolated but linked with engagement. Participant 7 uses rewards (the high 5 sticks) to

acknowledge wanted behaviour and as a quick strategy to supress various unwanted


behaviours, to ensure students are ready to learn. A focus on management (or

suppression) of behaviour is necessary to achieve engagement (students being ready

to learn). One cannot happen without the other. Another quote from Participant 7

where student behaviour is experienced in isolation but linked with student

engagement is provided here:

I think that you don't want behaviour management to take too much time out

of everything else. I think I like it to be quick because I like to be able to move

on very quickly, so I just say great job, high five stick and then they take the

high five stick and then it's done and then I can keep on teaching and there's

no big distraction and there's no big use of time doing that, but it's significant

enough that they really enjoy it and it works really well for them. (I7)

In this way of experiencing approaches with student behaviour, time - and the

effective use of teaching time in particular - is an important factor. The teachers are

focused on engagement with learning and so they focus on implementing time efficient

strategies that will have students engage quickly. Rewards are used to successfully

suppress unwanted student behaviour, so attention can focus on engagement with

learning. In addition:

I turn things into little games too. Instead of saying and harping on, hands on

your head, hands on your shoulders, I'll start saying, who's listening? I'll say,

hands on heads, hands on shoulders. I'll start saying something and doing the

opposite. I'll start, okay, hands on head. Where's your head? That's a funny

spot. They think we're playing a little game, but secretly it’s behaviour

management. (I9)

Again, a quick approach to re-focusing student behaviour is evident here. What

is focal is Participant 9’s need to intervene to ensure students are engaged and ready

for learning, in this case by curbing potential behaviours through the use of humour

and movement. She uses an attention gaining strategy and humour to achieve this,

which is a different strategy to using rewards (as in the high 5 sticks) or applying

consequences, but has the effect of the same simultaneous focus on student behaviour

and engagement. Finally:

Now at the moment, one or the other of us, (teacher-aide) or I, we've got our

eye looking out - because we're the closest classroom to the junior toilets we

can see if they're not doing the right thing up there and we're still able to check

out the window if they're doing the right thing. But you get to relax and when


you get to relax you're feeling less stressed in the day and you can have some

more fun, you have a little joke with them, all of those sorts of things, there's

more fun things that you can do with them and that they can get involved in

as well.

It's a less stressful time for everybody once you get them to the point where

you've got everybody doing the right thing in terms of themselves and their

learning and the other children in their class too. So I think that's the pay off

at the end of it, but it is, getting to that - having to be that disciplinarian thing

all the time at the start of the year, you look forward to getting into the second

half of the year where you don't have to do that all the time. Because it is really

quite stressful having to do that all the time. (I21)

This excerpt again reflects the control that teachers experience with student

behaviour in this category, with the teacher using supervision (watching and checking

up on students) to help ensure compliance. Participant 21 suggests that once students

are doing the right thing then there is less stress for both students and teacher. She

mentions the stress involved with being a ‘disciplinarian’, but sees that this is a

necessary step to achieving this aim.


What is evident in this category is the focus on suppression or control of

unwanted student behaviour in order for teachers to engage students in learning. This

way of experiencing approaches with student behaviour alongside engagement with

learning sees teachers’ efforts converging on establishing and maintaining behavioural

expectations for the class. What is different from Category 1 is that engagement with

learning is considered alongside undesired student behaviour. Importantly, in Category

1 student behaviours were isolated (along with the student), thereby excluding these

students from learning. By comparison, in Category 2, while student behaviour is

suppressed or controlled, there is a simultaneous focus on engagement with learning.

The focus is on engagement with learning for all students in the class, including the

disengaged students.

4.2.3 Category 3: Adapting to Engage





awareness placed by participants. For example, in Category 3 teacher responsibility;

behaviour; adapting (flexibility); student’s needs; power control; engagement; teacher

expectations and needs; and time: quick are in bold as these dimensions are foreground

to participants. There is a slight emphasis placed on individual, here and now,

managing, relationships and inclusion, showing participant awareness is considered,

but not as strong as the foregrounded dimensions above. The other dimensions are

faded into the background to varying degrees, showing participants either have partial

awareness of the dimension or do not have these dimensions open in their awareness

in this category. A full explanation of these dimensions in Category 3 is provided after

Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3. Category 3: Adapting to engage.


In this category, as for the previous two, the way of experiencing approaches

with student behaviour is fragmented. Student behaviour remains isolated (or focal) in

teachers’ experience, requiring suppression in some way so that learning can be

achieved. While in Category 1 a focus was on suppressing and isolating unwanted

student behaviour, and in Category 2 teachers focussed on suppressing problematic

student behaviour in order to engage these children with learning, here in Category 3

we see an extension of the Category 2 way of experiencing. That is, that while teachers

are still acting in ways that suppress student behaviour in order to engage them with

learning, in this category they are now considering how they adapt their own

behaviours to achieve this. What is also significant about this particular category is the


fact that teachers in this way of experiencing are thinking about inclusion, that is, ways

of bringing the student into the group, rather than isolating them in some way (as

discussed in Category 1 and 2).

Like Category 1 and 2, in Category 3 student behaviour is still seen as an

individual characteristic. The challenging behaviours of these individual students must

be suppressed for the teacher to refocus on student learning. However, in Category 3

the way this is achieved is different. This is because teacher thinking focuses on

including (not excluding) the student from the group, and as such embraces more

flexible and inclusive practices.


This category, like Categories 1 and 2, retains a focus on teachers keeping their

students behaving and engaged in learning, but teachers’ ways of experiencing their

approach with student behaviour is now less rigid and compartmentalised. This way

of experiencing mainly sees students as individuals, with teachers considering how

they can make adaptations to engage these individual students in learning with the rest

of their cohort. Strategies include approaches such as: adjusting the learning

environment, using students’ interests or preferences to engage them in learning, and

adjusting their expectations of student behaviour based on their knowledge of the

students. This category is more learner focused, with teachers considering various

students’ needs, not just their own needs for order and control, as in Categories 1 and

2, although the teacher is still focusing on achieving his or her behavioural

expectations. The teacher is still in a position of authority in this way of experiencing

(they are the ones making the decisions), and concerned about the ‘here and now’. For

example:

I said to mum that this is going to be an evolution and this is how I teach every

student, I don’t know how to cater for their needs until I get to know them.

And I said, when he comes in we will see what the best processes for him will

be, and you know just watching him and seeing his cues, you know, I could

see that he was a very kinaesthetic learner, a very hands, on - not kinaesthetic

learner, that’s not what I meant - but he likes, he needs to touch to see where

he is and that, so when I was asking him to sit on the floor to listen to the book,

it’s very hard for him to have his head up and be tuned into there, so I just

asked him one day, does he wants to come and sit on my knee, and then I


could see that that worked so that was something that I said Oh great, this is

where I can do the big book thing . (I3)

Participant 3 was clearly thinking about the individual student behaviour and

instead of ignoring or removing the behaviour/ student (as in Category 1) the teacher

considers this individual student’s needs whilst thinking about ‘engaging’ the entire

class in learning, and adjusts her approach to accommodate this student (which is

different to Category 2, where the teacher makes no individual adjustments for

learners, instead expecting them all to ‘do as they are told’). Indeed what is evident

here is that Participant 3 is bringing this student in to be part of the group. This is

evidenced by inviting him to ‘come and sit on my knee’ to facilitate his engagement

with the lesson. The teacher maintains a focus on behavioural expectations for student

engagement with learning, but now makes adaptations to her own practice. Thus, this

can be seen to be a more inclusive way of experiencing approaches with student

behaviour. Another example:

I really liked the fact when I realized I could speak through the dinosaurs and

get in his face and say, oh Felix the dinosaur wants you to come and sit down,

and using that vehicle to get him to listen. And he was really excited too

because, it was a really beautiful moment because we could speak the same

language. And he was like, ah okay, yes I understand what you want me to do

and I will do that, so that was really good too. (I3)

Participant 3 is trialling various adaptations for an individual student. The focus

on attaining behavioural expectations and student learning is evidenced by her asking

the student, via the dinosaur toy, to ‘sit down and listen’. Her use of the dinosaur toy

to communicate behavioural expectations to him, immediately demonstrates to the

student recognition and acknowledgement of his personal interest/preference as a

means by which to achieve his engagement. Consider:

I had a child who, that wasn’t going to work. Wouldn’t have mattered how

many times I insisted that he sat on the carpet with his legs crossed, it was not

going to happen. So there are certain circumstances where you need to make

allowances and you know then those particular children, well that particular

child has their own boundaries that might be slightly different to the rest of

the class’s. (I6)


Like Participant 3, Participant 6 shows a simultaneous focus on student

behaviour and learning but has also recognised that this particular student requires

“allowances”, adjustments (or adaptations) of teacher expectations to achieve

engagement. Here’s another example:

But I just found it was more about figuring out what he was interested in, and

what he would respond to positively. Which I think, I kind of go well that’s

really logical, it’s not like its rocket science. Just really honing in on those

things, and giving him opportunities to be in context where he could be

affirmed and encouraged. Or like I think also, even just allowing my

expectations to I guess stretch a little bit for him. So it’s like differentiating

the curriculum for a child. It was I who needed to differentiate my approach

to behaviour management with him. That although for all other children when

they are on the mat, I expected them to show whole-body listening. Their legs

crossed, hands in lap, eyes, ears, lips. For him, if he was fidgeting, if he had

found something on the carpet, as long as I could see that I still had his ears, I

was okay with that. I would still try and encourage him, but I wasn't going to

stop my lesson every two minutes, to keep redirecting. (I17)

This is yet another example of a teacher thinking about individual student

capacities and needs and adjusting expectations so that learning can be achieved with

the whole-class. This quote illustrates how Participant 17 is making explicit links

between student behaviour and learning. As is common within this category, the

teacher retains a focus on the particular behaviour/s of an individual student in the

class, and behaviour is seen to be an individual characteristic of students, as in

Categories 1 and 2. In the following quote Participant 17 discusses how students’

perceptions of their own behaviour is a consideration:

Giving them the opportunity to explain, okay that may not be a legitimate

explanation, but they had a chance to say hey, this was my reasoning. In my

head that was really rational, I'm sorry that didn’t fit with what you wanted

me to do. But you know, the amount of times that when I've taken the time to

do that, I've actually gone, oh you’re actually trying to be really helpful there.

Or there’s something more going on here that I need to understand. (I17)

The above quote illustrates Participant 17’s focus on individual students and an

attempt to understand the behaviour through listening. The next quote is from a teacher

who also thinks about the student’s perspective of what is happening with behaviour:


I mean for instance one child here on the playground. This was last term so

he’s new to the school, new to the playground and also socially immature. He

was found to be hitting someone and so the teacher went, right you're off to

the responsibility room. Responsibility room, oh where’s that? So he runs

away so bang, whoah you are going to the responsibility room. And he’s like,

he was in the classroom when he has a confrontation he will crawl away and

hide under the couch. And in the playground you run away, but for every

teacher at the school who’s not dealing with Prep you’ll be like, right, that’s

not: ‘right off to the responsibility room!’ But he just didn’t know how to

respond, they didn’t know how to respond to him and when I caught them at

the end of lunch time he was very distressed, they were distressed because it

was like well you're like talking different languages, he doesn’t understand

what you mean, he doesn’t know about the responsibility room. So I think,

early childhood, they need to come and talk to the teacher about it because

there’s always a little background, isn’t there too, as to why he may have

behaved like that. (I5)

Evident in the above quote is the teacher thinking about adapting approaches

with student behaviour. The standard school approach applied to hitting behaviours in

the playground was to send the student to the responsibility room, thus suppressing the

behaviour and excluding the student. However, based on Participant 5’s prior

knowledge of the student and her understanding of the current level of distress he is

experiencing, the teacher considers this particular Prep child may be too immature to

understand this whole-school approach. ‘Understanding students’ is important within

this category, as it informs and directs teachers’ responses to challenging student

behaviour. This aspect is not evident in the previous two categories. The way the

teacher responds to this incident demonstrates a more inclusive approach in

comparison to the school’s ‘one size fits all’ consequence of the responsibility room.

This more flexible position may be due to the teacher thinking about the individual

student and his particular needs. This differs greatly from previous categories where

teachers’ way of seeing takes on a more rigid view. Another example of how students’

individual interests were flexibly taken into account is provided here:

…one of the behaviours even this year has been coming back in after morning

tea, coming back in after lunch. Because they still like to play and they still

like to talk and some of them have played all morning tea and haven't gone to

the toilet. So bringing them in was my question mark. They're great in here


but getting them in sometimes the behaviour is delayed. How can I do that?

So going into a profiling in-service I got to hear more about and got to see

little snippets of classrooms and I went okay I'm not a sticker person, I'm not

an extrinsic reward person. I’m, how do you feel? Positive. But I could do a

passport with some little stamps which I guess is like a sticker but if you're in

within a timer you can put a passport stamp in. But then I haven't even

introduced that because I just came to the realisation I'd rather them use their

thinking. So I played naughts and crosses once with a child on the board and

that was like a trigger. Everyone wanted to do naughts and crosses so now

they can't wait for that door to open after morning tea because they come in,

a timer's on. They get their whiteboards and they all sit here and they play

noughts and crosses. (I4)

Participant 4 had an issue with how the students entered the classroom. Like the

experiences reflected in the previous quotes, this teacher has considered individual

student interests, in this case the naughts and crosses game and uses this as a way to

settle the students during this transition time. Finally, consider these examples of

Category 3:

When we do rotations, before we go to rotations because they're like two hours

these days, five stations, two hours, we'll have lots of stretching. I'll throw a

movement activity in one of the rotations so some of them might be outside,

out there doing alphabet. So they'll move in between it. Particular boys, I'm

always saying, can you go and get this from Mrs (teacher) when I don't need

anything, just to get them up and moving because they can't sit still. (I15)

So it's just being aware of that. We've just got pack-up songs that we dance to.

We boogie; sometimes we'll just say put everything down and let's boogie for

five and they'll go - and they really do let loose and they'll go back and we'll

write. So just being aware that when you can just tell their little bodies are

getting so tired or they can't sit still and we just need to move. So I think that's

getting from the early childhood perspective how important that movement is.

(I15)

These quotes highlight the focus on being responsive to student needs and

flexible in classroom practice. Participant 15 adapts her own practice through

awareness and understanding of the needs of her students (i.e. recognising their

tiredness and inability to sit still). Rather than just controlling the behaviour the teacher


adjusts her approach (responding with flexibility rather than being rigid). Also present

within these data is the notion that the teacher is aiming to bring individuals towards

the group, evidenced by Participant 15’s discussion of how she incorporates the

‘wiggly’ students along with the whole-class in physical activity.


This category shows a shift towards a more inclusive way of seeing approaches

with student behaviour. While teachers do act in more student focused and flexible

ways, student behaviour remains focal in teachers’ experience. In this category,

teachers still suppress or control student behaviour in order to focus their efforts on

student engagement with learning; however, teachers’ knowledge, understanding and

consideration of individuals and their flexible approach marks a point of departure

from this category and Categories 1 and 2.

4.2.4 Category 4: Learning to Engage




awareness placed by participants. For example, in Category 4 group; student’s need;

engagement and learning; inclusion; teaching; relationships; and time: takes time are

in bold as these dimensions are foreground to participants. There is less emphasis by

participants placed on managing, power/ control; and reflection, showing participant

awareness is considered but not strong like the foregrounded dimensions above. The

other dimensions are faded into the background to varying degrees, showing

participants either have partial awareness of the dimension or do not have these

dimensions open in their awareness in this category. A full explanation of these

dimensions in Category 4 is provided after Figure 4.4.


Figure 4.4. Category 4: Learning to engage.


In this category we see a shift in teacher thinking and experience. Teachers’ way

of experiencing approaches with student behaviour in this category is now becoming

more integrated in nature rather than fragmented (as seen in the previous 3 categories).

Teachers now see behaviour and engagement with learning and teaching as integrated.

Teacher thinking is focused away from ‘controlling’ or ‘managing’ behaviour

(although teachers still want to achieve their behavioural expectations) and is now

focused towards teaching behaviour. In this category there is a recognition and

understanding of the nexus between student behaviour, engagement with learning and

teaching, and how teachers act in ways that support this knowledge. Teacher control

or power also changes in this category and we see the responsibility for behaviour shift

from teachers to students.


Although in Category 4 there remains a focus on behaviour approaches for

engaging students in learning, teachers’ way of experiencing behaviour is now centred

on teaching students how to engage. In this category there is a recognition that if

teachers want students engaged in learning (resulting in a manageable classroom) then

they need to teach them the skills of how to actually do this. Common strategies within

this category include teachers modelling behaviours, engaging students in discussion

about social behaviours and using role-play to practise social behaviours to help

children learn how to behave appropriately and how to engage in learning in the

classroom. This category differs from previous categories as teachers now consider


their role is to explicitly teach the desired behaviours, rather than just control behaviour

(as seen in Categories 1 and 2). Category 4 differs from Category 3 in that the focus

of control shifts from the teacher to the student (i.e. equipping students with the skills

and knowledge of how to behave). In this category flexibility remains a strong focus

(as in Category 3) but this flexibility is now about teachers adapting their teaching both

of and for behaviour. That is, teachers are thinking about adapting themselves and their

teaching practice (rather than adapting for individual students). This category is more

complex and integrated. Here are some examples of this:

Well I guess, I just think about behaviour as a curriculum area. Just like any

other curriculum area. So it’s just, it’s, we’re teaching behaviour. So we’re

teaching skills, we micro-skill, we model, we role-play, we have class

meetings, we talk about what gentle touch is going to look like in the

playground before they go out to lunch. When they come back in after lunch

we have a bit of a de-brief. We talk about what gentle touch looked like or

what it didn’t look like. So, I just see it as a teaching area. (I1)

And I think a lot of it is to do with the fact that they, these little people, are

preppies, and they have got no experience in a working classroom and they

don’t know how to do school. So we work, in especially in the first term, it’s

like a Prep boot-camp. So we’re teaching them how to behave, just like we’re

teaching them how to read or how to write. It’s the ‘how-to’ of school. (I1)

They don't necessarily have any interpersonal skills and they don't understand

non-verbal behaviour. So you also have to teach that. Saying to someone, I'm

angry, but not having an angry look on your face or having your body looking

angry doesn't mean anything to the little guys. You have to actually sort of

show what that looks like. I mean, actually in term one with them as part of

their learning we'd all - I'd say, okay. I'd say a word or I'd even show the word

angry. What does that look like? You show me an angry face. They love it.

(I9)

Central in these comments from Participants 1 and 9 is a focus on their approach

to student behaviour as ‘teaching’. These teachers mention modelling, development of

skills and talking and reflecting with students about behaviour as important ways to

teach them to behave and engage in their learning. For these teachers, this will achieve


their aim of having students engaged in learning. Engagement with learning and

teaching has now become more focal than behaviour. Another example:

Play-based stuff is different, especially if you've got children who just fixate

or tend to take over or are rough with other children, then you can spend time

with them as well, but it's just slowly reinforcing all of those things all the

time. It's not a magic moment, it's a long year, but I think it's an integrated

approach and modelling everything really. If you want them to play

cooperatively you have to teach them how to do it. If you want them to play

outside in a deeper way productively, you've got to sit in the sandpit with

cylinders and start creating things and engage in language. (I11)

In this example, Participant 11 clearly sees her approach as teaching. Discussing

her own approach to play-based learning, she focuses upon a pedagogical approach

that she knows works, teaching students how to play cooperatively through modelling

and engaging them through language. This shows very clearly the integrated way of

thinking about student behaviour that is typical within this category. Student behaviour

is not seen as isolated from engagement with learning and teaching, it is seen as linked

(although slightly de-emphasised in comparison with previous categories).

Demonstrating an awareness that she needs to teach students how to play cooperatively

using play-based learning sessions also shows that Participant 11 understands that

different learning situations require explicit teaching of different skills to ensure

students have the required skills to be successful learners. Further:

I have class sets of things, class sets of colouring pencils, class sets of scissors,

or rulers or equipment, I should say. So nothing is mine or yours. Everything

is everybody's and we're all sharing. That helps reinforce that. We do group

work, small group work, pair work as well as whole-class work to help

reinforce, even though ostensibly I might be teaching a lesson on maths, okay,

we've got to share this equipment with each other. So it's reinforcing all of that

socialising behaviour. (I9)

It is evident that Participant 9 values sharing and social skills and that she

organises the class resources to support this approach. Her comments highlight an

integrated way of seeing approaches with behaviour and again this is an example of a

teacher experiencing a relationship between behaviour, engagement with learning and

teaching simultaneously. Another teacher says:


Part of education is learning how to get along with others and how to speak to

adults and do things at times that they don't want to. So that all gets down to

the relationship with the child, showing respect but making it very clear and

at the same time forming that relationship with the parents. So once the parents

are on board and they see us on board with the parents, then the child responds

to that even more positively, particularly if the parents back it up. So I think

it's really part of that whole base, it's not done in isolation and with my teacher

aide as well. (I11)

In this example, Participant 11 understands approaches with behaviour as

integrated and needing to be part of the educational program, evidenced by the

reference to learning about social behaviours (getting along with others) and also the

inclusion of parents and teacher aide in this approach. A common theme within this

category is that relationships are considered to be important for learning. One final

example:

This little white chair out there. It's called the love chair. That's for when -

because there's 150 Preps out there at playtime and they come from a little

kindy or home and they've eaten this big lunch and everyone's got this brown

uniform with a big brown hat and they can't find anyone. So now they come

to the love chair. Then if anyone sees them at the love chair they've got to

swing by and get them. (I15)

The ‘love chair’ strategy is another example of an integrated approach focusing

on the structured development of supportive friendships. This teacher is not concerned

with teacher control, instead shifting the responsibility for behaviour and supportive

friendships to the students. It is evident that Participant 15 is thinking about facilitating

relationships and helping students develop an inclusive concept of friendship.


Category 4 sees a shift in teacher awareness towards a more integrated way of

experiencing approaches with student behaviour. A strong relationship between

behaviour, engagement with learning and explicit teaching is evident. Within this

category teachers are beginning to see beyond the ‘here and now’ and are considering

how to equip students with knowledge and skills of how to behave/ engage. There is a

shift away from teacher control and management to a shared responsibility for

behaviour. The whole-group has now come into focus rather than just the individuals

within the group, and strategies are inclusive of the whole-group. Indeed teachers now


see their students more as a ‘community of learners’ and the teacher is actively

‘teaching’. The Category 3 way of experiencing has acted as a precursor to this

category. Flexibility (rather than rigidity) is required to effectively operate in this

category. The teacher needs to be able to adapt, as there is the understanding that

behaviour, engagement with learning and teaching are inextricably linked.

4.2.5 Category 5: Towards Independent Engagement




awareness placed by participants. For example, in Category 5 group; student’s need;

engagement and learning; inclusion; teaching; relationships; and time: takes time;

future; reflection and student responsibility are in bold as these dimensions are

foreground to participants. There is less emphasis by participants on behaviour and

managing, showing participant awareness is considered but not strong like the

foregrounded dimensions above. The other dimensions are faded into the background

to varying degrees, showing participants either have partial awareness of the

dimension, or do not have these dimensions open in their awareness in this category.

A full explanation of these dimensions in Category 5 is provided after Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5. Category 5: Towards independent engagement.


In this category we see holistic and integrative teacher experience (and thinking)

about approaches with student behaviour. Teachers now see behaviour, learning and


teaching as integrated, although - as in Category 4 - behaviour is slightly de-

emphasised. Teacher awareness is focused away from ‘controlling’ or ‘managing’

behaviour, although teachers still want to achieve this, and is now focused on teaching

behaviour and ultimately releasing the responsibility of student behaviour to the

students. In this category there is a recognition and understanding of the nexus between

behaviour, engagement with learning and explicit teaching, and teachers act in ways

that support this knowledge. There is a future dimension here not previously

evidenced, with teachers considering student behaviour outcomes beyond the current

year of school (i.e. the Prep year). This future aspect of teacher approaches with student

behaviour is not evident in any other category.


This category represents an integrated and holistic awareness of approaches with

student behaviour. In this category, the teachers’ way of experiencing their approach

with student behaviour is by releasing responsibility of behaviour/ engagement to the

students, although there is still a focus on the teachers’ behavioural expectations, as

well as on engaging students in learning and teaching them how to do this. In this way

of seeing approaches with behaviour, students are supported to set goals; to reflect on

their behaviour and engagement with learning; teachers sit back and observe students

‘having a go’ and also reflect on their own approach with regards to achieving this.

This teacher reflection is important to this category, with teachers being concerned

about the impact that their own practice has on students’ future learning and

development; a characteristic not seen in previous categories. Their goal is to develop

independent and self-regulated learners. The responsibility or control for behaviour is

now shifting towards students, away from the teacher. The awareness of students as

individuals as seen in earlier categories, is not a key focus in this category, as teachers

now see individual students within the context of a community of learners. Teachers

are also thinking about their students’ future behaviour and learning outcomes, beyond

the Prep year, which is not evident in the other categories. For instance:

Because I think it will carry them through. Because if I’m using a system now

where it’s all extrinsic, sticker, sticker, sticker, happy box, happy box, or

whatever type of physical reward, that’s training the children to work for those

rewards and what happens if next year they go into a classroom where a

teacher doesn’t use those rewards? What’s going to drive those children then?


So I think that intrinsic reward is going to take them further, like as they grow

and move through school. And into adulthood too. Because I read a book

because of the joy of reading a book and the joy I get from it, not because

someone’s going to pay me to read the book or yeh … (I1)

In this example, Participant 1 is rejecting an approach that uses rewards that

‘train’ students to behave and engage. Instead she reflects on the learning dispositions

she would like her students to develop to carry with them throughout their lives, which

reveals a futures perspective rather than the ‘here and now’ perspectives evident in

earlier categories. She is also thinking about intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation,

which she achieves by explicitly teaching the students and then releasing responsibility

to them. In this way the future potential of behaviour, engagement with learning and

teaching are inextricably linked. Another example:

They live completely in the moment. So I want - if I want a citizen later on

who can think about their behaviours and think, what can I do right now that's

going to be a safe, happy behaviour for myself and for my friends? How can

I create it here? I do it by making it visual, by making it emotional and by

really discussing it when it happens so that I've given the reasons and the

language of, you got that because of this. What's going to happen now? We're

going to do this, Ms (teacher), we're going to do that Ms (teacher). Fantastic.

I can tell that's going to be exciting. I'm going to keep this by my pocket

because as soon as I see it happening I'm going to put it up. So that they're

thinking about the future as well. (I19)

Within these comments Participant 19 again demonstrates an holistic awareness

that simultaneously highlights student behaviour and engagement with learning and

teaching (although behaviour is slightly de-emphasised). She is thinking about the

future, evidenced in the mention of ‘citizens later on’, and is also scaffolding students

to become responsible for their behaviour through use of discussion, questioning and

reflection. Further:

…I'll set up things for certain children and I choose when to intervene and

when to lead and when to watch. I would rather, as I said to (teacher aide),

give them a bit of leeway; give them a bit of space to enable them to make

decisions, to enable them to learn so we don't cut in and interfere, we actually

stop them from learning. That's the sort of thing that often is done at home and

if they come here and they have a repeat of the decisions made for you, stop


it, sit down - and I do that sometimes, but if I actually want them to learn, it's

the time for that. You have to take the child's lead and give them a bit more

space and then call them over and have a chat about the decision later. (I11)

The teacher’s focus on releasing responsibility for behaviour/engagement to the

students is evident by the comment about ‘giving them a bit of space to enable them

to make decisions’. As with the previous quote, this example also retains a focus on

teachers teaching students the skills that underpin appropriate behaviour. Behaviour,

teaching and engagement with learning are again seen to be interrelated. Consider this:

Oh we do - I mean I actually do mindfulness exercises so they always sit on

the carpet and I'll tell them to be aware of the carpet on their ankles and the

air-conditioning, the beautiful air-conditioning, blowing through their hair and

stuff. I just try and get them to be present. Yeah so I wouldn't have ever called

my behaviour approach Buddhist, but when you said one or two words that is

what popped into my head. I'm not a Christian, I'm not anything like that but

I do believe in … for our kids future, that that's really important. (I12)

Teaching mindfulness, as discussed in Participant 12’s comments above,

cultivates self-awareness and self-regulation (Hassed & Chambers, 2014). This teacher

also discussed a focus on the future, by reflecting on the importance of this approach

with reference to the impact on students’ well-being in the future, not just the ‘here

and now’ as in previous categories. Further:

So if I want to be the change that I want to see in the world it starts with the

way that I interact with these children. It starts with the attitude with which I

expect them to behave. So if I want citizens - if I want to walk down the street

and be treated respectfully and to - feel like I live in a society that cares for

each other and that looks after one another, I need to start the first step here.

Which is teaching children to make choices that are independent. To

understand that they do have that freedom to make that choice. But what are

the consequences of making a choice? How can I actually make a choice that

is good for me and good for you and good for the classroom? That way, I hope,

I will start the process of developing a child who will develop into an adult

who will make choices that are positive for his or her society as well. So there's

that idea of social and ethical development; that is why I want independence

in my children, as opposed to being an authority in the classroom, where this

is what I say, this is how you're going to do it. I want us to choose together the

best ways. (I19)


In this example, Participant 19 sees her approach to behaviour as being about

developing students into independent, future citizens of the world who can make good

choices in life. Her approach is about modelling (with reference being made to teacher

interactions with students) as a way to develop positive behavioural attitudes. This

approach aligns well with Participant 19’s learning expectations and learner

engagement. However her understanding goes far beyond the compartmentalised and

controlling ways of thinking that are seen in Categories 1-3. Category 5 is now about

seeing behaviour and engagement with learning and teaching as interconnected, and

geared towards moving students towards independent engagement. Another teacher

says:

I hope that there is a link between home and school so it’s not just me at

school, you do the right thing. You do the right thing because we’re part of a

family, because we’re part of a school, because we’re part of a bigger

community. (I3)

Here again we see a bigger picture view, a more expansive way of viewing

behaviour and engagement with learning and teaching. Participant 3’s mention of

‘being part of a bigger community’ indicates a focus on the broader social collective

beyond the school gate. The capacity for cooperation and self-reflection is seen as

integral. Consider these further two quotes:

Now that we're reaching mid-way through the year and we're getting that

slightly deeper thinking about ourselves as kids who get along and kids who

understand the rules and kids who can follow them, I'm going to start

exploring that idea of them nominating how they want to get their star that day

and see how that works. Because I want that deeper thought about myself as

a chooser of my own behaviours, rather than, I'm doing it because you're the

boss and you've told me what to do. I want to indicate that internal thought

process, as opposed to an external thought process from me. (I19)

Facilitator: So why that approach with that child, with having the special box

and the breathing and all that sort of stuff?

Interviewee: Because I'm aiming for her to - I don't want to regulate her. I

want her to regulate her own emotions. I think that if it's always me responding

to her then she'll just keep having the same problems over and over again. So


I'm trying to - and I'm trying to give her the confidence that she can do it too.

(I12)

Importantly, these teachers show an understanding of developing independent

and self-regulated learners through their own thoughtful releasing of responsibility for

behaviour to the students. In addition, there is evidence of teacher self-reflection in

this way of experiencing approaches with student behaviour, with teachers possessing

a deepening awareness of their practice and a more complex and holistic way of

thinking about student behaviour. To sum up this category, I present a final quote,

again from Participant 19:

My approach - okay, here we go. I'm going to say it in a couple of words. It's

going to be brilliant. Here we go. My approach to my behaviour management

with my class is about developing young people who are invested in their

appropriate behaviours so that they are the dictator. They are the person who

makes those choices. I'm here to help them. Everyone else is there to help

them. But they're individuals, they're strong, they're intelligent. It's your job.

Yeah. (I19)

Participant 19 clearly sees her approach as empowering students to make their

own choices and supporting them to do so. She views students as capable and

competent, allowing her to release responsibility for behaviour to them.


In Category 5 we see approaches with student behaviour experienced as holistic,

integrative, embedded in engagement with learning and teaching, and exhibiting a

future perspective. Participant statements represented in this category show that

teachers are thinking about investing in behaviour approaches that are not just about

the here and now, but that will carry students through schooling (and even life) beyond

the Prep year. To bring about this level of awareness teachers need to be able to see

the individuals in their class as part of a collective whole, that is, a community of

learners, and linked to the broader real world community. These teachers need to be

able to adapt, think and act in ways that promote inclusivity, foster relationships and

require their students to think about their own behaviour. They also need to be willing

to relinquish control at times and commit to a gradual thoughtful release of

responsibility for behaviour to the students themselves. In addition, teachers also need


to be able to reflect upon the purpose and outcome of their approaches with student

behaviour and the effectiveness of these.

Next an analysis of the variation inherent in the 5 categories is presented and

explained.

4.3 ANALYSIS OF VARIATION

An analysis of variation was developed to explain the structural and referential

aspects of the five categories. This analysis of variation also aimed at revealing

patterns of variance and invariance in Prep teachers’ ways of seeing approaches with

student behaviour, and was based on S. Booth and Ingerman’s (2002) approach to

analysis.

In the analysis of variation (see Figure 4.6 Analysis of variation) the structural

aspect, (that is, ‘the what’ in Marton and Booth’s (1997) learning and awareness

framework) encompassed both an internal and external horizon. This structural aspect

is descriptive of the participants’ experience. The external horizon is what is focal to

the participants in each of the categories (categories being numbered on the left hand

side in Figure 4.6). The internal horizon explains the details of the focus, in this case

the actual actions (approaches or strategies) participants described when approaching

student behaviour (the ‘how” in Marton and Booth’s (1997) framework).

Category Structural Aspect Internal horizon External horizon

Referential aspect Ethical aspect

1 Managing Removing or ignoring problem individual student behaviour; teaching the rest of the cohort

Keeping classroom ‘managed’ and students safe in order to teach

Responsibility rests with teacher and administration “I need to leave them”

2 Managing, engagement

Rewards, stickers, reminders, firm expectations, essential skills, time out

Keeping students engaged in learning in order to teach; rigid

Responsibility rests with teacher “I’m in charge”

3 Managing, engagement, adaptations

Seating, environment, student interests or preferences, ‘brain breaks’; adjusting expectations

Keeping students engaged in learning in order to teach; flexible

Responsibility rests with teacher “I can adapt”

4 Managing, engagement, adaptations, teaching

Modelling, role play, discussions, co-playing, using visuals

Teaching students how to engage

Responsibility shift towards student “I can teach them how”

Referential aspect: meaning External horizon: What is focal to participants


Figure 4.6. Analysis of variation.

In Category 1 teachers were focused on managing approaches with student

behaviour and adopted practices that included office referrals, removing students or

ignoring behaviours. Category 2 included a focus on managing and engaging. Teacher

approaches in Category 2 included rewards, punishments, the Essential Skills for

Classroom Management and behavioural reminders. In Category 3 teachers held a

focus on managing, engaging and adapting behaviours. Common practices included

seating considerations, incorporating students’ interests and providing the class with

‘brain breaks’. Category 4 saw a focus on managing, engaging, adapting and teaching.

Approaches such as modelling, role-play and discussions were evidenced. In Category

5 student reflection, goal setting and choices were approaches teachers described.

The referential aspect then communicates the meaning, based upon ways of

seeing (or conceptions) being linked to what participants do (as represented in the

structural aspect in the analysis). ‘Doing’, is read as expressing ‘seeing’ (Marton,

2015). Marton explains,

… I can see what other people do and I can “read” what they do in terms of

how things must appear to them (how they must see things) if they do what

they do and if we assume there is a logical relationship between what they see

and what they do (Marton, 2015, p. 110).

Additionally, an ethical aspect is also presented in this analysis of variation,

again adopted from S. Booth and Ingerman’s (2002) study. This ethical aspect

represents the different views of knowledge and where the responsibility lies for the

structure and outcome of the approaches with behaviour. In this study, as explained

within the category descriptions, the responsibility or authority for approaches with

student behaviour rests with the teacher in the early categories (Categories 1-3). An

important shift is evidenced between Category 3 and 4, resulting in a growing sense of

agency given to the students in Categories 4 and 5.

5 Management, engagement, teaching, students’ future learning and development

Goal setting, choices, student reflection, teacher reflection, observation

Developing independent and self-regulated learners

Responsibility rests with student “I can teach and support”

Internal horizon: details of the focus,

the approaches (acts of learning) Categories

Ethical aspect: different views of

knowledge and where responsibility rests


To support this analysis of variation, I developed a way of accounting for the

variance and invariance for each category (see Table 4.1 Analysis of variance and

invariance). In this table, the ‘v’ stands for variance, showing where the participants’

focus was held and which dimensions were held open, simultaneously, by the

participants in and across the categories. The invariance, represented as an ‘i’, shows

focus away from that particular dimension. As you can see in this analysis, in the most

inclusive and complex category (Category 5) teachers had all five dimensions in focus

simultaneously, whereas in Category 1, awareness was focused on ‘managing’ only,

meaning that teachers were not thinking about engagement with learning, adapting

their practice to engage students in learning, teaching students new behaviours or

students’ future self-regulation.

Table 4.1

Analysis of variance and invariance

Category

Managing

Engaging

Adapting

Teaching

Future

learning and

development

1. Not engaging v i i i i

2. Engaging to learn v v i i i

3. Adapting to engage v v v i i

4. Learning to engage v v v v i

5. Towards independent engagement v v v v v

This analysis provides a useful picture for teacher educators of both preservice

and inservice teachers, as well as for teachers and school administrators of where

teacher thinking and awareness needs to be focused if we wish to approach student

behaviour in inclusive ways that support student learning and the development of

student self-regulation.

4.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter has presented and explained the findings of this study of teachers’

approaches with student behaviour in the Prep year. Five categories of description

outlining teachers’ ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour have been

outlined and examples from the data have been included. The chapter has detailed the

analysis of variation and pointed towards the implications of such findings. This is

important as Marton (2015) has strongly advocated for phenomenographic studies to


draw out the ‘pedagogical potential’, that is point towards pedagogical change and

implications for teaching and learning.

In the next chapter, the Discussion, the implications of this study along with

considerations for preservice and inservice teacher professional development based on

the findings from this study will be outlined and discussed.

Chapter 5: Discussion 165

Chapter 5: Discussion

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents a discussion of this study’s findings concerning teachers’

approaches with student behaviour in Preparatory (Prep) classrooms. The discussion

positions the findings in the context of existing literature, and in so doing explores the

implications of the study for teaching practice, education policy and initial and

continuing teacher education.

In the previous chapter, analysis of the phenomenographic interview data

uncovered 5 increasingly complex and inclusive categories that represented Prep

teachers’ ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour. These were:

1. Not engaging, where managing student behaviour was the focal point for

teachers and student behaviour was seen as isolated from engagement with

learning.

2. Engaging to learn, where teachers’ focus was on student behaviour and

engagement with learning simultaneously.

3. Adapting to engage, where teachers adapted their own behaviours to achieve

student engagement with learning.

4. Learning to engage, where teachers focused on teaching behaviour to achieve

student engagement with learning.

5. Towards independent engagement, where teachers were focused on teaching

behaviour and ultimately releasing the responsibility of student behaviour to

the students.

First in this chapter, to set the stage for this discussion, the importance of the

Prep year as the first and foundational year of formal school is revisited. Then a brief

discussion on the range of ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour is

presented. This is followed by a discussion of each of the five data categories with

reference to relevant literature. Finally, the dimensions of variation identified within

the categories are explicated and considered.

166 Chapter 5: Discussion

5.2 THE PREP YEAR AS A FOUNDATION YEAR

This study was located within the context of the Prep year, the first and

foundational formal year of school for children aged four to six years in Queensland,

Australia. It is important to foreground the Prep year in this discussion and to position

it within the early childhood years as a significant period in children’s learning and

development. UNESCO (2016) defines this period thus:

Early childhood, defined as the period from birth to eight years old, is a time

of remarkable growth with brain development at its peak. During this stage,

children are highly influenced by the environment and the people that

surround them.

Early childhood care and education (ECCE) is more than preparation for

primary school. It aims at the holistic development of a child’s social,

emotional, cognitive and physical needs in order to build a solid and broad

foundation for lifelong learning and wellbeing. ECCE has the possibility to

nurture caring, capable and responsible future citizens (para.1&2).

This positioning of the early childhood years as significant and important for

children’s well-being is also supported by the Organisation for Economic and Co-

operation and Development (OECD), which states that Early Childhood Education and

Care (ECEC) remains high on the agendas of OECD countries (OECD, 2010).

Internationally, governments have shown a strong commitment to ECEC in before

school contexts because of the known benefits for children’s future learning and

development. The OECD (2015) states that this commitment also needs to be drawn

up into the early years of primary school so that these benefits endure. By focusing on

teachers’ ways of seeing (or conceptions) this study’s findings have re-positioned the

Prep year as important for nurturing students’ social and emotional learning

development. Young children in Queensland enter the Prep year with a range of prior-

to-school social experiences and emotional capabilities. A commitment to the

development of students’ personal skills needs to be realised in the Prep year and

sustained as students move through the primary years to enhance their learning and

well-being.

In arguing for consolidation in and enhancement of the development of

children’s social and emotional capabilities, it is important to acknowledge here the

significant structural, curriculum and policy changes education systems have


undergone over the last 10 years (Krieg & Whitehead, 2015). In Queensland, the

transition in 2007 from a pre-compulsory, part-time, play-based Preschool year to the

introduction of Prep, a compulsory, full-time first year of school, meant a gradual

move away from flexible, child-centred curriculum and pedagogical approaches to a

more rigid, adult-focused, outcomes-based approach.

Issues for Prep teachers concerning implementing early childhood principles and

practices in primary school contexts are highlighted throughout this discussion chapter

as these issues are relevant to teachers’ ways of seeing approaches with student

behaviour. Krieg and Whitehead (2015), two South Australian academics who wrote

about the divide between pre-compulsory (before school) and compulsory (school)

early childhood provision, noted that differentiation issues existed even within the

early childhood years. Two such issues were (i) curriculum approaches, with broad

outcomes seen in before-school contexts versus specific outcomes in primary school

contexts, and (ii) qualifications, with teachers in before-school contexts requiring

specialist early childhood qualifications, whilst teachers in the primary school years

were not required to have any specialist early childhood qualifications or experience

(Krieg & Whitehead, 2015). In this chapter, the impact of these issues on teachers’

approaches with student behaviour has been acknowledged.

There are currently two key curriculum documents that influence Prep teachers’

planning for the learning and development of children aged four to six years. These

are the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2016a) and Early Years Learning

Framework (EYLF) (DEEWR, 2009). Teachers have been encouraged to draw upon

the Early Years Learning Framework’s key principles and practices of early childhood

teaching when implementing the Australian Curriculum in the early years of school.

However, in practice, as stated by many participants in this study, this is often easier

said than done. The Early Years Learning Framework is Australia’s national early

childhood curriculum that is designed to “extend and enrich children’s learning from

birth to 5 and through the transition to school” (p. 5), and is based upon conclusive

international evidence-based research that acknowledges early childhood as a critically

important stage in children’s learning and development (DEEWR, 2009). The Early

Years Learning Framework is underpinned by the Melbourne Declaration on

Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA, 2008) and the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child (Office of the United Nations High


Commissioner for Human Rights, 2017). Via these mechanisms, the goal of providing

every child with opportunities for the best start in life and children’s rights to play and

to be active participants in their learning is to be recognised. Connor (2012) asserted

that there are strong connections between the Early Years Learning Framework and

the Australian Curriculum that can serve to strengthen the transition between before-

school contexts and Prep. Connor (2012) stated:

The Australian Curriculum recognises that the EYLF establishes the

foundations for selective learning in school and throughout life and aims to

build on those foundations as learners move through schooling (p.15).

Understanding and drawing upon the relationship between the Australian

Curriculum and the Early Years Learning Framework enhances continuity and is in

the best interests of children’s learning success (Connor, 2012).

The Early Years Learning Framework places particular emphasis on play-based

learning and the importance of children’s social and emotional development. However,

these emphases appear in direct contrast to the implementation of the Australian

Curriculum in Queensland, which has been enacted with an emphasis on prescriptive

approaches to teaching such as the Curriculum into the Classroom (C2C) (Department

of Education and Training, 2015a) strategy, which comprises “comprehensive” lesson

plans ready for classroom delivery. Additionally, there has been a renewed focus on

the use of Direct Instruction (McMullen & Madelaine, 2014) in Queensland

government schools, via the C2C resources, which involve teachers following a rigid

set of instructions for consistent content delivery. These conditions have made

integrating the principles and practices of early childhood teaching challenging for

Prep teachers, as evidenced in the study data.

At the heart of this challenge is the fact that professionals who work with

children in the early childhood years, early childhood educators, are guided in practice

by principles developed from their knowledge and beliefs about how young children

learn, and these take into account shifts in educational theories (ECA, 2016). These

principles of early childhood education are often in conflict with broader systemic and

institutional processes and policies aimed at primary school education, of which Prep

is part. Tensions for teachers in this study arose as they held their principles of early

childhood education alongside school-based procedures, compulsory curriculum and


pedagogical approaches, which they articulated as impacting unfavourably on their


Although there has been a strong commitment internationally to ensuring

teachers who work with young children aged 0-8 years have formal early childhood

specialist qualifications (National Association for the Education of Young Children

[NAEYC], 2009), in the early years of school in Queensland teachers are not required

to hold such qualifications. Prep teachers in Queensland typically have a four-year

undergraduate Bachelor of Education, or a one or two-year postgraduate qualification

on top of a previous degree. However, their Bachelor of Education could have a

speciality in early childhood, primary education, middle school education or - in a

minority of cases - even secondary education. The teacher registration authority in

Queensland, Queensland College of Teachers (QCT), does not require teachers to hold

a specialist qualification in early childhood to teach in the early years of primary

school. Krieg and Whitehead (2015) argued however, that teachers require this

specialist early childhood knowledge and expertise to negotiate the differences

between the Early Years Learning Framework and the Australian Curriculum in the

first year of school. This study of teachers’ approaches with student behaviour

included teacher participants with early childhood qualifications and expertise as well

as those with primary and/or secondary qualifications, as the Prep teachers in this study

held a range of qualifications and experiences. While the differences in qualifications

did not feature in the data corpus, the curriculum issues discussed above and their

impact on ways of seeing student behaviour approaches were raised several times.

The context-based tensions highlighted above form an important backcloth to

interpreting this study’s findings. The implications of these findings will be offered

throughout this and the final chapter.

5.3 TEACHERS’ APPROACHES WITH STUDENT BEHAVIOUR - AN

OVERVIEW OF THE CATEGORIES

There is a vast range of behaviour approaches for teachers to use in classrooms.

In the forthcoming discussion of the data categories in this chapter, teachers’ ways of

seeing their approaches with student behaviour are analysed alongside the existing

literature. It is important first, however, to present a short discussion about behaviour

approaches generally.


Australian educational child psychologist, Porter (2006), is well known in the

education field for her work on behaviour approaches, and a decade ago she published

a continuum of behaviour approaches, mapping their theoretical underpinnings

hierarchically from authoritarian approaches such as assertive discipline at one end of

the continuum through to egalitarian approaches such as choice theory and the

guidance approach at the other end of the continuum. More recently, Porter (2014) has

revised the characterisation, suggesting that only two main typologies of behaviour

approaches have solid underpinning theories and strong evidence bases; these are

behaviourism and guidance. Behaviourism operates on the premise that individual

behaviour is governed by external consequences, whereas guidance operates with the

idea that individual behaviour is an attempt to have needs met. Within the guidance

approach, teachers teach children the skills they need for considerate behaviour

(Porter, 2014). One important difference between the two theories lies in the

distribution of power between students and teachers. In behaviourism, an authoritarian

approach, power is assigned to teachers, whereas in the guidance approach,

authoritarian control is rejected, as it is thought to marginalise and silence young

children (Porter, 2014). Instead the guidance approach is based on “the notion of power

as the ability to act or produce an effect” (Porter, 2014, p.41). Teachers are

conceptualised as leaders rather than bosses in the guidance approach, and they work

with students to teach them the skills they need to behave considerately (Porter, 2014).

Across the two approaches there are also philosophical differences in how children are

viewed with regard to beliefs about human nature, children’s competence and their

worth. For example, in behaviourism, Porter (2014) argues that the core belief about

human nature centres on distrust of children, that they have “evil intentions” (p.42). In

contrast, in the guidance approach, she argues the core belief about human nature is

that children’s behavioural actions are intended to meet their needs (Porter, 2014).

In the data Categories 1 and 2, as will shortly be demonstrated, a behaviourist

view of students was apparent in the teachers’ discussions of their approaches with

student behaviour. In Category 1, for challenging student behaviour teachers described

their use of exclusionary practices that removed students from learning activities, peers

or classes (for example, they used time out). In Category 2, teachers reported using

power to control and suppress student behaviour. Porter (2014) stated that exclusionary

practices such as time out and detentions lack an evidential and theoretical base for


efficacy. The Queensland Department of Education and Training, the employing body

for the participants in this study, endorses the use of exclusionary practices such as

detentions in policies, for example the Safe, Supportive and Disciplined School

Environment (Department of Education and Training, 2017e) procedure. However, at

the same time the strategy of exclusion seems to exist in opposition to the

Department’s (2017c) inclusion policy which states, “inclusive education means that

every day in every classroom, every state school student is learning and achieving in

a safe, supportive, inclusive and disciplined learning environment” (para 3). When

students are excluded from classrooms for time out, classroom learning and achieving

ceases. As exclusionary approaches to student behaviour are endorsed in Departmental

policies and procedures, and as these are designed to guide schools’ practice with

student behaviour, it is not surprising that punitive approaches such as time out and

detentions have featured in teachers’ approaches with student behaviour in the Prep

year.

From Category 3 onwards a shift in power dynamics was evidenced as teachers

stated that they acted in ways that moved away from controlling student behaviour and

towards meeting students’ needs and/or actively teaching social and emotional skills.

These approaches were more aligned to the guidance approach, and have positive

implications for students’ social and emotional development and self-regulation.

There is a growing awareness of the importance of teaching students about self-

regulation (Murray et al., 2016). Teachers’ use of mindfulness (Hassed & Chambers,

2014; KidsMatter, 2016) and meditation (L. Waters, Barsky, Ridd, & Allen, 2015) are

approaches that have recently surfaced to encourage the development of students’ self-

regulation. Kidsmatter, an Australian government-funded initiative for primary

schools and early childhood education and care services to support children’s mental

health and well-being, states that a benefit of mindfulness is an increase in the ability

for children to self-regulate their emotions (KidsMatter, 2016; Leland, 2015; Maynard,

Solis, Miller, & Brendel, 2017). The Mindful Schools Program Evaluation (Smith,

Guzman-Alvarez, Westover, Keller, & Fuller, 2012) found that benefits of

mindfulness as observed by teachers included self-awareness, self-control, improved

behaviour, students thinking of others and calmness. These mindful outcomes are

thought to work towards equipping students with the knowledge and skills necessary

to regulate their own behaviour, rather than having their behaviour regulated by others.


Importantly for this study, these were approaches with student behaviour that were

found in the latter, more complex and integrated categories in this study (Categories 4

and 5).

The Prep teachers who expressed views in this study described using a range of

approaches with student behaviour. Although many expressed a tendency towards

either behaviourist or guidance approaches, they articulated their selection of

behaviour approaches based on a range of factors, including the type and perceived

severity of the student behaviour, their knowledge of individual students, their own

preferences, as well as school behaviour policies and procedures, and time factors. As

such, the approaches with student behaviour identified by individual teachers could be

seen across multiple categories, rather than fitting within only one category.

5.4 FRAGMENTED AND HOLISTIC WAYS OF SEEING APPROACHES

WITH STUDENT BEHAVIOUR

It is important to highlight the fragmented and holistic ways of seeing

approaches with student behaviour which were evident in the study’s findings, and to

analyse them alongside behaviour policy and procedures. Queensland’s Statement of

Expectations for a Disciplined School Environment (Department of Education

Training and Employment, 2013) policy details expectations for all Departmental

personnel and aligns with the Code of School Behaviour: Better Behaviour, Better

Learning policy document (Department of Education Training and Employment,

2006) and the Safe, Supportive and Disciplined School Environment (Department of

Education and Training, 2017e) procedure to promote positive behaviour and the

‘maintaining’ of teaching. These policies and procedures align with the Categories 1

and 2 ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour. In these categories teaching

and behaviour were not integrated, but were rather seen as separate or fragmented.

Teachers’ experiences that contributed to these categories showed an emphasis on

managing student behaviour so that they could re-focus on their teaching. This is

distinct from Categories 3, 4 and 5, which as explained in detail later in this chapter,

describe teachers’ ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour in more holistic

ways. Teachers’ experiences in these latter categories favoured the integration of

behaviour, student learning and teaching, with teachers intentionally providing

opportunities for social and emotional learning and allowing students to take joint

responsibility for their personal development.


It seems that existing Departmental student behaviour policies and processes

may inadvertently support fragmented ways of seeing approaches with student

behaviour as found in Categories 1 and 2. This particular issue will be discussed in

more detail later in this chapter. While reactive behaviour approaches such as time out

and Student Disciplinary Absences (SDAs) may be necessary in some circumstances,

it is important that administrators and teachers are supported to understand that

inclusive approaches are also needed to assist students in developing self-regulation

that supports social and emotional learning.

5.5 DISCUSSION OF CATEGORIES

In Chapter 2, the existing literature was reviewed, highlighting key themes

emerging in relation to student behaviour and teaching. Bodies of literature reviewed

included: (i) Australian educational contexts; (ii) school behaviour policies; (iii) the

Preparatory year in Queensland; (iv) behaviour theories and approaches; (v)

curriculum, pedagogy, motivation, engagement and their relationship with student

behaviour; (vi) teachers’ perceptions of student behaviour and behaviour strategies and

approaches; and (vii) teachers’ professional development and learning.

The literature review identified a gap in what is known about teachers’

approaches with student behaviour, particularly in the early years of school. In the

Australian State of Queensland, only a small group of studies have ever been

conducted in the Preparatory year, designated as the first formal year of school. These

studies include Breathnach et al. (2016), who investigated parents’ views of play in

Prep; Hoyte, Torr, and Degotardi (2014), who examined the relationship between

language and preschool friendships in Prep classrooms; O'Gorman and Hard (2013),

who examined distributed leadership experiences of early childhood teachers;

O'Gorman and Ailwood (2012), who investigated parents' views on play-based

learning; and Thorpe et al. (2005), who evaluated the 2003 Preparing for School Trial.

None of these studies, however, had explicitly studied teachers’ approaches with

student behaviour despite Prep student behaviour having been the subject of recurring

high profile media reports (e.g. M. Bruce, 2015; Chilcott, 2011a). The review also

indicated a gap in what we know about teachers’ knowledge of and practice with the

range of effective approaches that support student behaviour. The literature review of

behaviour policy in Queensland showed limited attention to democratic approaches,

the development of supportive relationships or flexibility, which have been shown in


the literature to be hallmarks of effective student behaviour programs (Blair & Raver,

2015; Porter, 2014). These substantial gaps and absences in the current policy and

literature provided the catalyst for this study.

This study set out to hear from Queensland Prep teachers, in their own words,

about their experiences with approaching student behaviour. It aimed to capture the

varying conceptions of this group of teachers. In doing so, the study revealed five

qualitatively different ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour. These

findings will now be discussed in light of the existing literature. The literature at times

will direct focus to the Australian context, in particular the State government

educational reforms and policies that have impacted on teachers’ practice with student

behaviour. This discussion is organised around the five ways of seeing approaches

with student behaviour. Headings provide the organising structure, under which each

of the categories is briefly described, with a focus on features that differentiate the

categories from one another. Sub-headings then signal the ‘big ideas’ that surfaced

within the findings of each category and these are discussed in turn. In some category

discussions, rich, exemplary quotes from participant statements are used to convey

these big ideas. These quotes represent what have been called irrelevant aspects

(Marton, 2015), aspects which are irrelevant to the phenomenon investigated

compared to the target way of experiencing it; however, they highlight important

points that surround the phenomenon and thus can illuminate teachers’ experiences.

These participant excerpts serve to anchor the discussion firmly in the participants’

accounts. It is important to reiterate here that, in line with phenomenographic analysis,

the data from individual teacher expressions do not sit solely in one particular category.

Individual teachers’ expressions of their approaches with student behaviour were often

seen across multiple categories.

5.5.1 Not engaging: Category 1

Category 1 was labelled as Not engaging. This way of seeing approaches with

student behaviour was seen as managing, with teachers focused upon their own need

for maintaining or restoring order to their classrooms when faced with challenging

student behaviour in Prep. In this fragmented way of seeing approaches with student

behaviour, teachers focused upon individual student behaviour in isolation from

engagement with learning and, indeed, from the rest of the class. This resulted in

approaches where teachers reported supressing students’ behaviour and/or removing


students from the classroom so that their not engaging with these students enabled the

teachers to direct attention to the other individuals and tasks.

Queensland Government school student behaviour policy enables the exclusion

of students from classrooms and schools as a way of disciplining students (Department

of Education and Training, 2017e). The Queensland Government’s (2017e) Safe,

Supportive and Disciplined School Environment procedure nominates exclusionary

practices such as time out, disciplinary consequences (for example detentions) and

suspensions to maintain the “good order and management of schools” (p.1). Teachers

expressing conceptions in this category could therefore be seen as merely adhering to

the policy. On the other hand, the use of these exclusionary approaches may indicate

that teachers and administrators fall back on exclusionary practices when faced with

challenging student behaviours due to lack of knowledge of more proactive approaches

and time factors preventing their implementation.

Within the Category 1 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour,

students were positioned as passive recipients of adult-driven interventions, with the

aim being to satisfy teachers’ need for order and control (or management). The term

management (called ‘managing’ here) in relation to behaviour or classroom

management has long been used by educators globally to discuss the “actions taken to

create and maintain a learning environment conducive to attainment of the goals of

instruction” (Brophy, 1988, p. 1). The term ‘management’ was stated by Kohn (2006)

to have originated from the business world and was concerned with the control and

direction of employees. This term has since been applied to education, with Porter

(2014) claiming that the purpose of schooling seems to be aimed at teaching

occupational skills necessary for participation in the economy, and the way of

achieving this is via standardisation and control. This has led to the idea of managing

or controlling student behaviour. Although Positive Behaviour for Learning (PBL) is

a more contemporary term used in schools regarding approaching student behaviour,

the term behaviour management persists in the vocabulary of teachers, as evidenced

in this study. The term managing was thus chosen to reflect this.

The big ideas that stand out as warranting discussion from this category are time

out as a behaviour approach; the use of student disciplinary absences (SDAs) as a

behaviour approach; and teacher dissatisfaction, stress and well-being.


Time out as a behaviour approach

Approaches that excluded students from learning, such as time out, detentions

and suspensions were evidenced in the Category 1 way of seeing approaches with

student behaviour. Time out was one of the approaches with student behaviour

commonly nominated by teachers who expressed views aligned with Category 1.

Teachers reported using time out, that is, excluding a student from the classroom in

some way, to provide respite from their behaviour. Behaviours that warranted such an

approach included students not listening to the teacher, being off-task, breaking

classroom rules, distracting others, not sitting up, running away, hitting others, and

throwing objects. In most cases, apart from hitting and throwing behaviours, students

were given verbal warnings from teachers before they were removed.

Time out is an approach common in parenting literature and forums, and this

approach is purported to teach children about unacceptable behaviour. On the popular

Raising Children Network (2016) website, which is supported by the Australian

Government’s Department of Social Services, time out is a suggested strategy for

managing children’s inappropriate behaviour. The Raising Children Network (2016)

proposes that when children behave inappropriately they should be denied the chance

to be around other people and interesting things for a period of time, through enacting

a time out strategy implemented by the parent not giving attention to their child for a

short period of time. It is suggested that this gives children a chance to think about

what they did and what they might do differently, however, actual guiding principles

to achieve this reflection on behaviour are not provided to parents (Raising Children

Network, 2016).

The employing authority for all teachers who participated in this study, the then

Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE), defined

time out as “giving a student time away from their regular class program/ routine” and

explained it as “one of a range of options for students to manage their own behaviour”

(Department of Education and Training, 2017e, p. 2). A deeper investigation reveals

that time out is an exclusionary behaviour management strategy commonly endorsed

in an approach to classroom management known as assertive discipline, which was

widely disseminated from the 1970s via a self-paced distance learning course and

practised by teachers in schools around the world. Assertive discipline was initially

developed by Canter and Canter (1976), and was the most popular discipline system


in the United States for over two decades. Canter (2010) continues to promote assertive

discipline as a program that allows teachers to create classroom environments in which

they teach and “students learn free from the distraction of disruptive student

behaviour” (p.3). He attributes disruptive student behaviour to a lack of respect for

teachers’ authority, the diverse nature of students, the inclusion of special needs

students in mainstream classrooms, and cultural and family differences. In this

approach, students with challenging behaviours are viewed as ‘troublesome’, with

teachers needing to implement strategies, including disciplinary consequences, to

restore order and control to the classroom and ensure student compliance. The terms

‘compliant’ and ‘non-compliant’ are often used by Canter. Highlighting the

pervasiveness of these ideas, teachers articulating conceptions in this category also

often used these same terms to talk about student behaviour (for example see Chapter

3, p. 110).

Critiques of approaches to student discipline, like assertive discipline, suggest

that these approaches position teachers as unskilled, uncritical, and incapable of

solving their own classroom behavioural issues (Palardy, 1996; Rigoni & Walford,

1998; Robinson & Maines, 1994). However, Canter (2010) argued that teachers should

be provided with concepts and strategies to enable them to manage student behaviour

so they can effectively do their job; but this is in opposition to the literature on teacher

professional learning that positions teachers as powerful agents of change who should

be active in identifying issues and devising solutions relevant to their particular context

(Timperley, 2011, 2015). The positioning of teachers as incapable may contribute to a

lack of teacher confidence, with teachers disempowered by experts who inform rather

than capacitate.

Assertive discipline’s influence on contemporary school behaviour policies is

palpable, particularly in the use of disciplinary consequences such as time out. This

can be detected in many schools’ Responsible Behaviour Plans, which were required

to be developed by Queensland Government schools from January 2014, to set out

how student behaviour would be managed in each school (see for example Albany

Creek State School, 2015; Caloundra State School, 2017; Manly State School, 2013;

Nundah State School, 2016; Rainworth State School, 2012). The Responsible

Behaviour Plan for Students is a Government dictated but individually-adapted

school-based document outlining a range and level of responses and consequences for


student behaviour not consistent with the Code of School Behaviour (Department of

Education Training and Employment, 2006). The Responsible Behaviour Plans were

to be developed according to a template which specified consequences for

unacceptable behaviour as one of the areas to be addressed (see Template for a

Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students, Department of Education and Training,

2014b).

In Nundah State School’s Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students (2016), for

example, time out is a ‘level 1’ consequence applied to unacceptable behaviour. There

are two other more serious levels of consequences in this plan, which include parent

contact, behaviour specialist referral and suspension. The document states that during

time out students are to be supervised and given an opportunity to re-join the class in

intervals of no more than 10 minutes. The Raising Children Network (2016) proposes

an algorithm for the length of time out for children aged 3-8 years: “one minute per

year of age, up to a maximum of five minutes” (para. 4). It is unclear from what - if

any - evidence-based literature these time indications are derived. Additionally, there

is no step-by-step procedure described in Nundah State School’s Responsible

Behaviour Plan for Students (2016); and no detail regarding what happens for students

during time out, or the process for re-entry into the classroom. As such, the school’s

behaviour plan is built on assumptions that teachers will know and understand how to

implement time out in age or developmentally appropriate ways.

While time out is a common classroom management practice, there are critics of

this approach who draw attention to its authoritarian underpinnings based in

behaviourism. Behaviour guidance authors and advocates Porter (2004) and Gartrell

(2007) stated that time out does not teach students to manage or regulate their own

behaviour. Dann (2015) argued that the use of exclusion in the time out approach is

problematic as it isolates children from relationships. He suggested instead that adults

listen to their children, be assertive, solve problems with children, and use time away,

where children calm down with the aid of adult-supported strategies such as listening

to music. Like Dann, Porter and Gartrell advocate for time away or cooling down

where students learn to ‘soothe’ themselves. Teachers provide areas in classrooms for

students, and teach students to remove themselves when necessary, encouraging them

to develop emotional self-regulation. Gartrell (2007) stated that teachers should

provide mediation and conflict management after the cooling down process. This is in


stark contrast to time out where students are removed by teachers with the aim being

to simply supress and remove their behaviour, with no mechanisms to support self-

regulation or opportunity to reflect on the incident. This was characteristic of ways of

seeing approaches with student behaviour in Category 1.

Time out is considered an authoritarian adult-enforced approach (Kohn, 1996;

Porter, 2004; Warren, 2014), whereas time away is an egalitarian approach which is

aimed at teaching students self-regulation (Gartrell, 2007; Porter, 2004). In the Safe,

Supportive and Disciplined School Environment procedure (Department of Education

and Training, 2017e), time out is conceptualised as part of a “calming down process”

for students, used “to reduce the frequency of a particular behaviour” (p.1). However,

the actual step-by-step process and means for achieving this are not described. The

Queensland Government’s policies and procedures thus appear to convey a preference

for particular approaches to student behaviour which have been reflected in this

category 1 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour.

The use of student disciplinary absences (SDAs) as a behaviour approach

Student disciplinary absences (SDAs) is the term used to describe student

suspension or expulsion from school. Suspension is the temporary removal of a student

from school (usually for a period of days), while expulsion is the removal of a student

from school for an extended period of time. Both suspension and expulsion are

disciplinary consequences applied by schools to address student behaviour that is

inconsistent with the Code of School Behaviour (Department of Education Training

and Employment, 2006). The Code lists detentions, including detention on a non-

school day, suspensions, exclusions and community service intervention as

Government approved consequences for serious student behaviour that does not

comply with expected standards. Suspension was an approach reported by participants

in Category 1. Suspensions were used to remove students with challenging behaviours

from the school in an effort to restore order and provide respite for the teacher and

other students from serious inappropriate behaviour. The Department of Education and

Training’s (2017e) Safe, Supportive and Disciplined School Environment procedure

details the process for student suspensions for disobedience and misbehaviour, stating

that suspensions may be applied where conduct “adversely affects the good order and

management of the school” (p.5).


In Category 1, providing suspensions for students with challenging behaviours

was an exclusionary approach, often adopted by school administration when teachers

felt they had exhausted all other options. Unlike latter categories characterised by

making adaptations for students (a feature of Category 3) or teaching new social

behaviours (a feature of Category 4), in Category 1 suspension was used to enforce a

school or teacher-driven need for order and compliance. The Safe, Supportive and

Disciplined School Environment (Department of Education and Training, 2017e)

procedure does not detail specific student behaviours that warrant suspension. It does

not describe specific approaches that should be adopted to support student transition

back to school following suspension. It does not specify what social and emotional

learning and classroom or curriculum adaptations might be required to prevent further

suspensions in the future. The omission of these details in this procedure document

may partially explain the seemingly reactionary approaches to student behaviour

evidenced in Category 1.

Exclusionary behaviour practices such as student disciplinary absences may lead

to adverse student outcomes. American authors, Pane and Rocco (2014), in their book

Transforming the School to Prison Pipeline, considered what happens during

disciplinary moments in schools that lead to exclusionary disciplinary consequences

that “funnel an underclass of students into the school-to-prison pipeline” (p.3). The

authors argue that whether or not students, particularly those who are poor, diverse

and failing in school, enter the school-to-prison pipeline is influenced in part by

classroom discipline. Pane and Rocco (2014) posited that the school-to-prison pipeline

cycle begins when students meet trouble in class and then become known as trouble-

makers. The pipeline continues with office referrals, suspensions, expulsions, school

failure, dropping out, juvenile incarceration and, ultimately, adult prison (Pane &

Rocco, 2014). Howard (2005), an academic with extensive experience as a behaviour

support specialist in Queensland Government schools, warned that exclusion of

students can have profound consequences for them, including educational

disadvantage, an increased risk of criminal activity and personal harm. In her PhD

research she found that school SDAs make unstable family circumstances worse and

lead to an increase in truancy and homelessness (Howard, 2005). In addition, SDAs

may lead to unemployment and a decrease in future earning potential. Attention to

approaches that exclude students, such as those seen in Category 1, deserve careful


scrutiny, as they may lead to adverse outcomes for students, their families and

communities.

Teacher dissatisfaction, stress and well-being

It is important to draw attention to the dissatisfaction and stress that teachers

expressed with their use of approaches specifically in Category 1. This was not evident

in other categories and is significant because dissatisfaction and stress may lead to

adverse outcomes for teachers themselves and the teaching profession generally. In

Category 1, teachers reported dissatisfaction with their approaches due to their being

unable to influence student behaviour in productive ways, especially when the

behaviour was particularly challenging and they also had academic performance

outcomes to address, such as those pertaining to literacy and numeracy targets.

In Australia, 14 percent of teachers report spending their time maintaining

classroom order (OECD, 2014). The OECDs (2014) 2013 Teaching and Learning

International Survey (TALIS) of over 100,000 teachers from 34 countries and

economies, found that classroom disciplinary issues limit students’ opportunities to

learn, with one in four teachers in most countries reportedly losing 30 percent of

teaching time through disruptions and administration tasks associated with classroom

discipline. Additionally, challenging classroom circumstances (such as classes

comprised of more than a tenth of low academic achieving students or students with

behaviour problems) was significantly associated with individual teachers’ sense of

self-efficacy and job satisfaction. The OECD stated that low self-efficacy in teachers

was linked with higher levels of teacher stress and problems dealing with students who

misbehave. In a similar vein, the Australian Education Union’s (AEU) New Educators

Survey (2008b) of 1545 Australian teachers in their first three years of teaching found

behaviour management to be beginning teachers’ second highest concern, behind

workload. In Category 1, teachers experienced finding both disruptive student

behaviour and workload stressful and this contributed to a sense of low self-efficacy

in their teaching. There was a strong sense of teacher dissatisfaction with their

approaches with student behaviour, with teachers reporting feeling powerless and

incompetent.

Classroom management is a significant issue for teachers that affects their

efficacy and well-being (Egeberg, McConney, & Price, 2016). In a Queensland report

of teacher occupational stress and well-being across the career span, using data


collected from 560 survey responses and 10 interviews, teacher participants suggested

it was becoming increasingly difficult to manage student behaviour (Brough, Morrow,

& Harding, 2016). The study revealed only moderate teacher job satisfaction across

the teaching career span, with Prep teachers in particular reporting low levels of work-

life balance. Educational psychologist and academic Roffey (2012) has stated that

teacher well-being is critically relevant for whole-school well-being. A stress overload

for teachers leads to poor performance which may translate into poor outcomes for

students. In addition, stress in the classroom may lead to teacher attrition (Roffey,

2012).

In Australia, attrition of early career teachers has been recently flagged as a

significant workforce issue; however, current estimates of attrition of early career

teachers are seen to vary widely (AITSL, 2016). For example, the QCT (2013)

investigation into recent graduate teacher attrition estimated from their review of

literature that the proportion of beginning teachers who leave the profession within the

first five years ranges from 8% to 50%. QCT analysed data drawn from their Register

of Teachers and cited attrition of Queensland graduated teachers as 15.2% in 2008.

Complementary to this project was the 2013 Staff in Australian Schools Study (SiAS),

which surveyed 5213 primary and 10349 secondary school teachers to gain a detailed

picture of the Australian teaching workforce, finding that 6.75% of early career

teachers intended to leave the profession permanently prior to retirement. In addition,

45% of early career teachers perceived a need for more professional learning in dealing

with difficult student behaviour (McKenzie et al., 2014), showing that student

behaviour is a significant concern for teachers, which if not addressed may contribute

to teachers exiting the profession. It can be surmised from these findings that

challenging student behaviour is a common concern for many early career teachers. If

professional learning targeting approaches for challenging student behaviour is not

actioned, early career teachers may resort to using a limited range of behaviour

strategies which may not be as effective as they would like, thus adding to feelings of

stress and incompetence.

Approaches with student behaviour that lead to teacher stress, such as those

reported in Category 1, therefore pose a risk of contributing to this early career teacher

attrition and may stifle professional growth at a crucial stage in teachers’ careers.

Timperley (2015), a professional learning and school improvement researcher who


was commissioned by AITSL to undertake a literature review to draw together national

and international research into conversations that support professional growth, has

noted that when people experience stress, they narrow their horizons and opportunities

to learn, and this may impact negatively on teacher professional learning and growth.

Timperley (2015) stated that supportive relationships are essential to enabling

professional growth. Roffey (2012) stated that “in communities with high levels of

social trust individuals are more likely to openly exchange information and be caring

towards each other” (p.10). This is important, as teacher social supports, and strategies

that build teacher resilience, may help teachers combat the negative effects of stress

and lead to changes in teacher practice that are more effective and productive (Roffey,

2012).

It seems that exclusionary behaviour practices may not only lead to poor

outcomes for students, their families and communities, but also to poor outcomes for

teachers regarding their well-being, career longevity and professional learning. A

focus on behaviour practices which involve teacher collaboration, promote teacher

agency and foster inclusion, as seen in the latter categories of this study, may attain

better outcomes for students, their families, communities and teachers than the ones

evidenced in Category 1.

5.5.2 Engaging to learn: Category 2

As in Category 1, the way of seeing approaches with student behaviour in

Category 2 was focused on managing. In Category 1, teachers expressed their own

need for order and control so that they could teach. However, unlike Category 1, in

this category teachers were concerned with engaging students with learning rather than

excluding them from learning, and they described using a variety of behaviour

management approaches to achieve such engagement. Therefore Category 2 was

focused on both managing and engagement.

Engagement is a term that needs to be defined and discussed at this point.

Fredricks, Blumenfeld and Paris’s (2004) seminal research on engagement defined

three types of engagement: (i) behavioural engagement, which is concerned with

student participation; (ii) emotional engagement, which encompasses students’

positive and negative reactions to teachers, peers and school; and (iii) cognitive

engagement, which requires students’ willingness to exert effort needed to develop

skills and understand complex ideas. Fredricks et al. stated that these three types of


engagement should not be thought of in terms of discrete entities, but instead as

multidimensional and interrelated, varying in intensity and duration. In Categories 1,

2 and 3 teachers seemed to be concerned solely with behavioural engagement, whilst

in Categories 4 and 5 teachers have regarded the three types of engagement as

interrelated.

The notion of engagement is often neglected in behaviour policy documents and

plans. While the Victorian State Government’s Department of Education and Training

(2017f) and the Tasmanian Government’s Department of Education and Training

(2016f) provide comprehensive guidance to their schools on engagement via their

student engagement policies, the other Australian States and Territories offer school

behaviour policies with very little direction on student engagement. Despite this lack

of direction in policy for Queensland teachers, in Category 2, teachers were concerned

with student engagement with learning, however they were solely focused on student

participation, that is, behavioural engagement. This may be due to this study’s

particular interview focus on ‘student behaviour’, or it could indicate that teachers

require more professional learning on the notion of engagement along with guidance

on how this can best be achieved in the classroom.

The Early Years Learning Framework states that engagement, along with well-

being and a strong sense of connection, enables children to develop a positive attitude

to learning (DEEWR, 2009). In the Grattan report on Engaging Students: Creating

Classrooms that Improve Learning, Goss, Sonnemann, and Griffiths (2017) state that

engaging classrooms enhance student behaviour and are a necessary condition for

effective teaching and learning. Considering the important relationship between

engagement, student behaviour and learning, a strong focus on teachers attending to

students’ behavioural, emotional and cognitive engagement seems vital.

There are several big ideas that stand out as warranting discussion from this

category: Essential Skills as a behaviour approach; Departmental policy and dictated

approaches and their contribution to controlling student behaviour; direct instruction

and its behavioural consequences; and time constraints inhibiting teachers’ approaches

with student behaviour.


Essential Skills as a behaviour approach

In Category 2, behaviour strategies from the Essential Skills for Classroom

Management (Education Queensland, 2007b) was one approach teachers described

using in this way of seeing approaches with student behaviour in Prep. The Essential

Skills for Classroom Management originated from the Queensland Government’s 2006

Better Behaviour Better Learning initiative, and has been widely adopted by

Queensland Government schools (Department of Education and Training, 2016b). The

Essential Skills for Classroom Management was originally implemented as a 3 hour

training package delivered by trained facilitators, and contained a core knowledge

component, coaching sessions, and more recently, classroom profiling. Classroom

profiling is where staff trained in this approach observe and provide feedback to

teachers on their use of the Essential Skills.

Teachers trained in using the Essential Skills set clear expectations, acknowledge

appropriate behaviour, and correct inappropriate behaviour (Education Queensland,

2007b). Teachers use the Essential Skills to communicate classroom expectations and

re-engage students with learning as needed. The set of 10 skills or strategies are: (1)

establishing expectations; (2) giving instructions; (3) waiting and scanning; (4) cueing

with parallel acknowledgment; (5) body language encouraging; (6) descriptive

encouraging; (7) selective attending; (8) redirecting to the learning; (9) giving a choice;

and (10) following through.

In Category 2, teachers particularly described using Essential Skills 2 and 4:

giving instructions and cueing with parallel acknowledgment, which are based upon

providing students with clear behavioural expectations. Education Queensland

(2007b) stated in the Essential Skills Core Learning Component that “expectations

must be stated clearly to students and followed by precise instructions” (p.6), and in

this category teachers described approaching student behaviour in this distinct manner,

with ‘giving instructions’ the most commonly expressed strategy. The teachers’ goal

for using this approach was to meet their own need for classroom order and control

(that is, management). Skill 6, descriptive encouraging, which involved teachers

describing to students the behaviours that will allow them to learn, reinforcing rules

and telling students of their competence, was also described in this category by

teachers, most often in conjunction with describing the use of individual student class-

based rewards. The Essential Skills Core Learning Component stated that this skill is


useful for building students’ self-esteem, encourages risk-taking in learning and may

result in students becoming more able to practise self-control. American self-

regulation researcher Zimmerman (2002) stated that educators have long focused on

social encouragement and extrinsic means to attempt to elevate students' level of

motivation with learning. However, a reliance on social encouragement may lead to

novice students’ loss of motivation. Instead, Zimmerman proposed that educators

should enhance students’ intrinsic motivation through equipping them with high-

quality self-regulatory skills, for example by teaching close self-monitoring strategies.

This particular Essential Skill then, implemented in isolation, is unlikely to fully

achieve its aim for students to practise self-control, as the development of self-control

requires a much more complex set of teaching strategies than descriptive encouraging

alone.

The use of these three skills was described by teachers in terms of prevention,

that is, preventing disruptive student behaviours from occurring in the first place; but

also, especially with regard to Skills 2 and 4, telling students what they were required

to do if their behaviour was off-task. In Category 2, teachers described the desired

outcome of using these particular Essential Skills (aimed at student compliance, order

and management) as having students successfully engage with learning. This was the

focus of teachers’ conceptions in this category, as they wanted to be able to teach the

curriculum and have children learn, without behavioural distractions. The latter

categories also contained this focus, but teachers’ means to achieving engagement with

learning was not about compliance, rather it was about teaching students social and

emotional learning behaviours that lead to self-regulation.

The Essential Skills Core Learning Component acknowledged that when

students are provided with relevant curriculum and tasks, the need for management is

reduced (Education Queensland, 2007b). This recognition is important, as attention to

aspects related to classroom ecology - that teachers have much control over - such as

the curriculum, physical environment, resources and teaching, can help prevent the

disengagement which leads to disruptive student behaviour (Sullivan et al., 2014). In

Category 2, however, teachers were concerned solely with students’ behavioural

engagement, that is, their participation in the lesson; so rather than describing selecting

relevant curriculum or resources, or adjusting the physical environment to meet the

particular learning needs of students, teachers described using the skills in isolation to


achieve engagement. Meeting the particular learning needs of students would have

required teachers to adapt their own teaching behaviours; a feature of Categories 3, 4

and 5.

The Essential Skills recommended that teachers establish order in their

classrooms and then respond flexibly (adapt) to management issues (Education

Queensland, 2007b). While the package has the capacity to build teachers’ knowledge

and skills in classroom management, some additional guidance concerning how to

respond in flexible ways to student management issues, beyond the use of the skills,

may contribute more effectively to their way of seeing approaches with student

behaviour in more holistic ways. In Category 2, teachers were focused on establishing

and maintaining order in their classrooms; however, responding flexibly to student

behaviour was not a consideration. This was rather a feature first seen in Category 3.

While flexibility is recommended in the Essential Skills, additional detail on what this

might look like in practice, especially with consideration to classroom ecology, may

help teachers understand how to approach student behaviour in more holistic ways and

so to move beyond a Category 2 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour.

Category 2 did not, then, represent holistic or integrated ways of seeing

approaches with student behaviour; it was rather the latter categories (4 and 5) that

showed evidence of teachers’ thinking moving beyond management to developing

students’ capacities for self-regulation. The Department of Education’s (2007b)

Essential Skills Core Learning Component recognised that when students possess a

positive self-concept and have developed self-control, behavioural corrections by

teachers are less frequently required; however, it does not elaborate on how the

development of a positive self-concept and self-control are connected with the skills.

The use of the skills in isolation then, as described by teachers in Category 2,

without thought of future implications for the development of student self-control,

leads to a more fragmented and compartmentalised approach to student behaviour.

Students will not be able to comprehend the intrinsic value of learning if they do not

learn key processes, such as goal-setting, time management, learning strategies, self-

motivational beliefs and self-evaluation, that are required for the development of self-

regulation (Zimmerman, 2002). As social learning theorist Bandura (1991) stated,

If human behavior were regulated solely by external outcomes, people would

behave like weathervanes, constantly shifting direction to conform to


whatever momentary social influence happened to impinge upon them. In

actuality, people possess self-reflective and self-reactive capabilities that

enable them to exercise some control over their thoughts, feelings, motivation,

and actions (p.249).

The realisation of these capabilities is, then, critical to the development of

students as life-long learners. It is important that the Essential Skills are conceptualised

thenceforth alongside equipping students with self-regulation skills, as not only are

self-regulated students more likely to do well academically, but they also view their

future more optimistically (Zimmerman, 2002).

Finally, the Essential Skills Classroom Profiling tool deserves a mention, even

though Classroom Profiling was not mentioned by participants in this study. In a study

of fifteen preservice teachers in Far-North Queensland, Classroom Profiling, a data-

driven teacher feedback tool, was seen to improve preservice teachers’ knowledge of

and confidence in using the Essential Skills for Classroom Management (Jackson et

al., 2013). While Classroom Profiling’s strength is said by Jackson et al. to lie in

providing non-judgemental and confidential feedback to teachers on their use of the

skills to promote reflection upon practice with the skills, this particular type of

feedback may contribute to teachers’ compartmentalised view of behaviour

approaches. Profiling of the Essential Skills on its own may provide limited feedback

to teachers on a partial facet of behaviour approaches. In Category 2, teachers’

descriptions of their use of the Essential Skills showed a fragmented way of seeing

approaches with student behaviour, as teachers were concerned with only two aspects:

managing and engaging. Student behaviour is complex, therefore approaching student

behaviour needs to be conceptualised as multidimensional. It is important that

educators understand how the broader classroom ecology can influence student

engagement (Sullivan et al., 2014). As found in this study, in the more multifaceted

and integrated Categories 4 and 5, additional considerations that importantly support

student behaviour need to be highlighted to preservice and in-service teachers, to

ensure a holistic view of approaching student behaviour that fosters students’

engagement as learners both now and in the future. These considerations include:

strong student-teacher and peer relationships, engaging curriculum, organised physical

environments and effective classroom routines, teacher flexibility, teachers’

appreciation of students’ perspectives on their own behaviour, meeting students’


social, emotional, physical and learning needs, and teaching social and emotional

learning skills.

Departmental policy and dictated approaches and their contribution to

controlling student behaviour

In this category, Departmental policy and dictated approaches to managing

student behaviour were seen to influence how teachers approached student behaviour

in the classroom, and contributed to them controlling student behaviour. One such

approach cited by teachers as influencing their approach with student behaviour was

School Wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS). SWPBS is an approach to student

behaviour that has been used in Queensland Government Schools (Department of

Education and Training, 2015c). Currently the Departmental website has undergone a

change of nomenclature regarding this approach: Positive Behaviour for Learning

(PBL) is the term that has now superseded SWPBS (Department of Education and

Training, 2016g). According to the accounts of some teachers in the Category 2 way

of seeing approaches with student behaviour, the adoption of SWPBS by schools

influenced their approach with student behaviour. Provided here is a participant quote

not contained in the categories, to highlight an issue for teachers concerning SWPBS.

Participant 3 stated:

Then I’ve been at another SWPBS school, and they’re very mandated, even

the language you say to them… So, what are you doing? What should you be

doing? And you need to be very direct. So different schools definitely have a

massive impact on the way that you approach behaviour. I3

This participant has clearly articulated the impact of educational system-

favoured approaches, frameworks and behaviour policy on her approaches with

student behaviour. Teachers who expressed the Category 2 way of seeing approaches

with student behaviour commonly cited SWPBS strategies such as the use of positive

reinforcement, rewards and consequences to motivate students to behave and engage

with the curriculum. However, it is important that SWPBS, or PBL, is not just

considered as a school-wide program of rules, rewards and consequences to be

implemented in isolation, but rather as a holistic program that pays equal attention to

the development of an engaging curriculum, effective pedagogical approaches,

students’ social and emotional development and effective student-teacher relationships

(Sugai & Simonsen, 2012). While schools must have a school-wide position and plan


for student behaviour, this systematic requirement may push schools to adopt

inflexible approaches to behaviour aimed at controlling student behaviour, rather than

favouring an individualistic and customised response to behaviour that aims to meet

students’ social and emotional learning needs.

Controlling student behaviour was a focus for teachers when articulating their

ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour in this category. It was not as

strongly evident in the other categories. Sullivan et al. (2014), in the South Australian

study Punish Them or Engage Them?, argued that politicians, education systems and

schools produce policies and practices that promote a sense of control in schools. In

this study, teachers were found to use strategies that frequently involved controlling

students to ensure compliance. The data in Category 2 were qualitatively different to

those in Category 1, where teachers experienced a sense of powerlessness. Conversely,

in Category 2, teachers experienced a strong sense of power bolstered by policy in

relation to managing student behaviour and to meeting their own needs for classroom

order and control. Sullivan et al. (2014) argued that school behaviour policies

encourage the use of consequences to gain effective student control, because when

teachers gain control, learning can occur. This situation was echoed in the Category 2

way of seeing approaches with student behaviour.

Teachers accounting for their approaches in this Engaging to Learn category

were concerned with approaching student behaviour in ways that ensured compliance

so they could teach and realize academic outcomes. In this category teachers cited

using rewards to promote compliance and sanctions such as consequences to deter

disruption. American education and human behaviour author Kohn (1999) noted that

the use of both rewards and punishments (often framed by schools as ‘consequences’)

do induce compliance; and Hoffmann, Huff, Patterson, and Nietfeld (2009) stated that

teachers routinely use rewards in the classroom, despite much debate in research

regarding the effect of extrinsic reinforcement on intrinsic motivation. In their mixed-

method study of 86 teachers across three large public schools in kindergarten to year

five classrooms in the United States, Hoffmann et al. reported that all teachers

indicated they used rewards in their classrooms. The most common weekly-based

rewards were verbal or written praise (100% of teachers) and tangible rewards such as

token economies and prizes (79.1% of teachers). Teachers in Hoffmann et al.’s study

stated that they believed that elementary (or primary school) teachers should use


rewards, as they help students to demonstrate good behaviour and help motivate them

to do their best work.

However, Kohn (1999) stated that while rewards may work in the short term, for

behaviour changes to last, rewards need to be continuous. This means that for rewards

to work effectively for behaviour change, teachers would need to commit to their

interminable use. In addition, rewards such as praise, ‘happy sticks’ and stickers do

not work to improve students’ self-motivation, as this is more likely influenced by

their underlying beliefs, including perceived efficacy and intrinsic interest

(Zimmerman, 2002). Dweck (2016), an American researcher in the field of motivation,

agreed, stating that, “praise is intricately connected to how students view their

intelligence.” (p.67). In an American study of 978 third to eighth grade students,

declines in motivation were more likely to be found in children who adopted an entity

theory of intelligence or performance goals (Haimovitz, Wormington, & Corpus,

2011). A more contemporary perspective, then, on the development of self-motivation

is that it can be affected through changing students’ attitudes and beliefs. For example,

teachers can positively influence students’ attitudes and beliefs through assisting them

to develop growth mindsets, where they are focused on the process of achievement

(Lin-Siegler, Dweck, & Cohen, 2016).

Conversely, Shiller, O'Flynn, Reineke, Sonsteng, and Gartrell (2008) stated that

the modest use of rewards can encourage intrinsic motivation in challenging

classrooms. The authors suggested that rewards were particularly useful when children

had to perform non-preferred learning tasks, or as temporary incentives to encourage

task-persistence so students can acquire basic skills for later success. This latter

statement is what differentiates the use of rewards in Categories 2 and 4. Whilst

rewards in Category 2 were used solely for the goal of student compliance, in Category

4 rewards were used to guide students’ reflection on their behaviour. Take, for

example, this participant from Category 4 talking about her individual reward system

for a Prep student:

He's someone that I have a separate rewards system for where - he loves

Despicable Me, the movie, so we make him Despicable Me puzzles. Just

laminated card and we cut them up. If he makes great choices all day he gets

to take a puzzle piece home in the afternoon and he puts it together. So that's

his carrot. But originally I thought oh I'll have to do a puzzle piece every


session. So if it was a good session he got a puzzle piece but yeah now we've

got it to a day. So if he has a great day, a puzzle piece, if not - like today was

the first time he didn't get one in a while and he was just being quite - he didn't

really follow instructions today and I just had that conversation with him about

two minutes before the bell, What do you think? You know, do you think you

deserve your puzzle piece today? No. Why? Oh you know I wasn't following

instructions, I was being quite noisy. Well what can you do to change that for

tomorrow? I can follow instructions, listen, that type of thing. I16

These Category 4 data are presented here to illustrate that it is this focus of the

teacher on managing, engagement, adaptions and teaching, rather than just managing

and engaging (Category 2), that makes the Category 4 way of seeing approaches with

student behaviour more sophisticated. It is clear then that rewards and punishments

can be used in different ways and can produce different outcomes.

In Category 2, both rewards and punishments were used to achieve student

compliance. Moberly et al.’s (2005) survey study of 124 pre-kindergarten to year three

teachers’ use of extrinsic rewards and punishments revealed that the first choice of

strategy teachers used for inappropriate behaviour or failure to complete a task was

loss of student recess (40.3% of 92 teacher respondents). This preference was mirrored

in the Category 2 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, where teachers

described removing a privilege such as play-time or a preferred activity for students’

failure to complete a task or as a punishment for non-compliance. This particular

strategy clearly shows a focus on managing and engaging, as teachers described using

the strategy to make children compliant (managing) to task completion (engagement).

This strategy is an unsophisticated approach concerning ways of seeing approaches

with student behaviour, as it does not aim at understanding the individual needs of

students (e.g. why they are not completing the task), that is, adapting; at teaching

students how to engage with learning (changing attitudes and beliefs); or at considering

supporting students’ growing independence (future learning and development).

It is crucial that teachers are challenged in their practice to move away from

controlling approaches with student behaviour to more child-centred approaches that

aim to teach students how to engage with learning. Policy that encourages this shift in

thinking is an important vehicle to realising this aim. Shaddock, Packer, and Roy

(2015) stated that “good policy provides good guidance and supports good practice”


(p.13). It is important, therefore, that policy focuses away from controlling and

punitive ways of managing behaviour to approaches that not only focus on engagement

with learning but also support the long-term development of students’ social and

emotional learning and self-regulation.

The effect of policies on teachers’ abilities to make decisions concerning student

behaviour that are in the best interests of their students cannot be underestimated. UK

educational policy analysist and theorist Ball (2003) argued that policy technologies,

that is, the market, managerialism and performativity, are mechanisms for reforming

teachers, for changing what it is to ‘be’ a teacher, resulting in “new kinds of teacher

subjects” (p.217). This reforming of teachers through policy approaches that are

compulsory in schools may have negative implications for teachers’ ability to exert

agency for the continued development of their knowledge and skills that influence the

improvement of outcomes for students (Timperley, 2015). This is important, as teacher

agency allows for the adoption of flexible approaches with student behaviour, which

are necessary when meeting the needs of diverse young learners.

Direct instruction and its behavioural consequences

The implementation of the Australian Curriculum, along with the Queensland

Government’s Curriculum into the Classroom (C2C) resource, has resulted in an

increase in instances of whole-class teaching and a rise in the use of direct instruction

methods in early years classrooms (Department of Education and Training, 2015b).

Whole-class teaching is where the class is grouped and taught together. In a Prep

classroom, this usually involves the entire class, usually between 20-28 children,

sitting together on a floor space and the teacher teaching from the front of the class.

Direct instruction is a packaged, programmed instructional model, developed in the

late 1960s by American and Canadian behavioural psychologists (Luke, 2014).

Australian researcher Luke, commenting on direct instruction in Australian Literacy

Educators’ Association’s (ALEA) Hot Topics publication, stated that teachers follow

a “step-by-step, lesson-by-lesson approach to teaching that has already been written

for them. What the teachers say and do is prescribed and scripted” (para. 4). Luke

argued that the aim of direct instruction is to place quality controls on curriculum

delivery. In Prep classrooms, this has resulted in the narrowing of teacher pedagogies.

The practice of direct instruction coincided with the introduction of the Australian

Curriculum, and this was interpreted by some to mean the “introduction of a set of


formal instructional approaches” (Department of Education and Training, 2015b, p.

6). This apparent formalisation of curriculum and pedagogy is a result of nation-wide

reforms aimed at improving student results. This has resulted in previously well-

accepted play-based and active learning approaches being rejected by schools, even

for children in the early years.

In Category 2, teachers articulated the tensions associated with their approaches

with student behaviour and prescribed curriculum and pedagogy. They noted a link

between formal instructional approaches and approaches with student behaviour that

were quick to implement, formulaic and rigid. This was in direct contrast to Categories

4 and 5, where teachers talked about using play-based pedagogies, and about their

adoption of behaviour approaches which were flexible, aimed at teaching self-

regulation, that used shared thinking and collaborative problem solving, and required

more time to implement.

In the Category 2 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, teachers

commonly stated that explicit or direct instruction was the pedagogical approach they

were expected to adopt in the classroom. It is important to note here that teachers in

this study often used the term explicit instruction interchangeably with the term direct

instruction, and also used other terms including instructional direction and explicit

teaching. However, these terms have different and specific meanings. Explicit

instruction is defined by Luke (2014) as:

…teacher-centred instruction that is focused on clear behavioural and

cognitive goals and outcomes. Students are told what they will be learning and

how, and what they have to do to show that they have succeeded in learning

whatever it is. The aim of explicit instruction is a strong focus on curriculum

content and clarity for all about the criteria for performance expected (para.

7).

In direct instruction, Luke (2014) says teachers:

…follow a step-by-step, lesson-by-lesson approach to instruction that follows

a pre-determined skill acquisition sequence… The prescribed approach to

teaching is tightly paced, linear and incremental, aiming to maximize time on-

task, and positively reinforce student behaviours. Teachers receive rigorous

training and a directive teachers’ guidebook. The strict scripting of teacher


behaviour is an attempt to place quality controls on the delivery of the

curriculum (p1).

In this study, it seemed direct instruction is what teacher participants were

talking about when referring to the use of the Department’s Curriculum into the

Classroom (C2C) resource. Participants told of how the C2C resource was used in

their school as a prescribed approach to pedagogy and how they taught the C2C as

scripted, in a lesson-by-lesson approach. In this category, the way in which this direct

instruction pedagogy was to be implemented in the classroom was often at odds with

Prep teachers’ recognition of the need to be flexible and responsive in their

pedagogical approach to teaching young Prep students. Here I present a couple of

quotes from the data not contained in the categories, to best explain this. Participant 4

stated:

That was the big thing, differentiation, and I think with your early childhood

philosophy you always teach the child however they learn best. So going into

this very, to me, instructional direction of I say and you listen, open head, pour

it in, give it back to me data collection for outcomes, was a big question mark.

I4

The above quote suggests that Participant 4 felt that this “instructional direction”

pedagogical approach was at odds with her professional philosophy. It seems that this

teacher felt she had been denied the opportunity to exercise her professional judgement

in choosing pedagogical approaches that best suited the learning needs of her students.

This centralised control of pedagogy via curriculum risks the de-skilling of teachers

(Apple, 2012). In addition, this perceived focus on direct instruction stopped teachers

from being able to approach student behaviour in ways they might otherwise have

preferred. For instance Participant 3 stated:

So why I was saying that is because the structure of school, we have

expectations and we’re told that we must do, we must do explicit teaching, we

must do these warm ups, we must do, we must do teaching in a certain way,

like we are being dictated to by the school how we do, do certain things. So I

have to follow suit with that, and it doesn’t fit well with lots of students, well

lots of students? …Half the class probably do really well with it, then there’s

another quarter that you know struggle but you know they are getting there.

And then there is another little pocket that find that really, really difficult to

learn like that. So that’s how it impacts me is I guess what I was trying to say.


I have to do stuff that maybe sometimes feels - philosophically I don’t believe

in, but I’m part of the school, so I have to do it and to get them learn I have to

use certain behaviour strategies that I maybe do not use another time . I3

This quote from Participant 3 illustrates the challenge teachers experience when

they are provided with narrowly-focused and rigidly-adopted school-based

approaches. This has been a particular issue for many Prep teachers who have had to

negotiate tensions associated with balancing the wide range of development needs of

young learners alongside compulsory curriculum and pedagogical approaches

(Gaedtke, 2010). This challenge may have hindered teachers’ ability to adopt the more

flexible approaches described in Categories 3-5.

Time constraints inhibit teachers’ approaches with student behaviour

In the Category 2 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, approaches

that were quick to implement (such as sticker rewards) were described. It appeared

that time constraints were a major barrier to teachers being able to respond flexibly to

students’ needs, as seen in Categories 3-5. Even if teachers wanted to use more flexible

approaches, time factors prevented them from doing so. Provided here are three quotes

from the data that illuminate the voices of teachers, and in so doing highlight the

challenges that prevent them from implementing more holistic approaches with

student behaviour. Participant 3, reflecting on taking a different Prep class for monthly

art lessons, explained:

The first few weeks I give stickers out lots because they’re new at school and

it’s a really quick easy way to give them something and they think oh that’s

great and they get it right away and put it on their bag and feel good about

themselves … So I think sometimes too you change things for time

management as well, like that was definitely for time management because I

knew that I was only in the classroom for a short amount of time. I don’t have

them all the time, I only have them every 4 weeks for one hour so I took

stickers for that class because it’s just a short block of time and I want to get

the learning done and I know that that’s going to work. I3

The final part of this statement from Participant 3, that she wanted “to get the

learning done,” is typical of the Category 2 way of seeing approaches with student

behaviour. Participants 19 and 15 also noted time and curriculum demands as barriers


to being able to approach behaviour in the way they would prefer to. Consider these

two quotes:

I mean the causes of those are things like the size of the curriculum, the not

having time. But if I want children to take time to think about their behaviours

and to make adjustments and choices, I need to do that with them. So there are

times where you don't, just because it's just the way - I mean it’s five minutes

before the parents come in. You've got to get all the bags in. You have to have

the children sitting down, you've got to mark your afternoon roll and get that

saved through OneSchool. So sometimes those structural things and those

business things get in your way from really approaching a person the way I

want to. I19

I think that's what's posing that big problem now because we are so busy and

we've got - with this Australian Curriculum we've got so much to get through

that almost if we don't have that perfect structure and perfect behaviour,

almost, it's almost proving - it just can't happen. I15

From these quotes it may be plausible to assume that curriculum, time demands

and structural processes, like needing to submit rolls to OneSchool twice a day, are

practical but time consuming tasks that hinder teachers approaching student behaviour

in more integrated and holistic ways. OneSchool is a program that helps schools

manage key teaching and school administrative activities, such as tracking student

attendance and behaviour, and reporting on student academic outcomes (Department

of Education and Training, 2017d).

There was an obvious tension between time constraints associated with

implementing the curriculum that teachers talk about in Category 2 versus the

approaches to behaviour they would like to adopt. A review of the Australian

Curriculum by Donnelly and Wiltshire (2014) revealed that appeasing many different

stakeholders in the curriculum development process resulted in an overcrowded

curriculum. Donnelly and Wiltshire found that this overcrowding has risked de-

skilling teachers; has contributed to a lack of teacher autonomy; and has not provided

teachers with the flexibility necessary to adequately meet the needs of their learners.

Von Oppell’s (2016) PhD thesis, a mixed-methods study of Abu Dhabi teachers’

beliefs about their practice and the factors that influence implementation of

constructivist practices, found that teachers felt that additional workload impacted


their performance and ability to differentiate student learning. In the current study,

flexibility was key to teachers approaching student behaviour in more holistic ways

and this was evidenced in Categories 3, 4 and 5. By choosing resources and

pedagogical approaches that catered for students’ learning preferences, interests and

their emotional and social capacities, teachers were able to successfully influence their

students’ social, emotional and learning needs.

In this study it was found that curriculum and time demands constrained

teachers’ approaches with student behaviour. Accountability factors have also

impacted on teachers’ ability to effectively teach their students (Donnelly & Wiltshire,

2014). These issues were reflected in Category 2, as teachers often explained they felt

constrained by school-dictated pedagogical approaches, teaching a crowded

curriculum and general accountability pressures. Canadian researchers Nichols and

Parsons (2011) stated that heavy accountability means teachers ‘respond’ rather than

‘lead’. The authors believe that intensification of teaching limits democratic

opportunities for teachers, as time constraints mean their attention is diverted to

decisions that require an immediate response. In addition, Von Oppell (2016) found

that time constraints reduce teachers’ capacity to adopt a creative approach to

developing an engaging curriculum and lessons. In this category, teachers expressed

their frustration with school-based accountability pressures and felt there was often

little opportunity to make autonomous decisions regarding their pedagogical

approaches.

In Category 2 an overcrowded curriculum, time-constraints and school-based

approaches like direct instruction led to teachers approaching student behaviour in a

way that was compartmentalised and inflexible by nature, with a focus on managing.

Coercive behaviour strategies were applied by teachers to engage students in learning

so the teacher could teach the curriculum. Consequently, in the Category 2 way of

seeing approaches with student behaviour, teachers experienced their approach with

student behaviour as isolated from teaching. Nichols and Parsons (2011) emphasised

that it is important for teachers’ voices to be heard. This study has sought to illuminate

teachers’ voices through the analysis and discussion of the data and in so doing

highlight issues that constrain effective teacher practice with student behaviour. As

teachers greatly influence student learning and development, it is important that school


administration and policy-makers understand their experiences and find ways to

address the issues raised in this discussion.

5.5.3 Adapting to Engage: Category 3

As in Categories 1 and 2, the way of seeing approaches with student behaviour

in Category 3 was focused on managing. Like Category 2, there was also a focus on

approaches with student behaviour that aimed to engage students with learning.

However, what was new in this category was a focus on teachers adapting their

practice to engage students with learning in inclusive ways (rather than the exclusion

seen in the previous categories). In this category, teachers’ ways of seeing their

approaches with student behaviour were more complex and holistic compared to

Categories 1 and 2. Teachers were less concerned with compliance, and instead were

concerned with attempting to understand individual students and to cater for their

needs in a way that facilitated engagement with the curriculum.

Timperley (2015) drew attention to the notion of teachers as ‘adaptive experts,’

that is, being able to work out when known routines are not working for students and

to develop innovative approaches as needed. In this category, teachers expressing

relevant conceptions were engaged as adaptive experts, being flexible in their practice,

describing how they used their understanding of their Prep students to adapt their own

practice to engage them in learning. This notion of teachers being adaptive experts has

important implications for teachers’ professional learning and growth. When teachers

are able to identify what is or is not working for students, they are more likely to

develop innovative approaches; and, importantly, they also contribute to the wider

knowledge-base (Timperley, 2011).

The big ideas that stand out as warranting discussion from this category are:

catering for diversity with flexible approaches to student behaviour, and ‘whole-

school’ approaches and student behaviour.

Catering for diversity with flexible approaches to student behaviour

Today’s classrooms comprise of students with diverse learning, social and

emotional needs. Teachers respond to these needs with responsive and flexible

practices. Copple and Bredekamp (2009), in their landmark work on Developmentally

Appropriate Practice (DAP), encouraged educators to be responsive to individual

differences in children’s abilities and interests. DAP is the National Association for


the Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC) foundational work, describing an

approach to teaching based on knowledge of how young children develop and learn

and on effective early childhood practice. Similarly to DAP’s call for responsiveness

to individual differences, the Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority

(2017) stated that inclusive strategies and the adjustment of learning experiences

should be considered by educators to cater for diversity. Differentiation, tailoring or

adaptation of teaching strategies and the use of the physical environment by teachers

were common approaches described in Category 3.

Differentiation can be described as responsive teaching which meets the varying

cultural, physical, social, emotional and cognitive learning needs and interests of

students (Monaghan, 2016; Tomlinson, 2016). Consideration of students’ prior

knowledge and experience forms the basis of differentiated learning. American author,

Tomlinson (2016), believes few teachers actually differentiate learning effectively,

due to traditional beliefs about teaching and to the inflexible nature of schooling

systems. While Categories 1 and 2 evidenced approaches with student behaviour that

were rigid and inflexible by nature, Category 3 approaches were centred on teachers

understanding individual students’ needs and catering for them through differentiation.

The notion of differentiation is well supported in Departmental policy, for example,

the Queensland Department of Education and Training (2014c) argued for

differentiated and explicit teaching as a regular part of curriculum provision to respond

to students’ particular learning needs, including those who require behaviour support.

They stated:

Informed by student performance data and validated research, teachers vary

what students are taught, how they are taught and how students demonstrate

what they know. Teachers differentiate instruction in response to data and day-

to-day monitoring that indicates the particular learning needs of students.

Teachers purposefully plan a variety of ways to: engage students; assist them

to achieve the expected learning; and to demonstrate their learning (p.1).

In addition, (ACARA, 2013) stated:

Teachers take account of the range of their students’ current levels of learning,

strengths, goals and interests and personalise learning where necessary

through adjustments to the teaching and learning program (p. 6)


ACARA (2013) suggested instructional adjustments, such as using personal

interests to motivate and engage students; the provision of alternative resources,

equipment and furnishings; and using the Australian Curriculum general capability,

personal and social capability, to support students’ social and emotional development.

Many of these adjustments featured in teachers’ descriptions of their approaches with

student behaviour in Category 3. For example, participants talked about using a

‘joining’ strategy, where they added a personal item of interest - such as a dinosaur -

to the learning activity in order to engage a particular student. This adaptation by the

teacher was a defining feature of Category 3. By using alternative resources to those

contained in lesson plans, resources which had personal relevance to individual

students who were perceived as being disengaged, they were able to bring the student

into the group and engage them in the lesson. Such a flexible approach, evidenced in

Category 3, offers positive outcomes for students’ learning and social development.

The Queensland Department of Education and Training’s (2016c) Every Student

Succeeding State Schools Strategy 2016–2020 also stated that teachers should meet

their learners’ needs by creating a culture of engaging learning focused on achievement

and catering for individual students’ social and emotional needs. Behaviour guidance

advocate Porter (2014) stated that fewer disruptive student behaviours and more

prosocial behaviours are evidenced when teachers minimise conflicts between

themselves and students, provide students with emotional support, display sensitivity,

respond to students’ academic needs, and show regard for their perspectives. Whereas

in Category 2 teachers described using strategies focused on controlling students for

engaging learners, Category 3 shows responsiveness by teachers acting in ways that

show flexibility and a consideration of students’ perspectives to promote their

engagement. This responsiveness to individual needs was central to the Category 3

way of seeing approaches with student behaviour and, in the context of this study’s

five categories, is a precursor to considering approaches with student behaviour in

more complex and holistic ways. Teachers’ responsiveness to individual students’

needs is necessary to successfully support student behaviour.

If flexibility is key to approaching student behaviour in more holistic ways, then

it would seem reasonable that the importance of flexible approaches is highlighted for

teachers in educational policy and procedures. Shaddock, Neill, Limbeek, and

Hoffman-Raap (2007), in a study of 294 Australian teachers, examined teaching


adaptations used with students with disabilities. The researchers discovered that the

biggest barrier to inclusive practice for teachers was demands on their time. Reasons

teachers gave for not adapting their practice revolved around issues with resourcing

(including time), logistical issues and departmental or school-based policies that

restricted adaptations. These findings by Shaddock et al. (2007) were reflected in

Categories 1 and 2 in this study, where teachers were unable to approach student

behaviour in preferred ways due to time factors and school-based policies which

constrained their practice. These issues hindered teachers’ inclusive approaches with

student behaviour, yet, the adoption of flexible approaches by teachers, as seen in

Category 3, is necessary to effectively cater for the diverse needs of students in the

classroom and to foster inclusion.

‘Whole-school approaches and student behaviour

Whole-school approaches to student behaviour are said to be more effective than

individual teacher practice alone (De Nobile et al., 2015). De Nobile et al. (2015) stated

that whole-school behaviour management programs comprise the interactions of

school culture, leadership, teacher and student behaviours. Whole-school behaviour

management frameworks are developed for the whole-school, and include policies and

procedures that define appropriate and inappropriate behaviours, and describe the

rights and responsibilities of students and teachers (De Nobile et al., 2015).

School Wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS) is an example of a whole-

school approach to behaviour. It is a multi-level, whole-school approach which

provides universal (tier 1), targeted (tier 2) and intensive (tier 3) supports to manage

student behaviour (Tyre & Feuerborn, 2017a). Key SWPBS practices include the

communication of school-wide behavioural expectations, behavioural

acknowledgements and consequences, targeted interventions and intensive support

measures such as behaviour intervention plans and functional behavioural assessment.

In contrast, KidsMatter, another whole-school systemic approach, aims to improve

children’s mental health and well-being through mental health promotion, prevention

and early intervention and is based on the premise that a whole-school approach can

be protective of students (Dix, Slee, Lawson, & Keeves, 2012; P. Slee et al., 2009).

KidsMatter has four key components: (1) positive school community; (2) social and

emotional learning; (3) parenting support and education; and (4) early intervention for

students experiencing mental health difficulties (Slee et al. 2009). This whole-school


approach is quite different in nature to the often-adopted SWPBS or Positive

Behaviour for Learning (PBL) approach. It may be valuable for schools to consider

how different whole-school approaches may best support students’ social and

emotional growth and learning.

In the SWPBS approach, specific interventions and strategies, tailored to meet

particular circumstances of students who require additional attention are encouraged

via the use of Functional Behaviour Analysis (FBA) (Curtis et al., 2010). While

school-based approaches such as SWPBS advocate for individualised approaches

through the application of FBA, the whole-school approach could be interpreted as

inflexible if it is interpreted as a one-size-fits-all model. Many teachers in this study

described the challenge of adapting their approach for individuals when the school

rules/procedures dictated a particular way of addressing student behaviour. For

example, Participant 5 in this study talked about her four year old Prep student, who

at the beginning of the school year hit another child in a busy playground at lunch time.

The school-based procedure for all hitting incidents was to send the perpetrator to the

school responsibility room and for the incident to be reported on OneSchool. The Prep

student’s teacher (Participant 5) was not on playground duty that day and had not

witnessed the incident, but on her way back to the classroom had come across the

distressed child running away and the frustrated playground-duty teacher. Participant

5 commented:

…he just didn’t know how to respond, they didn’t know how to respond to

him and when I caught them at the end of lunch time he was very distressed,

they were distressed because it was like well you're like talking different

languages, he doesn’t understand what you mean, he doesn’t know about the

responsibility room. So I think, early childhood, they need to come and talk to

the teacher about it because there’s always a little background isn’t there too

as to why he may have behaved like that. I5

This participant’s view was that her student, being new to Prep, did not

understand the school procedure of the responsibility room and that the school

procedure was not developmentally appropriate to the student’s age. She thought that

the school procedure should be able to be adapted to the individual student’s needs and

circumstances, particularly in this first year of school. While the Statement of

Expectations for a Disciplined School Environment (Department of Education


Training and Employment, 2013) states that implementation of the school-wide plan

must be adapted to students, it lacks guidance on what this means in practice.

Participant 5 articulated the importance of developing a relationship and understanding

individual children in order to cater for their needs. The playground teacher upholding

the schools’ responsibility room consequence in this instance created much confusion

and distress for a Prep student. Unlike the Prep teacher, this teacher may not have

known the child concerned, so was unable to adapt the approach. This shows the

importance of teachers knowing individual students, including their developmental

understanding of school-based rules, so that they can adopt flexible approaches that

support student behaviour.

A limitation to the implementation of SWPBS in schools is staff “buy-in”. Tyre

and Feuerborn (2017a) stated that negative outcomes may occur for both students and

staff if whole-school approaches to student behaviour are not understood and

implemented rigorously and consistently by school staff. Looking at the above

example, it could also be suggested that the distress of the Prep child was caused by a

lack of effective communication of school-wide behavioural expectations and

consequences. Tyre & Feuerborn’s (2017a) qualitative study of 1210 school staff in

Washington, USA across 36 elementary, middle and high schools, found that reasons

for low support for Schoolwide Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports

(SWPBIS) could be attributed to lack of consistency, misunderstandings of SWPBIS,

and philosophical disagreement. Participant 5 showed a low level of support for the

whole-school behaviour procedure of the responsibility room, based on her

philosophical disagreement with its use with this particular Prep-aged student. As a

way forward, understanding teachers’ views of such approaches is vital to effective

evaluation of whole-school programs and implementation that meets the diverse needs

of individual learners, and allows teachers to conceptualise their philosophy alongside

the program.

5.5.4 Learning to Engage: Category 4

In the Category 4 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, teachers

were still concerned with managing and engaging and were adapting their practice to

meet the needs of individuals; but in this category there was a new focus on teaching

students the social skills needed to successfully interact with others and to be engaged

learners. Teachers discussed using approaches to teach social skills and to promote


engagement with learning, such as role-plays, modelling and class discussions.

Teachers in Category 4, therefore are seen to be focusing their efforts on students

learning to engage.


teaching social skills as a behaviour approach; relationships as being central to

approaches with student behaviour; and inclusion as a behaviour approach.

Teaching social and emotional skills as a behaviour approach

Teachers articulating their approaches with student behaviour in Category 4

were focused on the deliberate teaching of social skills. The idea of teaching students

social skills is central to Gartrell’s (2007) guidance approach, and this sits theoretically

towards the egalitarian end of Porter’s (2006) continuum of theories of discipline. In

Gartrell’s (2007) guidance approach, children learn to function autonomously when

they are guided, rather than punished for their behavioural errors. The consequence for

children’s mistaken behaviour is for them to learn positive social skills through

intentional teaching. Porter’s (2006) continuum charts a range of theories of discipline,

from authoritarian to egalitarian, depending on where the balance of power rests. What

makes the guidance approach sit towards the egalitarian end of the continuum is its

shared power between teachers and children (power with). The guidance approach is

aimed at meeting students’ needs, enabling them to learn and to behave pro-socially

through teacher guidance and ultimately supporting students’ autonomy rather than

behaviour being continually controlled by teachers (power over).

The National Safe Schools Framework: All Australian Schools are Safe,

Supportive and Respectful Teaching and Learning Communities that Promote Student

Wellbeing (SCSEEC, 2013) supports a focus on student engagement with learning, on

cooperative learning and on the intentional teaching of social and emotional skills,

integrated across all school subjects and year levels to enhance students’ well-being,

relationships and safety. Key effective practices include the explicit teaching of skills

to assist students to develop friendships, conflict management skills, empathy,

resilience, assertiveness, learning about self-protection, dealing with peer pressure,

and advocating for others in unsafe situations. Included in these effective practices are

the design and delivery of targeted support and early interventions that aid students’

social skill development, where students exhibit anti-social behaviour or experience

difficulties with peer relationships (SCSEEC, 2013).The National Safe Schools


Framework ideals were evidenced in the Category 4 way of seeing approaches with

student behaviour. Teachers’ thinking and actions centred on proactively teaching

students the skills needed to interact and communicate appropriately with peers and to

successfully engage in the curriculum and wider school activities. They identified the

individual social, emotional and learning needs of their students, implemented

interventions and provided targeted support to develop skills. Teachers were less

concerned with controlling student behaviour as witnessed in the earlier categories,

and instead were more concerned with working with students to improve their well-

being, relationships, safety and engagement with the curriculum.

In the Australian Curriculum: Health and Physical Education (F-10) for the

Foundation (Prep) year, the curriculum content descriptor for the Personal, Social and

Community Health strand: Communicating and interacting for health and wellbeing,

supported by the Personal and Social Capability cross curriculum priority includes

teaching students social and personal skills to interact positively with others and

fostering the use of appropriate language to communicate feelings across a range of

situations (ACARA, 2015). The content of this curriculum provides teachers with a

platform to justify the importance of teaching these skills and integrating them across

the curriculum learning areas in Prep. Similarly, the Early Years Learning Framework

(EYLF), with its emphasis on play-based learning, communication and social and

emotional development, accentuates the importance of children’s holistic

development, encouraging educators to explicitly model communication strategies that

support peer interactions and to discuss with children their emotional responses to

situations in order to develop their understanding of self-control (DEEWR, 2009).

Both these documents the Health and Physical Education curriculum for the

Foundation (Prep) year and the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) - have

synergy with Prep teachers’ approaches with student behaviour in Category 4. In this

category, teachers acted in ways that recognised the holistic nature of children’s

development and aimed at scaffolding students’ development of self-control, so that

they were able to be effective and engaged learners. Importantly, this more integrated

Category 4 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour is likely to provide

positive benefits for both students and teachers, including well-being, effective

relationships and engaged learning.


The teaching of social and emotional skills may be supported through adoption

of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) programs, and this is encouraged in Australian

schools (Department of Education and Training, 2016e; KidsMatter, 2017b, 2017c;

Linke, 2011). For example, KidsMatter, an Australian Government and Beyondblue

funded initiative, supports and trains school staff to provide mental health and well-

being programs that enhance the lives of children, also targeting the participation of

families, health services and the wider community. KidsMatter (2017c) states that:

Social and emotional learning (SEL) skills are crucial for a child's mental

health and wellbeing. A whole-school approach to teaching SEL enables these

to become strategic, consistent and fully embedded (para 1.)

Social and emotional learning programs impact positively on students’ academic

outcomes and behaviour. Payton et al.’s (2008) report, summarising three large-scale

reviews of research on the impact of SEL programs involving 317 studies and 324,303

elementary and middle-school children, showed that SEL programs that seek to foster

a variety of social and emotional skills did in effect improve these skills and students’

attitudes about self and others, connection to school, positive social behaviour and

academic performance. SEL programs were also seen to reduce students’ challenging

behaviours and emotional issues (Payton et al., 2008). Teachers articulating

conceptions in Category 4 supported social emotional learning via the intentional

teaching of skills they saw their students needed to interact positively and productively

with others in the classroom; however, the actual use of formal SEL programs, like

KidsMatter, did not feature in their approaches with student behaviour.

Another relevant study was conducted by Durlak, Dymnicki, Taylor, Weissberg,

and Schellinger (2011), who produced a meta-analysis of 213 social and emotional

learning (SEL) school-based programs involving 270,034 students from kindergarten

to high school. It was found, as in Payton et al.’s report, that students involved in SEL

programs showed enhanced social and emotional skills, behaviour adjustment,

attitudes towards self and others and academic performance. The integration of

emotion, cognition, communication and behaviour in SEL programs is important, as

attempts to foster discrete emotional skills without also teaching social-interaction

skills could be limited from an intervention stance (Durlak et al., 2011). Durlak et al.

argued that SEL programs are more likely to be effective if they attend to the following

SAFE features:


Sequenced step-by-step training approach;

Active forms of learning;

Sufficient time on skill development; and

Explicit learning goals.

Durlak et al.’s (2011) conclusions point to implications that are relevant to this

study’s findings, as the isolated teaching of social skills - as described by participants

in Category 4 - which sit outside of SEL programs with SAFE features, may not have

the intended effectiveness. While the teaching of social and emotional skills as

described by teachers articulating conceptions in this category show a more considered

and integrated approach to student behaviour, teachers may require further training in

evidenced-based SEL programs, so that they can be confident in the effectiveness of

their approach. In addition, factors that sit outside the teaching of social and emotional

skills and impact on student behaviour approaches also need to be considered. Gillies

(2016) cautioned that educational initiatives focused towards the development of

social and emotional skills, often overlook the institutional and structural issues that

frame behaviour in schools. It is important, therefore, that a wider perspective is taken

and policy, school-based procedures and issues of power are carefully examined to

assess their contribution to student behaviour.

As the adoption of SEL programs has been shown to benefit students’

development of social and emotional skills, positive behaviour and associated

academic achievement, training for Prep teachers in the implementation of SEL

programs should be prioritised, along with the provision of sufficient time to

successfully implement such programs. Payton et al. (2008) stated that some educators

argue against implementing SEL due to time taken away from academic learning. The

need for time featured prominently in comments in this Category 4 way of seeing

approaches with student behaviour. Teachers expressed the view that the teaching of

social skills takes time, and they prioritized this as they were concerned with meeting

the needs of their students. Participants’ awareness of the interaction between

approaches with behaviour and engagement with learning and teaching showed the

holistic and integrative nature of Category 4 thinking. It is important that the

foregrounded variation that exists in this category, as presented in the analysis and this

discussion, are highlighted to teachers, so that they understand the approaches that


positively enhance students’ social and emotional development and associated well-

being, attitudes, behaviour and learning outcomes.

Relationships are central to approaches with student behaviour

In the Category 4 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, participants

often talked about the importance of collaborating with others in the way they

approached student behaviour. Forming and maintaining relationships with parents

and teacher aides was seen as important for understanding students’ needs and for

communicating how they were approaching student behaviour so that there was a

consistent approach in the classroom and at home. Collaboration is an important

consideration for approaching student behaviour in more holistic ways. Positive

student-teacher relationships, and partnerships forged between teachers, parents and

other school staff, encourage a more collaborative and inclusive approach to

supporting student behaviour, the results of which are increased student attendance,

improved academic outcomes and better student behaviour (Samples, 2010).

The Department of Education Training and Employment (2015) developed a

Parent and Community Engagement Framework, recognising that parents and broader

communities play vital roles in supporting successful student outcomes.

Considerations for supporting parent and community engagement include the

development of a shared set of expectations about learning in schools, and teachers

seeking to understand and learn about students through the partnerships forged with

parents (Department of Education, Training and Employment, 2015). However,

Samples (2010) saw an issue with teachers engaging parents in learning, stating that

educators often don’t know how to go about this. This may have been reflected in the

earlier categories (Categories 1 and 2), as teacher participants either described merely

reporting the challenging student behaviour to parents (rather than seeking parents’

perspectives or engaging them in decision making) or did not report any involvement

with parents concerning student behaviour. The latter more inclusive categories of this

study saw a shift in this approach, with a focus on engaging parents as partners and

evidenced thinking about students and their behaviour in relation to the wider school

community.

Participants in Category 4 often also discussed the importance of collaboration

with their teacher aides. Shaddock, Nielsen, Giorcelli, Kilham, and Hoffman-Raap

(2007), in their study of different models of teacher-teacher assistant relationships in


five Australian school sites, saw the need for teachers and teacher assistants to engage

in joint, team-based professional development, along with the need to arrange

workloads to allow sufficient time for teacher-teacher aide relationship building and

collaborative planning. The need for ‘time’ is critically important here for effective

relationship development and planning that will generate cohesive and consistent

approaches with student behaviour in the classroom. It would also seem imperative

that teacher aides, along with teachers, are jointly involved in professional learning on


Typical of Gartrell’s (2007) guidance approach is attention to the development

of positive student-teacher relationships, an important feature of Category 4 teachers

in this study. The quality of student-teacher interactions has been found to impact on

student learning and behaviour (Liberante, 2012). For instance, Caputi, Lecce, and

Pagnin’s (2017) longitudinal study of 45 Italian children over a three year period found

that the teacher-child relationship had a significant effect on academic achievement.

Similarly, Archambault et al.’s (2017) quantitative study of 385 third and fourth grade

students and their teachers in Canadian schools found that behavioural engagement

was greater in students who reported close relationships with their teachers. The

authors cautioned, however, that an emotional bond between teachers and students

may not be adequate to positively affect students’ enthusiasm for learning. They

suggest rather that teacher pedagogical strategies and activities may better predict

students’ interest in and enjoyment of learning.

In The Quality School Teacher (Glasser, 1993) Glasser argued the importance of

positive and reciprocal student teacher relationship, noting that in quality schools

teachers position themselves in the classroom as the ‘leader’ rather than the ‘boss’, and

student-teacher relationships are collaborative in nature. Effective relationships mean

that teachers and students get to know and understand each other; and ‘knowing’

students allows teachers to adapt their practice and meet their students’ learning needs.

This understanding is reflected in this Category 4 way of seeing approaches with

student behaviour, as teachers identified the link between understanding students and

then acting in ways that equip them with the knowledge and skills of how to behave

and engage in learning. In addition, teachers expressing their views in this category

saw their class as a community of learners, rather than just as students in isolation.

Awareness of this dimension is important, as the forging of positive student-teacher


relationships allows teachers to approach student behaviour in more holistic and

integrative ways.

Inclusion as a behaviour approach

Inclusive approaches with student behaviour were evidenced in Category 4.

Teachers described acting in ways that brought students into the group, rather than

excluding them as in Categories 1 and 2. For example, teachers described purposefully

discussing social issues with students in class meetings to develop their collaborative

problem solving skills, empathy and caring attitudes. In the Early Years Learning

Framework (EYLF), educators are encouraged to support inclusion through play-

based learning, helping children to recognise unfairness, considering alternative

perspectives and identifying ways to build an inclusive, caring and fair learning

community (DEEWR, 2009). Inclusion as an approach is embedded throughout the

Framework and provides clear guidance for educators of inclusive practice in the early

years. The Department of Education and Training (2016) supports inclusion in schools

in the following terms:

Inclusive education ensures that schools are supportive and engaging places

for all school community members. It builds communities that value, celebrate

and respond to diversity. It is underpinned by respectful relationships between

learners and school community members. It is supported by collaborative

relationships with parents and communities through communication, learning

partnerships, participation and consultative decision-making (para 2).

This quote by the Department of Education and Training (2016) shows inclusion

as having a joint focus on relationships, collaboration, communication and decision

making. Inclusion was an important dimension in Category 4, with teacher participants

describing a strong focus on communication and collaboration, both with students and

parents, to support student behaviour. Teachers articulating conceptions in this

category identified children as part of the whole-class group, a community of learners,

rather than as isolated individuals, and they acted in ways that supported this, for

example, the use of the ‘love chair’ (see Chapter 4, Category 4) the strategy described

by one participant to support friendships. Including parents as partners in their child’s

education was also important in this category, evidenced by teachers communicating

with parents to gain an understanding of student behaviour from a different perspective


and working collaboratively to find solutions to support behaviour across both school

and home.

While inclusive education is endorsed in school policy, it seems that in practice,

implementing inclusion is challenging for teachers. Gillies (2016) described inclusion

as an approach founded on a “morally infused stand against discrimination” (p.101),

with a commitment to support all learners as equally valued and entitled, thus allowing

them to be treated differently because of the social and structural classifications they

hold. However, Gilles, a UK social policy and criminology researcher, sees inclusion

policies to be lacking due to being characterised as promoting equality and celebrating

diversity rather than really examining influences on the day-to-day practices that lead

to disadvantage in schools. Orsati and Causton-Theoharis (2013) undertook a critical

discourse analysis of commentaries by eleven teachers and teacher aides in

Kindergarten to year-four classrooms in America to understand their practices and

beliefs around young children’s challenging behaviours. Their analysis found that

teachers labelled students rather than the behaviours as challenging, showing that

behaviour was understood as an individual characteristic of students. Exclusion was

found to be a natural response to challenging behaviour and was used to maintain

classroom control. These findings have synergy with this study, as earlier categories

(1 and 2) showed similar rejection of students with challenging behaviours. Teachers

saw behaviour as an individual characteristic of students and used exclusion to gain

student compliance and to meet their need for classroom control. This is in direct

contrast to Category 4, where teachers were more concerned about meeting their

students’ needs, and saw challenging student behaviour as an impetus to teach social

and emotional skills.

Australian inclusive education researcher, Slee (2014), asserted that exclusion is

a common tradition in contemporary schooling. He suggested that:

…the ready availability of discourses of individual behaviour, mental health,

brain pathology and defectiveness may prove seductive in education, where

the pressure for demonstrating raised standards creates surplus students- those

who threaten the attainment and ranking of schools (p.13).

This is seen to result in schools become unsympathetic to such students and more

likely to defer to exclusive practices (Slee, 2014). In the data from this study, there

was an overarching pressure described by teachers of school leaders pushing for higher


student learning outcomes in the Prep year. Teachers articulated that this pressure was

a barrier to approaching student behaviour in more inclusive and holistic ways, and

subsequently often resulted in approaches that were focused on compliance and

control. It may be plausible to think that a fragmented focus on achievement then may

be linked to exclusive approaches. A greater emphasis on teachers widening their

awareness to the range of dimensions that support holistic behaviour approaches would

be fruitful.

As inclusive practice can been seen to contribute to a more sophisticated way of

seeing approaches with student behaviour, it is important to understand what effective

inclusion looks like in practice. Whole-school policies and procedures and positive

student-teacher relationships are some practices that support inclusion. Malmqvist’s

(2016) mixed-methods study of three Swedish elementary schools’ work with students

with emotional behavioural difficulties found that inclusion was achieved successfully

in a school with strong leadership, a cohesive whole-school policy towards inclusion,

and shared values of inclusion between staff. Therefore, a stronger focus for schools

in developing a shared view of inclusion, supported by policy and school-based

procedures, and definition of what this means in practice for staff working with

students with challenging behaviours would be a good way forward. Orsati and

Causton-Theoharis (2013) stated that inclusive practice can also be influenced by the

development of relationships. They highlighted the importance of teachers developing

relationships with students, so that they see them as individuals, empowering them to

push past labelling students instead supporting them. This practice was a feature of

Category 4, with teachers using their understanding of individual students’ needs as a

basis for planning for students’ learning and development in a way that connected them

to their class community.

It is evident that inclusion is an important dimension of supporting student

behaviour. When teachers can see students both as individuals and part of a community

of learners and think about approaches that ‘bring them in’ to the group rather than

separating or excluding them, a more holistic approach to supporting student behaviour

will be evident.

Towards Independent Engagement: Category 5

In Category 5 we saw an extension of the Category 4 way of seeing approaches

with student behaviour. As in Category 4, Prep teachers articulating conceptions in


Category 5 were still concerned with managing and engaging, were also adapting their

practice to meet the needs of individuals, and were focusing on teaching students the

social skills needed to successfully interact with others and to be engaged learners.

What was different in this category was a focus on students’ future learning and

development, that is, teachers were thinking about releasing the responsibility for

behaviour to the students. They were more concerned with supporting students

alongside teaching them, with the goal being to develop independent and self-regulated

learners.

Category 5 highlights the importance of approaches with student behaviour that

aim to enhance self-regulation, student empowerment and independence. Teachers’

way of seeing approaches with student behaviour represented in this category is

inclusive rather than exclusive, integrated rather than compartmentalised, and

responsive rather than dismissive. It is this inclusive, integrative and responsive

teacher thinking, with a focus on equipping students with social and emotional skills

for the future, which leads to approaching student behaviour in the Category 5 way.

As Ravi Babu (2014) stated, “the ultimate goal of discipline is for children to

understand their own behaviour, take initiative, be responsible for their choices, and

respect themselves and others” (p.24). The Category 5 way of seeing approaches with

student behaviour supports this notion.


teacher critical reflection; rejection of behaviourist-based rewards and punishments;

pedagogies that support the development of self-regulation in students; and thinking

in holistic ways.

Teacher critical reflection

In Category 5, teacher critical reflection was an important dimension that

differentiated this way of seeing approaches with student behaviour from the earlier

categories. Teachers expressed an awareness of the managing-type approaches seen in

earlier categories (e.g. using sticker rewards), but were able to reflect on and critique

the effectiveness of these and then bring into their awareness a more complex way of

looking at approaches that took into account the importance of influencing students’

future development. This teacher reflection was prominent in this category. Teachers

were able to critically reflect on their practice and contrast it against other practices

when asked “why?” they used that particular approach. Conversely, in earlier


categories, this reflection was not evident. When participants were asked “why?” the

comment was often simply, “it works”. This is one of the strengths of the

phenomenographic methodology, as the phenomenographic interview method lends

itself to prompt teacher critical reflection and awareness that may lead to pedagogical

change (Marton, 2015).

Self-reflection, that is, the capacity and preparedness to think critically about

oneself, has a powerful impact on the growth of teachers (Cleveland, 2010; Ramos,

2012). White (2009), a teacher educator, conducted research on how to challenge her

preservice teachers to think beyond their own experiences. She concluded that

Emotion can play a major part in learning. It can be the tool that pushes

students to think more critically as they examine their own assumptions and

actions, rather than analysing day-to-day classroom events on a technical

level. (p.15)

White (2009) found four considerations for supporting critical thinking that

challenges preservice teacher thinking. These were, (i) a safe environment for sharing

perspectives; (ii) supporting connections between theory and practice; (iii) making

equity and diversity visible; and (iv) use of role-play to encourage preservice teachers

to take on different perspectives and strengthen their emotional thinking. These

considerations could be useful for professional development programs aimed at

supporting the critical reflection of approaches with student behaviour for both

preservice and inservice teachers. Additionally, Earl and Timperley’s (2008) work on

professional learning and development for educators asserted that while individual

teacher reflection is helpful in identifying issues that influence improvement of teacher

practice, collective teacher reflection through inquiry-based conversations better

supports continuous professional learning and assists teachers to generate new

knowledge and apply this to their school contexts. Critical reflection on approaches

with student behaviour with small groups of teachers, following an inquiry-based

action research cycle, may lead to increased awareness of teacher practice and new

actions (Earl & Timperley, 2008). This may be particularly effective for questioning

the fragmented ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour in the earlier

categories (1 and 2), and for progressing teachers towards a more integrated and

holistic way of seeing approaches.


In Category 5, teacher critical reflection on approaches with behaviour has

proven a significant predictor of teachers seeing their approaches in more holistic

ways. If teachers are challenged to reflect on approaches, on their effectiveness and on

the outcomes for students, they may be more likely to discern the intricacies of this

phenomenon and to approach student behaviours in more integrated and holistic ways.

Rejection of behaviourist-based rewards and punishments

Participants’ critical reflection during the process of the phenomenographic

interviews for this study often led teachers to reject the use of controlling or managing

approaches such as the use of rewards and punishments. This notion is reflected in

Gartrell’s (2007) guidance approach, which rejects the use of both rewards and

punishments (a fragmented approach to behaviour seen in Category 2), and instead

favours strategies that intentionally teach children the skills necessary to interact and

communicate competently with others. For example, this quote from the Category 5

data is presented again here to clearly illustrate this notion of teacher reflection that

led to the rejection of rewards:

Because if I’m using a system now where it’s all extrinsic, sticker, sticker,

sticker, happy box, happy box, or whatever type of physical reward, that’s

training the children to work for those rewards and what happens if next year

they go into a classroom where a teacher doesn’t use those rewards? What’s

going to drive those children then? So I think that intrinsic reward is going to

take them further, like as they grow and move through school. And into

adulthood too. Because I read a book because of the joy of reading a book and

the joy I get from it, not because someone’s going to pay me to read the book

or yeh ... I1

As seen in this above comment, teachers articulating conceptions in Category 5

questioned their approaches with student behaviour. As a result, they favoured the use

of more egalitarian approaches in the classroom, such as teaching students social skills,

modelling, role-play and class discussion. These more egalitarian approaches were a

feature of the Category 5 ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour, where

participants were more concerned with collaborative approaches to behaviour rather

than behaviourist approaches focused on teacher control. Teachers used these more

egalitarian approaches in the hope they would impact positively on students’ social

and emotional capabilities, both now and in the future.


American academic and child psychologist Ross Greene (2008) in his book Lost

at school: Why our kids with behavioral challenges are falling through the cracks and

how we can help them, stated that consequences such as rewards and punishments are

used to teach students the right and wrong ways to behave. He believes, however, that

students are generally already aware of what they are supposed to do, but what they

don’t have is the important thinking skills necessary for communicating their needs,

regulating their own emotions, considering the impact of their actions on others and

responding to change by being flexible (Greene, 2008).The rejection of rewards and

punishments as articulated by teachers in this category made way for other approaches

with student behaviour that focused on social and emotional learning and were more

collaborative in nature. This teacher awareness has allowed for a more complex and

holistic view of approaches to student behaviour.

Pedagogies that support the development of self-regulation in students

In the Category 5 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, participants

were focused on teaching and used pedagogies that supported the development of self-

regulation in students so that they could positively influence their future learning and

development. Age-appropriate pedagogies, play-based learning, scaffolding,

practising behaviours and the gradual release of responsibility were elements of

pedagogies that were commonly discussed in association with self-regulation, and will

be discussed in this section. First, however, it is important to briefly revisit the concept

of self-regulation in relation to young children in the context of schooling. Blair and

Raver (2015) argued that, based on brain maturation of the prefrontal cortex, children

are generally ready to start school around the age of 6 years, when they are “… able to

manage stimulation and attention in ways that begin to allow the regulation of emotion

and attention that enable sustained engagement with learning” (p.715). Conversely,

the Queensland Government (2017c) states that children in Queensland can commence

schooling in the Prep year at 5 years of age by 30 June in the year they enrol. Children

commencing Prep in Queensland are therefore aged between 4.5 and 6.5 years.

Enrolment in Prep is based on age, rather than on developmental factors, although the

Queensland Government does make provision for delayed or early entry. The age and

maturity of commencing Prep students, along with inflexible curriculum and

pedagogical school-based expectations, may provide for some potential issues

regarding self-regulation and the associated flow-on effects for student behaviour. This


conundrum was noted by teachers in this study across the five categories. Thus a

concentrated focus on approaches and programs that develop students’ self-regulation,

along with flexibility, and an inspection of school-based pedagogical and curriculum

expectations in the Prep year is vital, as recognised by teachers articulating the

Category 5 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour.

Students’ abilities to self-regulate socially and emotionally are strongly linked

to their academic achievement (Blair & Raver, 2015; Vaughn, 2014). Montroy,

Bowles, Skibbe, and Foster (2014), in a study of 118 preschool children, found that

behavioural self-regulation positively affected children’s literacy development. Self-

regulation provides the foundation for adjustment to school and allows for student

engagement with learning activities (Blair & Raver, 2015). Executive function and

self-regulation skills depend on cognitive flexibility, working memory and inhibitory

control, which Blair and Raver (2014) say are malleable. Readily implementable

programs, like Tools of the Mind (ToTM), are seen to boost early achievement for all

children (Blair & Raver, 2014). The inclusion of social emotional learning programs

that promote the development of self-regulation and executive function would greatly

enhance the experiences of Prep students in their first year of school. As found in the

Category 5 futures perspective, this would be an approach to student behaviour that

sets Prep children up for personal and academic success in the Prep year and beyond.

It is crucial, then, that inclusive approaches with student behaviour that seek to develop

students’ self-regulation, such as those seen in Category 5, are highlighted in teacher

preparation programs and teacher professional learning.

In the Category 5 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, the careful

consideration of pedagogy was important for realising teachers’ goal of student self-

regulation. During interviews, participants articulating Category 5 compared

approaches with student behaviour and reflected on their outcomes. For example, they

mentioned the use of rewards such as stickers to manage student behaviour, but

rejected this approach as they viewed it as not contributing to students’ ability to

manage their own behaviour in the long term. Instead they favoured approaches that

were integrated with teaching: age-appropriate pedagogies such as play-based

learning, guided practice of behaviours through role-play, teacher modelling and

scaffolding, and the transfer of responsibility for behaviour to the students themselves.


In 2015, Queensland’s Department of Education and Training introduced a

significant policy reform, Age-appropriate pedagogies, recommending that early

years teachers adopt a balanced approach to pedagogy. The Department developed a

teacher reflection framework on the use of a balance of pedagogical approaches that

respond to students’ needs. The framework supports teachers to consider the balance

between planned and spontaneous learning and adult-initiated and driven and child-

initiated and driven learning experiences (see Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1. The Department of Education and Training’s (2015) teacher reflection framework on the

use of a balance of pedagogical approaches (p.5).

The Department of Education and Training (2015b) stated that “extended

periods of classroom activity in any quadrant of the framework would not provide

children with the pedagogical support” (p.31). This statement suggests that equal time

in each quadrant of the framework was not seen as necessary, as teachers need to be

responsive to individuals and as such make judgements on the pedagogical approach

that best suits the learning. The Department of Education and Training argued that a

range of pedagogical approaches is necessary to support a range of student capabilities.

Pedagogical considerations were central to teachers articulating in this category, with

a balanced approach to pedagogy evident as they worked decisively towards

scaffolding students’ self-regulation.

In Category 5, Play-based learning featured strongly as a chosen pedagogy to

develop students’ self-regulation and social skills. The Department of Education and

Training (2015b) stated that while direct instruction is useful for the development of

symbol systems, pretend play is noted as a more effective pedagogy for developing


students’ cognition and self-regulation. In a Western Australian study of 200 educator

participants, Barblett, Knaus, and Barratt-Pugh (2016) examined pedagogical issues

that concern educators in the birth to eight years sector, using focus group interviews

and inductive analysis. Findings suggested that the most significant concern for

educators was the erosion of play-based learning. Participants reasoned that the

pushdown of the curriculum and direct instruction had contributed to the loss of play-

based learning, along with play being misunderstood and undervalued. In addition,

educators claimed that the consequences of a lack of play were children’s behavioural

problems (Barblett, Knaus & Barratt-Pugh, 2016). Roberts-Holmes and Bradbury

(2016) suggested that the narrowing of early years pedagogy is due to schools’ focus

on performance and data collection, which has served to undermine the foundations of

students’ personal development and learning. This is problematic, as the evidence

clearly shows that play-based learning is an effective pedagogy for developing

students’ social and emotional skills and engagement in learning (QSA, 2006;

Department of Education and Training, 2015b; 2006).

Play has long been valued by early childhood educators as a pedagogy for

children’s learning. Through play-based learning, children use language to learn how

to enter play situations, develop relationships, foster thinking and problem-solving

strategies and improve their social competence (DEEWR, 2009; QSA, 2006). The

Early Years Curriculum Guidelines (EYCG) was a curriculum framework developed

to guide children’s learning in the Prep year in Queensland during its introduction in

Queensland in 2007 (QSA, 2006). Although the EYCG has been superseded by the

Australian Curriculum, some of the EYCG learning statements were still being

reported on in Prep during the course of this study (namely social and personal

learning and active learning processes). In the EYCG, play provides a powerful

context in which children learn as they

…actively engage socially, emotionally, physically and intellectually with

people, objects and representations (p.38).

In the EYCG, early childhood teachers assume a variety of roles in children’s

play to facilitate learning. These roles include: co-player, observer, listener, initiator,

responder, facilitator, scaffolder, modeller, questioner, challenger or mediator (QSA,

2006, p.38). In Category 5, play-based learning was a pedagogy teachers used to

support the social and emotional development of their Prep students; and they


discussed adopting a variety of these roles or strategies, especially guided practice of

behaviours, modelling and scaffolding, to develop students’ social and emotional skills

so they could effectively engage in learning both now and in the future.

The notion of guided practice is supported by the Statement of Expectations for

a Disciplined School Environment (Department of Education Training and

Employment, 2013), along with the explicit teaching of appropriate behaviours to all

students in Queensland Government schools. That is, to “define, teach, reteach and

model the expected behaviours and provide opportunities for practice in the settings in

which they will be used” (p.3). This guided practice was effected through play-based

pedagogy by Prep teachers expressing this category. Marzano (2016) stated that guided

practice involves structured opportunities for students to practise new skills, moving

from simple to complex versions of the skills or strategies. The provision of frequent

and varied practice allows students to build competence. The idea of providing

opportunities for practising behaviours reflects a futures perspective, where teachers

assume a support role while students develop independence with the skills required for

managing their own behaviour. This futures perspective was unique to Category 5, as

was the notion of developing independence in relation to prosocial behaviours.

Modelling and scaffolding were also common teaching strategies in this category

and were often adopted alongside play-based pedagogy. Archer and Hughes (2014),

authors of Explicit Instruction, a popular pedagogical guide that has informed the

pedagogical framework of many Queensland Government schools, (see for example

Pioneer State High School, 2013; Warwick West State School, 2014), names

modelling the “I do it” stage. Modelling involves teachers walking through the steps

of the skill and thinking aloud or describing what they are doing to the students

(Marzano, 2016; Archer & Hughes, 2014). The next stage, “We do it”, engages

students in guided practice of the skills and teachers use directions, clues or reminders

to facilitate this. The final stage, “You do it”, involves teachers providing students with

opportunities for independent practice, so that they can determine whether students

can perform the skill independently (Archer & Hughes, 2014).

This scaffolding was a strategy often mentioned by teachers articulating

Category 5. Effective teacher scaffolding, which is progressively withdrawn as

learners gain increasing mastery, is seen to provide active structures to support new

learning (Department of Education and Training, 2015b). The Department of


Education and Training (2015b) stated that adult scaffolding includes teacher actions

such as modelling, encouraging, questioning, adding challenges and providing

feedback that serve to extend children’s capabilities. Smit, van Eerde, and Bakker

(2013) stated that the adults’ role in supporting learning is to provide temporary

support that assists learners to perform a task they cannot do by themselves, and to

bring them to a state of competence where they can perform a similar task

independently. Van de Pol, Volman and Beishuizen’s (2010) literature review

identified three key characteristics of scaffolding: (i) contingency (responsively

adapting to the child’s level of knowledge); (ii) fading (gradual release of scaffolding);

and (iii) transfer of responsibility of the performance of the task to the learner.

The use of scaffolding in Prep teachers’ descriptions of their pedagogical

approaches that support student self-regulation mirrored the characteristics and actions

as elaborated in Archer and Hughes’ (2014) Explicit Instruction model. The

scaffolding strategy of transfer of responsibility was unique to this way of seeing

approaches with student behaviour, as teachers were concerned with releasing the

responsibility of the behaviour to the students, thus developing their social and

emotional independence.

Thinking in holistic ways

Teachers who adopt a Category 5 way of seeing approaches with student

behaviour must hold multiple dimensions open in their awareness, that is, think

holistically about student behaviour and about inclusive ways of supporting student

behaviour. Inclusivity, also a feature of Categories 3 and 4, was not featured in

Categories 1 and 2. This Category 5 inclusive and holistic way of seeing approaches

with student behaviour was in direct contrast to Categories 1 and 2, which featured a

fragmented or compartmentalised way of seeing that centred on exclusionary strategies

and compliance. This finding has important implications for preservice and inservice

teacher education. For teachers to act in inclusive ways with student behaviour, there

needs to be a move away from compartmentalised thinking.

In addition, Prep teachers need to be supported as they navigate their way

through the various philosophical tensions at play that constrain them from acting in

inclusive ways in their daily work. Regarding the tension associated with reconciling

mandated curriculum alongside early years philosophy, Shin (2015) suggests that


The future of effective early childhood education in the context of national

curriculum in Australia lies in increased communication, connections and

shared understandings about practice (p.13).

Teachers need to be encouraged to celebrate and share their effective holistic

practice with student behaviour and engage in professional conversations that

challenge ineffective practices and recognise behaviour approaches as complex.

This chapter concludes with a summary of the dimensions of variation within

the 5 categories.

5.5.5 Summarising the dimensions of variation

The value of phenomenographic studies can be seen in the description of the

dimensions of variation as presented in Chapter 4. These dimensions of variation show

where awareness is most prominent and provide an insight into both simple and

complex (surface and deep) approaches to understanding phenomena (Marton, 2015).

As seen in the previous discussion of this study’s categories of description, the earlier

categories (1 and 2) show a surface approach to seeing ways of approaching student

behaviour, with fewer dimensions open. The way of seeing approaches with student

behaviour was therefore compartmentalised. In these earlier categories, awareness

centred only on managing and (in Category 2) engaging. The focus was fixed on

student behaviour and approaches that met teachers’ own needs for classroom control.

In contrast, in later categories (3, 4 and 5), multiple dimensions were

increasingly open in participants’ awareness, supporting a more complex and

integrative way of seeing approaches with student behaviour. These categories saw

awareness focused towards students’ independent engagement and approaches that

achieved this were flexible, concerned with teaching, relationships and inclusion and

directed towards students’ future development. Prep teachers achieved this holistic

approach to student behaviour through purposeful planning and prioritising of time in

the curriculum for students to learn and practise social and emotional skills. They also

reflected on their practice with student behaviour, and considered the purpose of their

approaches and the effects they had on the development of students’ self-regulation.

The value of phenomenography lies in revealing the variation of experiencing or

understanding phenomena. In this case variation has revealed the range of ways Prep

teachers experienced and saw their approaches with student behaviour. The variation


showed a graduated and nuanced picture of how the teachers in this study approached

student behaviour in the classroom and why they adopted those approaches. Looking

at this hierarchy of approaches with student behaviour and thinking of it as a

continuum may be useful for early years teachers and school staff when reflecting on

their approaches with student behaviour. Reflecting in such a way on teacher practice

with student behaviour may lead not just to an awareness of the range of behaviour

approaches teachers and schools actually use, but the outcome and success of these

approaches for developing students’ social and emotional self-regulation in the

Preparatory year.

5.6 CONCLUSION

This chapter has discussed the findings of this study of Prep teachers’ ways of

seeing approaches with student behaviour alongside a range of the literature linking to

behaviour policy, pedagogical approaches in the early years, outcomes of specific

behaviour approaches, and teacher professional development and learning. It has

outlined how teachers’ approaches with student behaviour serve different purposes and

produce different outcomes for students in terms of inclusion and exclusion and the

development of self-regulation. Behaviour approaches that are more likely to lead to

student self-regulation are more complex and holistic in nature. To adopt these

approaches, it is necessary that early years teachers think about the range of

considerations that support integration of many important dimensions, including

understanding students, inclusion, relationships, teaching, learning, flexibility, and the

gradual release of responsibility of behaviour to the students themselves. These

approaches also require an investment of time by teachers.

In the next chapter, the conclusion, implications and recommendations from the

research are described, highlighting the study’s contributions to advancing knowledge

in the study of teachers’ approaches with student behaviour and to phenomenographic

research.

Chapter 6: Conclusion 225

Chapter 6: Conclusion

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This thesis was undertaken to understand how Prep teachers see their approaches

with student behaviour, in an effort to produce recommendations for improved

outcomes for both students and teachers in the field of student behaviour. Chapter 2

presented a literature review that included a synthesis of research, policy and advice

to teachers relating to the broad field of student behaviour. In Chapter 3, the

methodology and the theoretical framework for this study, phenomenography and

variation theory, were explained and the data collection procedures and analyses

detailed. In Chapter 4, the main findings of the study were presented, along with the

phenomenographic analysis of variation. Chapter 5 provided a discussion of the

study’s findings in the context of existing literature via the five categories of

description and the dimensions of variation.

This final chapter presents the implications of the research in relation to student

behaviour policy, students, and preservice and inservice teacher professional

development and learning. It highlights the contribution of this study to advancing

knowledge on approaches with student behaviour in the Prep year and to

phenomenographic research. Recommendations from the study findings will be

presented along with a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the study and

suggestions for future research.

6.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR STUDENT BEHAVIOUR POLICY

This study has uncovered significant variation in the range of ways teachers

experience and conceptualise approaches with student behaviour in the Prep year. This

variation is important, as revealing the different experiences teachers have with student

behaviour, and understanding the range of ways they approach student behaviour,

leads to reflection on teacher practice and renewed thinking that may promote

pedagogical change. This study has important implications for policy makers, as if

they want to change what teachers think and do, they first need to understand what it

is that they think and do. Phenomenography has been the most appropriate

methodology to provide this knowledge.

226 Chapter 6: Conclusion

Policy influences teacher practice, but not always in positive ways. Prep teachers

in this study described their practice with student behaviour as being constrained by

school policy and procedures. Ball (2013) stated that policies are ways of accounting

for and legitimising political decisions. Educational policy in Australia has been driven

by political decisions and its flow-on effects can be felt in classrooms (Bown, 2009,

2014; Porter, 2014; Reid, 2014). National testing, with its centralised control, for

example, is about accountability and efficiency. This has resulted in the de-skilling

and re-skilling of teachers, with teachers losing control of decisions concerning

curriculum and pedagogy (Apple, 2012). Ball (2003) stated that educational reforms

do not only change what people do, but also change who they are. This is concerning,

as this may contribute to a loss of teacher agency, with negative flow-on effects to

their professional learning. Thomson, Lingard, and Wrigley (2012) instead proposed

a move toward “more professionally controlled, community-engaged, richer, more

intelligent forms of educational accountability” (p.3).

Student behaviour policy and procedures may have a substantial influence on

teacher practice, but teachers may not always value these policy directives. Sullivan et

al. (2014) stated that educational authorities develop policies, directives and

procedures aimed at ‘controlling’ student behaviour. Earl and Timperley (2015) stated

that educational policy makers are interested in innovation, but want a sense of security

and accountability. Policy makers in their innovation expect teachers to change what

they think and do, but Earl and Timperley note that teachers will have different

perspectives and expectations. Policy makers may not think through the possibilities,

especially concerning how the policy will be implemented in their particular context.

In Chapter 2, the policy backcloth to the study was reviewed in detail. At the

time of the study, relevant student behaviour policies and procedures were in place,

for example, the Queensland Government schools’ Code of School Behaviour

(Department of Education Training and Employment, 2006) policy and the Safe,

Supportive and Disciplined School Environment (Department of Education and

Training, 2017e) procedure. These policy and procedure directives were aimed at

controlling student behaviour. This study has, however, revealed a richer approach

taken by teachers with regards to the complex and integrated ways of seeing

approaches with student behaviour, particularly as represented in Categories 3, 4 and

5. The dimensions of variation in teachers’ ways of seeing approaches with student


behaviour were not prescribed in school behaviour policies and procedures. Indeed, if

these identified dimensions of variation were part of policies and procedures, it would

lead to changes in thinking and practice around student behaviour approaches,

especially with regard to fostering students’ self-regulation, with flow-on effects for

both student and teacher well-being.

In this study, approaches to student behaviour which excluded students by way

of time outs, detentions or student disciplinary absences (suspensions) were found in

Category 1, arguably the least helpful (surface approach) of all the categories. In this

category, exclusion meant that students’ learning was disrupted. Such disruptions are

counterproductive to learning and engagement. Research into exclusionary behaviour

approaches show undesirable effects for students who have experienced exclusion

(Gillies, 2016; Pane & Rocco, 2014). Supressing or removing students is sometimes

necessary and student disciplinary absences (SDAs) may be required for some students

in some situations. However, applying an SDA does not resolve the underlying issues

that led to the SDA. Often student behaviours that lead to SDAs are challenging and

complex and, as such, a considered approach which takes into account holistic means

for altering these behaviours is required, such as approaches seen in Categories 3, 4

and 5. Student behaviour policies and procedures and inflexible teacher and school

approaches make adaptations for students, the teaching of social and emotional skills

and self-regulation, and a positive school climate and relationships a distant vision.

It is important to recognise the importance of teacher efficacy with teachers’

approaches with student behaviour. Howard’s (2005) study of primary school

educators' beliefs about suspension and exclusion of students with challenging

behaviours found overwhelming support for the use of student disciplinary absences

for students displaying challenging behaviours. In Howard’s (2005) study, most

educators saw the necessity for some sort of student disciplinary absences in schools.

Their views were linked to teacher self-efficacy, as many were challenged by and felt

ill-equipped to handle difficult student behaviours. If teachers feel confident and

competent adopting approaches with student behaviour as seen in Categories 3, 4 and

5, rather than stressed and incompetent as found in Categories 1 and 2, they are more

likely to use inclusive approaches that effectively support student behaviour over the

long term (Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Orsati & Causton-

Theoharis, 2013).


Teachers’ need for flexibility was seen in Category 3, where their way of seeing

approaches with student behaviour centred on them adapting their own practice to meet

the needs of their students. However the findings of this study suggest that teachers

are constrained by their perceptions of school policies and procedures, along with

whole-school approaches such as School Wide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBS),

which has been a popular approach to student behaviour in schools in Australia and

internationally (Department of Education and Training, 2016g; Swain-Bradway,

Swoszowski, Boden, & Sprague, 2013). McIntosh et al.’s (2014) mixed method study

of 257 school personnel, which aimed to understand perceptions related to the

implementation and sustainability of School Wide Positive Behaviour Support

(SWPBS), found that staff buy-in was a commonly reported barrier for sustaining the

program. In the adoption of school wide approaches then, teachers need to be afforded

some agency and ownership over the approach and flexibility to adapt approaches to

meet the needs of their learners. In Queensland Government schools, Positive

Behaviour for Learning (PBL) is currently promoted as a school-wide approach for

creating a safe and supportive environment for students.

School-wide approaches that were punitive and offered no flexibility were seen

by Prep teachers to be inappropriate for their young students, as they recognised that

they may not understand enforced consequences. Teachers articulating their

conceptions in Category 3 would often reject school-wide approaches and adapt what

they did, even when this went against school processes and procedures. They were, in

essence, exercising their teacher agency (Calvert, 2016; Timperley, 2015). It is

important that policy makers and schools understand schools’ and teachers’ need for

flexibility when writing policy and school-based behaviour plans that serve a diverse

student body, particularly with regard to the youngest students and those with learning

differences and disabilities. Queensland behaviour policies show no recognition of

early childhood as a critical period in young children’s development and learning; and

as such do not support teachers and administrators to cater effectively for these young

students. As found in this study of teachers’ approaches with student behaviour,

teachers’ ability to be flexible and adapt behaviour approaches for individual students

allowed them to meet their needs and support student behaviour. If schools wish to be

successful in supporting student behaviour, then listening to teachers and allowing

them to be agentic is essential.


6.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

The findings of this research show that teacher approaches with student

behaviour as seen in Categories 1 to 5 were used for different purposes and had

different outcomes. The categories represented a hierarchy of teachers’ conceptions

that ranged from compartmentalised ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour

(in Category 1) to inclusive ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour (in

Category 5). For example, in Category 1, time out was used by teachers for respite

from the challenging behaviour of individual students. The outcome of this way of

seeing approaches with student behaviour was that students were excluded from their

peers and learning, and teachers experienced frustration with their approaches to

student behaviour which resulted in stress. The Category 1 way of seeing approaches

with student behaviour thus has serious consequences for students’ educational

outcomes and teachers’ well-being.

In Category 2, student behaviour was supressed by teachers via a range of

teacher-enforced sanctions and incentives in an effort to engage students with learning.

The outcome of this way of seeing approaches with student behaviour was that student

behaviour was controlled and teachers were able to continue with teaching their

lessons. In this way of seeing, students are dependent upon teachers for their behaviour

and are thus not likely to develop skills that will lead to independence with self-

regulation. While it may seem beneficial that an outcome of the Category 2 way of

seeing is that teachers are able to successfully teach without disruption, it comes at the

cost of preventing students from learning how to manage their own behaviour.

In Category 3, teachers adapted their practice to accommodate the needs of

individual students, the outcome of which was inclusion for students within the group

and students’ engagement with learning. The teacher approaches in this category thus

impact positively on students’ learning and on students’ relationships with their peer

group. In Category 4, modelling and role-play were used to teach students new social

behaviours and to develop empathy. The outcome of this approach was an opportunity

for students to learn new social skills and ways of acting with their peers. In Category

5, teachers were focused on releasing responsibility for student behaviour to the

students themselves, resulting in the development of student independence with social

behaviours. These Category 4 and 5 approaches were proactive in nature, concerned

with students’ learning and development beyond the Prep year. This was in opposition


to Categories 1 and 2, where teachers’ reactive approaches were not concerned with

the notion of students’ future development or learning. Important implications for

students and teachers flow directly from these findings, especially for students’ self-

regulation, social and emotional development and teacher well-being.

In this study, egalitarian approaches were evidenced in Categories 3, 4 and 5,

with Category 5 and its futures perspective aimed at fostering self-regulation. The

dimensions of variation, that is, what is focused upon by teachers when articulating in

this Category 5 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour, therefore have

importance for schools and teachers when approaching behaviour if they want to move

beyond purely managing behaviour to developing students who are independent and

self-regulated learners.

6.3.1 Self-regulation is important for students and teachers

This study found that the more holistic and integrative ways of seeing

approaches with student behaviour were concerned with students developing

independence with social and emotional behaviours through the deliberate teaching of

such behaviours and skills. The development of self-regulation in children is positively

associated with academic growth (Blair & Raver, 2015; J Montroy et al., 2014; Rimm-

Kaufman, Curby, Grimm, Nathanson, & Brock, 2009). It seems reasonable to argue

then that an important educational aim is for teachers to teach students to regulate their

own behaviour (as seen in Categories 4 and 5), rather than continually applying

behaviour strategies to manage behaviour (as in Categories 1 and 2). With a stronger

emphasis on teaching social and emotional skills and strategies for self-regulation,

students would gain long term benefits of increased self-esteem through knowing how

to successfully engage with learning, and develop positive and productive

relationships with their peers and teachers. The flow-on effect to teachers would be

better engaged students, a reduction in stress and feelings of incompetence, and

improved teacher retention.

These implications are supported in research by Montroy et al. (2014). Their

study of 118 preschool aged children found that children’s self-regulation and social

functioning related directly to academic achievement; and that social skills were a

significant mediator of the relationship between self-regulation and growth and

literacy. Montroy et al. (2014) proposed an increased emphasis on the development of

self-regulation and social skills in preschool. It is therefore important that teachers


think in more integrative and holistic ways about student behaviour and act in ways

that support the acquisition of students’ social and emotional skills and self-regulation

if they wish to support their academic achievement.

6.3.2 Provision of Social and Emotional Learning

This study found that social and emotional learning was important to teachers in

the more integrative and holistic Categories 4 and 5 ways of seeing approaches with

student behaviour. These teachers were concerned with purposeful or intentional

teaching (DEEWR, 2009) and the modelling of social and emotional skills (Bandura,

1991). Research has shown that the provision of social and emotional learning in the

early years of school positively influences students’ behaviour, peer relationships and

academic outcomes. This implication is supported by a substantive body of research

evidence (Durlak et al., 2011; Elias & Arnold, 2006; Payton et al., 2008). For example,

Spivak and Farran (2012) studied teacher behaviours that support prosocial student

behaviour. The authors looked at 124 first-grade classrooms in a semirural area in

south-eastern United States of America. The observational study included 2098

students and targeted teacher behaviour and instructional practice. Spivak and Farren

considered teachers’ emotional warmth and the construction of a positive social

environment, behaviour management practices and students’ prosocial behaviour in

the classroom. Findings suggested that teacher behaviours contributed in important

ways to how students treated one another. If teachers actively guided students towards

prosocial behaviour and empathy, students were more likely to share, help and

cooperate with peers. This suggests that teachers need to be aware of actively

developing students’ social and emotional learning skills and to be able to act in ways

that promote empathy and the development of productive and positive social

behaviours.

Intentional teaching of social and emotional skills is recommended in the Early

Years Learning Framework: “educators who engage in intentional teaching recognise

that learning occurs in social contexts and that interactions and conversations are

vitally important for learning” (DEEWR, 2009, p. 15). The Collaborative for

Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning advocates for social and emotional

learning (SEL) in educational contexts from preschool to high school and provides a

range of tools and resources for implementation (CASEL, 2017). In Australia,

KidsMatter (2017a) also provides information, resources and support to early


childhood education and care services and schools to promote the teaching of social

and emotional skills. Such programs impact positively on students’ development,

evidencing positive social behaviours and attitudes towards self and others, a reduction

in behaviour problems and improved academic performance (Durlak et al., 2011;

Payton et al., 2008).

Teachers’ creation of a respectful, supportive environment that stimulates

classroom social interactions, along with the teacher behaviours cited above, support

students’ self-regulation, problem solving, transitioning and appropriate behaviour

(Spivak & Farren, 2012). These considerations, seen in Categories 4 and 5 ways of

seeing approaches with student behaviour, are important to students’ long term

personal development and to their mental health and well-being. This importance

should be impressed upon teachers, administration and policy makers.

6.3.3 Positive Relationships

Evidence from this study showed that positive relationships between students,

teachers, teacher-aides and families were focal to teachers when thinking about

approaching student behaviour in more holistic ways. The implications for students

and teachers are clear and supported by two decades of research (Roorda, Helma, Spilt,

& Oort, 2011). Positive relationships lead to hopeful outcomes for students regarding

higher academic outcomes, motivation and retention. For example, McClelland et al.

(2014) found that the quality of student-teacher relationships held consequences for

students’ emotional and behavioural adjustment. Positive relationships lead to positive

effects on student motivation, and lower levels of conflict lead to higher academic

outcomes and more productive student work habits (McClelland et al., 2014). This

evidence shows some of the multi-faceted sequences of influence on student academic

outcomes, and the importance of looking more deeply into those influences. In a

similar vein, yet more simply, Peguero and Bracy’s (2015) study of how school

climate, order and justice are related to the phenomenon of adolescents dropping out

of school found that student perceptions of positive student-teacher relationships were

a protective feature against dropout, while school discipline which embraced

exclusionary forms of punishment was identified as a risk factor.

In this study of Prep teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with student

behaviour, the later categories revealed an emphasis on relationships (Categories 3-5);

whereas exclusionary practices with disregard to positive student teacher relationships


characterised Categories 1 and 2. Reflecting on Peguero and Bracy’s (2014) study, it

is plausible that the Category 1 and 2 approaches with student behaviour may actually

serve an adverse purpose if these are risk factors for later school dropout. Conversely,

approaches with student behaviour in the latter categories (3-5) may be protective

against school dropout and positively affect student academic outcomes.

6.3.4 Opportunities to Reflect

During the data collection phase of this study, teachers often remarked that the

interview was the first opportunity they had had to reflect deeply upon their approaches

with student behaviour. Most remarked that the interview itself had helped clarify their

behaviour approaches by being prompted to think about what they valued and what

impact it had on their students. The ‘balanced approach’ in Queensland’s Age-

appropriate Pedagogies for the Early Years of Schooling: Foundation Paper

described in the previous section (Department of Education and Training, 2015b) may

support teacher reflection on approaches with student behaviour. This balanced

approach, where teachers reflect on the balance between spontaneous and planned

learning and adult-driven and child-driven learning experiences, may be

complementary to supporting teachers to choose different approaches to student

behaviour for different purposes. For instance, teachers who see a need for the

development of a particular social skill may use adult-initiated explicit instruction,

modelling and role-playing strategies to assist students to learn the skill, but then move

to a more child-initiated play-based pedagogical approach to allow students to apply

and master the particular skill and to develop independence.

Student behaviour is a complex phenomenon and simple responses are unlikely

to be effective. Looking at the dimensions of variation, a key outcome of this

phenomenographic research is that this methodology provides a means of

understanding the many considerations needed to be taken into account when working

effectively with student behaviour. For teachers to be successful in supporting

students’ self-regulation and social and emotional learning, it is vital that they are able

to consider and maintain their awareness of this range of dimensions (Categories 4 and

5) that support a holistic view of approaches with student behaviour.


6.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR INITIAL AND CONTINUING TEACHER

EDUCATION

One of the key findings that has emerged from this study is the need for teachers

to learn how to critique and navigate the constant tensions they encounter in the

educational landscape. There is a great need to help them interpret mandated and

prescribed approaches, whilst ensuring that they can reconcile these with their own

values and philosophies. Attention to teacher professional learning that helps navigate

these challenging dilemmas is essential.

Research has shown that both preservice and inservice teachers perceive that

there are limited opportunities to engage with professional learning on the topic of

student behaviour (Arbuckle & Little, 2004; Buchanan, 2010; DellaMattera, 2011;

Rosas & West, 2009). With demands placed on teachers to attend meetings for

curriculum planning, pedagogy and assessment and other school and sector-based

professional development pertaining to policy initiatives, professional development

aimed at student behaviour often takes a back seat. Alongside an identified lack of

school leadership support for student behaviour, teachers in this study often mentioned

lack of time for collegial discussion and collaboration. As mentioned previously in

relation to the interview data, participants often commented about not having had the

opportunity to engage in professional discussions about student behaviour. These

comments align with Timperley’s (2015) observation that conversations among

teachers about teaching and learning remain uncommon in the profession.

Teacher professional learning should contribute to the ongoing improvement of

teachers’ knowledge and practice and make a difference to student learning:

Professional learning is the formal and informal learning experiences

undertaken by teachers and school leaders that improve their individual

professional practice and the school’s collective effectiveness as measured by

improved student engagement and learning outcomes (Cole, 2012, p. 4).

Professional learning programs address teachers’ individual needs within the

school context, and should be led by teaching experts rather than traditional

professional development events facilitators (Cole, 2012). While school leaders are

often driven by data and compliance to system requirements, they have a responsibility

for providing professional learning opportunities for their staff, “to enhance their skills

to positively manage behaviour” (Department of Education Training and Employment,


2013, p. 1). P. Wood, Spandagou, and Evans (2012) surveyed 340 New South Wales

school Principals, with the overall results suggesting that Principals in general were

“not heavily influenced by a single theoretical approach or they implement practices

without a concrete understanding of their relationship with theory” (p.388). This

suggests that school leaders, who often drive the school behaviour plan and approach,

need to better understand the theories and principles that underpin the behaviour

approaches they use, and the likely outcomes for students when adopting those

approaches, so that they can assist staff to critically reflect on their practice.

The findings of this study in relation to the hierarchy of increasingly inclusive

and complex categories that show the range of ways of seeing approaches with student

behaviour could prove helpful to school leaders. Reflecting on the categories

established in this study, teachers and school leaders could identify the approaches

they currently use in their context and think about possible gaps in their practice,

particularly with regard to the more inclusive and complex categories where

approaches are about adapting, teaching and releasing responsibility.

One of the implications of this study is that school leaders should ensure the

inclusion of approaches to student behaviour that foster students’ self-regulation and

prioritise their social and emotional skills. Peak world bodies have called for this, for

example the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (2015) states

that, “the social and emotional skills that raise children’s capacities to achieve goals,

work effectively with others and manage emotions are considered among the important

drivers of school and lifetime success” (p.46). Policy makers and preservice teacher

education institutions should lead the charge. Teacher preparation programs should

prepare pre-service teachers to teach students self-regulation skills (Vaughn, 2014).

Queensland Government schools need to consider adding egalitarian approaches to

their behaviour policy and professional learning programs, approaches that foster

students’ self-regulation and the development of effective social and emotional skills,

and provide a more balanced model for setting students up for lifetime success. This

would value add to the Queensland Government’s current professional learning

program, the Essential Skills for Classroom Management, which is geared towards a

management ideology.

Preservice and inservice teacher professional learning and development can

influence teachers’ perceptions on the approaches, theories and strategies for working


with student behaviour in more effective ways. Research supports such a goal.

Moberly, Waddle and Duff (2005), for example, found that observation of other

teachers’ practice was seen to influence respondents’ choice of behaviour management

strategies (52.4%); but observation of others’ practice on its own may be insufficient

to influence teachers own practice. The fact that teachers’ greatest influence was

observing other teachers suggests that preservice and inservice teacher professional

learning needs to be job-embedded and context-specific; but, as Moberly et al. suggest,

it also needs to help teachers link theory and practice (Moberly et al., 2005).

Teacher conversations are an important vehicle for provoking reflection on

approaches with student behaviour and should be prioritised. Timperley (2015) was

commissioned by AITSL to review the national and international research literature in

relation to conversations that lead to teachers’ professional growth. She identified five

enablers for effective professional conversations: (1) resources; (2) relationships; (3)

processes; (4) knowledge; and (5) culture; and noted that professional knowledge is

constructed through social interaction, and that conversations are central to its

development. Teachers negotiate meaning from conversations, just as they learn from

specialist expertise, with expertise taking the form of the content of a discussion, or

when engaging with a coach or observer. Timperley (2015) argued: “It is the

interpretive conversations that transform the information and artefacts into actionable

knowledge” (p.4). The provision of opportunities for teacher conversations that

support reflection and lead to increased knowledge of student behaviour approaches is

therefore vitally important in preservice and inservice professional learning and

development programs.

Also important to teacher professional learning for student behaviour is the

challenging of deficit thinking about students. This needs to be a priority because

research has identified the fact that teachers are more likely to attribute student

behaviour to self-factors, such as student deficits or family background, than to their

teaching (Grieve, 2009; Ravet, 2007b). This tendency was evident in the earlier,

compartmentalised categories within this study. When teachers articulated conceptions

in Categories 1 and 2, they talked about student behaviour in isolation, being more

likely to focus on student deficits and family background when talking about their

approaches with student behaviour. This compartmentalised thinking may have

contributed to the exclusion-based approaches teachers articulated in Categories 1 and


2. Timperley (2015) argued that a culture shift - from attributing problems to outside

influences to a focus on interactions and what can be changed - is necessary.

Professional learning opportunities for teachers which highlight and challenge deficit

thinking and identify associated implications for both teacher practice and student

outcomes may be a positive way forward.

In this study, even though teachers at times reported feeling constrained by

whole-school approaches to behaviour, some were able to generate individualised,

innovative and responsive approaches to student behaviour, as evidenced in Categories

3, 4 and 5. It is important that teachers see themselves as agents of change. Agency, a

commitment and belief that it is within an individual and group’s capacity to effect

change, is seen as an enabler of effective professional conversations (Timperley,

2015). Teachers and school leaders need to promote such agency and take

responsibility for their own learning, which is a challenge in the current transmission

or “routine expert view of professionalism” (Timperley, 2011, p.11) climate often

adopted in schools. Timperley (2015) suggests teachers and school leaders adopt an

inquiry-focused and problem solving culture, with a collective responsibility for

solving problems. The processes employed to support problem solving need to be

sufficiently flexible to allow teachers to express, engage with and test different ideas.

Teachers also need to know when and where to seek help, in terms of engaging in

ongoing inquiry and knowledge-building cycles (Timperley, 2011). Using

Timperley’s (2015) inquiry-based approach to develop a professional learning

program for teachers on approaching student behaviour would be appropriate,

particularly with regard to sharing the range of different ways teachers go about

approaching student behaviour in the more complex and integrated categories.

It is important that educators conceptualise the Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers beyond lock-step stages of professional development. The

basic premise of the Standards is that professional development and learning practices

should focus on building teacher capabilities in ways that lead to better outcomes for

all students; but Timperley (2011) argued that a challenge to achieving this expectation

is that of catering for student diversity. Professional development for teachers on

student behaviour needs to centre on flexible approaches, approaches that can be

adapted to local contexts and to the needs of individual students. Highlighting the

importance of the Category 3 way of seeing approaches with student behaviour would


be useful in helping cater for classroom diversity. This Category was an important

precursor to the more complex and integrated Categories 4 and 5. Teachers need to be

willing and able to reflect upon their particular context, to think in flexible ways and

to adapt their own practice and conditions of learning in order to meet the needs of

students and thus support behaviour. A focus on flexible approaches and teacher

reflexivity would be an important part of professional learning programs for teachers.

Reflecting on the findings of this study, on the identified categories and their

dimensions of variation, can be pivotal in helping teachers understand how to work

towards better outcomes for all students.

6.5 CONTRIBUTION TO THE PHENOMENOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY

Phenomenography has made important contributions to research on students’

learning, providing valuable knowledge for understanding learning and teaching

practice. In this study of teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with student

behaviour, new knowledge about the range of ways Prep teachers approach behaviour

has been revealed, and has pointed to the importance of teachers reflecting on their

approaches with student behaviour and the purpose they serve. When people learn to

see a significant part of the world in a significantly new way, consciousness changes

(Dahlin, 2007). It is hoped that the findings of this study enable educators to see

approaches with student behaviour in a different light, so that they can understand and

reflect upon the purpose and outcome of their approaches and enact change that

positively affects future outcomes for students and teachers.

The aim of phenomenographic investigations is not just to describe or define

experience, but to capture variation in the ways phenomena are experienced, and group

these conceptions (or ways of seeing) into categories for the purpose of description. In

this study of teachers’ approaches with student behaviour in the Prep year, variation

has been captured and the range of ways of seeing approaches has been detailed and

analysed. Importantly, this study has allowed teachers to articulate their practices with

student behaviour and has raised their voices. The findings which have been

communicated through these voices may hopefully shape future responses to how

student behaviour is approached in classrooms. The pedagogical potential of

phenomenography has been realised, with the analysis of variation and associated

implications pointing clearly to the complex range of considerations required to


implement holistic approaches to student behaviour. Åkerlind (2005b), a strong

advocate for phenomenography, says its advantage lies in another way of viewing

knowledge, research and reality. Central to phenomenography is its aim to capture

experience as the internal relation between people and phenomena. In this case, this

study sought to explore the internal relation between Prep teachers and their

approaches with student behaviour. Marton (1981) suggested that outcomes of studies

that explore this internal relation are of sufficient interest in themselves, but

phenomenography’s focus on variation, and its particular focus on capturing the range

of ways that people can experience a phenomenon, cannot be obtained in any other

way.

My journey along the road to understanding phenomenography and its

theoretical counterpart, variation theory, for this study has been a long and arduous

process. Understanding phenomenographic terms and the varied application of

phenomenographic methods created much confusion initially. Engaging in researching

these issues and wrestling with understanding how variation theory influences

phenomenographic methods, and how this fits with my study, allowed me to develop

a deeper understanding of phenomenography and variation theory, thus strengthening

the application of phenomenography to this study of teachers’ experiences of student

behaviour in Prep classrooms.

The way in which the unit of phenomenographic research is described in

research studies varies, as does the way in which researchers articulate their

approaches to the methodology. To date, there has been little review of the

interchangeable use of phenomenographic terms such as experience, conception,

seeing, thinking etc., or of how this influences the way phenomenographic studies are

conducted and reported. It seems crucial that researchers conducting

phenomenographic investigations clearly define the terminology that is to be used

within the study, and exercise transparency in detailing the approach taken throughout,

which I have attempted to do.

Although phenomenographic studies capture and report variation in the ways

phenomena are experienced, they may also provide an opportunity to reveal new ways

of understanding phenomenography and variation theory. There has been much

diversity in the way that phenomenographic studies have been carried out, and clear

articulation of these different approaches has been limited (Åkerlind, 2005b; Harris,


2011; Hasselgren & Beach, 1997). Phenomenographic researchers must be conscious

of the different approaches and choose methods that are complementary to their

studies. They should clearly articulate the approach taken, including methods used to

gather and analyse data, with consideration given to the associated theoretical

underpinnings, and ensure the terms used to describe the unit of conception are clearly

articulated and rationalised. In this study I have aimed to clearly articulate my use of

the phenomenographic approach, the theoretical underpinnings of this approach, and

the associated terms adopted. I have also aimed to carefully detail the analysis and

report the findings in a way that realises Marton’s (2015) pedagogical potential. The

detailing of my approach with phenomenography may assist other novice researchers

in the future, contributing to their understanding of phenomenography as a

methodology and understanding its significant potential for influencing teachers’

practice.

6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings of this study point to recommendations that can be made about

teachers’ behaviour approaches in Prep classrooms. These recommendations may be

useful for teachers, policy makers, school leaders and ancillary school staff such as

teacher aides working both in the Prep year and beyond in the broader educational

field. The recommendations below draw upon the new understandings gained from the

phenomenographic analysis and analysis of variance and invariance of this study of

Prep teachers’ ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour. The findings,

by way of the categories of description and dimensions of variation, provide important

direction for change to pedagogy and policy which will now be identified and

discussed.

6.6.1 Recommendation 1

A stronger focus on professional learning of the range of behaviour

approaches and their theoretical underpinnings for early years preservice and

inservice teachers.

A first recommendation relates to professional learning on approaches with

student behaviour for preservice and inservice teachers in the early years of school.

Managing student behaviour has been identified as a dominant concern for the majority

of preservice teachers prior to commencing their final field experience (Peters, 2012).


Successive studies have shown that preservice teachers agreed that they still had much

more to learn about encouraging and responding to student behaviour (Buchanan,

2010; DellaMattera, 2011; Rosas & West, 2009). It is evident from this study that a

stronger focus on approaches with student behaviour in preservice teacher education

is necessary. Furthermore, research has shown that teachers in general find student

behaviour challenging. This suggests that professional learning on student behaviour

approaches needs to be prioritised also for inservice teachers.

It is important that both preservice and inservice teachers develop knowledge of

the theoretical underpinnings of behaviour approaches, so that they are able to critique

approaches and select ones that best meet their students’ needs. Behaviour approaches

and associated theories should be embedded in preservice teacher education

professional experience units, so that preservice teachers are supported in connecting

theory with practice and encouraged to critically reflect on this relationship. Inservice

professional learning for teachers on student behaviour should also help teachers

understand the theoretical underpinnings of their approaches and include a focus on

flexible approaches. An emphasis also needs to be placed on understanding the

importance of approaches which support students’ self-regulation in the early years of

schooling and the dimensions of variation necessary to achieve this. Professional

learning should also encourage teachers to challenge deficit thinking and to become

agents of change.


Providing early years preservice and inservice teachers with a clearer

understanding of the complex nature of approaches with student behaviour and

of how more holistic and integrative approaches may contribute positively to

students’ self-regulation.

A second important recommendation is for preservice teachers to have

opportunities to develop an understanding of the complex nature of approaches with

student behaviour. Professional learning needs to support development of

understanding of the importance of relationships, teacher flexibility and the teaching

of new social skills to support student behaviour in the early years of school. Preservice

teacher education which focuses on the importance of behaviour approaches that are

collaborative by nature, and on student engagement, diversity and inclusion is

essential. These dimensions were evidenced in Categories 3, 4 and 5 in this study:


approaches with student behaviour which focused on engagement with learning,

actively teaching prosocial behaviours, collaboration, supportive relationships and

inclusion, aimed at the development of student self-regulation and social and

emotional skills that positively influence ongoing personal development. It is

important that both preservice and inservice teacher education programs help early

years teachers to understand that behaviour approaches need to be conceived as

complex and integrative, rather than seen solely as a set of lock-step strategies to apply

to student misbehaviour.

Importantly, whatever is taught about approaching student behaviour must be

based on the best available evidence. The best evidence about what works in student

behaviour support comes from systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on

rigorously conducted trials that provide information about what works for teachers and

under what conditions. Research has found, for example, that Classroom and

Behaviour Management (CBM) courses were not often evidence-based (O'Neill &

Stephenson, 2014). Courses that are not underpinned by rigorous empirical research

should be used with caution. While the use of evidenced-based behaviour practices is

important, so too is the need for preservice teachers to look at student behaviour

practices holistically, not just to apply a set of evidence-based strategies to student

behaviour. This would require the teaching profession to adopt a critical lens when

thinking about behaviour approaches, and to build a work climate that openly

questions, critiques and adapts, rather than simply accepts or tolerates mandated

approaches without critique.


Access to supports and services for early years preservice and inservice

teachers that are struggling with behaviour approaches, and quality training for

behaviour support personnel.

Early years preservice and inservice teachers need to be well-supported in their

practice with approaches with student behaviour. Preservice teachers in particular need

to be introduced to a wide range of supports and services that they can access when

faced with challenging student behaviour. Appropriate supports would include

behaviour-specific mentoring for preservice teachers (Angelides & Mylordou, 2011;

Spooner-Lane, 2017); a resource portal that provides a range of information on

inclusive behaviour approaches (Denton et al., 2005; Manouselis, Vuorikari, & Van


Assche, 2010); self-refection tools (Hollingsworth & Clarke, 2017; McCombs, 1997;

Timperley, 2015) and interactive webinars (Reese, 2010).

An important function of mentoring programs is to challenge teachers to reflect

and reframe their beliefs and practices in order to enhance the quality of their teaching

and of student learning outcomes (Spooner-Lane, 2017). Mentoring for preservice

teachers on approaches with student behaviour would be helpful to disrupt ineffective

practice and to identify more positive and productive strategies that would lead to

enhanced student and teacher well-being and favourable learning outcomes for

students. This support is important, but equally important is the need for behaviour

support personnel and services to also receive professional education on behaviour

approaches that best support inclusivity and successful outcomes for student learning

in the Prep year.


To encourage AITSL to consider a range of resources and illustrations of

practice that acknowledge the complex nature of student behaviour practice in

the ‘graduate stage’, and recognise early childhood as an important stage of

development that requires early years teachers to develop specialist knowledge

and skills.

A core recommendation from this study is a move away from looking at student

behaviour approaches in isolation, towards adopting a holistic view of student

behaviour when designing professional learning programs for preservice and inservice

teachers. The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2014), guides

professional learning, practice and engagement to facilitate teacher quality, and to

contribute to the public standing of the profession. Standard 4.3 describes the

professional practice for managing student behaviour across a range of professional

stages, from Graduate to Lead. Descriptions of practice range from demonstrating

knowledge of practical approaches to managing children’s behaviour (Graduate); to

establishing and negotiating clear expectations (Proficient); and developing a flexible

repertoire of behaviour management strategies (Highly Accomplished). The graduate

description of practice aligns with the notion of isolated strategies for managing

student behaviour as seen in Categories 1 and 2. In light of the findings from this study,

it would seem that this description supports compartmentalised student behaviour

approaches, and this may be detrimental to preservice teachers’ development.


In addition, Krieg and Whitehead (2015) argue that the Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers do not differentiate the early childhood stage from general

levels of schooling in terms of the specialist knowledge, skills and engagement

required for effective teaching that supports learners in the early years. In delivery of

professional development on the Standards, it would be worthwhile for AITSL to

consider a range of resources and illustrations of practice that acknowledge the

complex nature of student behaviour practice, and recognise the early years as a

particular phase that requires teachers to have specialist knowledge and skills that

effectively shape students’ social and emotional learning. This would include drawing

attention to the range of approaches that support student behaviour in the early years,

including ones that are more likely to lead to the development of students’ self-

regulation, and the importance of teachers reflecting on the purpose of the student

behaviour approaches they use.


Provision for school-based professional conversations for problem solving

and co-constructing new ideas with student behaviour approaches that are

contextually relevant and that challenge familiar and ineffective practice.

It is important that schools have the flexibility to develop responses to student

behaviour that are contextually relevant. In line with Timperley’s (2015) work, it is

recommended that school leadership enables professional conversations for problem

solving and co-constructing new ideas with student behaviour approaches. The

development of new knowledge is important for teacher professional growth.

Timperley (2015) suggested that a mix of context specific individual theories of

practice and research-based theories allows new knowledge to arise. It is important

that schools recognise the importance of local contexts, so that they do not just use

available evidence in isolation, but value-add to it. Knowledge must be relevant to

teachers’ particular contexts so that solutions are relevant and actionable. Teachers can

then become ‘adaptive experts’, who both use and contribute to the wider knowledge

base (Timperley, 2011).

In addition, teacher practice needs to be challenged, especially when familiar

and ineffective practice endures (Timperley, 2015). In line with Timperley’s (2015)

paper on professional conversations, reflective coaching for teachers - where

experienced teachers who have additional training on student behaviour are engaged


in joint analysis and co-construct practice - may assist them to develop new and more

effective approaches to support student behaviour, and to challenge those practices

which are ineffective. As found in this study, Prep teachers hold a wealth of knowledge

of individual students and of their particular context, and are therefore best placed to

develop new ideas to support student behaviour. It is important that teachers are

empowered to create and communicate new knowledge and to develop responsive

behaviour approaches through collaboration with other teachers and school leadership

teams, with reflective coaching provided by behaviour experts. The provision of

flexibility is key here; without the means to adapt behaviour approaches to meet the

diverse needs of students, it is likely that teachers will be stuck with compartmentalised

approaches aimed at ‘managing’, as seen in Categories 1 and 2.


Provision of programs for teacher professional learning on student

behaviour that centre on self-reflection and support teacher agency through

developing a balanced repertoire of behaviour approaches.

The final recommendation from this study points to a program for teacher

professional learning that integrates Timperley’s (2015) work on professional

conversations and the teacher inquiry and knowledge building cycle (Timperley, 2011)

as a way to encourage teacher agency. It is important that teachers are empowered to

guide their own professional learning, in collaboration with others, and to develop

processes for identifying problems, gaining new knowledge, developing solutions and

evaluating outcomes. In addition there is value in developing a teacher reflection

framework on the use of a balance of behaviour approaches, based on the reflective

pedagogical framework of Department of Education and Training (2015b), using the

approaches in Categories 1 to 5. The provision of a professional learning program for

teachers built around reflection on the five categories from this study, and on the

dimensions of variation that underpin them, will guide teachers’ personal reflections

on their approaches with student behaviour, and challenge them to consider whether

there is a balance between management approaches and the more independent

engagement approaches. Teachers can then identify where they need to expand their

repertoire of approaches to assist Prep students in the acquisition of behavioural self-

regulation. The strength of such a professional learning program lies in not seeking to

replace existing professional learning programs on student behaviour approaches but


to value-add to what schools and teachers already do. Such a program will engage

schools and teachers in reflecting upon their school-based plans and practice with

approaches with student behaviour in the Prep year, challenge practices that are not

helpful, and develop new approaches that are holistic in nature.

6.7 STRENGTHS OF THE STUDY

The strength of phenomenographic studies is the potential to effect change in

consciousness when people learn to see a part of the world in a significantly new way

(Dahlin, 2007). Analysis of data from phenomenographic studies reveals a richness in

reporting the range of ways people experience phenomena that cannot be gained via

others modes of study. In this study, then, a strength is the new-found knowledge of

the range of ways Prep teachers approach student behaviour and of what dimensions

of variation exist in each of these ways of seeing (conceptions). This analysis of

variation has identified understandings of the dimensions teachers need to hold open

in their awareness in order to approach student behaviour in more complex and holistic

ways that serve to support student self-regulation.

In social science disciplines such as education, Sandberg (1997) argued that the

most common way to ensure reliability of research results is through replicability. This

means that if at least two independent researchers achieve similar results to the original

researcher when studying the same data, then the results may be seen as reliable

(p.204). There are some questions around whether phenomenographic results achieved

by way of ‘categories of description’ could be similarly replicated by other researchers

(Sandberg, 1997). However, there is a strong focus and robust discussion in the

phenomenographic literature on methods employed by phenomenographers to address

reliability. These methods include: consistent interview frameworks, a whole of

transcript approach to analysis, adherence to iterative cycles, collaborative analysis,

and bracketing preconceived ideas.

A consistent interview framework with no leading questions is important for

reliability in phenomenographic studies. This study’s interview framework was

carefully focused on the phenomenon and was used consistently across the 21 teacher

interviews. Bowden (2005) also identified the following features of robust

phenomenographic studies: analysis where the researcher plays ‘devil’s advocate’; a

delay in both labelling categories and looking for relations between categories until


analysis of the categories is complete; and a whole of transcript approach which

focuses on meaning. These characteristics are seen to increase the validity of

outcomes, especially when these processes are transparent (p. 90). To ensure rigour

and a transparent process in this study, a whole of transcript approach to analysis was

adopted. Åkerlind et al. (2005) catered for interpretative rigour through employing the

iterative process of analysis. They argued that interpretive rigour is established through

a series of iterative cycles between the transcript data; the interpretations of the data

by the researcher; and the checking of these interpretations back against the data

(p.87). This iterative process to analysis was critically important to this study, and

revealed five categories of description that represented a faithful representation of the

participants’ conceptions or ways of seeing their approaches with student behaviour.

While it has been said that there may be potential limitations for single

researchers attempting phenomenographic studies, Åkerlind (2005a) believed that a

team-based phenomenographic research approach may help develop more

comprehensive understandings of data. Value is seen in collaboration between

researchers during the analysis phase, and in the rigour that is gained through rich

discussion, reflection and challenge. In this study it was important to ensure

interpretative rigour through adhering to the iterative cycles and through the

scheduling of discussion meetings with the supervisory team and other

phenomenography mentors (e.g. Åke Ingerman), to scrutinise, debate and test the

categories against the data. In addition, it was helpful to take breaks during the

analysis, in order to gain a fresh perspective, hence the 18 month time frame that was

needed in the analysis phase. A strength in this study therefore lies in the collaborative

approach taken to data analysis.

Phenomenographic researchers who are investigating the experiences of others

must ‘bracket’, or hold in check any preconceived ideas which might contaminate the

data, as researchers are intentionally related to the research object (Richardson, 1999;

Sandberg, 1997). This bracketing was important in this study, and collaboration with

my supervision team during the analysis phase served to challenge and keep

preconceived ideas in check. Åkerlind (2005b) suggested that for single researchers, a

critical attitude towards the interpretation of data is vital. In this study, adopting a

critical attitude was important to ensuring that I was staying faithful to participants’

conceptions, rather than putting my own interpretations on theirs. This required me to


continually question my analysis by returning time and again to the transcripts to keep

a check on the way I was analysing the data. Bowden (2005) stated that rigour is

directly linked to validity; and that the validity of outcomes is related to the processes

used at all stages of phenomenographic research. Thus, it is important that the

researcher is transparent in detailing the steps of the analysis. This transparency was

important to me, especially in light of the lack of transparency I noted when looking

to understand the process of analysis of other phenomenographic studies. I was

committed to being transparent in the steps I took in the analysis of the data which are

detailed in Chapter 3.

6.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Phenomenographic studies are subject to several limitations which must be

acknowledged. One of these is researcher bias. In all stages of phenomenographic

research, it is important for researchers to ensure they are capturing participants’ own

conceptions and keeping a check on their preconceived ideas, values and beliefs, which

should be kept separate from the data. While conducting the interviews for this study,

the carefully constructed semi-structured interview schedule limited the potential for

bias, as the questions were purely focused around participants’ own experiences.

During the analysis of the transcripts, it was also important to safeguard participants’

conceptions and ensure they were represented truthfully. Bowden (2000) agreed with

Sandberg’s assertion that categories of description must be as faithful as possible to

participants’ individual conceptions, as their reality is important to our understanding

of the phenomenon (Sandberg, 1995; Bowden, 2000).

While it is important that phenomenographers keep their preconceived ideas,

values and beliefs in check, descriptions developed when analysing the data will be

dependent upon the researcher’s perspective as well as on the empirical and theoretical

context of the data (Svensson, 1997). This may be a limitation of phenomenographic

studies. Walsh (2000) discussed the construction of categories of description from the

data. In one approach, the categories are seen to be constructed by the researcher. This

construction follows certain procedures and principles with the researcher having

control over the data. It allows the categories of description to be developed in a logical

fashion. A question posed here by Walsh (2000) addressed whether this approach is in

fact a faithful representation of the data. A tension was seen to be evident between the

need to be true to the data and the need to create an orderly construction (Walsh, 2000).


Walsh (2000) added that when researchers develop categories from their own

framework or lens, a hazard lies in the possibility of adding or adjusting categories

which are not supported by the data. Imposing a logical framework where one doesn’t

exist may result in bias.

The potential for bias to occur was continually at the forefront of my mind during

the construction of the categories of description. In the early stages of analysis I spent

a lot of time thinking about how the categories would be constructed in an effort to

avoid bias. This led me to adopt an iterative process of initially simply grouping

‘meaning statements’ rather than allocating meaning statements to predefined

categories. Therefore data in this study were analysed by reviewing each transcript

with a ‘construction towards discovery’ approach, with the aim being to discover new

ways of understanding the phenomenon (Walsh, 2000, p. 25). Continual adjustment

of the groupings of meaning statements allowed the categories to gradually emerge

from the data and avoided the potential for researcher bias. During the later stages of

analysis, it was important that I considered carefully the meaning of each participant

statement when making allocations of participant statements to categories. This helped

to ensure individual conceptions were grouped faithfully to categories, with categories

being tested, readjusted and new ones created based on the collective meaning of the

individual participant statements. This process, as detailed in chapter 3, assisted greatly

in limiting the potential for researcher bias.

Another limitation of this study relates to sample size. Phenomenographic

studies typically use small samples sizes (Akerlind, et al., 2005). Swedish

phenomenographers Larsson & Holmström (2007) stated that data from 20

participants are usually adequate in phenomenographic studies for discovering the

variation of the phenomenon investigated. Other phenomenographers, such as

Trigwell (2000) and Akerlind et al. (2005) suggested slightly smaller or larger sample

sizes as appropriate. In this study the sample size was 21 participants; a sample size

large enough to ensure enough data to obtain variation, but at the same time to make

the analysis of data manageable. Although small sample sizes are appropriate for

phenomenographic studies, it is important to understand that studies are also limited

by their sample size. The findings of this study relate to this particular group of

Queensland Prep teachers, and it must be recognised that a different sample of teachers

(for example a group of Indigenous or Regional/Rural Prep teachers) may have


revealed different ways of seeing approaches with student behaviour. Åkerlind, et al.

(2005) state that as the meaning of the phenomenon is subject to variation, it is only

valid at that particular time and in that particular situation. This means that this current

study represents a point-in-time picture of the conceptions of this particular group of

participants.

Another limitation to this study could have been a lack of diversity in the sample.

During the recruitment phase of this study, even though I approached a large (n=128)

and diverse range of schools within the Brisbane metropolitan region, more teachers

from the more affluent suburbs of inner Brisbane than teachers from areas of Brisbane

experiencing disadvantage volunteered to participate. A purposeful sample with the

inclusion of teachers from more diverse settings may have strengthened the study’s

findings.

A final limitation to this study was my limited knowledge of phenomenography

in the early stages of designing this study. My growth as a novice phenomenographer

throughout my candidature has allowed me to comprehend the methodology and

theoretical framework in a more complex way; and there are some changes I would

have made to the conduct of this study. First, I would have narrowed the phenomenon

under investigation further, and perhaps looked at only one aspect of approaches with

student behaviour, for example the use of rewards in Prep classrooms. Additionally, I

may have developed a student behaviour case study, vignette or hypothetical event

upon which to focus the interviews (Rovio-Johansson & Ingerman, 2016). This may

have generated conceptions that were closer to the phenomenon than the more general

conceptions of student behaviour approaches I gathered.

6.9 FUTURE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES

There are many possible avenues for future research arising from this study, such

as researching effective ways to provide professional learning programs to teachers on

student behaviour approaches that allow them to become agents of change; or trialling

and documenting a professional development program to support teacher reflection on

their use of student behaviour approaches.

It would be worthwhile researching the effectiveness of particular behaviour

approaches adopted by school systems, such as the Essential Skills for Classroom

Management, and behaviour reward systems. The data from this study suggest that


there was an abundant and varied use of reward systems in Prep classrooms. It would

be worthwhile investigating how teachers in Prep classrooms are using reward systems

and the efficacy of such systems from both teacher and student perspectives.

Student perspectives on their own behaviour are also important, and often

neglected in research on student behaviour approaches. Undertaking a research study

with students, looking at student behaviour in the classroom, may shed light on how

students understand what teachers do. Phenomenography would be a unique vehicle

for investigating students’ conceptions of their own behaviour in their classrooms.

Many teachers in this study talked about how their personality influenced their

approach with student behaviour. For example Participants 5 and 6 stated:

I don’t know, I hear my husband say, ah you’re too laid back (teacher’s name)!

And I’m like ahh (laughter). I’m not the disciplinarian. Anyway, so maybe

that reflects my teaching style as well. I5

Facilitator: And why do you think that is? Like why do you think…

Interviewee: Because I'm a control freak! I know it, I can say it! My name is

(teacher’s name) and I'm a control freak (laughter)!

Facilitator: Is that just something you use in your teaching, is that the way that

you’ve always been?

Interviewee: No that’s even at home, everything runs by routine, you get up

at 5, you do this at 5:30. No, no, call it OCD, call it what you want, but yes

no… I6

It would also be worthwhile investigating further how teachers’ personal

characteristics and dispositions influence approaches with student behaviour. This

may be a more quantitative study, that examines a range of teacher characteristics and

their relationships with their approaches with student behaviour. It was also found in

this study that teachers varied in their reflective capacities. It would be helpful to

understand more about what leads teachers to critically reflect on their practice with

student behaviour.

In this study it was identified that there needs to be a stronger emphasis placed

on professional learning programs for teachers on student behaviour approaches that

help them to think in more holistic and integrative ways and position themselves as

powerful in their ability to reflect on their approaches, build their knowledge base and


identify effective and flexible approaches that suit the students within their particular

context. The case for teacher agency has been made in this chapter. Teachers have

challenging terrain to negotiate in their journey to selecting integrative approaches

with student behaviour. They encounter tensions daily such as attempting to reconcile

school-mandated approaches alongside their professional philosophy and values.

These tensions often constrain teachers’ actions and lead to dissatisfaction and stress.

Helping both preservice and inservice teachers navigate this terrain and these tensions

is essential. Developing a school-based professional learning program based on the

dimensions of variation seen in Categories 3, 4 and 5, that positions teachers as agents

of change, and researching the effectiveness of such a program would be helpful to

understanding what best supports teachers’ professional development concerning

student behaviour approaches.

In conclusion, future research opportunities exist to further the development of

the phenomenographic methodology and variation theory. Phenomenography as a

relatively new approach to educational research is continually growing and adapting

(Åkerlind, 2005; Pang, 2003). Rovio-Johansson and Ingerman (2016) argued that

researchers must continue to engage in methodological discussion in order to retain

research vigour. This includes a commitment to collaborating on and advancing the

phenomenography methodology and variation theory. Ingerman (2014) has pioneered

phenomenographic research that moves beyond considering the individual learner to

analysing learning at a small-group level. Using group interviews with teachers in

phenomenographic studies of student behaviour may be a novel way of eliciting

teacher talk about particular approaches with student behaviour (such as the use of

rewards or the Essential Skills), and to enhance phenomenographic variation.

6.10 CONCLUSION

This thesis has revealed how Prep teachers see their approaches with student

behaviour. It has delivered recommendations for improved outcomes for both students

and teachers in the field of student behaviour. Chapter 1 introduced the background

and context of the study. Chapter 2, the literature review, included a synthesis of

research, policy and advice to teachers relating to the broad field of student behaviour.

Phenomenography and variation theory, the methodology and theoretical framework

for this study, were explained in Chapter 3, along with the data collection procedures

and analyses. In Chapter 4, the findings of the study were presented in the form of a


phenomenographic analysis of variation. In Chapter 5, a discussion of the study’s

findings in the context of existing literature was provided. Finally, Chapter 6 detailed

implications and recommendations arising from the study findings.

This thesis has highlighted the contribution of this study to advancing knowledge

on approaches with student behaviour in the Prep year. It has been acknowledged that

student behaviour is complex, and as such approaches need to be conceived as

multifaceted and be responsive to the diverse needs of students. As Egeberg et al.

(2016) stated,

It is clear that effective classroom management is so much more than just

rules, rewards and consequences, and that a mastery of classroom

management skills is not an end in itself. It is evident from both the research

and the standards that knowing and understanding young people, their needs

and underlying motivations for their behaviours will help to inform a teacher’s

instructional and behavioural approach to classroom management and should

therefore also inform initial teacher programs in their approaches to

effectively teaching classroom management (p.13).

These aspects are necessary for effective support of student behaviour, as are

knowledge and application of the dimensions of variation found in the holistic and

integrative categories from this study. Integration of these dimensions in preservice

and inservice teacher professional development and learning may have a favourable

effect on students’ social and emotional learning, and produce positive outcomes for

student and teacher well-being.

This thesis has made a methodological contribution to phenomenography. It has

detailed the pedagogical potential from the study for enhancing student behaviour

policy and approaches with student behaviour. It is hoped that the recommendations

from this chapter shift the way teachers, school leaders, policy makers and teacher

educators think about student behaviour and student behaviour approaches, to better

support Queensland’s youngest school-aged children.

Bibliography 255

Bibliography

Aguilar, P., & Retamal, G. (2009). Protective environments and quality education in

humanitarian contexts. International Journal of Educational Development,

29(1), 3-16. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.02.002

Åkerlind, G. (2005a). Academic growth and development: How do university

academics experience it? Higher Education, 50(1), 1-32.

Åkerlind, G. (2005b). Learning about phenomenography: Interviewing, data analysis

and the qualitative research paradigm. In J. A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.),

Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 63-73). Melbourne, VIC: RMIT

Publishing.

Åkerlind, G. (2005c). Phenomenographic methods: A case illustration. In J. A.

Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 103-

127). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.

Åkerlind, G. (2005d). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research

methods. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 321-334.

doi:10.1080/07294360500284672

Åkerlind, G., Bowden, J., & Green, P. (2005). Learning to do phenomenography: A

reflective discussion. In J. A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental

phenomenography (pp. 74-100). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.

Albany Creek State School. (2015). Albany Creek State School responsible behaviour

plan for students (pp. 1-22). Brisbane, Queensland: Albany Creek State School.

Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2006). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. (7th

ed.). New Jersey, USA: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Alter, P., Walker, J. N., & Landers, E. (2013). Teachers' perceptions of students'

challenging behavior and the impact of teacher demographics. Education &

Treatment of Children, 36(4), 51-69. doi:10.1353/etc.2013.0040

Angelides, P., & Mylordou, A. (2011). The beneficial outcome of a successful

mentoring relationship: the development of inclusive education. Teacher

Development, 15(4), 533-547. doi:10.1080/13664530.2011.642650

Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.). (1956). The individual psychology of

Alfred Adler. Great Britain: Basic Books.

Apple, M. (2012). Education and power. New York, USA: Taylor & Francis.

Arbuckle, C., & Little, E. (2004). Teachers' perceptions and management of disruptive

classroom behaviour during the middle years (years five to nine). Australian

Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 4(2004), 59-70.

256 Bibliography

Archambault, I., Vandenbossche-Makombo, J., & Fraser, S. L. (2017). Students'

oppositional behaviors and engagement in school: The differential role of the

student-teacher relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(6), 1702-

1712. doi:10.1007/s10826-017-0691-y

Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2014). Explicit instruction. New York, USA: Guilford

Publications.

Ashworth, P., & Lucas, U. (1998). What is the ‘world’ of phenomenography?

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 415-431.

doi:10.1080/0031383980420407

Ashworth, P., & Lucas, U. (2000). Achieving empathy and engagement: A practical

approach to the design, conduct and reporting of phenomenographic research.

Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 295-308.

doi:10.1080/03075070050193424

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012). The shape of the

australian curriculum. Version 4.0. Sydney, NSW: Australian Curriculum

Assessment and Reporting Authority.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2013). Student diversity

and the Australian curriculum: Advice for principals, schools and teachers.

Sydney, Australia: Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting

Authority.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). Australian

curriculum: Health and physical education. Retrieved from

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/health-and-physical-

education/curriculum/f-10?layout=1

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016a). The Australian

curriculum. Overview. Retrieved from

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016b). NAPLAN.

Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016c). Why NAP.

Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu.au/about/why-nap

Australian Education Union. (2008a). National educator survey 2008 results - Public

release summary. Retrieved from Southbank, Vic:

http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2009/Nesurvey08sum.pdf

Australian Education Union. (2008b). New educators survey 2008. Results and report.

Victoria, Australia: Australian Education Union.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2014). Australian

professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-

teachers/standards/list

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/health-and-physical-education/curriculum/f-10?layout=1

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/health-and-physical-education/curriculum/f-10?layout=1

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/

http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan

http://www.nap.edu.au/about/why-nap

http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2009/Nesurvey08sum.pdf

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list

Bibliography 257

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2016). Spotlight. What do

we know about early career teacher attrition rates in Australia? Retrieved

from Melbourne, Victoria: https://www.aitsl.edu.au/research/spotlight

Axup, T., & Gersch, I. (2008). The impact of challenging student behaviour upon

teachers' lives in a secondary school: teachers' perceptions. British Journal of

Special Education, 35(3), 144-151. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8578.2008.00388.x

Aydin, B., & Kaya, A. (2016). Sources of stress for teachers working in private

elementary schools and methods of coping with stress. Universal Journal of

Educational Research, 4(12), 186-195. doi:10.13189/ujer.2016.041324

Ball, S. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of

Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228. doi:10.1080/0268093022000043065

Ballantyne, R. (2005). The pedagogy page. The ACT Teacher, 8-9.

Balson, M. (1996). Understanding classroom behaviour (3rd ed.). Harts, England:

Arena.

Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behaviour modification. USA: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287. doi:10.1016/0749-

5978(91)90022-L

Barblett, L., Knaus, M., & Barratt-Pugh, C. (2016). The pushes and pulls of pedagogy

in the early years: Competing knowledges and the erosion of play-based

learning. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(4), 36-43.

Belt, A., & Belt, P. (2017). Teachers’ differing perceptions of classroom disturbances.

Educational Research, 59(1), 54-72. doi:10.1080/00131881.2016.1262747

Bergner, R. (2011). What is behavior? And so what? New Ideas in Psychology, 29,

147-155.

Berk, L. E. (2006). Child development (7th ed.). USA: Pearson International Edition.

Bertrand, Y. (1995). Contemporary theories and practice in education. Maddison:

Atwood Publishing.

Bethany Lutheran Primary School. (2017). Relational management and restorative

justice. Retrieved from https://www.bethany.qld.edu.au/education/relational-

management-and-restorative-justice

Betters-Bubon, J., Brunner, T., & Kansteiner, A. (2016). Success for all? The role of

the school counselor in creating and sustaining culturally responsive positive

behavior interventions and supports programs. Professional Counselor, 6(3),

263-277.

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/research/spotlight

https://www.bethany.qld.edu.au/education/relational-management-and-restorative-justice

https://www.bethany.qld.edu.au/education/relational-management-and-restorative-justice

258 Bibliography

Biemiller, A., & Meichenbaum, D. (1992). The nature and nurture of the self-directed

learner. Educational Leadership, 50, 75-80.

Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2015). School readiness and self-regulation: A

developmental psychobiological approach (Vol. 66, pp. 711-731). Palo Alto:

Annual Reviews.

Blundell, D. (2011, October 5). [2008-2010 Student disciplinary absences, incidents

and rates per 1000 prep year students per term].

Booth, P. (2012). The television social network: Exploring TV characters.

Communication Studies, 63(3), 309-327.

Booth, S. (2008). Researching learning in networked learning - Phenomenography

and variation theory as empirical and theoretical approaches. Paper presented

at the 6th International Conference on Networked Learning, United Kingdom.

Booth, S., & Ingerman, Å. (2002). Making sense of physics in the first year of study.

Learning and Instruction, 12(5), 493-507. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00028-

7

Boström, B., Sandh, M., Lundberg, D., & Fridlund, B. (2004). Cancer- related pain in

palliative care: Patients’ perceptions of pain management. Journal of advanced

nursing, 45(4), 410-419.

Bowden, J. (2000a). Experience of phenomenographic research: A personal account.

In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 47-61). Melbourne,

Vic: RMIT Publishing.

Bowden, J. (2000b). The nature of phenomenographic research. In J. A. Bowden & E.

Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 1-18). Melbourne, Vic: RMIT

Publishing.

Bowden, J. (2005). Reflections on the phenomenographic team research process. In J.

Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 11-

31). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University Press.

Bown, K. (2009). The policy paradox. Rattler 91(Spring), 26-28.

Bown, K. (2014). Insider perspectives on influence and decision making in the

Australian political sphere: A case study of national quality policy in ECEC

2006-09. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(4), 54-63.

Brackenreed, D., & Barnett, J. (2006). Teacher stress and inclusion: Perceptions of

pre-service teachers. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 34(1-2), 156-176.

Bradfield, L. (2011, 16 July 2017). Letters: Suspension proves ineffective. Retrieved

from http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/letters-suspension-proves-

ineffective/news-story/ea73cef7da6035c22ed5c4c52ccf4bf6

Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of

schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/letters-suspension-proves-ineffective/news-story/ea73cef7da6035c22ed5c4c52ccf4bf6


Bibliography 259

results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools.

Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(3), 133-148.

Breathnach, H., O'Gorman, L., & Danby, S. (2016). 'Well it depends on what you'd

call play': Parent perspectives on play in Queensland's Preparatory Year.

Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(2), 77-84.

Brill, A. A. (Ed.) (1938). The basic writings of Sigmund Freud. New York: Random

House.

Brophy, J. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classrooms and students.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 1-18. doi:10.1016/0742-

051X(88)90020-0

Broström, A., Strömberg, A., Dahlström, U., & Fridlund, B. (2001). Patients with

congestive heart failure and their conceptions of their sleep situation. Journal

of Advanced Nursing, 34(4), 520-529.

Brough, P., Morrow, R., & Harding, L. (2016). Supporting the educators:

Occupational stress and well-being across the teaching career span. Brisbane,

Queensland: Griffith University.

Bruce, C. S. (1999). Workplace experiences of information literacy. International

Journal of Information Management, 19(1), 33-47.

Bruce, M. (2015). Parents and experts say all work and no play behind soaring number

of prep suspensions. Retrieved from

http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/parents-and-experts-say-

all-work-and-no-play-behind-soaring-number-of-prep-suspensions/news-

story/9ca919c86cd804e767c8603ac60e1de7

Bryer, F., Beamish, W., Davies, M., Marshall, R., Wilson, L., & Caldwell, W. (2005).

The first step to school-wide positive behavioural support in a Queensland high

school: laying the foundation for participation. Special Education

Perspectives, 14(2), 26-45.

Buchanan, J. (2010). May I be excused? Why teachers leave the profession. Asia

Pacific Journal of Education, 30(2), 199-211.

Bullock, E., & Brownhill, S. (2011). A quick guide to behaviour management in the

early years. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Butler, A., & Monda-Amaya, L. (2016). Preservice Teachers' Perceptions of

Challenging Behavior. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(4), 276-

292.

Calabi, C. (1987). Husserl and intentionality: A study of mind, meaning, and language.

Topoi, 6(2), 139-142. doi:10.1007/bf00141770

Caloundra State School. (2017). Caloundra State School responsible behaviour plan

for students (pp. 1-28). Caloundra, Queensland: Caloundra State School.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/parents-and-experts-say-all-work-and-no-play-behind-soaring-number-of-prep-suspensions/news-story/9ca919c86cd804e767c8603ac60e1de7



260 Bibliography

Calvert, L. (2016). The power of teacher agency. Journal of Staff Development, 37(2),

51.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation:

A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 363-423.

Cannella, G. (2005). Reconceptualizing the field (of early childhood care and

education): If 'western' child development is a problem, then what do we do?

In N. Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood education (illustrat ed.).

New York, Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Canter, L. (2010). Assertive discipline: Positive behavior management for today's

classroom (4th ed.). USA: Solution Tree Press.

Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1976). Assertive discipline. A take charge approach for

today's educator. USA: Canter and Associates, Inc.

Caputi, M., Lecce, S., & Pagnin, A. (2017). The role of mother-child and teacher-child

relationship on academic achievement. European Journal of Developmental

Psychology, 14(2), 141-158. doi:10.1080/17405629.2016.1173538

Carter, D. R., Van Norman, R. K., & Tredwell, C. (2011). Program-wide positive

behavior support in preschool: Lessons for getting started. Early Childhood

Education Journal, 38(5), 349-355.

Centre for Community Child Health, & Telethon Institute for Child Health Research.

(2011). A snapshot of early childhood development in Australia. Australian

Early Development Idex (AEDI) National Report 2009. Re-issue-March 2011.

Parkville, Victoria: Australian Government Department of Education,

Employment and Workplace Relations Retrieved from

http://video.rch.org.au/aedi/National_Report-March_2011_Reissue_final.pdf.

Cerasoli, C., Nicklin, J., & Ford, M. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic

incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980-1008. doi:10.1037/a0035661

Chilcott, T. (2011a). Prep student suspensions double as out-of-control kids not

prepared for school. Retrieved from

http://www.couriermail.com.au/life/families/prep-student-suspensions-

double-as-out-of-control-kids-not-prepared-for-school/story-e6frer7o-

1226056369509

Chilcott, T. (2011b). Prep students suspended for violent behaviour. Retrieved from

http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/prep-student-suspensions-

double-as-out-of-control-kids-not-prepared-for-school/news-

story/68441d422dc048ff57dab6297b96ea18

Chilcott, T. (2011c, 16 May). Terror tots. The Courier Mail, pp. 1-2.

Christofferson, R. D., & Callahan, K. (2015). Positive behavior support in schools

(PBSIS): An administrative perspective on the implementation of a

http://video.rch.org.au/aedi/National_Report-March_2011_Reissue_final.pdf

http://www.couriermail.com.au/life/families/prep-student-suspensions-double-as-out-of-control-kids-not-prepared-for-school/story-e6frer7o-1226056369509



http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/prep-student-suspensions-double-as-out-of-control-kids-not-prepared-for-school/news-story/68441d422dc048ff57dab6297b96ea18



Bibliography 261

comprehensive school-wide intervention in an urban charter school. Education

Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, 2(2), 35-49.

Cleveland, D. (2010). Confronting pre-service teachers' stereotypes: The road to self-

awareness and self-reflection. National Forum of Applied Educational

Research Journal, 24(1/2), 73-84.

Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008). Self-reported and actual use of

proactive and reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship

with teacher stress and student behavior. Educational Psychology, 28(6), 693-

710. doi:10.1080/01443410802206700

Cole, P. (2012). Linking effective professional learning with effective teaching

practice. Victoria, Australia: Australian Institute for Teaching and School

Leadership & Education Services Australia.

Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning. (2017). CASEL.

Educating hearts. Inspiring minds. Retrieved from http://www.casel.org/

Collier-Reed, B., & Ingerman, Å. (Eds.). (2013). Phenomenography: From critical

aspects to knowledge claim (Vol. 9): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Conley, L., Marchant, M., & Caldarella, P. (2014). A comparison of teacher

perceptions and research-based categories of student behavior difficulties

Education, 134(4), 439-451.

Connor, J. (2012). Foundations for learning: Relationships between the Early Years

Learning Framework and the Australian Curriculum. AN ECA/ACARA

PAPER (pp. 1-36): Early Childhood Australia/Australian Curriculum

Assessment and Reporting Authority.

Cooley, A. (2013). Qualitative research in education: The origins, debates, and politics

of creating knowledge. Educational Studies: Journal of the American

Educational Studies Association, 49(3), 247-262.

doi:10.1080/00131946.2013.783834

Cope, C., & Ward, P. (2002). Integrating learning technology into classrooms: The

importance of teachers’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1),

67-74.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in

early childhood programs. Washington, USA: National Association for the

Education of Young Children.

Corey, G. (1996). Theory and practice of counselling and psychotherapy. (5th ed.).

USA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Council of Australian Governments. (2008). National partnership agreement on early

childhood education. Canberra, Australia: Council of Australian Governments

Retrieved from

http://www.coag.gov.au/intergov_agreements/federal_financial_relations/doc

http://www.casel.org/

http://www.coag.gov.au/intergov_agreements/federal_financial_relations/docs/national_partnership/national_partnership_on_early_childhood_education.pdf

262 Bibliography

s/national_partnership/national_partnership_on_early_childhood_education.p

df.

Council of Australian Governments. (2009). Investing in the early years: A national

early childhood development strategy. An initiative of the Council of

Australian Governments. ACT, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.

Retrieved from http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2009-07-

02/docs/national_ECD_strategy.pdf.

Council of Australian Governments. (2016). National partnership agreement on

universal access to early childhood education - 2016 and 2017. Retrieved

from http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/education.aspx.

Cowley, S. (2010). Getting the buggers to behave (4th ed.). London, UK: Continuum

International Publishing Group.

Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively different

experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learning and Instruction,

8(5), 455-468.

Crawshaw, M. (2015). Secondary school teachers' perceptions of student

misbehaviour: a review of international research, 1983-2013. Australian

Journal of Education, 59(3), 292-311.

Curtis, R., Van Horne, J. W., Robertson, P., & Karvonen, M. (2010). Outcomes of a

school-wide positive behavioral support program. Professional School

Counselling, 13(3), 159-164.

Curwin, R. L., Mendler, A. N., & Mendler, B. D. (2008). Discipline with dignity. New

challenges, new solutions (3rd ed.). USA: Assosiation for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Dahlgren, L. O., & Fallsberg, M. (1991). Phenomenography as a qualitative approach

in social pharmacy research. Journal of Social and Administrative Pharmacy,

8 (4), 150-156.

Dahlin, B. (2007). Enriching the theoretical horizons of phenomenography, variation

theory and learning studies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,

51(4), 327-346. doi:10.1080/00313830701485437

Dall'Alba, G., Walsh, E., Bowden, J., Martin, E., Marton, F., Masters, G., . . .

Stephanou, A. (1989). Assessing understanding: A phenomenographic

approach. Research in Science Education, 19(1), 57-66.

Dann, L. (2015). What’s the problem with time-out, anyway? Retrieved from

http://thespoke.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/whats-the-problem-with-time-

out-anyway/

De Gioia, K. (2013). Cultural negotiation: Moving beyond a cycle of misunderstanding

in early childhood settings. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 11(2), 108-

122.



http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2009-07-02/docs/national_ECD_strategy.pdf

http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2009-07-02/docs/national_ECD_strategy.pdf

http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/education.aspx

http://thespoke.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/whats-the-problem-with-time-out-anyway/

http://thespoke.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/whats-the-problem-with-time-out-anyway/

Bibliography 263

De Jong, T. (2003). Behaviour management in the middle years of schooling: What is

good practice? Australian Journal of Middle Schooling, 3(1), 1-8.

De Jong, T. (2005). Making the connections: Principles of good practice in student

behaviour management and the needs of young adolescents. Australian

Journal of Middle Schooling, 5(1), 5-9.

De Nobile, J., London, T., & El Baba, M. (2015). Whole school behaviour

management and perceptions of behaviour problems in Australian primary

schools. Management in Education, 29(4), 164-171.

doi:10.1177/0892020615589135

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic

motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational

Research, 71(1), 1.

DellaMattera, J. N. (2011). Perceptions of preservice early educators: How adults

support preschoolers' social development. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher

Education, 32(1), 26-38.

Denton, J. J., Davis, T. J., Smith, B. L., Beason, L., Strader, R. A., & eEducation

Group. (2005). The development and implementation of an online professional

development model for pre-service teacher education. Retrieved from

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/logi

n.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=ED503457&site=ehost

-live&scope=site

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2009). Effective schools

are engaging schools. Student engagement policy guidelines. Promoting

student engagement, attendance and positive behaviours in Victorian

government schools. Victoria, Australia: Student Wellbeing and Support

Division, Office of Government School Education, Department of Education

and Early Childhood Development. Retrieved from

http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/stuman/wellbeing/segpolicy.

pdf.

Department of Education and Training. (2010). Recognition and response (RnR)

information sheet. Brisbane, Australia: Department of Education and Training.

Retrieved from

http://education.qld.gov.au/students/disabilities/adjustment/pdfs/rnr_informati

on-sheet.pdf.

Department of Education and Training. (2011). A flying start for Queensland children.

Queensland Government Education White Paper. Brisbane, Australia:

Department of Education and Training. Retrieved from

http://deta.qld.gov.au/initiatives/flyingstart/pdfs/white-paper.pdf.

Department of Education and Training. (2014a). Data informed decision-making.

Retrieved from http://behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/positive-

behaviour/informed-decision-making/Pages/default.aspx

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=ED503457&site=ehost-live&scope=site



http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/stuman/wellbeing/segpolicy.pdf

http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/stuman/wellbeing/segpolicy.pdf

http://education.qld.gov.au/students/disabilities/adjustment/pdfs/rnr_information-sheet.pdf

http://education.qld.gov.au/students/disabilities/adjustment/pdfs/rnr_information-sheet.pdf

http://deta.qld.gov.au/initiatives/flyingstart/pdfs/white-paper.pdf

http://behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/positive-behaviour/informed-decision-making/Pages/default.aspx

http://behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/positive-behaviour/informed-decision-making/Pages/default.aspx

264 Bibliography

Department of Education and Training. (2014b). Template for a responsible behaviour

plan for students. Brisbane, Queensland: Education Queensland. Retrieved

from http://education.qld.gov.au/studentservices/behaviour/bm-plans.html.

Department of Education and Training. (2014c). A whole-school approach to support

student learning. Brisbane, Queensland: Department of Education and

Training.

Department of Education and Training. (2015a). Curriculum into the Classroom

(C2C). Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/c2c/

Department of Education and Training. (2015b). Foundation paper. Age-appropraite

pedagogies for the early years of schooling. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland

Government.

Department of Education and Training. (2015c, 14th October 2015). Positive

behaviour support. Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/asd-online-

resource-kit/schools/learning-environment/pbs.html

Department of Education and Training. (2016a). Australian early development census

national report 2015. A snapshot of early childhood development in Australia.

Canberra, Australia: Department of Education and Training Retrieved from

https://www.aedc.gov.au/resources/2015-aedc-results.

Department of Education and Training. (2016b). Effective teaching. Retrieved from

http://behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/positive-behaviour/effective-

teaching/Pages/default.aspx#skills

Department of Education and Training. (2016c). Every student succeeding: State

schools strategy 2017–2021. Brisbane, Queensland: Department of Education

and Training Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/about/state-

schools-strategy/index.html.

Department of Education and Training. (2016d). Professional development.

Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/actsmartbesafe/teachers/pd.html

Department of Education and Training. (2016e). Respectful relationships education

program. Retrieved from

http://education.qld.gov.au/parents/information/respectful-

relationships/index.html

Department of Education and Training. (2016f). Student engagement and retention

policy. (TASED-4-3059). Tasmania: Department of Education, Tasmanian

Government.

Department of Education and Training. (2016g, 7th March, 2016). Why adopt a

school-wide approach with PBL? Retrieved from

http://behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/positive-behaviour/whole-

school/Pages/why.aspx

Department of Education and Training. (2017a). Evidence framework. Brisbane,

Queensland: Department of Education and Training Retrieved from

http://education.qld.gov.au/studentservices/behaviour/bm-plans.html

http://education.qld.gov.au/c2c/

http://education.qld.gov.au/asd-online-resource-kit/schools/learning-environment/pbs.html

http://education.qld.gov.au/asd-online-resource-kit/schools/learning-environment/pbs.html

https://www.aedc.gov.au/resources/2015-aedc-results

http://behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/positive-behaviour/effective-teaching/Pages/default.aspx#skills

http://behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/positive-behaviour/effective-teaching/Pages/default.aspx#skills

http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/about/state-schools-strategy/index.html

http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/about/state-schools-strategy/index.html

http://education.qld.gov.au/actsmartbesafe/teachers/pd.html

http://education.qld.gov.au/parents/information/respectful-relationships/index.html

http://education.qld.gov.au/parents/information/respectful-relationships/index.html

http://behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/positive-behaviour/whole-school/Pages/why.aspx

http://behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/positive-behaviour/whole-school/Pages/why.aspx

Bibliography 265

https://det.qld.gov.au/publications/management-and-frameworks/evidence-

framework.

Department of Education and Training. (2017b). Find a school. Retrieved from

http://education.qld.gov.au/directory/schools/index.html

Department of Education and Training. (2017c). Inclusive education policy statement.

Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/inclusive/

Department of Education and Training. (2017d). OneSchool. Retrieved from

https://oneschool.eq.edu.au/Pages/default.aspx

Department of Education and Training. (2017e). Safe, supportive and disciplined

school environment. Brisbane, Australia: Department of Education, Training

and Employment Retrieved from

http://ppr.det.qld.gov.au/education/learning/Pages/Safe,-Supportive-and-

Disciplined-School-Environment.aspx.

Department of Education and Training. (2017f). The student engagement policy.

Retrieved from

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/studentmanagement/Pages/e

ngagepol.aspx

Department of Education and Training. (2017g). Universal access to kindergarten.

Retrieved from http://flyingstart.qld.gov.au/getting-ready-

school/Pages/access-to-kindy.aspx

Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations. (2009). Belonging,

being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia.

Canberra, A.C.T: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace

Relations for the Council of Australian Governments. Retrieved from

https://docs.education.gov.au/node/2632.

Department of Education Training and Employment. (2006). The code of school

behaviour. Better behaviour, better learning. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland

Government: Department of Education Training and Employment. Retrieved

from http://education.qld.gov.au/behaviour/code-behaviour.html.

Department of Education Training and Employment. (2008). Learning in prep.

Retrieved from

http://education.qld.gov.au/strategic/advice/earlychildhood/learninginprep.ht

ml

Department of Education Training and Employment. (2012). Learning and wellbeing

framework. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Government: Department of

Education Training and Employment Retrieved from

http://deta.qld.gov.au/initiatives/learningandwellbeing/.

Department of Education Training and Employment. (2013). Statement of expectations

for a disciplined school environment. Brisbane, Australia: Department of

Education Training and Employment Retrieved from

http://education.qld.gov.au/behaviour/statement-expectations.html.

https://det.qld.gov.au/publications/management-and-frameworks/evidence-framework

https://det.qld.gov.au/publications/management-and-frameworks/evidence-framework

http://education.qld.gov.au/directory/schools/index.html

http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/inclusive/

https://oneschool.eq.edu.au/Pages/default.aspx

http://ppr.det.qld.gov.au/education/learning/Pages/Safe,-Supportive-and-Disciplined-School-Environment.aspx

http://ppr.det.qld.gov.au/education/learning/Pages/Safe,-Supportive-and-Disciplined-School-Environment.aspx

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/studentmanagement/Pages/engagepol.aspx

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/studentmanagement/Pages/engagepol.aspx

http://flyingstart.qld.gov.au/getting-ready-school/Pages/access-to-kindy.aspx

http://flyingstart.qld.gov.au/getting-ready-school/Pages/access-to-kindy.aspx

https://docs.education.gov.au/node/2632

http://education.qld.gov.au/behaviour/code-behaviour.html

http://education.qld.gov.au/strategic/advice/earlychildhood/learninginprep.html

http://education.qld.gov.au/strategic/advice/earlychildhood/learninginprep.html

http://deta.qld.gov.au/initiatives/learningandwellbeing/

http://education.qld.gov.au/behaviour/statement-expectations.html

266 Bibliography

Department of Education Training and Employment. (2014). Performance insights:

School disciplinary absences. Retrieved from Brisbane, Australia:

http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/statistics/absences.html

Department of Education Training and Employment. (2015). Parent and community

engagement framework. Working together to maximise student learning.

Brisbane: Department of Education, Training and Employment.

Dewey, J. (2007). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of

education. USA: Nu Vision Publications, LLC.

Dix, K. L., Slee, P. T., Lawson, M. J., & Keeves, J. P. (2012). Implementation quality

of whole‐school mental health promotion and students’ academic performance.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 17(1), 45-51. doi:10.1111/j.1475-

3588.2011.00608.x

Doidge, D. (2005). When rewards don't reward. Education Horizons, 8(4), 7-8.

Domínguez, X., Vitiello, V. E., Fuccillo, J. M., Greenfield, D. B., & Bulotsky-Shearer,

R. J. (2011). The role of context in preschool learning: A multilevel

examination of the contribution of context-specific problem behaviors and

classroom process quality to low-income children's approaches to learning.

Journal of School Psychology, 49(2), 175-195. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.11.002

Donnelly, K., & Wiltshire, K. (2014). Review of the Australian Curriculum. Final

report. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Department of Education.

Dreikurs, R., Cassel, P., & Dreikurs Ferguson, E. (2004). Discipline without tears:

How to reduce conflict and establish cooperation in the classroom (Revised

ed.). Canada: John Wiley and Sons Canada, Ltd.

Dunlap, G., Strain, P. S., Fox, L., Carta, J. J., Conroy, M., Smith, B. J., . . . Sowell, C.

(2006). Prevention and intervention with young children's challenging

behavior: Perspectives regarding current knowledge. Behavioral Disorders,

32(1), 29-45.

Durlak, J., Dymnicki, A., Taylor, R., Weissberg, R., & Schellinger, K. (2011). The

impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis

of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432.

Dweck, C. (2016). The perils and promises of praise. In M. Scherer (Ed.), On formative

assessment: Readings from educational leadership (EL Essentials) (pp. 66-75).

Alexandria: ASCD.

Earl, L. M., & Timperley, H. (2008). Professional learning conversations: challenges

in using evidence for improvement (1. Aufl. ed. Vol. 1.). Dordrecht: Springer.

Early Childhood Australia. (2016). Code of ethics (pp. 1-2). ACT, Australia: Early

Childhood Australia.

http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/statistics/absences.html

Bibliography 267

Education Queensland. (2007a). Better behaviour better learning. Professional

development suite. Understanding behaviour in context. Module 1. Brisbane,

Queensland: Education Queensland.

Education Queensland. (2007b). Better behaviour, better learning. Essential skills for

classroom management. Core learning component. Brisbane, Qld: Education

Queensland Retrieved from

https://kawanawaterssc.eq.edu.au/.../Teacher%20and%20Learning/Essential

%20Skills...

Egeberg, H., McConney, A., & Price, A. (2016). Classroom management and national

professional standards for teachers: A review of the literature on theory and

practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 41(7), 1-18.

doi:10.14221/ajte.2016v41n7.1

Ekeblad, E., & Bond, C. (1994). The nature of a conception: questions of context.

Paper presented at the Phenomenography: Philosophy and Practice

Conference, Brisbane, Australia.

Elgán, C., & Fridlund, B. (2011). Middle-aged women and everyday life: Implications

for health. British Journal of Nursing, 20(9), 570-575.

Elias, M., & Arnold, H. (2006). The educator's guide to emotional intelligence and

academic achievement: social-emotional learning in the classroom. Thousand

Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press.

Ellis, A., & Joffe-Ellis, D. (2011). Rational emotive behavior therapy. Washington,

USA: American Psychological Association.

Ellis, S., & Tod, J. (2010). Providing for inclusion. In J. Arthur & T. Cremin (Eds.),

Learning to teach in the primary school. Abington, Oxon: Routlege.

Ennis, C. R., Blair, K.-S. C., & George, H. P. (2016). An evaluation of group

contingency interventions: The role of teacher preference. Journal of Positive

Behavior Interventions, 18(1), 17-28.

Fallon, L., McCarthy, S., & Sanetti, L. (2014). School-wide positive behavior support

(SWPBS) in the classroom: Assessing perceived challenges to consistent

implementation in Connecticut cchools. Education & Treatment of Children,

37(1), 1-24.

Ferguson, K., Frost, L., & Hall, D. (2012). Predicting teacher anxiety, depression and

job satisfaction. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 27-42.

Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senécal, C., & Austin, S. (2012). Predicting intraindividual

changes in teacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and

motivational factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1-12.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.013

Feuerborn, L. L., Wallace, C., & Tyre, A. D. (2016). A qualitative analysis of middle

and high school teacher perceptions of schoolwide positive behavior supports.


https://kawanawaterssc.eq.edu.au/.../Teacher%20and%20Learning/Essential%20Skills

https://kawanawaterssc.eq.edu.au/.../Teacher%20and%20Learning/Essential%20Skills

268 Bibliography

Fields, M. V., Perry, N. J., & Fields, D. M. (2010). Constructive guidance and

discipline: preschool and primary education (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson

Education Inc.

Flannery, K., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. (2009). School-wide positive behavior

support in high school: Early lessons learned. Journal of Positive Behavior

Interventions, 11(3), 177-185. doi:10.1177/1098300708316257

Fleer, M., Edwards, S., Hammer, M., Kennedy, A., Ridgway, A., Robbins, J., &

Surman, L. (2006). Early childhood learning communities. Sociocultural

research in practice. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

Flower, A., McKenna, J. W., & Haring, C. D. (2017). Behavior and classroom

management: Are teacher preparation programs really preparing our teachers?

Preventing School Failure, 61(2), 163-169.

Fox, J. L. (2006). A justification for mathematical modelling experiences in the

preparatory classroom. Paper presented at the 29th annual conference of the

Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Canberra, Australia.

Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the

concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.

doi:10.3102/00346543074001059

Gaedtke, L. (2010). Playing with the national curriculum. Educating Young Children,

16(2), 12-14.

Garcia, E., & Hoang, D. (2015). Positive behavior supports: Using class dojo as a

token economy point system to encourage and maintain good behaviors.

Retrieved from

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.

aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=ED561860&site=ehost-

live&scope=site

Gartrell, D. (2007). A guidance approach for the encouraging classroom (4th ed.).

Clifton Park: Thomson Delmar Learning.

Gartrell, D. (2011). A guidance approach for the encouraging classroom (5th ed.).

California, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Gartrell, D. (2014). A guidance approach for the encouraging classroom. (6th ed.).

USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning

Gebeke, D. (1996). The guidance approach to discipline. Retrieved from

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/famsci/fs468w.htm

Gillen, A., Wright, A., & Spink, L. (2011). Student perceptions of a positive climate

for learning: A case study. Educational Psychology in Practice., 27(1), 65 - 82.

Gillies, V. (2016). Pushed to the edge. Inclusion and behaviour support in schools.

Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=ED561860&site=ehost-live&scope=site



http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/famsci/fs468w.htm

Bibliography 269

Glasser, W. (1993). The quality school teacher. USA: HarperPerennial.

Glasser, W. (1998). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New

York, USA: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

Glasser, W. (2001). Choice theory in the classroom. (Revised ed.). USA: Quill.

Goddard, R., & Goddard, M. (2006). Beginning teacher burnout in Queensland

schools: Associations with serious intentions to leave. The Australian

Educational Researcher, 33(2), 61-75.

Gonzales, T. L. (2012). Child teacher relationship training as a head start early

mental health intervention for children exhibiting disruptive behavior.

ProQuest LLC. Retrieved from

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.

aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=ED550953&site=ehost-

live&scope=site http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-

2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&res_dat=xri:pqm&rft_d

at=xri:pqdiss:3538101 Available from EBSCOhost eric database.

González, T. (2012). Keeping kids in schools: Restorative justice, punitive discipline,

and the school to prison pipeline. Journal of Law & Education, 41(2), 281-335.

Gore, J., & Parkes, R. (2008). On the mistreatment of management. In A. Phelan & J.

Sumsion (Eds.), Critical readings in teacher education. Provoking absences

(pp. 45-60). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Goss, P., Sonnemann, J., & Griffiths, K. (2017). Engaging students: creating

classrooms that improve learning. (2017-01). Melbourne, Vic: Grattan

Institute.

Green, P. (2005). A rigorous journey into phenomenography: From a naturalistic

inquirer standpoint. In J. A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental

phenomenography (pp. 32-46). Melbourne, Vic: RMIT Publishing.

Greene, R. W. (2008). Lost at school: Why our kids with behavioral challenges are

falling through the cracks and how we can help them. New York: Scribner.

Grieve, A. M. (2009). Teachers' beliefs about inappropriate behaviour: Challenging

attitudes? Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), 173-179.

Gruber, H., & Voneche, J. (Eds.). (1977). The essential piaget. New York: Basic

Books.

Grunseit, A. C., Weatherburn, D., & Donnelly, N. (2005). School violence and its

antecedents: Interviews with high school students. Sydney, NSW: New South

Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Retrieved from

http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/r56.pdf/$

file/r56.pdf.

Gulley, N. (1954). Plato's theory of recollection. The Classical Quarterly, 4(3/4), 194-

213.




http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&res_dat=xri:pqm&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:3538101



http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/r56.pdf/$file/r56.pdf

http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/r56.pdf/$file/r56.pdf

270 Bibliography

Haimovitz, K., Wormington, S. V., & Corpus, J. H. (2011). Dangerous mindsets: How

beliefs about intelligence predict motivational change. Learning and Individual

Differences, 21(6), 747-752. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.09.002

Hard, L. M., & O'Gorman, L. M. (2007). 'Push-me' or 'pull-you'? An opportunity for

early childhood leadership in the implementation of Queensland's early years

curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(1), 50-60.

doi:10.2304/ceic.2007.8.1.50

Harris, L. (2008). A phenomenographic investigation of teacher conceptions of student

engagement in learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 57-79.

Harris, L. (2011). Phenomenographic perspectives on the structure of conceptions: The

origins, purposes, strengths, and limitations of the what/how and

referential/structural frameworks. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 109-

124. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.01.002

Harris, W. T. (Ed.) (1974). The education of man by Friedrich Froebel. New Jersey,

USA: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers.

Hassed, C., & Chambers, R. (2014). Mindful learning: reduce stress and improve

brain performance for effective learning. Wollombi, NSW: Exisle Publishing.

Hasselgren, B., & Beach, D. (1997). Phenomenography - a "good for nothing brother"

of phenomenology? Outline of an analysis. Higher Education Research and

Development, 16(2), 191-202.

Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference. What is the research evidence? Paper

presented at the ACER Conference, Melbourne, Australia.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational

Research, 77(1), 81-112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487

Heckman, J. J. (2011). The economics of inequality: The value of early childhood

education. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review,

77(4), 4.

Hidi, S. (2016). Revisiting the role of rewards in motivation and learning: Implications

of neuroscientific research. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 61-93.

doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9307-5

Hoffmann, K. F., Huff, J. D., Patterson, A. S., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Elementary

teachers' use and perception of rewards in the classroom. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 25(6), 843-849. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.004

Hollingshead, A., Kroeger, S. D., Altus, J., & Trytten, J. B. (2016). A case study of

positive behavior supports-based interventions in a seventh-grade urban

classroom. Preventing School Failure, 60(4), 1-8.

Hollingsworth, H., & Clarke, D. (2017). Video as a tool for focusing teacher self-

reflection: supporting and provoking teacher learning. Journal of Mathematics

Teacher Education, 20(5), 457-475. doi:10.1007/s10857-017-9380-4

Bibliography 271

Hook, P. (2014). Behaviour management pocketbook: 2nd Edition: Management

Pocketbooks.

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for

school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(8),

1-14.

Howard, J. (2005). Primary school educators' beliefs about suspension and exclusion

of students with challenging behaviours. (Doctor of Philosophy), Queensland

University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Hoyte, F., Torr, J., & Degotardi, S. (2014). The language of friendship: genre in the

conversations of preschool children. Journal of Early Childhood Research,

12(1), 20-34.

Hughes, J. N., Wu, W., & West, S. G. (2011). Teacher performance goal practices and

elementary students' behavioral engagement: A developmental perspective.

Journal of School Psychology, 49(1), 1-23. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.09.003

Hyson, M., & Taylor, J. L. (2011). Caring about caring: What adults can do to promote

young children's prosocial skills. Young Children, 66(4), 74-83.

Ingerman, Å. (2014). Collaborative meaning-making in group discussions: A

phenomenographic perspective. Paper presented at the EARLI SIG9

conference: Disciplinary Knowledge and Necessary Conditions of Learning,

Oxford.

Irvine, J. (2015). Enacting Glasser's (1998) choice theory in a grade 3 classroom: A

case study. Journal of Case Studies in Education, 7, 1-14.

Irvine, S. (2005). Parent conceptions of their role in early childhood education and

care: A phenomenographic study from Queensland, Australia. (PhD), QUT,

Brisbane.

Jackson, C., Simoncini, K., & Davidson, M. (2013). Classroom profiling training:

increasing preservice teachers' confidence and knowledge of classroom

management skills. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 38(8),

30-46.

Jones, C. (2004). Quantitative and qualitative research: Conflicting paradigms or

perfect partners? Paper presented at the Networked Learning 2004: A

Research Based Conference on E-Learning in Higher Education and Lifelong

Learning: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Networked

Learning., Lancaster, UK.

Julien, H. (2009). Content analysis. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of

qualitative research methods (pp. 121-123). Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Publications, Inc.

Jung, C. G. (2005). Modern man in search of a soul (C. F. Baynes, Trans.). Abingdon,

Oxon: Psychology Press.

272 Bibliography

Karaj, S., & Rapti, E. (2013). Teacher job stress in Albania: Examining the role of

students' classroom disruptive behaviour and other factors in the school

context. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 54, 14-21.

Karp, D. R., & Breslin, B. (2001). Restorative justice in school communities. Youth

and Society, 33(2), 249-272. doi:10.1177/0044118x01033002006

Katz, L. (1972). Perspectives on early childhood education: ERIC Clearinghouse.

Kelsey, J. (2011). The negative impact of rewards and ineffective praise on student

motivation. ESSAI, 8(1), 24.

KidsMatter. (2016). Mindfulness for children. Retrieved from

https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/mental-health-matters/mindfulness

KidsMatter. (2017a). About KidsMatter. Retrieved from

https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/about-kidsmatter

KidsMatter. (2017b). Social and emotional learning. Retrieved from

https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/mental-health-matters/social-and-emotional-

learning

KidsMatter. (2017c). Why a whole-school approach to social and emotional learning?

Retrieved from https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/primary/news/why-whole-

school-approach-social-and-emotional-learning

Kohn, A. (1996). Beyond discipline: from compliance to community. Alexandria:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: the trouble with gold stars, incentive plans,

A's, praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Kohn, A. (2001). Five reasons to stop saying "good job". Young Children, 56(5), 24-

30.

Kohn, A. (2006). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community, 10th

anniversary edition Retrieved from

http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=280293

Krieg, S., & Whitehead, K. (2015). Where are the early years of school in

contemporary early childhood education reforms? An historical perspective.

The Australian Educational Researcher, 42(3), 319-333. doi:10.1007/s13384-

014-0161-0

Kyriacou, C., & Ortega Martín, J. L. (2010). Beginning secondary school teachers’

perceptions of pupil misbehaviour in Spain. Teacher Development, 14(4), 415

- 426.

Langbroek, J.-P. (2013). Green light for tougher school discipline powers [Press

release]. Retrieved from

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2013/10/31/green-light-for-tougher-

school-discipline-powers

https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/mental-health-matters/mindfulness

https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/about-kidsmatter

https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/mental-health-matters/social-and-emotional-learning

https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/mental-health-matters/social-and-emotional-learning

https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/primary/news/why-whole-school-approach-social-and-emotional-learning

https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/primary/news/why-whole-school-approach-social-and-emotional-learning

http://qut.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=280293

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2013/10/31/green-light-for-tougher-school-discipline-powers

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2013/10/31/green-light-for-tougher-school-discipline-powers

Bibliography 273

Larsson, J., & Holmström, I. (2007). Phenomenographic or phenomenological

analysis: Does it matter? Examples from a study on anaesthesiologists' work.

International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 2(1),

55-64.

Lawson, K. (2011, 16 July 2017). Letters: Suspension proves ineffective. Retrieved


ineffective/news-story/ea73cef7da6035c22ed5c4c52ccf4bf6

Leland, M. (2015). Mindfulness and student success. Journal of Adult Education,

44(1), 19-24.

Liberante, L. (2012). The importance of teacher–student relationships, as explored

through the lens of the NSW Quality Teaching Model. Journal of Student

Engagement: Education Matters, 2(1), 2-9.

Liljequist, L., & Renk, K. (2007). The relationships among teachers' perceptions of

student behaviour, teachers' characteristics, and ratings of students' emotional

and behavioural problems. Educational Psychology, 27(4), 557-571.

Limberg, L. (2008). Phenomenography. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of

Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 612-615). Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Publications, Inc.

Lin-Siegler, X., Dweck, C. S., & Cohen, G. L. (2016). Instructional interventions that

motivate classroom learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 295-

299. doi:10.1037/edu0000124

Linder, C., & Erickson, G. (1989). A study of tertiary physics students’

conceptualizations of sound. International Journal of Science Education,

11(5), 491-501.

Linke, P. (2011). Social and emotional learning as a basis for curriculum. Every Child,

17, 1-2.

Loughland, T., Reid, A., & Petocz, P. (2002). Young people's conceptions of

environment: A phenomenographic analysis. Environmental Education

Research, 8(2), 187-197.

Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., & Feinberg, A. B. (2005). Whole school

positive behaviour support: Effects on student discipline problems and

academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25(2-3), 183-198.

Luke, A. (2010). Will the Australian curriculum up the intellectual ante in primary

classrooms? Curriculum Perspectives, 30(3), 59.

Luke, A. (2014). On explicit and direct instruction. ALEA Hot Topic(May), 1-4.

Lyons, G., Ford, M., & Aurthur-Kelly, M. (2011). Classroom management. Creating

positive learning environments (3rd ed.). Victoria, Australia: Cengage

Learning Australia.



274 Bibliography

Maguire, M., Ball, S., & Braun, A. (2010). Behaviour, classroom management and

student 'control': enacting policy in the English secondary school. International

Studies in Sociology of Education, 20(2), 153-170.

doi:10.1080/09620214.2010.503066

Maleny State School. (2017). Schoolwide positive behaviour support. Retrieved from

https://malenyss.eq.edu.au/Supportandresources/Behaviourmanagement/Page

s/Behaviourmanagement.aspx

Malmqvist, J. (2016). Working successfully towards inclusion - or excluding pupils?

A comparative retroductive study of three similar schools in their work with

EBD. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 21(4), 344-360.

doi:10.1080/13632752.2016.1201637

Manly State School. (2013). Manly State School responsible behaviour plan for

students (pp. 1-27). Brisbane, Queensland: Manly State School.

Manouselis, N., Vuorikari, R., & Van Assche, F. (2010). Collaborative

recommendation of e-learning resources: An experimental investigation.

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4), 227-242.

Mariani, M., Webb, L., Villares, E., & Brigman, G. (2015). Effect of participation in

student success skills on prosocial and bullying behavior. Professional

Counselor, 5(3), 341-353.

Marion, M. (2007). Guidance of young children (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson

Education Inc.

Marquez, B., Vincent, C., Marquez, J., Pennefather, J., Smolkowski, K., & Sprague,

J. (2016). Opportunities and Challenges in Training Elementary School

Teachers in Classroom Management: Initial Results from Classroom

Management in Action, an Online Professional Development Program.

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 24(1), 87-109.

Martella, R. C., Newlson, J. R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2003). Managing

disruptive behaviours in schools. A schoolwide, classroom, and individualized

social learning approach. USA: Pearson Education.

Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography- describing conceptions of the world around us.

Instructional Science, 10(2), 177-200. doi:10.1007/bf00132516

Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach investigating different

understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28-49.

Marton, F. (2015). Necessary conditions of learning. New York, USA: Routledge.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence

Erlbaum and Associates.

Marton, F., Carlsson, M., & Halasz, L. (1992). Differences in understanding and the

use of reflective learning in reading. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 62(1), 1-16.

https://malenyss.eq.edu.au/Supportandresources/Behaviourmanagement/Pages/Behaviourmanagement.aspx

https://malenyss.eq.edu.au/Supportandresources/Behaviourmanagement/Pages/Behaviourmanagement.aspx

Bibliography 275

Marton, F., & Pong, W. Y. (2005). On the unit of description in phenomenography.

Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 335-348.

doi:10.1080/07294360500284706

Martyn-Jones, L. (2016). Queensland schools: Move away from play-based learning

adding to children and parents’ anxiety. Retrieved from

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-schools-move-

away-from-playbased-learning-adding-to-children-and-parents-anxiety/news-

story/9a209e641be914cec48084d946bcdace

Marzano, R. (2016). The new art and science of teaching: More than fifty new

instructional strategies for academic success (1 ed.). Bloomington, Indiana:

Solution Tree Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4),

370.

Maynard, B., Solis, M., Miller, V., & Brendel, K. (2017). Mindfulness-based

interventions for improving cognition, academic achievement, behavior, and

socioemotional functioning of primary and secondary school students.

Campbell systematic reviews 2017:5 (1891-1803). Retrieved from

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/logi

n.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=ED573474&site=ehost

-live&scope=site

McClelland, M., Cameron, C., Duncan, R., Bowles, R., Acock, A., Miao, A., & Pratt,

M. (2014). Predictors of early growth in academic achievement: the head-toes-

knees-shoulders task. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 599.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00599

McCombs, B. L. (1997). Self-assessment and reflection: Tools for promoting teacher

changes toward learner-centered practices. NASSP Bulletin, 81(587), 1-14.

McCready, L. T., & Soloway, G. B. (2010). Teachers' perceptions of challenging

student behaviours in model inner city schools. Emotional and Behavioural

Difficulties, 15(2), 111-123.

McIntosh, K., Predy, L., Upreti, G., Hume, A., Turri, M., & Mathews, S. (2014).

Perceptions of contextual features related to implementation and sustainability

of school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior

Interventions, 16(1), 31-43. doi:10.1177/1098300712470723

McKenzie, P., Weldon, P., Rowley, G., Murphy, M., & McMillan, J. (2014). Staff in

Australia’s schools 2013: Main report on the survey. Canberra, Australia:

Australian Council for Educational Research.

McKissick, C., Hawkins, R., Lentz, F., Hailley, J., & McGuire, S. (2010).

Randomizing multiple contingency components to decrease disruptive

behaviors and increase student engagement in an urban second-grade

classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 47(9), 944-959.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-schools-move-away-from-playbased-learning-adding-to-children-and-parents-anxiety/news-story/9a209e641be914cec48084d946bcdace






276 Bibliography

McMullen, F., & Madelaine, A. (2014). Why is there so much resistance to direct

instruction? Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 19(2), 137-151.

doi:10.1080/19404158.2014.962065

McQueen, J. (2011, 16 July 2017). Letters: Suspension proves ineffective. Retrieved


ineffective/story-e6freomx-1226057000194

Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification. An integrative approach.

New York, USA: Plenum Press.

Millei, Z. (2011). Thinking differently about guidance: power, children's autonomy

and democratic environments. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 10(1),

88-99. doi:10.1177/1476718x11406243

Miller, D. F. (2007). Positive child guidance (5th ed.). Belmont, California: Delmar,

Cengage Learning.

Ministerial Advisory Committee for Educational Renewal. (2005). Smart schools,

smart behaviour. Advice to the Minister on behaviour management in

Queensland schools. Brisbane, Australia: Department of Education and the

Arts. Retrieved from

http://education.qld.gov.au/publication/production/reports/pdfs/macer-report-

05.pdf.

Ministerial Council for Education Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs.

(2011). National safe schools framework. Resource manual. Victoria,

Australia: Education Services Australia Retrieved from

https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/national-safe-schools-framework-

resource-manual.

Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs. (2008).

Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians.

Melbourne: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and

Youth Affairs. Retrieved from

http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the

_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf.

Moberly, D. A., Waddle, J. L., & Duff, R. E. (2005). The use of rewards and

punishment in early childhood classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood

Teacher Education, 25(4), 359-366. doi:10.1080/1090102050250410

Monaghan, C. (2016). Differentiation is responsive teaching. Prime Number, 31(3),

10-11.

Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori method (A. E. George, Trans.). New York,

USA: Frederick A. Stokes Company.

Montroy, J., Bowles, R., Skibbe, L., & Foster, T. (2014). Social skills and problem

behaviors as mediators of the relationship between behavioral self-regulation

and academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(3), 298-

309. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.03.002

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/letters-suspension-proves-ineffective/story-e6freomx-1226057000194

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/letters-suspension-proves-ineffective/story-e6freomx-1226057000194

http://education.qld.gov.au/publication/production/reports/pdfs/macer-report-05.pdf

http://education.qld.gov.au/publication/production/reports/pdfs/macer-report-05.pdf

https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/national-safe-schools-framework-resource-manual

https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/national-safe-schools-framework-resource-manual

http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

Bibliography 277

Montroy, J., Bowles, R., Skibbe, L., McClelland, M., & Morrison, F. (2016). The

development of self-regulation across early childhood. Developmental

Psychology, 52(11), 1744-1762. doi:10.1037/dev0000159

Mooney, M., Dobia, B., Yeung, A., Barker, K., Power, A., Watson, K., & Yeung, A.

S. (2008). Positive behaviour for learning: Investigating the transfer of a

united states system into the new south wales department of education and

training western sydney region schools: Report. Retrieved from Sydney,

Australia: http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/19702

Moore, T. (2006). Early childhood and long term development: The importance of the

early years (pp. 1-22). Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Community Child

Health, Murdoch Children’s Research Centre.

Morgan, H. (Ed.) (2007). Early childhood education. History, theory, and practice.

Maryland, USA: Rowman and Littlefield Education.

Murray, D., Rosanbalm, K., & Christopoulos, C. (2016). Self-regulation and toxic

stress report 4: Implications for programs and practice. OPRE Report #2015-

97 Retrieved from Washington, USA: fpg.unc.edu/news/federal-report-

recommends-teaching-self-regulation-schools

Muscott, H. S., Szczesiul, S., Berk, B., Staub, K., Hoover, J., & Perry-Chisholm, P.

(2008). Creating home-school partnerships by engaging families in schoolwide

positive behavior supports. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(6), 6-14.

Mustard, F. (2008). Investing in the early years: Closing the gap between what we

know and what we do. Adelaide, SA: Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Position statement:

Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving

children from birth through age 8 (pp. 1-32). Washington, USA: National

Association for the Education of Young Children.

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, &

Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. (2015). National statement on

ethical conduct in human research 2007. Canberra, ACT: National Health and

Medical Research Council Retrieved from

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e72.pdf.

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, &

Universities Australia. (2007). Australian code for the responsible conduct of

research. ACT, Canberra: Australian Government. Retrieved from

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf.

Network, R. C. (2016). Using time-out to guide your child’s behaviour. Retrieved

from http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/using_time-

out_to_guide_your_childs_behaviour.html

Nichols, S., & Parsons, J. (2011). Dewey’s dream of democracy for teachers. New

Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 8(1), 47-54.

http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/19702

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e72.pdf

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf

http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/using_time-out_to_guide_your_childs_behaviour.html

http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/using_time-out_to_guide_your_childs_behaviour.html

278 Bibliography

Nores, M., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Benefits of early childhood interventions across

the world: (Under) Investing in the very young. Economics of Education

Review, 29(2), 271-282. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.09.001

Nundah State School. (2016). Nundah State School responsible behaviour plan for

students. Brisbane, Queensland: Nundah State School.

O'Gorman, L. (2007). An even better start?: Parent conceptions of the preparatory

year in a non-government school in Queensland. (PhD), QUT, Brisbane.

O'Gorman, L., & Ailwood, J. (2012). 'They get fed up with playing' : parents' views

on play-based learning in the preparatory year. Contemporary Issues in Early

Childhood, 13(4), 266-275.

O'Gorman, L., & Hard, L. (2013). Looking back and looking forward: exploring

distributed leadership with Queensland Prep teachers. Australasian Journal of

Early Childhood, 38(3), 77-84.

O'Neill, S. C., & Stephenson, J. (2014). Evidence-based classroom and behaviour

management content in Australian pre-service primary teachers' coursework:

Wherefore art thou? Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 39(4),

1-22. doi:10.14221/ajte.2014v39n4.4

OECD. (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD

Publishing.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2017).

Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx

Opdenakker, M., Maulana, R., & Den Brok, P. (2012). Teacher-student interpersonal

relationships and academic motivation within one school year: Developmental

changes and linkage. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(1), 95-

119.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Early childhood

education and care. Education today 2010: The OECD perspective (pp. 11-16).

Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). New insights from

TALIS 2013. Teaching and learning in primary and upper secondary

education. Teaching and Learning International Study. Paris, France: OECD

Publishing.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Starting strong

IV: Monitoring quality in early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD

Publishing.

Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (2015). Skills for Social

Progress: The Power of Social and Emotional Skills OECD Skills Studies:

OECD Publishing.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx

Bibliography 279

Orsati, F. T., & Causton-Theoharis, J. (2013). Challenging control: Inclusive teachers

and teaching assistants discourse on students with challenging behaviour.

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(5), 507-525.

doi:10.1080/13603116.2012.689016

Overton, J. (2009). Early childhood teachers in contexts of power: Empowerment and

a voice. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(2), 1-10.

Overton, L., & Sullivan, A. M. (2008). Non-compliance in a democratic classroom: Is

it prevalent? Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in

Education International Education Research Conference, Brisbane, Australia.

http://ocs.sfu.ca/aare/index.php/AARE_2008/AARE/paper/viewFile/528/277

http://www.aare.edu.au/08pap/ove08528.pdf

Pakarinen, E., Kiuru, N., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Poikkeus, A.-M., Ahonen, T., & Nurmi,

J.-E. (2011). Instructional support predicts children's task avoidance in

kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(3), 376-386.

doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.11.003

Palardy, J. M. (1996). Taking another look at behavior modification and assertive

discipline. NASSP Bulletin, 80(581), 66-70.

doi:10.1177/019263659608058118

Palaszczuk, A., & Jones, K. (2016). Prep year now compulsory in Queensland.

Retrieved from http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2016/9/1/prep-year-

now-compulsory-in-queensland

Paley, J. (2008). Empiricism. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative

research methods (pp. 256-262). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Pane, D., & Rocco, T. (2014). Transforming the school-to-prison pipeline: lessons

from the classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.

Pang, M. (2003). Two faces of variation: On continuity in the phenomenographic

movement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 145-156.

Patrick, K. (2000). Exploring conceptions: Phenomenography and the object of study.

In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 117-136).

Melbourne: RMIT Publishing.

Payton, J., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger,

K. B., & Pachan, M. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional

learning for kindergarten to eighth-grade students. Technical report. Findings

from three scientific reviews. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social,

and Emotional Learning.

Peguero, A., & Bracy, N. (2015). School order, justice, and education: Climate,

discipline practices, and dropping out. Journal of Research on Adolescence,

25(3), 412-426. doi:10.1111/jora.12138

Peters, J. H. (2012). Are they ready? Final year pre-service teachers' learning about

managing student behaviour. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(9).

http://ocs.sfu.ca/aare/index.php/AARE_2008/AARE/paper/viewFile/528/277

http://www.aare.edu.au/08pap/ove08528.pdf

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2016/9/1/prep-year-now-compulsory-in-queensland


280 Bibliography

Petriwskyj, A., Thorpe, K., & Tayler, C. (2014). Towards inclusion: provision for

diversity in the transition to school. International Journal of Early Years

Education, 22(4), 359-379. doi:10.1080/09669760.2014.911078

Pioneer State High School. (2013). Teaching and learning at Pioneer: Our school-

wide pedagogical framework. Mackay, Queensland: Pioneer State High

School.

Polat, S., Kaya, S., & Akdag, M. (2013). Investigating pre-service teachers' beliefs

about classroom discipline. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2),

885-890.

Porter, L. (2004). Principles of guiding children's behaviour. Rattler, 69, 13-16.

Porter, L. (2006). Student behaviour: Theory and practice for teachers. Crows Nest,

NSW: Allen and Unwin.

Porter, L. (2014). A comprehensive guide to classroom management. Facilitating

engagement and learning in schools. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Poulou, M. S. (2009). Classroom interactions: Teachers' and students' perceptions.

Research in Education, 82(1), 103-106.

Powell, R., McIntyre, E., & Rightmyer, E. (2006). Johnny won't read, and Susie won't

either: Reading instrcution and student resistance. Journal of Early Childhood

Literacy, 6(1), 5-31. doi:10.1177/1468798406062172

Pramling, I. (1983). The child's conception of learning Goteborg: Acta Universitatis

Gothoburgensis.

Prosser, M. (1993). Phenomenography and the principles and practices of learning.

Higher Education Research and Development, 12(1), 21-31.

Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of

academics' conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and

Instruction, 4(3), 217-231.

Queensland Audit Office. (2016). Early childhood education: Report 19: 2015–16.

Brisbane, Queensland: Queensland Audit Office.

Queensland College of Teachers. (2013). Attrition of recent Queensland graduate

teachers. Retrieved from Brisbane, Australia:

http://www.qct.edu.au/about/research-reports

Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2017). Catering for diversity.

Retrieved from https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/p-10/catering-diversity

Queensland Department of Education, & Richmond, C. (1996). Behaviour

management skill training handbook. Brisbane, Queensland: Queensland

Department of Education.

http://www.qct.edu.au/about/research-reports

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/p-10/catering-diversity

Bibliography 281

Queensland Government. (2002). Queensland the smart state - Education and training

reforms for the future: A white paper. Brisbane, Australia: The State of

Queensland.

Queensland Government. (2017a). Disciplinary absences by demographic. Brisbane,

Queensland: Queensland Government Retrieved from

https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/school-disciplinary-

absences/resource/47d1e40b-8483-4e82-849a-6b18c790e269.

Queensland Government. (2017b). Enrolment age requirements. Retrieved from

https://www.qld.gov.au/education/schools/find/enrolment/pages/age

Queensland Government. (2017c). Prep enrolments. Retrieved from

https://www.qld.gov.au/education/earlychildhood/prep/pages/enrolments

Queensland Studies Authority. (2006). Early years curriculum guidelines. Spring Hill,

Queensland: Queensland Studies Authority. Retrieved from

http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/early_middle/ey_cg_06.pdf.

Queensland Studies Authority. (2009). Student assessment regimes: Getting the

balance right for Australia. A draft discussion paper. Brisbane, Australia:

Queensland Studies Authority. Retrieved from

http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/publications/qsa_paper_assess_balance

_aust.pdf.

Quin, D. (2017). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher-student

relationships and student engagement: A systematic review. Review of

Educational Research, 87(2), 345-387.

Rainworth State School. (2012). Rainworth state school responsible behaviour plan

for students (pp. 1-14). Brisbane, Queensland: Rainworth State School.

Ramos, F. (2012). Steering a drifting ship: Improving the preparation of first-year

catholic school teachers through self-reflection. Patroneando un barco a la

deriva: Mejorando la preparación de los maestros de los colegios católicos

durante el primer año a través de la autorreflexión.(22), 73-91.

Ramritu, P. L., & Barnard, A. (2001). New nurse graduates' understanding of

competence. International Nursing Review, 48(1), 47-57.

Ravet, J. (2007a). Are we listening? Making sense of classroom behaviour with pupils

and parents. Stoke-on-Trent, England: Trentham Books.

Ravet, J. (2007b). Making sense of disengagement in the primary classroom: A study

of pupil, teacher and parent perceptions. Research Papers in Education, 22(3),

333-362.

Ravi Babu, M. (2014). Building teacher student relationship through positive

discipline. Integrated Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 24-27.

Reese, S. (2010). Bringing effective professional development to educators.

Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 85(6), 38-43.

https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/school-disciplinary-absences/resource/47d1e40b-8483-4e82-849a-6b18c790e269

https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/school-disciplinary-absences/resource/47d1e40b-8483-4e82-849a-6b18c790e269

https://www.qld.gov.au/education/schools/find/enrolment/pages/age

https://www.qld.gov.au/education/earlychildhood/prep/pages/enrolments

http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/early_middle/ey_cg_06.pdf

http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/publications/qsa_paper_assess_balance_aust.pdf

http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/publications/qsa_paper_assess_balance_aust.pdf

282 Bibliography

Reid, A. (2014). Decisions about teaching methods should be made by educators not

politicians. Retrieved from https://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?p=221

Reynolds, K., Stephenson, J., & Beaman, R. (2011). Teacher perceptions of non-

compliance in rural primary schools in New South Wales. Education in Rural

Australia, 21(2), 105-124.

Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research.

Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 53-82.

doi:10.3102/00346543069001053

Rigoni, D., & Walford, G. (1998). Questioning the quick fix: assertive discipline and

the 1991 Education White Paper. Journal of Education Policy, 13(3), 443-452.

doi:10.1080/0268093980130310

Rimm-Kaufman, S., Curby, T., Grimm, K., Nathanson, L., & Brock, L. (2009). The

contribution of children’s self-regulation and classroom quality to children’s

adaptive behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Developmental Psychology,

45(4), 958-972. doi:10.1037/a0015861

Rimm Kaufman, S., La Paro, K., Downer, J., & Pianta, R. (2005). The contribution of

classroom setting and quality of instruction to children’s behavior in

kindergarten classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 105(4), 377-394.

Roache, J. (2008). Teacher stress and discipline strategies. Principal Matters(77), 41-

44.

Roache, J., & Lewis, R. (2011a). The carrot, the stick, or the relationship: What are

the effective disciplinary strategies? European Journal of Teacher Education,

34(2), 233-248.

Roache, J., & Lewis, R. (2011b). Teachers' views on the impact of classroom

management on student responsibility. Australian Journal of Education, 55(2),

132-146.

Roberts-Holmes, G., & Bradbury, A. (2016). The datafication of early years education

and its impact upon pedagogy. Improving Schools, 19(2), 119-128.

doi:10.1177/1365480216651519

Robinson, G., & Maines, B. (1994). Who manages pupil behaviour? Assertive

discipline-a blunt instrument for a fine task. Pastoral Care in Education, 12(3),

30-35. doi:10.1080/02643949409470884

Roffey, S. (2012). Pupil wellbeing-teacher wellbeing: Two sides of the same coin?

Educational and Child Psychology, 29(4), 8-17.

Rogers, B., & McPherson, E. (2009). Critical first steps. Behaviour management in

the early years. Victoria, Australia: Curriculum Corporation.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, USA:

Oxford University Press.

https://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?p=221

Bibliography 283

Roopnarine, J. L., & Johnson, J. E. (2005). Approaches to early childhood education

(4 ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education

Roorda, D., Helma, M., Spilt, J., & Oort, F. (2011). The influence of affective teacher-

student relationships on students' school engagement and achievement: A

meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493-529.

doi:10.3102/0034654311421793

Rosas, C., & West, M. (2009). Teachers beliefs about classroom management: pre-

service and inservice teachers' beliefs about classroom management.

International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 5(1), 54.

Rovio-Johansson, A., & Ingerman, Å. (2016). Continuity and development in the

phenomenography and variation theory tradition. Scandinavian Journal of

Educational Research, 60(3), 257-271. doi:10.1080/00313831.2016.1148074

Ryan, S., & Grieshaber, S. (2005). Shifting from developmental to postmodern

practices in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,

56(1), 34-45. doi:10.1177/0022487104272057

Sailor, W., Stowe, M. J., Turnbull, H. R., & Kleinhammer-Tramill, P. J. (2007). A case

for adding a social-behavioral standard to standards-based education with

schoolwide positive behavior support as its basis. Remedial and Special

Education, 28(6), 366-376.

Säljö, R. (1997). Talk as data and practice - a critical look at phenomenographic

inquiry and the appeal to experience. Higher Education Research &

Development, 16(2), 173-190. doi:10.1080/0729436970160205

Samples, J. (2010). Family engagement in learning works. Professional Voice, 8(2),

27-30.

Sandberg, J. (1994). Human competence at work: An interpretivist approach.

Goteborg University, Sweden Bas.

Sandberg, J. (1997). Are phenomenographic results reliable? Higher Education

Research & Development, 16(2), 203-212.

Sandholtz, J. H. (2011). Preservice teachers' conceptions of effective and ineffective

teaching practices. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(3), 27-47.

Schaubman, A., Stetson, E., & Plog, A. (2011). Reducing teacher stress by

implementing collaborative problem solving in a school setting. School Social

Work Journal, 35(2), 72-92.

Schröder, A., Ahlström, G., & Larsson, B. W. (2005). Patients’ perceptions of the

concept of the quality of care in the psychiatric setting: A phenomenographic

study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 15(1), 93-102.

Scrivener, J., & Thornbury, S. (2012). Classroom management techniques: Cambridge

University Press.

284 Bibliography

Shaddock, A., Neill, J., Limbeek, V., & Hoffman-Raap. (2007). What adaptations do

classroom teachers make for students with disabilities in their classrooms and

why/why not? A project to improve the learning outcomes of students with

disabilities in the early, middle and post compulsory years of schooling. Part

1: Research objectives, methodology, analyses, outcomes and findings, and

implications for classroom practice (pp. 1-322). Canberra: Australian

Government Department of Education, Science & Training.

Shaddock, A., Nielsen, T., Giorcelli, L., Kilham, C., & Hoffman-Raap. (2007). What

are the critical factors in ensuring successful collaboration between mainstream

teachers and teaching assistants? A project to improve the learning outcomes

of students with disabilities in the early, middle and post compulsory years of

schooling. Part 1: Research objectives, methodology, analyses, outcomes and

findings, and implications for classroom practice (pp. 209-259). Canberra:

Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training.

Shaddock, A., Packer, S., & Roy, A. (2015). Schools for all children and young people.

Report of the expert panel on students with complex needs and challenging

behaviour. ACT, Australia: Australian Capital Territory Education and

Training Directorate, Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn & Association of

Independent Schools of the ACT.

Shen, J., Zhang, N., Zhang, C., Caldarella, P., Richardson, M. J., & Shatzer, R. H.

(2009). Chinese elementary school teachers' perceptions of students' classroom

behaviour problems. Educational Psychology, 29(2), 187-201.

Shiller, V., O'Flynn, J., Reineke, J., Sonsteng, K., & Gartrell, D. (2008). Should

rewards have a place in early childhood programs? Young Children, 63(6), 88.

Shillingford, M. A., & Edwards, O. W. (2008). Professional school counselors using

choice theory to meet the needs of children of prisoners. Professional School

Counseling, 12(1), 62-65. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-12.62

Shin, A. M. (2015). The Australian national curriculum: An early childhood

perspective. Professional Educator, 14(1), 11-13.

Shumate, E. D., & Wills, H. P. (2010). Classroom-based functional analysis and

intervention for disruptive and off-task behaviors. Education and Treatment of

Children, 33(1), 23-48.

Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. London, England: Penguin Group.

Slavin, R. E. (2009). Educational psychology. Theory and practice. (9th ed.). New

Jersey, USA: Pearson Education.

Slee, P., Lawson, M., Russell, A., Askell-Williams, H., Dix, K., Owens, L., . . . Spears,

B. (2009). KidsMatter primary evaluation final report. South Australia:

Flinders University of South Australia.

Slee, R. (2014). Discourses of inclusion and exclusion: Drawing wider margins. Power

and Education, 6(1), 7-17. doi:10.2304/power.2014.6.1.7

Bibliography 285

Smit, J., van Eerde, H. A. A., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole-class

scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817-834.

doi:10.1002/berj.3007

Smith, A., Guzman-Alvarez, A., Westover, T., Keller, S., & Fuller, S. (2012). Mindful

schools program evaluation. California, USA: University of California at

Davis: Center for Education and Evaluation Services.

Sonter, L. J. (2014). Challenges to play in Queensland prep classrooms. Every Child,

20(1), 26-27.

Spivak, A., & Farran, D. (2012). First-grade teacher behaviors and children's prosocial

actions in classrooms. Early Education & Development, 23(5), 623-639.

doi:10.1080/10409289.2011.566164

Spooner-Lane, R. (2017). Mentoring beginning teachers in primary schools: research

review. Professional Development in Education, 43(2), 253-273.

doi:10.1080/19415257.2016.1148624

Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood. (2013). National safe

schools framework. All australian schools are safe, supportive and respectful

teaching and learning communities that promote student wellbeing. Victoria,

Australia: Education Services Australia. Retrieved from

www.safeschoolshub.edu.au.

Stansberry-Brusnahan, L., & Neilsen-Gatti, S. (2009). Schoolwide positive behavior

supports: Empowering parents to participate fully. Exceptional Parent, 39, 3.

Stanton-Chapman, T. L., Walker, V. L., Voorhees, M. D., & Snell, M. E. (2016). The

evaluation of a three-tier model of positive behavior interventions and supports

for preschoolers in Head Start. Remedial and Special Education, 37(6), 333-

344.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide

positive behavior supports. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 24(1/2), 23-

50.

Sugai, G., & Simonsen, B. (2012). Positive behavioral interventions and supports:

History, defining features, and misconceptions PBIS Revisited. University of

Connecticut: Center for PBIS & Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions

and Supports.

Sullivan, A. M., Johnson, B., Owens, L., & Conway, R. (2014). Punish them or engage

them? Teachers' views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom.

Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 43-56.

Sunshine Beach State School. (2017). Glasser Quality School. Retrieved from

https://sunshinebeachss.eq.edu.au/Ourschool/Whychooseourschool/Pages/Gla

sser-Quality-School.aspx

http://www.safeschoolshub.edu.au/

https://sunshinebeachss.eq.edu.au/Ourschool/Whychooseourschool/Pages/Glasser-Quality-School.aspx

https://sunshinebeachss.eq.edu.au/Ourschool/Whychooseourschool/Pages/Glasser-Quality-School.aspx

286 Bibliography

Svennson, L. (1994, 7-9th November, 1994). Theoretical foundations of

phenomenography. Paper presented at the Phenomenography: Philosophy and

Practice Conference, Brisbane, Australia.

Svensson, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. Higher Education

Research & Development, 16(2), 159-171. doi:10.1080/0729436970160204

Swain-Bradway, J., Swoszowski, N., Boden, L., & Sprague, J. (2013). Voices from

the field: Stakeholder perspectives on PBIS implementation in alternative

educational settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(3), 31-46.

doi:10.1353/etc.2013.0020

Swartling, M., Peterson, S., & Wahlström, R. (2007). Views on sick-listing practice

among Swedish general practitioners - a phenomenographic study. BMC

Family Practice, 8(1), 44.

Tas, Y. (2016). The contribution of perceived classroom learning environment and

motivation to student engagement in science. European Journal of Psychology

of Education, 31(4), 557-577. doi:10.1007/s10212-016-0303-z

Taylor, Z. E., Conger, R. D., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2015). Parenting

practices and perceived social support: Longitudinal relations with the social

competence of Mexican-origin children. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 3(4),

193-208. doi:10.1037/lat0000038

The Albert Ellis Institute. (2014). Rational emotive and cognitive-behavior therapy.

Retrieved from http://albertellis.org/rebt-cbt-therapy/

The Queensland Cabinet of Ministerial Directory. (2016). Media statement: Prep year

now compulsory in Queensland. Retrieved from

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2016/9/1/prep-year-now-compulsory-

in-queensland

The State of Queensland Public Service Commission. (2011). Code of conduct for the

Queensland public service. Brisbane, Australia: Public Service Commission.

Retrieved from http://www.psc.qld.gov.au/library/document/catalogue/equity-

ethics-grievance/qps-code-conduct.pdf.

Thomson, P., Lingard, B., & Wrigley, T. (2012). Ideas for changing educational

systems, educational policy and schools. Critical Studies in Education, 53(1),

1-7. doi:10.1080/17508487.2011.636451

Thorpe, K., Tayler, C., Bridgstock, R., Grieshaber, S., Skoien, P., Danby, S., &

Petriwskyj, A. (2005). Preparing for school: Report of the Queensland

preparing for school trials 2003/4. (0734519079). Brisbane, Queensland:

Queensland University of Technology: School of Early Childhood,

Queensland Early Childhood Consortium.

Thorsborne, M., & Vinegrad, D. (2008). Rethinking behaviour management.

Restorative practices in classrooms (2nd ed.). UK: Speechmark Publishing

Ltd.

http://albertellis.org/rebt-cbt-therapy/



http://www.psc.qld.gov.au/library/document/catalogue/equity-ethics-grievance/qps-code-conduct.pdf

http://www.psc.qld.gov.au/library/document/catalogue/equity-ethics-grievance/qps-code-conduct.pdf

Bibliography 287

Tillery, A. D., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Collins, A. S. (2010). General education

teachers' perceptions of behavior management and intervention strategies.


Timperley, H. (2011). Insights: A background paper to inform the development of a

national professional development framework for teachers and school leaders.

Melbourne, Australia: AITSL.

Timperley, H. (2015). Insights: Professional conversations and improvement-focused

feedback. A review of the research literature and the impact on practice and

student outcomes. Melbourne, Australia: AITSL.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2016). Why differentiation is difficult: Reflections from years in

the trenches. Australian Educational Leader, 38(3), 6-8.

Trigwell, K. (1999). Phenomenography: Variation and discernment. Paper presented

at the Improving Student Learning: Improving Student Learning Through the

Disciplines, York, England.

Trigwell, K. (2000). A phenomenographic interview on phenomenography. In J.

Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography. Melbourne, Australia: RMIT

Publishing.

Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K.

(2010). Exploring the association between teachers' perceived student

misbehaviour and emotional exhaustion: The importance of teacher efficacy

beliefs and emotion regulation. Educational Psychology, 30(2), 173-189.

doi:10.1080/01443410903494460

Tyre, A. D., & Feuerborn, L. L. (2017a). The minority report: The concerns of staff

opposed to schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports in their

schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 27(2), 145-

172. doi:10.1080/10474412.2016.1235977

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2016). Early

childhood care and education. Retrieved from

http://en.unesco.org/themes/early-childhood-care-and-education

Urbina, I., Villares, E., & Mariani, M. (2017). Examining the efficacy of the Spanish

cultural translation of the student success skills program to improve academic

achievement. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 56(2), 127-143.

doi:10.1002/johc.12048

Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in Teacher - Student

Interaction: A Decade of Research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3),

271-296. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6

Van Ness, D. W., & Strong, K. H. (2010). Restoring justice: An introduction to

restorative justice (4 ed.). New Jersey, USA: Anderson Publishing.

http://en.unesco.org/themes/early-childhood-care-and-education

288 Bibliography

Vaughn, M. (2014). Teaching self-regulation skills to improve academic achievement.

International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 5(1),

1618-1625.

Vijayan, P., Chakravarthi, S., & Arul Philips, J. (2016). The role of teachers’ behaviour

and strategies in managing a classroom environment. International Journal of

Social Science and Humanity, 6(3), 208-215. doi:10.7763/IJSSH.2016.V6.644

Villanova College. (2017). RP at Villanova. Retrieved from

https://www.vnc.qld.edu.au/student-life/pastoral-care/rp-villanova/

Villares, E., Brigman, G., & Peluso, P. (2008). Ready to learn: An evidence-based

individual psychology linked curriculum for prekindergarten through first

grade. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 64(4), 403-415.

Villares, E., Lemberger, M., Brigman, G., & Webb, L. (2011). Student success skills:

An evidence-based school counseling program grounded in humanistic theory.

Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 50(1), 42-53.

Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An international

review of the literature. Paris, France: UNESCO: International Institute for

Educational Planning.

Von Oppell, M. A. (2016). Investigating factors that influence change from a

traditional to a socio-constructive teaching paradigm: Teachers’ beliefs,

alternate conceptions and external factors. (Doctor of Philosophy), Curtin

University, Perth, Western Australia.

Walker, J., Shea.T, & Bauer, A. (2007). Behaviour management. A practical approach

for educators (9th ed.). New Jersey, USA: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Walsh, E. (2000). Phenomenographic analysis of interview transcripts. In J. A.

Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography. Melbourne, Vic: RMIT

Publishing.

Walter, S. M., Lambie, G. W., & Ngazimbi, E. E. (2008). A choice theory counseling

group succeeds with middle school students who displayed disciplinary

problems. Middle School Journal, 40(2), 4-12.

Wardle, D. (2012). A practical guide to behaviour management: Book 2: behaviour

modification and management strategies. Laughton, U.K; Invercargill, N.Z:

Essential Resources.

Warren, S. (2014). A non-authoritarian approach to secondary school pedagogy: A

critical action research project (Doctor of Philosophy), The University of

Worcester, Worcester, UK.

Warwick West State School. (2014). Pedagogical framework 2014. Warwick,

Queensland: Warwick West State School.

Waters, J. (2004). A study of mathematical patterning in early childhood settings.

Paper presented at the Mathematics Education for the 3rd Milllennium:

https://www.vnc.qld.edu.au/student-life/pastoral-care/rp-villanova/

Bibliography 289

Towards 2010. The 27th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education

Research Group of Australasia, Townsville, Australia.

Waters, L., Barsky, A., Ridd, A., & Allen, K. (2015). Contemplative education: A

systematic, evidence-based review of the effect of meditation interventions in

schools. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 103-134.

Webb, L., Lemberger, M., & Brigman, G. (2008). Student success skills: A review of

a school counselor intervention influenced by individual psychology. The

Journal of Individual Psychology, 64(3), 339-352.

White, K. R. (2009). Using preservice teacher emotion to encourage critical

engagement with diversity. Studying Teacher Education, 5(1), 5-20.

doi:10.1080/17425960902830369

Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and

participation: Results from PISA 2000: Publications de l'OCDE.

Wood, K. (2000). The experience of learning to teach: changing student teachers' ways

of understanding teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(1), 75-93.

Wood, P., Spandagou, I., & Evans, D. (2012). Principals' confidence in managing

disruptive student behaviour. Exploring geographical context in NSW primary

schools. School Leadership & Management, 32(4), 375-395.

doi:10.1080/13632434.2012.708329

Yahya, R. (2016). Bridging home and school: understanding immigrant mothers’

cultural capital and concerns about play-based learning. Early Years: Journal

of International Research & Development, 36(4), 340-352.

doi:10.1080/09575146.2015.1110786

Zakaria, Z., Care, E., & Griffin, P. (2016). Scaffolding instruction where it matters:

Teachers' shift from deficit approach to developmental model of learning.

Journal of Education and Practice, 7(23), 144.

Zeeman, R. D. (2006). Glasser's choice theory and Purkey's invitational education-

allied approaches to counseling and schooling. Journal of Invitational Theory

and Practice, 12, 46-51.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory

Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

Zuckerman, G. (2003). The learning activity in the first Years of schooling: The

developmental path toward reflection. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev,

& S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp.

1-14). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Appendices 291

Appendices

Appendix A

QUT Ethics Application Approval

292 Appendices

Appendix B

Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE) Approval Letter

Appendices 293

Appendix C

Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form

294 Appendices

Appendix D

Interview Script

Appendices 295

Appendix E

Permission Email

296 Appendices

Appendix F

Recruitment Email

Appendices 297

Appendix G

P-3 Discussion List Recruitment Email

298 Appendices

Appendix H

DETE Recruitment Email Document

Appendices 299

Appendix I

Interview Schedule

300 Appendices

teachers ways of seeing their approaches ...student behaviour in preparatory (prep) classrooms in...

Documents