You are on page 1of 11

Adopting Behavioural Perspectives

The Societal Drivers Seat


An individuals interactions within an environment is governed by many factors; not
exclusively those of social and genetic origin. Over time, as these interactions have
increased in complexity, so too has the importance of recognising subsequent behaviours
and the way they impact society, good or bad. Within this contemporary context exists
an inherent need to regulate these behaviours in balancing group detriment/benefit
dynamic (Descola, 1992). Admittedly, this over-simplifies the governing of a people;
however one only needs to open todays newspaper to see how peoples behaviours
impact society.
So, what has this social commentary got to do with teaching? Im glad you asked. You
see, teachers step into a microcosm of society everyday: the classroom. Quite fittingly
succeeding this rhetoric, it is the product of this microcosm which will one day assume
the societal drivers seat; released as the adults of mainstream population. Great, so
whats next? Fortunately, with an immense subject such as human behaviour, a number
of theories have been developed in attempting to uncover explanations of human
behaviour and ways to effectively manage them in the classroom environment. I will be
analysing some of these theories, focusing on two which occupy opposite ends of the
conceptual spectrum: Behaviour Modification (B.M.), nestled at the management end,
and Teacher Effectiveness Training (T.E.T.); situated within the non-directive
intervention strategies. From this, I will demonstrate, in-situ, one of these theories and
thus create a practical opportunity for its implementation.

Empowering students through self-discovery is a recurring theme within


contemporary pedagogy; exemplified by such ideas as inquiry-based science (Skamp,
2012), or students as researchers (Fielding, 2001). It is reasonable to identify T.E.T. as
sharing threads of a similar ideology cloth. Edwards and Watts (2008) emphasise this
notion by offering that the T.E.T. philosophy identifies humans as self-regulating
beings, possessing the ability to manage their own behaviour. T.E.T. offers contrast to
traditional behaviourist theories, whose fundamentals imply that learned behaviours
are voluntary and may be modified by the manipulation of antecedent conditions and
reinforcing consequences (Lyons et al, 2011). In particular, T.E.T. opposes positive
consequences, claiming that rewards and praise can undermine intrinsic motivation
(Edwards and Watts, 2008). Thomas Gordon, pioneer of T.E.T. believes, consistent with
the philosophy of humanism, that students can solve their own problems and become
self-controlling if appropriately supported (rather than coerced or punished).
Perhaps at the crux of Gordons theory is an emphasis on relationship and
communication principles; a catalyst in preventing misbehaviour and promoting
positive relationship and learning (Gordon, 1974). This ideology, although instrumental
to Gordons notion, is not one exclusive to T.E.T. and to imply such, is dismissive of the
many other theories within the classroom management (Edwards & Watts, 2008)
domain. That is to say even traditional behaviourists acknowledge the importance of
relationship and communication within the classroom (Kazdin, 2012). Rather, the
difference lies in the perspectives of administering varied techniques towards obtaining
behavioural ideals (Lyons et al, 2011). Whilst B.M. does require an authoritarian
approach in its implementation, the manner by which an educator forges communicative
relationships may still be framed with temperate expression (Kazdin, 2012).

Another core focus of T.E.T. is to develop problem-solving strategies which are more
corrective than preventative in nature. In line with Vygotskian socio-cultural
perspectives (1978), T.E.T. also includes the use of school-wide strategies such as peer
counselling and peer mediation. However, it is worth noting that as T.E.T. strategies are
based on counselling students, its implementation may be time consuming and requires
sound background knowledge and understanding (Lyons et al, 2011). As a theory, this
inclusive, empowering and modern vision of pedagogy is one which harbours great
potential if implemented in the manner with which it was intended (Killen, 2009). This
however, according to Fielding (2001), is wherein lies the rub; stating that if we are
to avoid the dangers of developing increasingly sophisticated ways of involving students
that, often unwittingly, end up betraying their interests, and reinforcing assumptions
and approaches that are destructive of anything that could be considered remotely
empowering, then we have to explore approaches that have quite different dispositions
and intentions. Skiba & Peterson (2000) consolidate this view, stating the gap between
research and practice has been a continuing issue in the professional literature, adding
that this gap appears to be especially acute in the areas of school discipline and
behaviour. These statements highlight the need for awareness of theory/practice
translation; something which, for any teacher, is a profound reminder of the
importance of critical reflection in regulating teaching practice towards facilitating
desired outcomes (Brookfield, 1995).
The effective use of behaviour strategies and related policies continues to be a
debated issue in public education (Fielding et al, 2013). Falling under this banner,
Behaviour Modification (B.M.) theory and more recently coined Functional Behaviour
Assessment (F.B.A.) and Positive Behaviour Support (P.B.S.) models, is based upon the

formative work of behavioural psychologist, B. F Skinner. Principle to Skinners theory


is suggestion that behaviours are simply controlled by their antecedent conditions
(the environment) and their consequences (Lyons et al, 2011). Originally known as
operant conditioning, these scientific, behaviour-focused origins often carry a stigma,
particularly in opposition to constructivist perspectives pertaining to modern pedagogy
(Kazdin, 2012). To this extent, some have suggested that the underutilisation of effective
behavioural strategies is due to school resistance (Axelrod, Moyer & Berry, 1990).
Perhaps this perception surrounds the implementation of B.M. requiring an authoritarian
approach to behaviour change; in stark contrast to the less controlling, student-facilitated
stance of T.E.T. which interprets punishment and other commonly used teacher
behaviours

as

communication-blocking

which

can

destroy

teacher-student

relationships (Edwards & Watts, 2008). As mentioned previously however, the


administration of these B.M. techniques does not, contrary to some beliefs, require a
dominant teacher facade to ensure its effectiveness (Kazdin, 2012).
At this juncture I find it necessary to expand on what I have encountered, amongst peers
and generalised contemporary pedagogy, as a narrow definition of behaviour. To
reasonably analyse behaviour modification, it is outside this common understanding I
must step.
Kazdin (2012) states behaviour modification can be conceived broadly as a scientific
approach to understanding and changing human behaviour. It is this approach which
acknowledges the diverse biological, behavioural, social, and cultural factors which
influence the development of behaviour. This breadth of research subsequently tackles
human behaviour from multi-faceted perspectives. The assumption that learning
experiences can alter behaviour has proven to be extremely helpful in developing

effective interventions in the context of education, treatment, and adaptive functioning in


everyday life (D'Zurilla, & Goldfried, 1971), including the classroom. Despite the
seemingly hard-line stance associated with Behaviour Modification, this philosophy has
demonstrated success when dealing with behavioural issues, and particularly applies
when responding to students who manifest more challenging behaviours (Kazdin, 2012).
Detractors may argue however that although shorter term behaviour change often results
from using B.M. strategies, there is far less evidence of generalisation and sustained
behavioural change without its continuing use (Lyons et al 2011).
Despite appreciating the merit behind both theoretical perspectives, I have
chosen to use B.M. as basis for implementation due to the philosophies within B.M.
running largely against my own natural tendencies. Consequently, this process will
challenge me in demonstrating the capability of B.M. beyond analysis, whilst exposing
me to techniques I may not have otherwise considered as a practitioner.
The following fact/fiction hybrid will allow for in-depth practical discussion and
implementation of one of the behaviour modification models.
Days prior to starting my teaching career, a colleague teacher came to me with a
word of warning regarding my prospective year 3 class, the very same he had taught the
preceding year. The warning focused on a particular student, Claire; describing her
behaviour as completely out of control, which often made the rest of the kids rowdy,
adding she was often disengaged and avoided tasks routinely. When asked what he did
to help the situation, the teacher proceeded to list his strategies for keeping her in line.
Such approaches ranged from verbal warnings and time-outs to, on occasion, resorting
to keeping her behind at the start of lunch. A decisive moment came when the teacher
stated bluntly so dont bother with behaviour modification, it doesnt work. Was this

the same B.M. I had encountered during my studies? I needed to understand why this
had failed and so took it upon myself to investigate B.M. strategies that might yield an
entirely different outcome.
First, this teacher had assumed that verbal warnings followed by a variety of negative reenforcements constituted an entire theory. It doesnt. He had used B.M. in a highly
generalised way and certainly not to the extent it was designed; presenting a common
perception of applied behaviourism as synonymous with much of the basic
classroom management practices used by many teachers (Kazdin 2012). Subsequently, it
was important to learn what B.M. involved and how, if possible, to implement it
effectively.
Opening dialogue with Claires parents was the first practical step towards offering
explanation of her behaviour. During discussion with the parents, I discovered that they,
having had spoken with professionals in assessing Claire (for possible A.D.H.D.), had
heard of B.M. and were reluctant in teaching practices implementing behavioural
strategies; stating We dont want to change our Claire, we love who she is. To this I
could respond, as D'Zurilla, & Goldfried (1971) explain, that behaviour modification
procedures are designed to change behaviour, not a personal characteristic or trait;
providing such example that B.M. is not used to change autism (a label); rather B.M.
is used to change problem behaviours exhibited by children with autism (D'Zurilla, &
Goldfried, 1971).
By understanding, from Zuna & McDougall (2004) that identifying conditions and
events in the classroom related to a student's disruptive behaviour can be very
challenging, prompted me in seeking help from a capable and trusted colleague. This
colleague was able to provide me with useful assistance; offering additional eyes and

ears towards observing and identifying antecedent conditions in the classroom relating to
Claires disruptive behaviour with hope towards modifying the current environmental
events that are functionally related to behaviour (Edwards and Watts, 2008). This is a
vital step which Claires previous teacher possibly failed to address and may have
contributed to her sustained negative behaviour.
Conducting a thorough, data-based baseline assessment of targeted behaviour/s, and
defining these accurately (Lyons, 2011) gave me a solid foundation towards sound B.M.
implementation. Subsequent observations suggested that Claires problematic behaviour,
during academic tasks, was maintained and reinforced inadvertently via specific
consequences. That is, sending Claire to a timeout corner, or directing her to place her
head on her desk allowed her to escape from what was, for her, an aversive situation (i.e.
academic tasks or demands) by engaging in disruptive behaviours. This notion was a
catalyst for developing a series of consequences which still involved Claire to participate
in classroom tasks. This recognition also highlighted the previous teachers failure to
balance positive and negative consequences which, according to Shores et al (1993) may
indeed yield a coercive cycle that increases the likelihood of disruptive behaviour.
Finally, upon consistent observation of Claire and her interactions, the trusted colleague
and I detailed a list of events or precursors to Claires behaviour. These were
consequently removed or minimised as much as possible.
During third term, after witnessing steady improvement in Claires behaviour, one
moment perhaps defined my implementing of this philosophy. This moment happened
during a music class run by an external, specialised teacher. Having initially left the
teacher with the class for a few minutes, I was abruptly brought to notice that Claire had
bitten another child, causing substantial injury, and resulting in the perpetrator storming

outside and up a tree, whilst leaving the victim virtually inconsolable. Such was the
significance, both sets of parents were called to collect the students from the scene. Prior
to the parents arrival, and having tried to coax Claire down from the tree for almost 30
minutes, I had run out of rational ideas, negotiating techniques, B.M. consequences, and
was fast running out of patience. As Claires parents arrived her mother approached me
and asked why is Claire up the tree? Explaining I was unable to get her down after she
stormed out of class, Claires mother, seeming rather surprised, asked why didnt you
just mention the swings? You see, Claire just loved the swings. This was a watershed
moment. Perhaps had I taken the time to get to know Claire, especially beyond the
classroom setting, I might have developed a genuine of trust and understanding of Claire
and of course known those swings. In hindsight, surely these relationships present a
valuable commodity in partnership with the B.M. techniques of defining, observing and
recording focus behaviours in the context of their antecedent conditions and
consequences (Lyons et al, 2011).
Student misbehaviour impairs students learning, achievement and development
(Cornell & Mayer, 2010). Thus, classroom management is an essential skill for preservice and beginning teachers to acquire. As peoples backgrounds, intrinsic motivations
and subsequent behaviours vary, so too should the strategies designed to combat
behaviour issues. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to managing behaviour. This is
an idea which must be recognised by any teacher who aspires to give their students the
greatest chance to assume a valuable place on that societal drivers seat.

References

Axelrod, S., Moyer, L., & Berry, B. (1990). Why teachers do not use behaviour
modification procedures. Journal of educational & psychological consultation, Vol. 1,
No. 4, p. 309.

Brady, J. P. (1971). Metronome-conditioned speech retraining for stuttering. Behaviour


Therapy, Vol. 2, No. 2 pp. 129-150.

Brookfield, Stephen. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San-Francisco,


CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Cornell, D. G., & Mayer, M. J. (2010). Why do school order and safety matter?
Educational Researcher, Vol. 39, No. 1., pp. 7-15.

Descola, P. (1992). Societies of nature and the nature of society. Conceptualizing


Society. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 107-126.

D'Zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification.
Journal of abnormal psychology, 78(1), 107.

Edwards, C., & Watts, V. (2008). Classroom discipline & management. 2nd ed. NY:
Wiley.

Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of educational


change, Vol. 2, No. 2. pp. 123-141.

Fielding, C., Lowdermilk, J., Lanier, L., Fannin, A., Schkade, J., Rose, C. (2013).
Applied behaviour analysis: Current myths in public education. University of Texas Pan
American.

Gordon, T. (1974). Teacher effectiveness training. P. H. Wyden.

Kazdin, A. E. (2012). Behavior modification in applied settings. Waveland Press.

Killen, R (2009) Effective teaching strategies: lessons from research and practice. 5th
Ed. South Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia.

Lyons, G., Ford, M., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2011). Classroom management. South
Melbourne, Vic.: Cengage Learning, 3rd Ed.

Shores, R. E., Gunter, P. L., & Jack, S. L. (1993). Classroom management strategies:
Are they setting events for coercion? Behavioural Disorders, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 92-102.

Skamp, K. (2012). Teaching primary science constructively. 4th ed., South Melbourne,
VIC: Cengage.

Skibia, & Peterson, (2000). School discipline at a crossroads: from zero tolerance to
early response. Teaching exceptional children. Vol. 66, No. 3, p. 335.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological


processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Zuna, N., McDougall, D. (2004). Using positive behavioral support to manage


avoidance of academic tasks. Teaching exceptional children, Vol.37, No. 1, pp.118-24.

You might also like