Many a parent who is mild-mannered gets a shock when their child is not. They are flummoxed as to why their polite and considerate home environment is not reflected in their child’s behaviour. Despite all efforts to communicate good-naturedly, their child is just not getting it.
But we could turn this on its head and ask, ‘Why should they?’ An environment laden with books does not necessarily produce a child who has no trouble reading. The behaviour of young children is not all down to their environment. Some of it is simply about being a child.
Susan Isaacs, psychoanalyst and teacher, was under no illusions about the young child’s emotional turbulence. We have only to look at some of the titles in her Nursery World columns in the 1930s: ‘Two Year Olds Are Often Cruel’ and ‘The Destructive Child’.
The research of Tremblay (2002) tells us that ‘physical aggression by humans appears to reach its peak between 2 and 3 years of age. In the following years, most children learn alternatives to physical aggression.’
The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) (2004) longitudinal study found that positive behaviour needs teaching: ‘Encourage behaviour policies in which staff support children’s behaviour management through reasoning and talk.’
A conducive environment, though important, is not enough. Young children do not learn by osmosis. The implication for the EYFS is clear: settings need to have an effective approach that helps children learn what the alternatives to aggressive interactions might be.
EFFECTIVE APPROACHES TO SUPPORTING CHILDREN
Just as EPPE shows that positive behaviour is something which children learn, it also distinguishes between effective and ineffective approaches to working with children.
An effective approach is when the adult makes it clear to the child what the problem is; how they might do it differently next time; how they can sort out disputes with the help of an adult and, later, among themselves.
An ineffective approach includes using distractions; ignoring unwanted behaviour; sanctioning children and telling them off. Basically, when the adult is not engaging with child or teaching them anything new.
EPPE’s findings show that children benefit from high-quality, effective settings whose behaviour policies support them in rationalising and talking through areas of conflict.
TALKING THROUGH AREAS OF CONFLICT
The American HighScope approach to early education and care advocates a model of conflict resolution that is all about sensitive adult engagement. Adults focus on helping children to understand the situation and, following that, learning that they have options about how to respond.
This model has six steps:
- Approach the situation calmly: get on the children’s level, use a gentle voice, remain neutral.
- Acknowledge the different feelings involved and name them: ‘You look upset.’
- Gather information about the difficulty, asking, ‘What’s the problem?’
- Retell the problem to the children involved, repeating what each child has said.
- Ask the children to think of possible solutions: ‘What can we do to solve this problem?’
- Encourage them to choose a solution together.
- Give follow-up support: ‘You solved the problem.’ Stay nearby until the solution is clearly working, supporting if necessary.
Although the HighScope model specifically refers to conflict resolution, the underlying principles are applicable to other forms of social interactions. When teaching a child how to co-operate, make a friend or follow a rule, all six steps could be useful.
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES
While there are substantial benefits to using a specific approach to teaching positive social interactions, it is worth bearing in mind that no model is a panacea. Practitioners need to respond flexibly to each individual situation.
The research of Whitebread et al. (2003) alerts us to the dangers of ‘jumping in’ too soon when helping children resolve conflicts. ‘Sometimes it is best for adults not to intervene in children’s disputes and disagreements in collaborative play but give them time and space to resolve issues themselves.’ This could apply to other situations like making a friend.
Knowing the child is the best gauge of how best to respond. Sometimes, for instance, briefly ignoring a situation does work. Similarly, engaging with the child may give unwanted behaviour too much attention.
However effective a model or evidence-based an approach might be, the relationship between the child and adult is central.
CHAMELEONS IN THE CLASSROOM
When considering behaviour-related issues, it can be tempting to conjure up the image of a boisterous, unruly child, or alternatively, a child who is unusually timid and withdrawn. These children tend to get noticed.
But what about those children who are no trouble at all and just (seem to) ‘get on with it’? It is important that we have a way of checking that these children do not get overlooked. Supporting these children with assertiveness, self-expression and feeling OK about disagreeing is significant.
All children will benefit, in some way or other, from learning about social interactions.
CASE STUDY: Reach Academy Feltham
Matilda Browne is primary head teacher of Reach Academy Feltham in the London Borough of Hounslow. She says, ‘Last September, we set out a clear programme around interactions. Part of this is teaching children about sharing: looking at different ways of asking for toys and what to do if a friend says no. We support children with strategies and language that will enable them to develop a range of effective interactions. As practitioners will appreciate, it is better to teach and prepare the children rather than intervene at the point of frustration (though, of course, we do this as well).
‘One of our teaching strategies is to do lots of modelling. For example, in the case of learning to share, they might say, “I can see that you want the red brick that Michelle is playing with. Maybe you could ask her for it? Or you could ask her if you can swap it for your blue brick?”, and so on.
‘By presenting options, the children have agency – they make active choices rather than being told what to do.’
Browne gives the following example of a teaching strategy from their programme:
Nurul struggles with social interaction. A member of staff shadowed him for a two-week period. When points of conflict arose, the practitioner intervened showing both a different way of responding and empathy towards the other child. Teaching how the other person may feel is integral to our programme.
Nurul takes a toy from Abbas. The practitioner says to Nurul, ‘Oh we need to stop. It is not OK to just take a toy from Abbas. I can see Abbas is feeling sad – his mouth is turned down and his shoulders are slumped. We can say, “May I have it, Abbas?”’ (gesturing with her hand).
The practitioner then says to Abbas, ‘Can Nurul have a turn, please, Abbas?’ If Abbas says ‘Yes’, the practitioner says, ‘Oh that is so kind, thank you.’ If Abbas says ‘No’, the practitioner explains to Nurul, ‘Oh they’re not done with it just yet. Let’s enjoy something else now and in a few minutes we can ask them to swap.’
References/further reading
- Anderson H., et al. (2003). Developing Independent Learning in Children aged 3-5. University of Cambridge
- Sylva K., et al. (2004). The Effective Practice of Pre-school Education (EPPE). University of London; University of Oxford; University of Nottingham
- Tremblay R.E. (2002). ‘Prevention of injury by early socialization of aggressive behaviour’, Injury Prevention. Dec 1;8 (suppl 4): iv17-21
