View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teacher Verbal Feedback Directed towards Secondary Pupils with Challenging Behaviour and Its Relationship to Their Behaviour

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teacher Verbal Feedback Directed towards Secondary Pupils with Challenging Behaviour and Its Relationship to Their Behaviour
Language: English
Authors: Swinson, J., Knight, R.
Source: Educational Psychology in Practice. Sep 2007 23(3):241-255.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/default.html
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2007
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Grade 8
Descriptors: Feedback, Foreign Countries, Grade 8, Classroom Communication, Secondary School Teachers, Secondary School Students, Student Behavior, Behavior Problems, Correlation, Verbal Communication, Time on Task, Antisocial Behavior, Classroom Techniques, Positive Reinforcement, Negative Reinforcement, Discipline
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom
DOI: 10.1080/02667360701507327
ISSN: 0266-7363
Abstract: There is a body of evidence that has linked teachers' verbal feedback to pupils with pupil behaviour. In this study teacher verbal behaviour that was directed towards those pupils that the teachers had nominated as being especially difficult to teach was examined. A series of lessons was observed in a secondary school. The quality and quantity of teacher verbal feedback directed to the class as a whole and to the designated pupils was recorded, as was the on-task behaviour of the pupils. It was found that the designated pupils were less on-task than their peers and were more likely to "shout-out" in lessons. However, they were found to behave appropriately in well run lessons, where on-task rates were high for all pupils. Teachers tended to give more attention to the designated pupils in the form of positive feedback directed towards their work, but also negative attention directed towards their behaviour. A positive relationship was found between teachers' use of positive feedback and on-task rates of the designated pupils. The results are discussed both in terms of the strategies used by teachers but also the effect that labelling of the pupils might have on the behaviour of the teachers and the pupils themselves. (Contains 9 tables and 1 figure.)
Abstractor: Author
Number of References: 31
Entry Date: 2007
Accession Number: EJ771987
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF702pY4Rmg5NQm3TN_xKseAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDA92Xokt3ZLNdpP9lQIBEICBmmKIh_fo6okyC7Ju-Am-0cLlh0vSkrVSxeuUKtVCWrbTHuGOn45ChKchF0WNUnFrskKpFVxRG9SIV7LyPuCB6x7LonRFYgpwMCWhmLlR18DHpA8Z4BD57ymesQKEeaXkWibju9CVWMFvTqDfw0rP32qk81VYp3x1pFtD9NZmrWSuGiHNukAv7vofGPTVIbeBaVT_E7BCUxd3LQg=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0026099724;b8g01sep.07;2019Feb26.13:17;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0026099724-1">Teacher Verbal Feedback Directed Towards Secondary Pupils with Challenging Behaviour and its Relationship to their Behaviour. </title> <sbt id="AN0026099724-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>There is a body of evidence that has linked teachers' verbal feedback to pupils with pupil behaviour. In this study teacher verbal behaviour that was directed towards those pupils that the teachers had nominated as being especially difficult to teach was examined. A series of lessons was observed in a secondary school. The quality and quantity of teacher verbal feedback directed to the class as a whole and to the designated pupils was recorded, as was the on‐task behaviour of the pupils. It was found that the designated pupils were less on‐task than their peers and were more likely to 'shout‐out' in lessons. However, they were found to behave appropriately in well run lessons, where on‐task rates were high for all pupils. Teachers tended to give more attention to the designated pupils in the form of positive feedback directed towards their work, but also negative attention directed towards their behaviour. A positive relationship was found between teachers' use of positive feedback and on‐task rates of the designated pupils. The results are discussed both in terms of the strategies used by teachers but also the effect that labelling of the pupils might have on the behaviour of the teachers and the pupils themselves.</p> <p>The role of teachers in establishing and maintaining good classroom discipline has always interested educational researchers, psychologists and, of course, class teachers themselves. The earliest study in this area was probably that of Gilchrist ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>]) who reported an improvement in pupils' test performance as a result of increased praise by the teacher. This paper and indeed many subsequent studies have concentrated on the role that the teacher plays in managing the behaviour and learning of the pupils. Research has concentrated especially on teachers' use of praise and other forms of positive feedback and conversely their use of admonishment and other forms of negative feedback and the relationship that these have to pupil behaviour.</p> <hd id="AN0026099724-3">The Pattern of Teachers' Verbal Feedback</hd> <p>Research in this area dates from White's ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref2">29</reflink>]) meta‐analysis of 16 separate classroom observation studies. White included in her analysis the extent to which teachers not only directed their feedback to their pupils' work, which she called "instructional", compared with feedback directed toward pupils' behaviour, which she called "managerial". The results showed that teachers gave higher rates of approval for instructional behaviour, while for managerial behaviour the reverse was true. Indeed the rate of teacher approval was so low for managerial behaviour that White described it as "almost non‐existent" (p. 370).</p> <p>This pattern of teacher feedback has been found in almost all studies since that time, irrespective of country, including Thomas, Presland, Grant and Glynn ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref3">24</reflink>]) in New Zealand; Nafpaktitiz, Mayer and Butterworth ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref4">15</reflink>]) in Los Angeles, USA; Galton, Simon and Croll ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>]) in Great Britain; Winter ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref6">30</reflink>]) in Hong Kong, and Wheldall and Beaman ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref7">25</reflink>]) in Australia. Merrett and Wheldall ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref8">13</reflink>]), in their study in British primary and middle schools and their later study, Wheldall, Houghton and Merrett ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref9">26</reflink>]), of teachers of secondary age pupils, found that this pattern of verbal feedback was the same irrespective of the age of the pupils being taught. More recently Harrop and Swinson ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref10">6</reflink>]) and Chalk and Bizo ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>]) confirmed that this pattern of teacher verbal feedback was also prevalent in modern British classrooms. Thus it would appear that this pattern of teacher verbal behaviour is consistent over time, from White's study of [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref12">29</reflink>] to the most recent findings of Harrop and Swinson ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref13">6</reflink>]) and Chalk and Bizo ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>]), and between most English speaking countries.</p> <hd id="AN0026099724-4">The Relationship between Teacher Feedback and Pupil Behaviour</hd> <p>The relationship between these various types of feedback and pupil behaviour has also been the subject of a series of correlational studies. Invariably positive feedback by teachers was positively correlated with compliant pupil behaviour as measured by pupil on‐task behaviour, while negative feedback or disapproval showed a negative correlation with on‐task behaviour. This relationship shows a very consistent pattern across a number of studies as is apparent in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. Studies demonstrating a correlation between teacher feedback and pupil behaviour</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td><bold>Study</bold></td><td><bold>Pupil age</bold></td><td><bold>Correlation</bold></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Thomas <italic>et al</italic>. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">1978</xref>)</td><td>Secondary (11–16)</td><td>Approval & on‐task +0.40</td></tr><tr><td>Nafpaktitis <italic>et al</italic>. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">1985</xref>)</td><td>Secondary (11–16)</td><td>Approval & on‐task +0.48Disapproval & off‐task +0.21</td></tr><tr><td>Merret & Wheldall (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">1987</xref>)</td><td>Primary (5–11) & Middle (9–13)</td><td>+ve academic & on‐task +0.10−ve social & on‐task −0.31</td></tr><tr><td>Merret, Houghton & Wheldall (1989)</td><td>Secondary (11–16)</td><td>+ve academic & on‐task +0.44+ve social & on‐task + 0.37−ve social & on‐task −0.32</td></tr><tr><td>Winter (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">1990</xref>)</td><td>Secondary (11–16)</td><td>Approval & on‐task + 0.40Disapproval & on‐task −0.40</td></tr><tr><td>Swinson & Harrop (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2002</xref>)</td><td>Infant (4–7)Junior (7–11)</td><td>Approval & on‐task +0.60Approval & on‐task +0.41</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>These studies vary in many aspects of their methodology and of course in the age of the pupils studied, but nevertheless a very consistent pattern of behaviour of both teachers and their pupils is apparent. Rates of approval are positively associated with on‐task behaviour, which is invariably defined as pupils following the teachers' instructions and completing whatever task has been set for them to do. While, conversely, negative feedback or disapproval by the teacher invariably shows a negative correlation with on‐task behaviour.</p> <p>These are correlational studies and therefore it is not possible to say whether positive feedback from teachers was made in response to appropriate pupil behaviour or whether it was the positive teacher feedback that led to increased appropriate pupil behaviour. Similarly, whether the negative teacher feedback was made in response to inappropriate pupil behaviour or whether such feedback led to an increase in inappropriate behaviour cannot be demonstrated by these studies. However, as far as negative feedback is concerned it is possible to conclude that high rates of negative feedback do not appear to have any real affect on encouraging appropriate behaviour. In other words, admonishing pupils for their behaviour does not appear to be an effective strategy for improving pupil behaviour.</p> <p>There is some evidence, mostly based on training studies of assertive discipline, for example, Swinson and Melling ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref15">22</reflink>]), Woods Hodges and Aljumed ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref16">31</reflink>]), Swinson and Cording ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref17">19</reflink>]), of BATPACK, e.g., Wheldall <emph>et al</emph>. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref18">28</reflink>]) and BATSAC, Wheldall, Houghton, Merrett and Bradley ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref19">27</reflink>]), all of which have demonstrated that when teachers increase their rate of positive feedback to children in their class then the proportion of pupils behaving appropriately shows an increase. More recently Swinson and Harrop ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]) have demonstrated that by training teachers to be more positive towards their pupils and especially praising them for their behaviour, the on‐task rates of the pupils was raised from an average of 74% to above 90%. Chalk and Bizo ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]) have shown similar increases in pupil on‐task rates when primary teachers were encouraged to be more descriptive in their praise during Maths sessions.</p> <hd id="AN0026099724-5">Teacher Feedback Directed at Specific Groups of Pupils</hd> <p>A number of other studies have examined the behaviour of teachers towards different groups of pupils.</p> <p>Heller and White ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]) compared styles of teachers' verbal behaviour directed towards groups of pupils described as having higher and lower ability. They found that when teachers taught pupils of lower ability they tended to use more disapproval, especially of a "managerial" type, than when they were teaching more able pupils. Haithiwella‐Ward and Swinson (1999), in a study of a multicultural primary school, found that teachers tended to direct more negative feedback toward Afro‐Caribbean pupils.</p> <p>Russell and Lin ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref23">17</reflink>]) conducted a study in an Australian secondary school to examine the way that one teacher responded to a group of children classified by other teachers who taught them as the "worst behaved", and those classified as "best behaved". Observers recorded not only the teacher's praise and criticism but also contact, facial attention and ignoring. They found that the teacher gave far more attention to the "worst behaved" group both in terms of attention for inappropriate behaviour (admonishment, frowning, etc.) but also their appropriate behaviour (praise). Russell and Lin argued that the appropriate behaviour of the "best behaved" group was not being maintained by the teacher's attention. This was, however, a very small study involving only one teacher in one class.</p> <p>A larger study by Fry ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>]) observed teacher–pupil interactions over a four‐month period in a junior school. In this study teacher approvals and disapprovals were not recorded directly, but a method involving an observational schedule that measured 15 teacher–pupil variables covering eight teacher behaviours and seven pupil behaviours was used. The results showed that the "problem pupils" received more negative attention and less positive attention than the other pupils. Contrary to the findings of Russell and Lin ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref25">17</reflink>]), in this study the problem children had fewer social contacts with their teachers and were asked fewer questions than the other pupils. Interestingly, Fry ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>]) found that the differences in teacher attention became more pronounced over the four month period of the study, in that towards the end of the four month study the "problem pupils", as they were described, received less and less teacher attention. As this group appeared to have received much less teacher attention it is perhaps not surprising that the behaviour of "problem children" showed a decline over the same four month period.</p> <p>The third of these studies, Strain, Lamber, Kerr, Stagg and Lenkner ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>]), investigated the behaviour of 19 teachers and their pupils. These children were young, from kindergarten to Grade 3 (8‐year‐olds). Children were rated by their teachers on the basis of their adjustment to school from poor to high. Strain <emph>et al.</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref28">18</reflink>]) recorded teachers' gestures as well as verbal responses. They found that the teachers only responded to the children's compliance to any request at a ratio of once every 10 episodes. The vast majority (82%) of the children rated as poorly adjusted to school never received any positive social consequences as a result of their behaviour compared with 27% of the high rated group.</p> <p>The three studies reported above which looked at teacher response were carried out between 30 and 15 years ago and they were conducted in non‐UK contexts: Australia (Russell & Lin, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref29">17</reflink>]), Canada (Fry, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]) and the US (Strain <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref31">18</reflink>]). No similar study has been carried out in a British context and, as Miller ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref32">14</reflink>]) has pointed out, despite teacher feedback and pupil behaviour being extensively studied between 1975 and 1990, there appeared to be a "dearth of studies" since that time. There would therefore appear to be a need to investigate whether the pattern of teacher behaviour outlined in these studies is prevalent in modern British classrooms. Such research could also form the basis for practical advice on the most effective way for teachers to respond to difficult or challenging pupils.</p> <hd id="AN0026099724-6">The Aim</hd> <p>The main aim of the study was to investigate the pattern of teacher feedback in a sample of British secondary school teachers to see if there was any variation between the quality and quantity of feedback directed towards those pupils designated as having behaviour problems and that of the rest of the class. In order to achieve this aim:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. The behaviour of the pupils was analysed in order to demonstrate whether the behaviour of the designated group was in fact different from that of the rest of the class. This analysis looked at pupils' rate of on‐task behaviour, the nature of off‐task behaviour and the extent to which behaviour of the designated pupils was influenced by that of the rest of the class.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. The pattern of the verbal behaviour of the teachers was also analysed, especially the degree to which they directed their verbal attention towards the designated pupils compared with that of the rest of the class.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. The relationship between the teachers' use of verbal feedback, both positive and negative, and the behaviour of the pupils was also analysed.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0026099724-7">Method</hd> <p>The study took place in a large comprehensive school in a northern English city. The head of Year 8 was approached and a meeting was arranged with form tutors from that year. They were asked to select a group of pupils they described as having challenging behaviour in their year. As a result twenty four pupils were designated as children who regularly displayed challenging behaviour, of whom 18 were boys and 6 were girls. A series of observations was carried out in a variety of classes in the school of both teacher and pupil behaviour. As the Form Tutors were aware of the purpose of the study, none of them was involved in the classroom observations.</p> <p>The observations were carried out in twenty Year 8 classes over the course of a week, covering a variety of curriculum subjects. These classes were all in lower attainment, non‐exam sets within the school. Twenty different teachers were observed teaching a total of 303 pupils, an average of 15 pupils per class. In the classes observed, the number of pupils designated as having behavioural problems varied from one to four.</p> <p>Observations were made using The Pupil Behaviour Schedule (Jolly & McNamara, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref33">11</reflink>]). The schedule uses a momentary time sampling method. Pupils are observed at 10‐second intervals and judged to be either "on‐task" or "off‐task". If pupils are judged to be off‐task then a record is made of the type of off‐task behaviour exhibited by them. These included inappropriate in seat behaviour (IS), inappropriate out of seat behaviours (OS), shouting out (S), inappropriate talking (T), disturbing other pupils (DOP), arguing with teacher (A), distracting teacher (DT) and being inattentive (IN).</p> <p>Simultaneously a record was kept of teacher feedback which was recorded in terms of positive and negative, whether it was directed towards individuals or groups and whether it was directed towards academic or social behaviour. In this study a note was also made if the feedback was directed at one of the designated pupils. The schedule allows the on‐task behaviour of each individual pupil to be measured separately. Thus the on‐task behaviour of the whole class and those designated as having challenging behaviour was calculated. The observer was trained to use the schedule alongside the educational psychologist until an inter‐observer agreement reached over 90%. The schedule allows a great deal of information to be gathered but, despite its apparent complexity, only takes three to four lesson observations for an observer to be trained to a reasonably level of accuracy. In subsequent joint observations inter‐observer agreement of the pupils' on‐task behaviour was found to be 92.34% and for the teachers' verbal behaviour was found to be 89.7%.</p> <p>In each lesson the observer sat at the back of the class and began the observations once the class had settled. Each lesson lasted 50 minutes. These classroom observations were then subject to analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0026099724-8">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0026099724-9">1 Pupil Behaviour</hd> <p>The on‐task rates of the designated pupils were compared to the remaining pupils in all classes observed.</p> <p>Analysis of these figures using an independent sample t‐test shows the difference to be significant (<emph>t</emph> = 4.605, <emph>df</emph> = 347, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). The on‐task behaviour of the designated pupils was therefore significantly different from the rest of the class.</p> <p>Table 2. Percentage of on‐task and off‐task behaviour for whole class and designated pupils (N = 303 pupil observations)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>On‐task</td><td>Off‐task</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Whole class</td><td>76.3%</td><td>23.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Designated pupils</td><td>65.7%</td><td>34.3%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A record was also made of the types of off‐task behaviour exhibited by the pupils during the observations, see Table 3.</p> <p>Table 3. Type and percentage of off‐task behaviour exhibited by the whole class and designated pupils (N = 303 pupil observations)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Behaviour</td><td>Whole class %</td><td>Designated pupils %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>In seat</td><td>28.3</td><td>24.5</td></tr><tr><td>Out of seat</td><td>10.5</td><td>13.6</td></tr><tr><td>Shouting out</td><td>2.9</td><td>9.5</td></tr><tr><td>Talking</td><td>32.8</td><td>28.5</td></tr><tr><td>Distracting other pupils</td><td>1.9</td><td>1.2</td></tr><tr><td>Arguing</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Distracting teacher</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.2</td></tr><tr><td>Inattentive</td><td>20.1</td><td>18.9</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>This table shows that proportions of off‐task behaviour of the two groups was generally very similar. The exception appears to be the "shouting out" behaviour which was three times higher for the designated pupils, compared with the rest of the class.</p> <p>Clearly the designated group spend more time off‐task, and appear to engage in behaviour more likely to distract the rest of the class by their "shouting out" behaviour. This finding adds to the face validity of the teachers' original selection of the designated pupils.</p> <p>It was decided to examine the behaviour of the designated pupils in a range of classes: those where pupils were found to have higher than average on‐task rates, average classes and classes where average on‐task rates were low. It was suspected that in well run classes all pupils, including those designated as displaying challenging behaviour, would tend to conform to the expectations of their teacher and, conversely, would be more likely to be non‐compliant in classes where the on‐task rates for the whole class were comparatively low. Therefore an analysis was also made of the behaviour of the designated pupils in classes where the on‐task behaviour of the rest of the class was assessed as either average, around 76.3%, or above average, 91% (one standard deviation above the mean); and below average, below 61% (one standard deviation below the mean). The behaviour of the designated pupils in those classes was classified in the same way, i.e., as having observed on‐task rates, above average <91%, average, around 76.3% or below average >61%. This analysis is presented in Table 4 and Figure 1.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1 Bar graph of the frequency of either above average, average or below average on‐task behaviour of designated pupils in classes of below average, average and above average on‐task rates</p> <p>Table 4. The frequency of the on‐task behaviour of designated pupils, classified as above average, average or below average in classes of above average, average and below average on‐task behaviour (N = 49 pupil observations)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Designated pupil behaviour</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>−<italic>Average</italic></td><td><italic>Average</italic></td><td>+<italic>Average</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Behaviour of whole class</td><td>−Average</td><td>8</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Average</td><td>10</td><td>14</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td /><td>+Average</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>8</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Analysis of these figures using a Chi Square test shows the differences to be significant. (x<sups>2</sups> = 24.26, <emph>df</emph> = 4, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). These frequencies are presented graphically in Figure 1.</p> <p>It would appear that in lessons where the average on‐task rate of all the pupils was high it was also high for the designated pupils. In classes where the on‐task rates of the whole class were in the average range, similar rates are found for the designated pupils. Finally, in classes where on‐task rates for the whole class were found to be low, the behaviour of the designated pupils was also very poor in terms of low on‐task behaviour. Therefore the behaviour of the designated pupils was invariably either satisfactory or good in well run classes. The disruptive behaviour of the designated pupils seemed to be reserved for the less well run lessons.</p> <hd id="AN0026099724-10">2 Teacher Verbal Behaviour</hd> <p>The teachers' use of positive and negative feedback was also recorded in the Pupil Behaviour Schedule (Jolly & McNamara, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref34">11</reflink>]). Whether this feedback was directed to pupils' social behaviour or academic work was tabulated and is presented in Table 5.</p> <p>Table 5. The percentage of teachers' feedback directed to pupils' academic work and social behaviour (N = 20 teacher observations)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Behaviour</td><td>Positive feedback</td><td>Negative feedback</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Academic</td><td>14.0</td><td>5.3</td></tr><tr><td>Social</td><td>6.9</td><td>72.9</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>These proportions are not similar to previous studies, e.g., Harrop and Swinson ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref35">6</reflink>]) or Merrett and Wheldall ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref36">13</reflink>]), in that the teachers in this study were far more negative and less positive in their feedback than has been apparent in almost all previous studies. It must be remembered that this study took place in only one school and therefore the results may be affected by the context of that school and the fact that the selection of the classes that were observed was not random. However, like almost all previous studies the majority of negative feedback was reserved for pupils' social behaviour and the majority of positive feedback was directed to pupils' work.</p> <p>The feedback that was directed to the designated pupils and the rest of the class was also recorded and is presented in Table 6.</p> <p>Table 6. The percentage of different types of teacher verbal feedback directed towards the designated and non‐designated pupils (N = 20 teacher observations)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Types of feedback</td><td>Non‐designated pupils</td><td>Designated pupils</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total feedback</td><td>73.9</td><td>26.1</td></tr><tr><td>Positive feedback for work</td><td>10.45</td><td>5.65</td></tr><tr><td>Negative feedback for work</td><td>5.66</td><td>0.018</td></tr><tr><td>Positive feedback for social behaviour</td><td>3.92</td><td>0.004</td></tr><tr><td>Negative feedback for social behaviour</td><td>53.87</td><td>20.50</td></tr><tr><td>Proportion of designated/non designated pupils</td><td>85.4</td><td>14.6</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The proportion of designated pupils in classes was 14.6%. In terms of total feedback it is clear that the designated pupils received a higher proportion of teacher attention than the rest of the class. They received a comparatively higher proportion of positive feedback than their classmates and very few critical remarks were made about their work. It is also clear however that they received an over‐proportionate degree of negative feedback for their behaviour and, unlike the rest of the class, received almost no positive feedback at all for appropriate behaviour. Only one positive remark about their behaviour was recorded.</p> <p>The feedback directed to individuals and groups was also analysed and is presented in Table 7. The majority of teacher feedback was directed towards individual pupils, 78.6%; most of this was negative, 58.2% and, as shown in the Table 7, this was directed at pupils' social behaviour. A fifth of teacher feedback, 21.3%, was directed towards the class as a whole, and was predominantly negative feedback directed at pupils' social behaviour.</p> <p>Table 7. The proportion of positive and negative feedback directed towards individuals and groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Feedback</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Total</td><td>Positive</td><td>Negative</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Individual</td><td>78.6</td><td>20.4</td><td>58.2</td></tr><tr><td>Groups</td><td>21.3</td><td>5.2</td><td>16.1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0026099724-11">3 The Relationship between Teacher Feedback and Pupil Behaviour</hd> <p>The relationship between teacher feedback and pupil behaviour was examined by a series of correlations using Pearson's correlation coefficient <emph>r</emph>. First, the relationship between the teachers' total amount of positive and negative feedback was examined in relationship to the behaviour of the whole class, see Table 8.</p> <p>Table 8. The correlations, using Pearson's r, between the teachers' positive and negative feedback and the on‐task behaviour of the whole class (N = 20 classroom observations)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Correlation</td><td>Pearson's <italic>r</italic></td><td>Significance</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total positive feedback & on‐task behaviour</td><td>0.3104</td><td>Not sig.</td></tr><tr><td>Total negative feedback & on‐task behaviour</td><td>−1.052</td><td>Not sig.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>These correlations were not strong or significant. One reason for this may have been the unusual proportion of feedback reported in this study, see Table 5, and the non‐random selection of classes that was observed.</p> <p>A record was also made of the different types of feedback that were directed towards the designated pupils. This allowed an additional correlation to be made of the relationship between this individual feedback and the behaviour of the individual pupils. This is presented in Table 9.</p> <p>Table 9. The correlations, using Pearson's r, between the positive and negative feedback directed at the designated pupils and their individual on‐task behaviour (N = 20 classroom observations)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Correlation</td><td>Pearson's r</td><td>Significance</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Individual positive feedback & individual on‐task behaviour</td><td>0.4971</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Individual negative feedback and individual on‐task behaviour</td><td>−0.4325</td><td>0.10</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>These correlations are in the direction predicted and appear to suggest that individual praise and censure may have a stronger influence on individual pupil behaviour than feedback directed to the class as a whole or indeed feedback directed to other pupils.</p> <hd id="AN0026099724-12">Discussion</hd> <p>The primary purpose of this study was to examine the behaviour of a group of pupils designated as having behaviour problems and the verbal behaviour of their teachers. The need to compare the behaviour of the designated pupils with the rest of the class meant that a classroom observation schedule had to be used that allowed a record to be made of each individual pupil's behaviour. The Pupil Behaviour Schedule (Jolly & McNamara, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref37">11</reflink>]) allows this to be done. Unlike some other schedules, for example, Optic (Merrett & Wheldall, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref38">12</reflink>]), it allows a simultaneous record to be made of both pupil and teacher behaviour. In this study the observer was also asked to note whether the teacher's verbal feedback was directed towards the designated pupils. Although the observations were complex, after three trial lessons a reasonably high inter‐observer reliability was achieved and in three random selected lessons the inter‐observer reliability of pupil on‐task rates was found to be at 92.34% and the inter‐observer agreement of teacher feedback was at 89.7%.</p> <p>As Harrop and Swinson ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref39">8</reflink>]) have pointed out, the recording of essentially transient behaviour in classroom observation is fraught with difficulties. In this type of research the accuracy of the observations could have been further validated by either having two observers present in all lessons or by the taped recording of the teacher's verbal behaviour. Nevertheless the rates of inter‐observer agreement in this study of around 90% were of sufficient order to substantiate the reliability of the observations.</p> <p>Another potential difficulty in this study was that, in isolating the feedback directed by teachers towards individuals, some of the analysis had to ignore the influence that teacher feedback directed to the whole class might have had on the pupils' behaviour. As is evident from Table 7, whole class feedback constituted some 20% of teacher feedback and was predominantly negative. However, it must be borne in mind that this feedback was directed towards all pupils, designated and non‐designated, and that this, as is evident from Table 8, did not appear to have a significant effect on pupil behaviour. It was only feedback that was individually directed to the designated pupils, see Table 9, that appeared to be significantly related to on‐task behaviour.</p> <p>A comparison between this study and other earlier studies shows that the behaviour of the classes in terms of their overall on task rates at around 76% was similar, e.g., Merrett and Wheldall ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref40">13</reflink>]) and Swinson and Harrop ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref41">20</reflink>]). However, the pattern of teacher feedback was markedly different in that the teachers in this study used a higher proportion of negative feedback, largely directed to pupil behaviour, than had been found in the other studies. This could be a product of the context of the school in which the study was conducted, the non‐random selection of classes or a reflection of the fact that the majority of classes observed in this study came from lower attainment sets in the school. This phenomenon was also described by Heller and White ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref42">10</reflink>]), who found that teachers tend to reserve more negative comments for pupils described as low ability. An alternative explanation could be found within labelling theory (Becker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>]). The selection of the designated pupils was made entirely on a subjective basis as a result of a group discussion with a group of teachers who knew the pupils. Labelling theory would suggest that, as these pupils had been singled out and labelled as being especially difficult and disruptive, two phenomena would occur. Firstly, from the teachers' perspective, as the pupils were labelled and "known" to be "trouble makers" the teachers would treat them differently. Secondly, from the designated pupils' point of view, having been labelled as disruptive trouble‐makers they might well be expected to "live up" to their label and behave in a more disruptive fashion. It was beyond the scope of this study to ascertain the motivation that led the teachers in this school to respond to the two sets of pupils in the way that was observed. There is some recent research, Rubie‐Davies ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref44">16</reflink>]), which demonstrates that teachers who have high expectations of their students' capabilities tend to treat them in a more positive fashion. In order to examine this phenomenon it would have been necessary to ascertain the teachers' attitudes towards the designated pupils in this school. This was not done in this study but could, in the light of the work of Rubie‐Davies ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref45">16</reflink>]), provide a valuable insight into the reasons behind the teachers' behaviour.</p> <p>Another limitation of this study was that it was not possible to ascertain whether the designated pupils were admonished more by their teachers simply because they were observed to be less on‐task than the rest of the class or that their higher levels of off‐task behaviour were a consequence of repeatedly being "told‐off". This again could be the subject of a future research.</p> <p>This study does show that the teachers were accurate in their selection of the challenging pupils, in that our results showed their chosen sample to be significantly less on‐task than the rest of the class. It is interesting to note that when a comparison was made between the designated group and the rest of the class in terms of the types of off‐task behaviour they exhibited, it was only the "shouting‐out" behaviour of this group that differentiated them from the rest of the class. The significance of this finding may have a resonance for many teachers, as "shouting out", unlike some of the other off‐task behaviours, is the one behaviour which tends to disrupt the whole of the rest of the class, disturbs their concentration, is difficult for a teacher to ignore and therefore requires some form of teacher intervention, which again could disrupt the flow of a lesson.</p> <p>However the behaviour of the designated pupils was not universally a cause for concern. As was demonstrated in Table 4 and Figure 1, in well‐ordered classes with high on‐task rates, the behaviour of all pupils, including those designated as having challenging behaviour, recorded high rates of on‐task behaviour. In other words the pupils were all doing what their teacher had directed them to do. This finding is very similar to that of Swinson, Woof and Melling (2001) who looked at the behaviour of SEBD pupils placed in a mainstream school.</p> <p>In terms of the teachers' feedback, the teachers in this study appear to be more negative than those in other studies (see Table 5). It was also found that they gave the designated pupils comparatively more attention in terms of total amount of all types of feedback than they directed towards the other pupils in the class. They appeared to give those designated pupils a higher proportion of positive feedback for their work and very rarely criticised their work. The teachers also tended to give the designated pupils a high proportion of negative feedback directed towards their social behaviour and almost never praised them individually about their appropriate behaviour.</p> <p>In the school in this study there did not appear to be a concerted whole school approach to classroom management, nor to the treatment of those pupils whom the teachers themselves singled out as being potentially difficult to teach. Some teachers gave very little feedback at all to their pupils and appeared to ignore the designated pupils even when the pupils themselves behaved well and were observed to be following instructions. Other teachers appeared to over‐rely on a "telling‐off" strategy. One teacher was recorded as telling‐off the class no fewer than 55 times during the course of the lesson, to little effect. Others not only gave a great deal of positive feedback to the whole class, along the lines recommended by Swinson and Harrop ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref46">21</reflink>]), but also singled out the designated pupils for special attention. It was those teachers who incorporated high levels of pupil approval into their teaching style that appeared to be the most successful in engaging all pupils, including those who were designated as potentially disruptive in the lesson, and keeping them involved throughout the teaching period.</p> <p>In short, while the teachers in this study appear to have adopted a proactive, positive, praise‐based strategy for encouraging all pupils' work, they adopted a very negative reactive response to pupil behaviour. This appears to be especially the case as far as the pupils whom the teachers themselves designated as being poorly behaved are concerned. This finding was also described by one earlier study, Russell and Lin ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref47">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>The significance of this style of management should not be lost when considering the results of the correlation evidence in this study. Although the correlation between positive and negative feedback and pupil behaviour was not strong when considering the results on a whole class basis, the results did show, as far as the designated pupils were concerned, a significant correlation between positive feedback and on‐task behaviour and, conversely, a negative correlation between negative feedback and on‐task behaviour. The results of two recent studies, Swinson and Harrop ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref48">21</reflink>]) and Chalk and Bizo ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>]) indicate that by using carefully targeted praise‐based strategies the appropriate behaviour of all pupils, including those with challenging behaviour, can be successfully improved.</p> <p>It would seem therefore that it would be wise of teachers to adopt positive‐based strategies if they wish to improve the on‐task behaviour of those pupils who are a cause for concern because of their behaviour, and not to over‐rely on admonishments.</p> <p>It is impossible, within the confines of this study, to ascertain whether the designated pupils we observed received a disproportionate amount of teacher attention, and especially negative attention, from their teachers as a result of their behaviour, or as a result of being labelled as disruptive (Becker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>]). It is clear, however, that the teachers in this study adopted a significantly different style of management towards the designated pupils. Whatever the reason, it is clear that the teachers in this study were not adopting a style of pupil management that was likely to improve the behaviour of the most difficult to teach pupils in their class.</p> <p>No one would doubt that teaching pupils who display challenging behaviours can be extremely demanding, both in terms of professional skills needed to deliver successful lessons and also in terms of emotional energy needed to deal with disruptive behaviour. However, it is apparent from this study, and more especially two recent papers by Swinson and Harrop ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref51">21</reflink>]) and Chalk and Bizo ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>]) that, to teach such pupils successfully, a positive‐based strategy is more likely to yield an increase in appropriate behaviour, not only for the class as a whole, but especially for those challenging pupils. It would also appear that such strategies include a number that are aimed specifically at reducing the highly disruptive "shouting‐out" behaviour that appears to be the one behaviour that differentiates most clearly between those pupils who are designated as real problems and the rest of the class. These strategies could include individual behavioural contracts or perhaps, better still, the use of whole‐class rewards for pupils putting their hand‐up appropriately.</p> <ref id="AN0026099724-13"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref43" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Becker, H.1963. Outsiders: studies in the sociology of deviance, New York: Free Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref11" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Chalk, K. and Bizo, L.2004. Specific praise improves on‐task behaviour and numeracy enjoyment. A study of year four pupils engaged in numeracy hour. Educational Psychology in Practice, 20(4): 335–354.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref24" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Fry, P. S.1983. Process measures of problem and non‐problem children's classroom behaviour: the influence of teacher behaviour variables. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53: 79–88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Galton, M., Simon, B. and Croll, P.1980. Inside the primary classroom, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Gilchrist, E. P.1916. The extent to which praise and reproof affect a pupil's work. School Society, 4: 872–874.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref10" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Harrop, A. and Swinson, J.2000. Natural rates of approval and disapproval in British infant, junior and secondary classrooms. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70: 473–483.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Harrop, A. and Swinson, J.2003. Teachers' questions in the infant, junior and secondary school. Educational Studies, 29(1): 49–57.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref39" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Harrop, A. and Swinson, J.2007. The behavioural approach in schools: a time for caution revisited. Educational Studies, 33(1)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Hathawala‐Ward, H. and Swinson, J.1991. Teachers' verbal responses in a multi‐racial primary school. Educational and Child Psychology, 16(3): 37–43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heller, M. and White, M.1975. Rates of teacher approval and disapproval to higher and lower ability classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67: 796–800.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jolly, M. and McNamara, E.1992. Pupil behaviour schedule towards better behaviour, Ainsdale: Towards Better Behaviour.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merrett, F. and Whedall, K.1986. Observing pupils and teachers in classrooms (OPTIC), Birmingham: Positive Products, B297JQ.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merrett, F. and Whedall, K.1987. Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in British primary and middle school classrooms. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 57: 95–103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, A.2003. Teachers, parents and classroom behaviour. A psychosocial approach, Maidenhead: Open University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nafpaktitis, M., Mayer, G. R. and Butterworth, T.1985. Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval and their relation to student behaviour in intermediate school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77: 363–367.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubie‐Davies, C. M.2007. Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high‐ and low‐expectation teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77: 286–306.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell, A. and Lin, L. G.1977. Teacher attention and classroom behaviour. The Exceptional Child, 24: 148–155.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strain, P. S., Lambert, D. L., Kerr, M. M., Stagg, V. and Lenker, D. A.1983. Naturalistic assessment of children's compliance to teachers' requests and consequences for compliance. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 16: 243–249.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swinson, J. and Cording, M.2002. Assertive discipline in a school for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties. British Journal of Special Education, 29(3): 72–75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swinson, J. and Harrop, A.2002. The Differential Effects of Teacher Approval and Disapproval in Junior and Infant Classrooms. Educational Psychology in Practice, 17(2): 157–167.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swinson, J. and Harrop, A.2005. An examination of the effects of a short course aimed at enabling teachers in infant, junior and secondary schools to alter the verbal feedback given to pupils. Educational Studies, 31(3): 115–129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swinson, J. and Melling, R.1995. Assertive discipline—four wheels on this wagon—a reply to Robinson and Maines. Educational Psychology in Practice, 11(3): 1–8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swinson, J., Woof, C. and Melling, R.2003. Including emotional and behaviour difficulties pupils in mainstream comprehensive. Educational Psychology in Practice, 19(1): 65–75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, J. D., Presland, I. E., Grant, M. D. and Glynn, T.1978. National rates of teacher approval and disapproval in Grade 7 classrooms. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 11(1): 91–94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wheldall, K. and Beaman, R.1994. An evaluation of the WINS (Working Ideas for Need Satisfaction), training package. Collected Original Resources in Education, 18(1)fich4E01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wheldall, K., Houghton, S. and Merrett, F.1989. Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in British secondary school classrooms. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 59: 38–48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wheldall, F., Houghton, S., Merrett, F. and Baddeley, A.1989. The behavioural approach to teaching secondary aged children (BATSAC). Two behavioural evaluations of a training package for secondary school teachers in classroom behavioural management. Educational Psychology, 9(3): 185–196.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wheldall, K., Merrett, F. and Borg, M.1985. The behavioural approach to teaching package (BATPACK) and experimental evaluation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55: 65–75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, M. A.1975. Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in the classroom. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 3: 367–372.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winter, S.1990. Teacher approval and disapproval in Hong Kong secondary school classrooms. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60: 88–92.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woods, S., Hodges, C. and Aljunied, M.1996. The effectiveness of Assertive Discipline training, look before you leap off this wagon. Educational Psychology in Practice, 12(3): 175–181.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By J. Swinson and R. Knight</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref44"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ771987
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teacher Verbal Feedback Directed towards Secondary Pupils with Challenging Behaviour and Its Relationship to Their Behaviour
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Swinson%2C+J%2E%22">Swinson, J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Knight%2C+R%2E%22">Knight, R.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Psychology+in+Practice%22"><i>Educational Psychology in Practice</i></searchLink>. Sep 2007 23(3):241-255.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/default.html
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2007
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+8%22">Grade 8</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback%22">Feedback</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+8%22">Grade 8</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Communication%22">Classroom Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Teachers%22">Secondary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Students%22">Secondary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Verbal+Communication%22">Verbal Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Time+on+Task%22">Time on Task</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Antisocial+Behavior%22">Antisocial Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Techniques%22">Classroom Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Reinforcement%22">Positive Reinforcement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Negative+Reinforcement%22">Negative Reinforcement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discipline%22">Discipline</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02667360701507327
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0266-7363
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: There is a body of evidence that has linked teachers' verbal feedback to pupils with pupil behaviour. In this study teacher verbal behaviour that was directed towards those pupils that the teachers had nominated as being especially difficult to teach was examined. A series of lessons was observed in a secondary school. The quality and quantity of teacher verbal feedback directed to the class as a whole and to the designated pupils was recorded, as was the on-task behaviour of the pupils. It was found that the designated pupils were less on-task than their peers and were more likely to "shout-out" in lessons. However, they were found to behave appropriately in well run lessons, where on-task rates were high for all pupils. Teachers tended to give more attention to the designated pupils in the form of positive feedback directed towards their work, but also negative attention directed towards their behaviour. A positive relationship was found between teachers' use of positive feedback and on-task rates of the designated pupils. The results are discussed both in terms of the strategies used by teachers but also the effect that labelling of the pupils might have on the behaviour of the teachers and the pupils themselves. (Contains 9 tables and 1 figure.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: Author
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 31
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2007
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ771987
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ771987
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02667360701507327
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 241
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Feedback
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 8
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Verbal Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Time on Task
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Antisocial Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Reinforcement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Negative Reinforcement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discipline
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teacher Verbal Feedback Directed towards Secondary Pupils with Challenging Behaviour and Its Relationship to Their Behaviour
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Swinson, J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Knight, R.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2007
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0266-7363
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 23
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Psychology in Practice
              Type: main
ResultId 1