School of Education, University of Leeds

Ruth Payne-Woolridge

School of Education, University of Leeds

6th September 2006

Impact and Implications. A consideration of the terminology used in discussions about the language of social behaviour in UK secondary schools.

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association New Researchers/Student Conference,University of Warwick, 6 September 2006

Language is the primary medium through which communication is established between pupils and teachers, as well as being the most salient resource employed in teaching and learning. It is also the means by which relationships with parents and with schools’ wider communities are promoted. Language can therefore be regarded as the main method by which links are formed, including the establishment of a set of expectations and responsibilities. This research aims to look specifically at the language that is used in schools to refer to pupils’ social behaviour, focusing in particular on the language used by teachers in the classroom, and also in written documents prepared by the school.

This research stems from my own interest in how the choice of language can reflect intrinsic beliefs and expectations in addition to those actually being stated, and also in the way expectations of pupils are represented in schools’ written policies. In broad terms my study will examine the language used in relation to behaviour in the classroom, and the overall consistency this displays with the approach stated by the school. I shall also analyse how teachers discuss matters of behaviour in a less formal situation with their colleagues, and I hope this will allow me access to views and perceptions that are not borne directly of formal training sessions.

My research will comprise of a single case study; in order to examine written language in this research I plan to explore a broad collection of written documents from the participating school, and I shall also be focusing on the spoken language of a small group of the school’s teachers. My methods for collecting samples of spoken language will be through lesson observations, individual interviews and focus group sessions; all spoken language will be recorded to allow for closer examination later on. It is the case, though, as with any exploratory study, that my analysis will be driven by the data I am able to collect. The analysis of all unstructured data is complicated by the fact that it really begins while the data are being collected, with the imposition of order and identification of similarities; in this way the clarification of focus of enquiry will emerge as the study progresses (Boulton and Hammersley 1996). It is the case, then, that in this study the patterns are likely to be found once the data has been collected, rather than the patterns being the basis of some hypothesis before data collection begins.

It is hoped that a study of this nature will reveal patterns in linguistic approaches to behaviour in schools and an indication of which linguistic strategies are most common. Ultimately this might provide a basis for promoting consistency across teacher training, where teachers – and schools in general - are empowered to make informed linguistic choices that help lead to the creation and support of positive learning environments.

Selection of Terminology

One of the greatest problems I have encountered relates to the selection of the terminology that I will use both during collection of data and in the subsequent written discussion. In a study where I plan to analyse the linguistic tokens used by others, I believe my own terminology must reflect full consideration; it will also be crucial not to colour my respondents’ terminology through my own choice of language.

A wide range of terms is used to refer to both the individual behaviours and to the pupils who take part in them, and many of these have fairly deep-rooted connotations. As Porter remarks, ‘…the term [behaviour] ‘management’ …has overtones of controlling others… It is a term that carries with it a great deal of baggage, being associated with a reward-and-punishment system of behaviour modification’ (Porter 2000).

Diverse social behaviour in schools is referred to in many ways – Corrie uses the term ‘troublesome’ (Corrie 1997), as do Houghton et al (Houghton, Wheldall et al. 1988), where Miller uses, variously, ‘inappropriate’, ‘difficult’, ‘challenging’, ‘pervasive and unresponsive’, ‘disturbed’, and ‘behaviour deemed by [their] teachers to be difficult to manage’ (Miller 2003). Chaplain also writes about ‘pupils who are difficult to manage’ (Chaplain 2003), whereas Watkins and Wagner refer to ‘disruptive behaviour’, ‘problem behaviour’, ‘disruptive effects’, ‘difficult pupils’, difficult behaviour’, and ‘disruptive episodes’ (Watkins and Wagner 2000). Lund refers to ‘intolerable behaviour’ (Lund 1996).

These terms are often used without any explanation, although Houghton et al do offer a definition for ‘disruptive behaviour’ as an activity which:

a)annoys, upsets or distresses teachers

b)is disruptive of good order in the classroom and causes trouble and

c)leads teachers to comment continually

(Houghton, Wheldall et al. 1988 p299)

One definition of ‘difficult behaviour’ suggests a complex model that takes into account the place where the behaviour occurs, the audience (who is present) the actor (in terms of previous behaviour), the observer (in terms of previous observations), who is harmed by the behaviour, and the time (of day, week, term) at which it happens (Watkins and Wagner 2000). It is the case that a full discussion of the impact of these terms would necessarily involve knowledge about both the person using the term and the audience receiving it, as well as contextual understanding about the occasions when the terms are employed. My belief is that many of the terms that are used carry with them connotations of evaluation and attribution of responsibility, and it is part of the aims of this study to look at the language that is used in light of this.

My reading so far has led me to virtually no definition of terms or to any reference to reasons for the choice of terminology. Authors who offer advice on how schools might create a behaviour policy make little or no reference to terminology (Glasser 1986; Cowin, Freeman et al. 1990; Rogers 1994; Lund 1996; Rogers 2000), which suggests that policies created using these authors’ guidelines will also fail to focus on the implications of using certain language.

Bill Rogers devotes a chapter to the use of language (Rogers 2000), and builds upon his earlier comments about what he refers to as ‘I statements’ (Rogers 1994), where teachers are advised to say ‘I would like you to…’ rather than ‘You must…’, but no advice is offered on the terminology to be used. Canter and Canter do make some comment in this area when they discuss the use of ‘supportive feedback’ or ‘verbal recognition’ as opposed to ‘praise’ because they believe ‘praise’ is an evaluative or judgmental term. ‘The goal is to help students make good choices for their own sake, not for your approval’ (Canter and Canter 2001 p26). They also refer to ‘corrective actions’ rather than ‘consequences’, because of the established connection between ‘consequences’ and punishment; the authors consider the term ‘corrective actions’ to be non-punitive.

Roy Lund offers a sample wording for a school policy, and at one point claims that ‘Pupils who feel that they are unvalued, worthless and that they are failures tend to express these feelings in the form of inappropriate behaviour’ (Lund 1996 p124), but this begs the question of for whom, exactly, is the behaviour inappropriate? Again, there is nothing on defining terms, or on labels and terminology, though he does make the following observation:

‘ Inappropriate behaviour can also lead to ‘labelling’. The pupil who exhibits intolerable behaviour is often rejected by the adults within the school community and the current high levels of exclusions have resulted from this. Teachers who are operating under extreme stress tend to have low self-esteem and do not have the emotional energy to look beyond the surface behaviour of their pupils.’

(Lund 1996 p21)

One alternative description that has been suggested in response to these difficulties is ‘behaviours that result in a disruption’ (Porter 2000), with further reference to specific acts as ‘inconsiderate, or ‘thoughtless’. However, the term still fails to identify who is responsible for deciding what constitutes a disruption; it also fails to include any notion of intention - or lack of it - to disrupt.

An overarching characteristic of terms that are used to refer to behaviour is that they create the impression that behaviour is an isolated phenomenon, rather than a response to something else; behaviour is really an end product in a much larger process (Lane 1994). Where the descriptive term is applied to individuals rather than to their behaviour there is the additional risk that focus will shift from the behaviour and its causes to the individual and his personality, and that involves the possibility of evaluative positioning of the person using the terminology. Where someone is labelled as, for example, ‘disruptive’, it is unlikely she will be given the opportunity to receive a definition of the term, or to decide whether that definition fits her own; the chances are she will be too busy defending her actions (Cameron 1995).

I have chosen to use the terms ‘social behaviour’ and ‘attending’ (or ‘non-attending’) behaviour (Friedman 1980; Merrett and Wheldall 1986), so there is an initial distinction between social behaviour and academic behaviour, and then also between behaviours that relate to youngsters not attending to the teacher or the lesson, as opposed to other types of behaviours that attract comment, such as swearing or physical violence. I shall also extend this to include the terms ‘diverse’ and ‘socially diverse’ when referring to behaviour that does not conform to the pattern set by an educational institution, but would highlight the distinction between ‘diversity’ and ‘deviance’ (Downes and Rock 2003).

I am mindful of the history of ‘politically correct language’, where many alternatives are considered before settling on terms that are regarded as most linguistically ‘neutral’. In the 1980s, discussions about gender-biased terms such as policeman, postman and chairman led to the use of the terms police officer, postal worker and chair(person) in what is now regarded as a fairly routine way. Indeed, there is a generation of young adults who will never have used some terms we now believe to be offensive. The ability of these linguistic shifts to actually alter cultural attitudes is worth noting, particularly when language is placed in its rightful place alongside other forms of behaviour. Deborah Cameron explains the point by analogy: ‘Changing what counts as acceptable public behaviour is one of the ways you go about changing prevailing attitudes – ask anyone who still smokes cigarettes’ (Cameron 1995).

One of the main reasons certain ‘labels’ are more acceptable than others is because they fit more closely with how the person to whom the label is attached might actually refer to themselves (Cameron 1995), and in relation to this study that raises questions about how school pupils might refer to their own behaviour when it doesn’t conform to the pattern preset by their school. It also suggests that it might be considered abusive to attach inappropriate labels to pupils in an attempt to categorise them in terms of their actions or their academic ability.

The Elton Report (1989) states, ‘We recommend that head teachers and teachers should avoid punishments which humiliate pupils’. If we extend this principle to requiring teachers to avoid terminology that is humiliating, where would that leave us in terms of labelling? How humiliating might a pupil find it to be referred to as ‘weak’, ‘low-ability’, ‘challenging’, or ‘unteachable’?

One thing the last three examples have in common is certainly that they are negative – these pupils lack something that is desirable in a world where we judge pupils on academic achievement; youngsters are being described through the language of a deficit model. But in the true pattern of politically correct language this leads to problems with what might be used as alternatives. If in matters of academic performance we were, for example, to adopt terms such as ‘academically restricted’, or ‘non-academic students’ then we are only creating new ways of saying the same thing. In time, these terms will have attracted exactly the same connotations as their predecessors and will need to be changed again (Cameron 1995).

Perhaps most important, in the case of my own terminology, is the fact that as I am aiming to collect data that reflects other people’s terminology, I must make sure that my own choice of terms doesn’t colour discussions; it is crucial for this study that respondents use the language they would naturally choose. To this end, it is my intention to allow my respondents to select their own terminology through use, and I shall then adopt the same terms during subsequent discussions. The terms I then use in my own writing may in fact differ from those chosen by the participants in the study.

Attribution of Responsibility for Social Behaviour

The subject of attribution of responsibility for behaviour has generated a great deal of research, and the evidence is fairly clear that the factors to which behaviour is attributed will have an impact on the type of intervention that is likely to be initiated (Wearmouth, Richmond et al. 2004). Moreover, there is a connection between attribution and labelling (Miller 1996), and again between attribution and stereotyping, where once attributions of motives and intentions have taken place it is hard to reverse them, as any new information that contradicts the preconceived view, is actually resisted (Hargreaves 1975; Stephan 1999).

From a language point of view it is also the case that there is a tendency to use less favourable terms to describe outgroup members, and to assume negative traits are owing to dispositional characteristics rather than situational factors (Schneider 2004). It is likely that teachers’ responses to pupil behaviour - and to pupils themselves - as well as their approach to strategies used to alter behaviour, will be better understood following in-depth analysis of individual teachers’ attribution of responsibility (Miller 1996).

When looking at the issue of what constitutes ‘poor’ behaviour, it is worth noting that the perceptions of children’s behaviour by teachers differs from those expressed by parents, perhaps indicating that behaviour issues are entirely context-specific (Miller 2003). If this is the case there are many possible variables, environmental, social and individual that could offer insight to the types of behaviours that are displayed. An examination of the language used to describe and address behaviour in schools may begin to shine light on the place of individual children within the classroom and the school, offering a grounding for future explorations that compare language used by parents to describe behaviour in the home. Attempts to change school policy that do not include attention to the conflicting nature of attributional styles of teachers and pupils are unlikely to be successful in changing pupil behaviour (Miller 2003).

Verbal explanations of behaviour often reflect the idea that nothing can be done – it’s just how it is – or that once the minority causing the problem has been removed, then all will be well (Watkins and Wagner 2000). There is also a suggestion that the structure of our language (subject, verb, object) actually encourages blame – ‘Jeremy created a riot -’ and that longer structures are not easy ‘In the context of the classroom, some of the behaviour was seen as riotous, and Jeremy played a significant role in it’ (so we focus on Jeremy) (Watkins and Wagner 2000), but we can equally have ‘My classroom was disrupted’ or ‘Difficult behaviour disrupted my classroom’.

Where the way in which we describe and attribute behaviour is regarded as a language-based issue, it must be noted that what teachers say in the staffroom - possibly by way of an emotional release - may well not travel with them back to the classroom (Watkins and Wagner 2000). However, the attribution that is expressed may cause a narrowing of the overall view, so problems end up being seen as specific things rather than part of a bigger picture, with focus being on incidents rather than patterns (Watkins and Wagner 2000). The matter of attribution then becomes one of where we ‘punctuate’ the sequence of events - that is, the point at which we interrupt the circle and make our attribution of cause - and therefore from where we regard the sequence, a phenomenon that can lead to entirely different views of the same situation. Miller refers to this as ‘circular causation’ (Miller 2003), where for example a parent might attribute his daughter’s ‘talking back’ to the teacher picking on the child, and the teacher might attribute the same behaviour to a point further back in the circle where perhaps the parents separated and the child was left to live with grandparents.

Continuing to attribute behaviour to the internal features of individuals leads to the idea that these individuals can be ‘cured’ with expert help from outside the school – that the ‘problem’ lies within the individual and can be ‘fixed’ away from the classroom. This view suggests that the classroom, being the context of the behaviour, is not regarded as part of the ‘problem’ (Watkins and Wagner 2000). Similarly, making linguistic representations of isolated aspects of behaviour in what is a deficit model (e.g. Simon loses his temper too quickly) fails to place the behaviour in its context or within any pattern. This type of linguistic ‘shorthand’ also fails to recognise the events either side of the loss of temper (in this example), in order to tackle the bigger issues. What’s more, these disruptions will vary from person to person depending on their perception and perspective. It is possibly more productive to identify patterns, and once patterns are discovered, to learn from the exceptions to the pattern (Watkins and Wagner 2000).