On the second day of my PGCE course I was instructed to write a paragraph on ‘How do children learn?’ to generate my initial response to the term ‘Pedagogy’. I answered;
“Children learn through exciting and motivating teaching, activities and connections. Children are assisted in learning through visual aids, resources and guidance. Children learn through practising.”
This answer is somewhat correct; however, it merely scraps the surface on what is a complex answer in comparison to the studies of Pedagogy from Gotswami. Gotswami (p.25, 2015) agrees that thinking, reasoning and understanding can be extended through imaginative scenario but improves my point by suggesting that the teacher of the class must provide scaffolding to the learning for the task to be beneficial to the children. I used ‘guidance’ loosely in my answer but essentially this can branch off into many subheadings such as;

• Knowledge of the children – creating suitable but challenging activities that includes every child in the classroom;
• Behaviour management – providing a fair and focused environment;
• Purpose – creating objectives for children to coincide with the National Curriculum;
• Assessment – providing formative assessment throughout the activity to motivate and engage children whilst correcting misinterpretation and
• Time and space – Evaluate the time needed for each activity and awareness of space for practicality and safety.

Gotswami concurs with my initial ideology that children learn with ‘practising’ by indicating that they think in the same way adults do but have a lack of experience. However, Gotswami found that children need diverse learning opportunities to develop a self-reflective conception of their work. Skemp put forward two concepts of understanding for Mathematics which can be applied across the spectrum of teaching; Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding. In my initial Pedagogy paragraph, I was instigating learning by practising (I soon discovered that this method fell into Skemp’s Instrumental Understanding) I felt was perhaps the best way children learnt was repetition, easy to understand material and success being instantaneous. However, Skemp writes that Relational Understanding has the benefits of;

• It is more adaptable to tasks;
• It is easier to remember;
• Relational knowledge can be effective as a goal itself and
• Relational schemes are organic in quality. (p.9-11, 1995)

A Relational Understanding of education – in Skemp’s circumstance the focus was within Mathematics – is said to have long-term benefits for the learner as it will create a deeper meaning to the learning. For Instrumental Understanding, the learning could be soon forgotten and, although effective for the short-term learner, it may need to be address again in the future.

Eaude (p.62, 2011) had a similar breakdown of how children acquire knowledge as Skemp and addressed it in two methods called Propositional Knowledge, meaning factual information, and Procedural Knowledge, meaning the knowledge of ‘how’ before writing that Experimental and Emotional Knowledge is considered later in the child’s development. Eaude claims that learning in both methods is helpful by addressing a builder as an example, claiming “My builder could not have mixed the concrete properly without propositional knowledge of how much sand, cement and water to use. And it would be little help to know what bricks were best if he did not know how to lay them correctly.” If we called the two methods ‘skills’ and ‘content’, I concur with Eaude in that skills and content must work together mutually to become useful for activities, cultures and structures of intellectual, social and emotional support (p.63, 2011).

Hayes puts forward Bloom’s dated 1976 Taxonomy from which coincides Skemp, Gotswami and Eaude’s classifications of learning and knowledge by indicating that his three domains of learning;
“

• Cognitive: mental skills (knowledge)
• Affective: growth in feelings or emotional areas (attitude or self)
• Psychomotor: manual or physical skills (skills)” (Clark, 2015)

are organised as a series of levels or prerequisites that must be introduced to the learner stage by stage to create a strong foundation of knowledge (p.114, 2011).

I relax on the idea that there is no right or definite way of learning or how to teach as children because we as humans are so varied in ability and intelligence that a teacher must adapt to what they believe is best individually, which I must prepare for myself. To discover the depth of knowledge and to have a clearer understanding of the learning has broadened my own mindset and the start of forming my own teaching.

References:

Clark, D. (2015) Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains [online] Washington, USA.

Available: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html [Accessed 28th October 2016]

Eaude, T. (2011) Thinking Through Pedagogy for Primary and Early Years, Exeter, UK: Learning Matters Ltd.

Hayes, D. (2011) The Guided Reader to Teaching and Learning, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Gotswami, U. (2015) Children’s cognitive development and learning [online], Cambridge Primary Review Trust.

Available: < http://cprtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/COMPLETE-REPORT-Goswami-Childrens-Cognitive-Development-and-Learning.pdf> [Accessed: 25^th October 2016]

Skemp, R (1995) Mathematics in the Primary School, London: Routledge.

Other Reading:

Gotswami, U. (1998) Cognition in Children, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

Gotswami, U. (2009) Cognitive Development: The Learning Brain, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

The Head teacher of my school placement was quick to jump onto the word ‘discipline’ when we were discussing the behaviour policy in the school. She stressed that the word discipline should not be used within the school and that we refer to the practice as ‘behaviour management’. This immediately diffused the idea that the school was run as a strict ‘those out-of-line shall be punished’ and instead creates a notion of working individually to gain the best outcome for the child.

I have attended ‘Team Teach’ training, a de-escalating and positive handling system for my own, the child and other children’s safety. This included physical training for working with children that had a history of violent behaviour and how to approach the situation. The ‘Risk and Restraint’ module provided safe ways to de-escalate children when that is the only option or in emergencies. However, working closely with children to create a mutual respect and understanding of each other can provide many opportunities to de-escalate the situation prior to any child restraining actions. At Palatine Primary School, as a Teacher Assistant, I worked with a child with a complex diagnosis which created them to have aggressive and dangerous meltdowns from unknown triggers. This employment led to the immediate training of ‘Team Teach’. As my relationship with the child grew stronger, we created a setting whereby he could discuss his feelings to me confidently, warn me that something or someone is starting to trigger him and de-escalating the situation before it became aggressive. On a few occasions, I received distress calls from my colleagues about the child turning aggressive and ask for back-up, usually turning to me for my strength as this child was very strong. In most occasions, I used my relationship with the child talk to him, discuss the trigger and to reassure him. Once he was calmer, we discussed consequences and people he may need to apologise to.

The most interesting aspect was that I could have used ‘Team Teach’ strategies to physically control him and used stern, vocal communication in an attempt to over-ride his anger by waiting in a locked position. However, my prior knowledge and relationship to the child created a calm, thought-provoking environment that saw the child independently apologise for his actions which created a reward motive for his positive manner and completion of work.

Teachers should not expect to walk into a classroom and be showered with awe, respect and positivity. There must be a mutual respect so that both teachers and students excel in the classroom. It has been noted that “many qualities define a positive relationship and pave ways on how to create powerful student teacher relationships. These can be seen to include good communication, a safe learning environment and mutual respect, a positive and patient attitude, student equality and timely praise” (Lee, 2016) which needs to instigate promptly into meeting a child.

Although this approach is a fine start for respect, this will not stop a child behaving badly and a simple to follow, consistent system needs to be in place. In Lyndhurst Infant School, they use ‘Pragmatic Behaviourism’ of which Porter explains “… employ rewards and punishments to encourage compliance and, if their methods do not succeed at suppressing disruptive behaviour, teachers are advised simply to apply more of the same class intervention (that is, more consequences.)” (2014, p61). Lyndhurst have created a fluid, ‘traffic light’ Behaviour Policy that all teachers and students follow for consistency around the school. This use of this system is believed to be effective by some because it promotes the notion of demonstrating a behavioural change. Lee notes that some believe these systems in schools motivate “… young people to change and mature to take their place in a highly complex society and that is best achieved through countering the negative pressures that exist for children by providing inclusive environments and stable, positive classroom climates.” (2007, p1)

One certain theme that connects behavioural management topics is calmness, whether it is approaching a situation differently to avoid secondary behaviours (Rogers, 2011) which develop from an avoidable situation, or dealing with specific behavioural traits that are disrupting the lesson (Delaney, 2009).

Delaney,K. (2009) What can I do with the kind who…: A Teacher’s Quick Guide to dealing with disruptive pupils (and their parents), Great Britain: Worth Publishing Ltd.

Lee, C. (2007) Resolving Behaviour Problems In Your School, London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Porter, L. (2014) Behaviour in schools: theory and practice for teachers, Berkshire: Open University Press.

Rogers, B. (2011) Classroom Behaviour: A Practical Guide to Effective Teaching, Behaviour Management and Colleague Support, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Lee, K (2016) 4 Timeless Elements of Strong Student-Teacher Relationships[online], USA: Teachthought.

Available:< http://www.teachthought.com/pedagogy/student-engagement/4-timeless-elements-strong-student-teacher-relationships/ > [Accessed 01/10/2016].