Educational Psychology in PracticeAquatic Insects Vol. 27, No.

3, September 2011, 227253

The development of intrapersonal intelligence in pupils experiencing social, emotional and behavioural difculties
Joan Gaynor Mowat*
University of Strathclyde, School of Education, Jordanhill Campus, Jordanhill, Glasgow, UK This article draws from an evaluative case study of a group work approach Support Groups designed by the author to support pupils perceived as having Social and Emotional Behavioural Difculties within a Secondary school situated in an area of multiple deprivation in Scotland. The study, which is principally qualitative, draws from the accounts of 69 pupils who participated within the intervention during its rst four years of inception and from a range of stakeholder accounts parents, Support Group Leaders, class teachers and senior managers. The intervention focused upon collaborative, discussion-based activities designed to foster reection, understanding and thinking skills. The study utilises data drawn from attendance, attainment and discipline statistics, comparing the Support Group population to wider comparator groups, in addition to questionnaires (open and closed), scheduled interviews and focus group discussion. This article focuses specically upon the extent to which pupils developed intrapersonal intelligence. The ndings indicate that the majority of pupils had, to at least an extent, developed greater understanding of their behaviour and that these outcomes were still in evidence up to two years after intervention. Keywords: multiple intelligence theory; intrapersonal intelligence; support groups; social and emotional behavioural difculties; constructivist theories of learning; thinking skills; inclusion

Introduction Addressing behavioural difculties within the school context is often conceptualised in terms of rewards and sanctions, actions and consequences (Canter & Canter, 1992; Curwin, Mendler, & Mendler, 2008) and the use of positive re-inforcement, such as praise (Hayes, Hindle, & Withington, 2007; Swinson & Knight, 2007). These conceptualisations are often predicated upon behaviourist theories of learning. Whilst there is a place for behaviourist approaches in promoting positive behaviour and addressing pupil indiscipline within schools (and it should be recognised that professionals working within the eld, whether they be teachers, social workers or psychologists, are constrained by the strictures of the National Curriculum, Government legislation and nite resources), this paper argues that, in themselves, they are insufcient if we are to effect lasting change in young people. Many studies examine the relationship between teacher actions and the degree to which pupils are on task. (Hayes et al., 2007; Swinson & Harrop, 2005; Swinson & Knight, 2007) A consistent nding of such studies (Swinson & Knight,

*Email: joan.mowat@strath.ac.uk
ISSN 0266-7363 print/ISSN 1469-5839 online 2011 Association of Educational Psychologists http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2011.603531 http://www.tandfonline.com

228

J.G. Mowat

2007) is the positive correlation between positive feedback from teachers and pupil compliance (as measured by pupil on-task behaviour) whilst negative feedback or disapproval is negatively correlated. Whilst it is generally recognised that sanctions may not have the desired effect upon young peoples behaviour, what is often not recognised is that the use of praise and rewards may also not achieve the desired effects. Dweck (2000) identies the need to discriminate in the way in which praise is given to pupils. Mueller and Dweck (1998) (cited in Dweck, 2000) found that when children were given praise which highlighted their intelligence rather than the effort invested in the task, they were more likely than children who had been given effort praise to choose performance-goal (focussing upon the end-result) rather than learning-goal tasks subsequently. The children reported less enjoyment in the subsequent tasks, were more likely to attribute failure to lack of ability (and therefore more likely to disengage from the tasks), chose tasks which would show them in a good light rather than the more challenging tasks and also demonstrated a decline in performance. Dweck (2000) notes, . . . when you teach children to measure themselves from their success, they then measure themselves from their failures as well (p. 118). Praise which is appropriate, commensurate, genuine, and directed towards the individual can only be regarded as a good thing. However, when praise is used as a mechanism to coerce children towards behaving in certain ways, Look at how well Chloe is sitting up, (as advocated in some behaviourist approaches) it is, in the view of this author, problematic as it fails to respect the individual and becomes manipulative and controlling (the ends do not justify the means). Perhaps what is more important is encouragement and positive feedback which fosters further learning. Likewise, there is a growing body of evidence to indicate that the use of extrinsic motivation/rewards to foster desired behaviours may be counter-productive. Deci and Moller (2005) draw from a range of studies to observe that people are less inclined to engage in an activity after receiving a reward than those who had not received one. The explanation provided by the authors is that it had undermined their intrinsic motivation and may have diminished their sense of self-determination and autonomy. In contrast, the use of other positive feedback was found to enhance engagement within the activity. These examples highlight the dangers of automatically assuming that praise and rewards are a good thing. This is not to imply that they are not of value, but that a thoughtful approach is needed in their application. Perhaps a further difculty is the goal to which sanctions and rewards are directed. Whilst it is recognised that it is essential for schools to set clear boundaries for pupils, which require to be reinforced, if the goal is pupil compliance rather than fostering a culture of mutual respect in which young people are encouraged to become intrinsically rather than extrinsically motivated it is likely to be counter-productive. It is not just about what schools do but about the underlying philosophy which underpins their actions. Kohn (2001) argues for the concept of community in which all within that community are valued. This perspective is backed by Macready (2010):
The culture of a school will be developed as a consequence of the messages that are received about what is valued in the school community. When common humanity is valued, individuals will learn to relate to each other from a position that acknowledges unique human qualities and responses. (p. 216)

Educational Psychology in Practice

229

It may be the case that behaviourist approaches (such as Assertive Discipline [Canter & Canter, 1992]) continue to be used because they appear to offer a simple solution to a complex problem. However, during the last decade there has been a recognition of the need to develop a wider range of approaches towards promoting positive behaviour which are not premised upon behaviourism, notable amongst them being the SEAL (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning) programme (DfES, 2005) in England, Circle Time (Mosley, 1998), Restorative Practice/Justice (Macready, 2010) and Nurture Groups (Cooper, 2004) (amongst many others). All of these approaches stress the centrality of relationships. Having given consideration to the earlier points mentioned, this author would argue that a different approach is needed: one which is not led by sanctions and rewards but which places understanding (and, in particular, understanding of self and of others) at the core, leading to greater insight into interpersonal relationships and (hopefully) the development of empathy. The author would argue (and has argued) that it is only when one impacts at a deeper level (of values, beliefs and motivations) that changes in behaviour become sustainable (Mowat, 2007). These arguments apply as much to the values, beliefs and motivations of teachers as to young people. This article focuses upon the concept of intrapersonal intelligence (Gardner, 1993) and the extent, to which, if any, it developed and manifested itself within S2 (Secondary 2) pupils who participated within a group-work intervention (Support Group, SG) designed and implemented by the author (Depute Head Teacher [Scottish context]). The purpose of the intervention was to support pupils perceived by their Pastoral Care teachers as having, or being at risk of developing, social and emotional behavioural difculties (SEBD). The intervention took place within a secondary school in Scotland, situated in an area of multiple deprivation. After consultation with the Senior Management Team and a presentation to the staff, the approach was taken forward by the author (Project Leader) working (initially) with an Intermediate Treatment worker (social workers employed by the local authority who are tasked with supporting young people perceived to be at risk within the community). The study followed the progress of four cohorts of SG pupils from one year prior to intervention (retrospectively) until one-to-two years after intervention. The next section provides a brief overview of some of the theories which underpin the SG approach. The theoretical underpinnings of the approach The development of the approach was inuenced by a wide range of theories, drawing from the literature on social constructivism (teaching for understanding and for transfer), thinking skills, theories of intelligence (and, more specically, Gardner s [2006a] personal intelligences and the concept of emotional intelligence), theory of mind, the development of moral understanding in children, theories of motivation (and the related elds of self-esteem and self-efcacy) and social inclusion (with a particular focus upon school discipline and SEBD). The approach was designed using the Teaching for Understanding Framework (Perkins, 1998), integrating it with the Activating Childrens Thinking Skills (ACTS) Framework (McGuinness, 2006), building upon the work of Swartz and Parks (Swartz, 2001). According to David Perkins (personal communication, 2006), this is the rst application of the Teaching for Understanding Framework to the affective eld. As far as the author is aware, it is also the rst intervention which

230

J.G. Mowat

has integrated Teaching for Understanding with both Multiple Intelligence (MI) theory and the ACTS Framework. MI theory Gardner s (1993) principal claim is that, rather than there being one single intelligence which is innate and immutable, there is a prole of intelligences, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, unique to each individual, which, if the right conditions prevail, can be nurtured and developed. Gardner arrives at his eight (potentially nine) intelligences by interrogating each candidate intelligence against a set of eight criteria, drawn from a wide range of disciplines. He describes intelligence as: . . . the ability to solve problems, or to create products, that are valued within one or more cultural settings (Gardner, 1993, p. xiv). Whilst it is not the intention within this article to critique Gardner s theory of MI, it is important to acknowledge that, whilst MI theory has been warmly embraced in educational circles in the UK (Boyd, 2009; Fleetham, 2009; Wright, 2009) and beyond (Gardner, 2009), it has proved to be much more controversial in academia. A range of commentators, amongst them Barnett, Ceci, and Williams (2006) and White (2006), raise issues about the validity and value of MI theory. White (2006), for example, questions some of the assumptions Gardner has made in either including or excluding candidates for intelligence. He asks of Gardner his justication for the criteria upon which the selection is based (White, 2006, p. 59). Whilst, in this authors view, White has a tendency to overstate his case, the criticisms have some validity and indeed, Gardner himself acknowledges that his judgments were more akin to art than to science (Gardner, 2006b). However, whilst acknowledging the potential weaknesses within the theory, it offers educationalists a new way to view human potential and to develop the potential of young people, which is why it is of value in taking forward the SG approach. The concept of intrapersonal intelligence Intrapersonal intelligence (understanding of self) is one of the two personal intelligences identied by Gardner, the other being interpersonal intelligence (understanding of others). Whilst these two intelligences are regarded by Gardner as being distinct from each other, he claims that the development of each is dependent upon the other (Gardner, 1993, p. 241). Gardner (1993) describes intrapersonal intelligence as access to ones own feeling life to be able to discriminate amongst ones feeling states and to draw upon them as a means of understanding and guiding ones behavior. He describes it, at its most complex level, as being the capacity to detect and symbolise complex and highly differentiated sets of feelings (p. 240). In a subsequent text, he describes the intelligence as being:
. . . the capacity to understand oneself, to have an effective working model of oneself including ones own desires, fears, and capacities and to use such information effectively in regulating ones own life. (Gardner, 1999, p. 43)

It is an intelligence which allows one to understand and work with oneself (Gardner, 1999, p. 20). In a more recent text, Gardner describes intrapersonal

Educational Psychology in Practice

231

intelligence as knowledge of the internal aspects of a person (Gardner, 2006a, p. 18). In the intervening period between rst forwarding MI theory and the subsequent text (Gardner, 1999), Gardner had considerably revised his conception of this specic intelligence. Whilst still acknowledging the provenance of the intelligence in relation to the emotions, he puts greater stress upon intrapersonal intelligence in acting not only as a guide to life decisions but also having a self-regulatory function (a meta function) and acknowledges the role that emotions play in other intelligences. He also, for the rst time, relates the concept to that of theory of mind which is the capacity of individuals to recognise themselves as distinct from others and to understand others as beings who have beliefs, desires, emotions, and intentions, and whose actions and interactions can be interpreted and explained by taking account of these mental states (Astington & Baird, 2004, p. 7). Thus, it is an important element in childrens capacity to make sense of their world and to be able to form effective and empathetic interpersonal relationships as, without the capacity to understand the intentionality of others, social interaction becomes very constrained. McGlamery, Ball, Henley, and Besozzi (2007) raise the question as to whether impairments in the executive function associated with theory of mind coexist in children with attention decit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and there is a well established literature relating theory of mind to autism (Peterson, 2004).

The signicance of the personal intelligences for SG pupils If young people are to develop further their capacities:  to regulate their behaviour with good judgement in a range of contexts;  to form and maintain effective interpersonal relationships;  for empathy, and to develop:  in self-esteem and condence;  more positive dispositions towards learning (the aims of the SG approach), they need to come to an understanding of themselves and of their relationships with others, hence the development of intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences (the two personal intelligences) are both crucial. Methodology The research objectives This study took the form of an evaluative case study (Bassey, 1999). It sought to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the SG intervention, identifying variables which impacted upon pupil progress, and to evaluate the impact of the intervention upon the pupils participating within it, as a means not only of examining the efcacy of the approach itself but also to cast light upon educational policy and practice as they pertain to pupils experiencing SEBD. It drew upon the principles of action research (Mills, 2007).

232

J.G. Mowat

The research design The SG population The SG population (N = 69) constituted all pupils who participated within the intervention during the rst four years of its inception. SGs were implemented with S2 pupils, the year group for which the author had responsibility as Depute Head. This formed a broad spectrum of pupils from those who were clearly disengaged from schooling (many of whom had occasioned one or more temporary exclusions from school) and those who had been included within the groups for preventative reasons (around half of the population). The case The case constituted the 69 pupils who participated in the approach and their related stakeholders (parents, Support Group Leaders [SGLs], class teachers and senior management) and was considered as an entity. However, whilst the focus was upon the evaluation of the approach as a whole, responses to research tools were coded so that the progress of individual and sets of pupils could be ascertained. For example, a comparison was made between the progress of pupils within specic SGs to try to establish whether there was a group factor at play.1 Further, in order to be able to examine the variables which impacted upon pupil progress in greater depth, six individual case studies were also conducted (to follow). The nature of the study The study is mixed-methods. It is principally qualitative but draws also upon quantitative data examining statistics relating to attendance, attainment and behaviour sanctions, comparing the SG pupils to wider comparator groups their peers within the school, and the local authority and national cohorts. Rationale for a case study approach The strength of the case study approach lies in its capacity to study the case in all of its complexity, using the process of triangulation as a means of ensuring trustworthiness (Bassey, 1999). The approach adopted was heavily inuenced by Basseys reconceptualisation of the case study approach within educational settings which draws upon insights from other notable writers on the topic: Stake (1995), Yin (1994), and Kemmis (1980), amongst others (Bassey, 1999). Due to the length of engagement with the case ve years - the study was emergent in nature with research tools being added to and rened over time. Thus, not all research tools were applied to each cohort of SG pupils. A participative approach was adopted in that SGLs played an active role in helping to design research tools (for example, the SG pupil interview schedule [Appendix 1]) and in administering research tools, such as the questionnaires. Stuart Hall, a research fellow with the Scottish Council for Research in Education (SCRE), whose involvement in the study (a PhD thesis) had been supported by a small grant from the University of Glasgow, trained SGLs in interview techniques. In order to gain a more in-depth account, six case studies, drawn from the SG population, were selected by means of a stratied, multi-phase sampling method,

Educational Psychology in Practice

233

using different criteria at each stage of the selection process (for example, gender). Within each case study, data were triangulated by conducting interviews with the pupils and their related stakeholders, SGLs, Pastoral Care Teachers and parents, comparing and contrasting the accounts. Stuart Hall was brought in to conduct the interviews using scheduled interviews designed and analysed by the author. Writers on the case study approach (such as Gillham [2000] and Bassey [1999]) advocate a exible, pragmatic, what works approach and, on this basis, it was decided that it would be of value to gather data from a comparator group of pupils within the same cohorts (N = 110) (all pupils within a specic year group who had not been referred to senior management for indiscipline) as a means of establishing benchmark measures and of identifying the characteristics of the SG population the respects in which they differed from their peers. In giving consideration to the design of the research tools, whilst in terms of reliability it might have been considered best to adopt standardised tools, this needed to be balanced with the concept of validity. Whilst a standardised tool might have led to greater generalisability of ndings beyond the study, if the tool is not measuring what needs to be measured, there is an issue of validity. Within a positivist paradigm, this would have been highly problematic but within an interpretivist paradigm, in which one is not claiming universal truths, it is less problematic, as long as the limitations are understood. If researchers are to move forward the frontiers of knowledge, it could be considered important that creative approaches are adopted in research design. The decision was made therefore that all research tools would be designed specically for the study. For example, the Semantic Differential Scale (Appendix 2) was constructed in sections which corresponded to specic research questions or sub-sets of research questions (Table 1). Ethical issues Whilst at the time of conducting the study, the ethical guidelines for research in schools had not yet been formulated (SERA, 2007), the study conforms to the guidance given with the exception that consent was obtained in writing from parents and verbally from pupils. Both in terms of the design of the study and its conduct, consideration needed to be given to the potential role conict between the author as researcher, project leader and Depute Head with responsi-

Table 1. Exemplication of construction of Semantic Differential Scale. Research question (RQ) 2.4

Positive statement

Negative statement

I think of myself as being quite I think that Im stupid intelligent I consider myself to be a good I dont consider myself to be a good learner learner I can work at a problem until I get it I give up when I have difculty right I ask for help when I am stuck I dont ask for help when I get stuck I like school I dont like school

234

J.G. Mowat

bility for pupil welfare. For example, as a Depute Head, information which could be pertinent to the study would arise in the normal day-to-day business of the school. The author tried to surmount this difculty by adopting a transparent approach and by making it clear to staff, parents and pupils when information was sought in her capacity as Depute Head and when in her capacity as researcher. When the researcher wished to draw upon information which had arisen within other contexts (for example, a Case meeting), permission was sought of all to whom it pertained and might be affected. There was also an awareness that people might feel under an obligation to disclose information because of the researcher s position within the school, and, once again, the researcher made every effort to make it clear to people that they were under no obligation to do so. However, it has to be accepted that this might have been difcult, for pupils in particular. Another potential difculty was the dual role which the author performed as someone who had responsibility for both welfare and discipline. In working with SGs, the author always separated these roles out, never introducing into the conversation issues pertaining to discipline referrals unless the pupil instigated the conversation. On questioning pupils within the authors groups as to whether this had been experienced as a difculty for them, the opposite response was given, I listened to you because you listened to me (Andrew). In his discussion of the Case Study approach, Bassey (1999) argues for the concept of trustworthiness as a more helpful construct than validity or reliability. He draws from the work of Lincoln and Guba (1985) to formulate a series of questions by which this concept can be operationalised, among them being, Has there been prolonged engagement with data sources? Have raw data been adequately checked with their sources? Has a critical friend thoroughly tried to challenge the ndings? Has there been sufcient triangulation of raw data leading to analytical statements? (Bassey, 1999, p. 75). The author worked with Basseys questions in designing the study and carrying out the research, examples of such being the checking of pupil accounts by reading back to them what they had said in interview, passing back transcripts to adults and circulating the case studies to experienced researchers for feedback. Limitations of the research design The criticism which is generally directed towards the case study approach is the lack of generalisability of the ndings. How can one generalise from a specic case? However, interpretivist approaches do not lay claim to a single, universal truth. Rather, it is recognised that there are multiple realities people understand their world in a multitude of different ways. As such, the job of the researcher is to try to capture these multiple realities by the best means open to them and to lay these open to scrutiny such that others, in similar contexts, can understand their situations more fully. It is about complexity and recognising that complexity. Research questions The research questions reect the aims of the approach. They are summarised here:

Educational Psychology in Practice

235

(1) To what extent, if any, have pupils succeeded in developing further: i. Understanding of self (intrapersonal intelligence)? ii. Understanding of others (interpersonal intelligence)? iii. Understanding of their interpersonal relationships? (2) To what extent, if any, have pupils been able to demonstrate performances of understanding: i. The capacity to regulate their behaviour with good judgement in a range of contexts? ii. The capacities to form and maintain good interpersonal relationships and for empathy? and to what extent has this impacted upon: iii. Their self-esteem and condence? iv. Their dispositions towards learning and attitudes towards school? (3) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the approach? What are the variables which impact upon pupil outcomes? (4) What can be learned from the study to inform policy and practice in relation to the inclusion of pupils experiencing SEBD? Research methods Data-gathering Qualitative data were gathered by means of semantic differential and Likert scales, open questionnaires and semi-structured interviews based upon an interview schedule. Quantitative data were derived from statistical data held on the schools electronic data-base pertaining to attendance, attainment and discipline and national statistics drawn from Scottish Government websites. The research tools were piloted with the authors SGs and appropriate modications made. Benchmark data, drawing from attendance, attainment and discipline records, were gathered prior to intervention and the semantic differential attitude scale was administered both to SG pupils and the comparator group. Information from nomination forms was also analysed to help to dene the characteristics of the SG population. Post-intervention interviews were carried out with SG pupils and open questionnaires administered to class teachers, SGLs and parents. The reports of pupil progress compiled by SGLs at the end of intervention were also analysed. At the end of intervention, a focus group discussion was held with SGLs, an interview held with two members of the Senior Management Team (including the head teacher) and the six individual case studies were conducted. Retrospective interviews were conducted with a sample of SG pupils selected by means of a stratied random sample up to two years beyond intervention. Interviews were conducted on school premises and notes were recorded during the interview process. The interview accounts were veried as described earlier.

236

J.G. Mowat

Data analysis Qualitative data were analysed by means of thematic analysis (see Table 2 for an example) in an approach which is very similar to that advocated by King and Horrocks (2010, pp. 142174). King and Horrocks describe two principal paradigms in qualitative analysis: (1) language-based approaches, derived from the social constructionist tradition, such as discourse and narrative analysis; (2) content-based approaches, seeking to explore the participants lived experience from their own position (King & Horrocks, 2010, p. 142). This study draws from the latter. The classication of themes from examination of questionnaires, transcripts and documentation arose from examination of the responses given rather than categorising against pre-ordained categories. Initially, rst level codes (the equivalent of King and Horrocks descriptive codes) were identied from working through the transcripts and these were then clustered into second level codes (interpretative codes) and nally into third level codes (overarching themes) (King & Horrocks, 2010, p. 153). An exemplication is provided in Table 2. Stand-alone responses or responses identied by a minority which did not fall within broader themes were listed separately. The author took each research question in turn and compared and contrasted the ndings pertaining to each relevant stakeholder group to identify common themes and differences. In reporting the ndings, in respect of each research question, these were presented from the perspective of each stakeholder group and then a short summary was provided, balancing the varied perspectives. A sample of the data analysis was peer reviewed by colleagues at the SCRE. Semantic differential and responses from the Likert scales were analysed by means of chi-squared tests. Quantitative data were analysed by means of non-parametric tests (chi-squared) as the distributions of values were skewed meaning that signicance could not be established by means of parametric testing.

The relationship between the research questions and research tools Table 3 summarises the relationship between the research questions and tools and illustrates the response rate to each research tool and the proportion of the SG population to which it applied. As the study was emergent, some of the research tools applied to only specic cohorts of SG pupils (for example, the semantic differential scale was applied to only the third and fourth cohorts of SG pupils within the study) and this accounted for most of the discrepancy between the response rate and the percentage of the population to which it applied. Data pertaining to one group were also lost in a re. Responses specic to the development of intrapersonal intelligence were not sought from classroom teachers as it was considered that it would be difcult for them to comment in this respect, especially as some had very limited contact with pupils (perhaps only one hour per week). However, class teachers were asked to comment upon the pupils capacity to regulate their behaviour (Mowat, 2010c); interpersonal relationships (Mowat, 2010a); the development of self-esteem and condence, and the pupils dispositions towards learning (Mowat, 2009).

Table 2. An exemplication of thematic coding of pupil responses.

In response to the question: To what extent, if any do you consider that the Support Group has helped you to be more aware of your own behaviour?, the pupil responded:

. . . Before the Support Group I wasnt really caring that much, but since then I try to think about it. Im more aware that arguing with the teacher is wrong. Im more able to think, If I do that it will get me into trouble. I try to think through my behaviour in difcult situations. Second level coding Third level coding Motivational factors impacting upon behaviour Development of intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence Developing moral awareness Developing the capacity to regulate behaviour with good judgement in a range of contexts

First level coding

Positive impact upon pupils motivation to improve upon behaviour Thinking more about behaviour Promoting reection upon behaviour Awareness that arguing with teachers Developing a sense of right and wrong is wrong Able to think ahead about Developing insight into consequences of consequences of behaviour behaviour Able to think through behaviour in Developing self-control and a capacity to difcult situations reect in situ

Caring more about behaviour

Educational Psychology in Practice 237

238 J.G. Mowat

Table 3. A summary of the research tools as they applied to the research questions. RQ 1 p p p p p p RQ 2 p p p p p p p p p RQ 3 p p p p p p p p Percentage of SG population 67% NA 63% 75% 77% 33% 81% 33%

Research tool (excluding individual case studies, SGL Focus Group & interviews with senior management)

SG pupil questionnaire (semantic differential scale) Comparator group questionnaire (semantic differential scale) SG pupil questionnaire (semantic differential scale) SG pupil semi-structured interview SGL open questionnaire SG parent questionnaire SG class teacher questionnaire SG pupil semi-structured retrospective interview

RQ Percentage 4 When N = response rate p 46 82% p Pre-intervention Pre-intervention 110 100% p 43 83% p End of intervention End of intervention 52 85% p 53 100% p End of intervention 23 44% p End of intervention 488 62% p End of intervention Up to two years 22 100% beyond intervention sample

Educational Psychology in Practice

239

The SG intervention The operation of SGs and the role of the SGL SGs (consisting of between three and six pupils) met for one hour per week during the school day for around 20 sessions, led by a SGL. SGLs (all volunteers) were members of the teaching staff (principally Pastoral Care and Behaviour Support staff) who were selected on the basis of their capacity to relate well to young people. Pupils were nominated by Pastoral Care teachers on the basis of two criteria:  it was considered that the young person was having difculty in coping with the norms of school life;  it was considered that the young person might potentially benet from participation within the group. Consent was sought from both pupils and parents for pupils to participate within both the groups and the study and an information event was held for parents. A wide range of support was put in place for SGLs including In-Service training, mentoring of new staff and regular meetings of the team. The role of the SGL was two-fold. The rst aspect related to the need to create the ambience of the group the climate for learning through:  modelling, through his/her interactions within the group and around the school, respectful relationships and what it means to be a good team player (listening, being respectful of others views . . .);  establishing, through consensus, the working practices of the group via the establishment of a SG Pledge and, thereafter, reinforcing it;  making clear the expectations which are held of pupils and holding pupils to account if needs be. The second aspect related to the need to teach for understanding and for transfer such that new insights gained could be applied outwith the connes of the group and would be more likely to be sustainable. Activities were designed such that these ends could be achieved2 and, within the guidance given to SGLs, the understanding goals (the nature of the understanding which the unit or individual activity sought to promote) (Perkins, 1998) and thinking skills (McGuinness, 2006) were clearly specied.

The nature of activities undertaken by pupils Tasks were discussion-based and collaborative in nature. For example, pupils would be asked to compare and contrast two different versions of the same classroom scenario from the perspective of the pupil involved and that of the teacher It wisnae (wasnt) only me. How true were the accounts? How could the same situation be viewed in such different ways? In this way, the pupils and SGL explored issues around fairness in a non-threatening way and the SGL helped the pupils to understand the perspective and role of the classroom teacher and to understand that there can be many different perspectives on a situation. Pupils also completed a SG diary in which they were led through a series of questions and prompts encouraging them to reect upon and learn from their experiences, an extract from which is exemplied below (Figure 1).

240

J.G. Mowat
Describe the situation
where were you and who were you with? when did it occur? how were you feeling before it happened? what happened?

Describe the situation

How did other people react to you at the time?

what did they do? how did they feel?

How did other people react to you at the time?

Figure 1. Extract from Support Group diary.

This approach has many parallels with that described by White (2007), in Macready (2010). The most important aspect of the diary was not the written account (and, indeed, it can be undertaken as a verbal exercise) but the quality of discussion which it generated between pupil and SGL. The role of the SGL was to probe beneath pupil responses, encouraging pupils to think at a deeper level, helping them to perceive a range of perspectives about the situation, thus bringing them to a new level of understanding. Pupils were also encouraged to take responsibility for their own behaviour through setting their own individual targets for improvement (guided by the SGL) which were monitored by the SGL, class teachers and parents. Findings: a focus upon pupil outcomes The ndings, as they pertain to this paper, focus upon research question (RQ)1.1: the extent to which pupils succeeded in developing further intrapersonal intelligence (understanding of self). All names provided within this account are pseudonyms. SGL responses Responses from SGLs were elicited principally from question 1 (Q1) of the SGL Questionnaire, administered at the end of intervention.
Q1: To what extent, if any, would you consider that the pupil has gained insight into his/her values, beliefs, attitudes (thoughts and feelings) and motivations?

SGLs believed that the majority of SG pupils (58%) had gained insight into their attitudes, beliefs, values and motivations. Pupils were described as having a greater awareness of their behaviour, reecting more upon it and developing insight into their values and motivations: The group enabled (Robert) . . . to realise that he doesnt need to behave inappropriately in order to gain friends (Roberts SGL). Factors relating to the degree to which pupils were able to develop self-responsibility, to exercise self-control and were motivated to want to improve upon their behaviour were cited most frequently (a third of responses in total) by SGLs as evidence of the development of intrapersonal intelligence.

Educational Psychology in Practice

241

Around one fth of SG pupils were regarded as having developed insight to a limited extent only. SGLs cited (amongst other factors) as impediments to progress:  the negative effects of peer pressure I felt that she chose not to gain insight as part of her perception of her street cred (Gillians SGL);  inability to accept responsibility for behaviour . . . its always someone elses fault (Stewarts SGL);  a conict between the value systems of the child and the school She is a very strong-willed individual with a strong sense of her own values. The difculty arises when these values are at odds with the daily procedures of the school (Karens SGL). The relationship between behaviour, learning and dispositions towards learning emerged in a few responses: . . . he now cares about it (his behaviour). He is beginning to understand the relationship between behaviour and effective learning and the relationships which he has with his teachers and learning (Liams SGL). SG pupil responses Responses were elicited from the pre-intervention semantic differential attitude scale questionnaires administered to both SG pupils and the comparator group; the postintervention semantic differential attitude scale administered to SG pupils; the interviews conducted with SG pupils post-intervention and the retrospective interviews conducted with a sample of SG pupils up to two years beyond intervention. Findings: self-assessment (Semantic Differential Scale) Pre-intervention, only 39% of SG pupils who undertook the self-assessment responded positively to the statement I understand why I behave in the ways I do. In comparison, 72% of pupils in the Comparator Group of pupils not involved in the intervention were able to identify positively with the same statement a highly signicant differential in relation to both positive (I understand . . .) and negative (I dont understand . . .) responses (x2 = 15, p < 0.001; x2 = 23, p < 0.001 respectively). Post-intervention, 44% of SG pupils identied that they felt more positively in this respect but 40% registered no change to their original views. Findings: derived from interviews at the end of intervention Responses were derived principally from Q1 and Q2 of the post-intervention interview schedule:
Q1: To what extent, if any, do you consider that the SG has helped you to be more aware of your behaviour? Q2: To what extent, if any, do you consider that the SG has helped you to understand yourself and your feelings better? why you behave in the ways that you do

and from the rst two parts of Q1 of the retrospective interview:

242

J.G. Mowat

Q1: To what extent, if any, would you say that the SG helped you to:

 Understand yourself and your behaviour better?  Understand how your behaviour affects others? Pupils development of awareness of their behaviour The principal themes to emerge in relation to pupils developing awareness of their behaviour in response to the intervention are illustrated in Figure 2 (it should be noted that pupil responses often ranged across themes and a pupil not mentioning a specic theme does not imply a negative response to it). The theme other ranged across a wide range of sub-themes, of which modications in behaviour (how understanding of self manifested itself in pupil behaviour) accounted for more than half. Exemplications of themes to arise are reected in the following quotes:
You are more aware of the consequences of your behaviour for yourself and the effect it has on others. Im more aware of the things Im doing wrong and the things Im doing right. (David) In S1 [Secondary 1] I used to pure carry on but Ive not been getting into trouble now because Ive calmed down. More able to think on the spot . . . When Im getting into trouble, people cant get their education whats the point in stopping them get taught? (Margaret) Made me think about the way I behave, if it was right or not. Not treated others (the) way (I) would like them to treat me. (Peter)

Pupils development of insight into their behaviour and emotions In probing further to ascertain the degree to which, if any, pupils had developed greater understanding of their behaviour and emotions, the principal themes to emerge are illustrated in Figure 3 (once again, pupil responses often ranged across themes and a pupil not mentioning a specic theme does not imply a negative response to it). There were strong parallels between pupil outcomes in relation to awareness and understanding of behaviour. Other spanned a wide range of responses with

Figure 2. The themes to emerge in relation to pupils developing awareness of their behaviour in response to the intervention (N = 52). A: thinking more about your behaviour, B: developing moral awareness, C: thinking through behaviour more in difcult situations, D: thinking more about what will happen if you behave badly, E: thinking more about how behaviour affects others, F: other.

Educational Psychology in Practice

243

Figure 3. The themes to emerge in relation to pupils developing understanding of themselves and their emotions in response to the intervention (N = 52). A: understanding the consequences of behaviour better, B: understanding when it is necessary to calm down, C: understanding your feelings better and how they affect your behaviour, D: the relationship between learning difculties and behaviour, E: other.

the most frequent relating to illustrations of how developing insight manifested itself in childrens behaviour modications in behaviour (N = 8), developing self-control (N = 6). Developing faith in ones capacity to effect change (N = 5) and empathy towards others also emerged (N = 5) as sub-themes, amongst others. The capacity to think through behaviour and its consequences are illustrated in the following quote: Ive got more understanding now of the consequences of my behaviour for myself and others. Im able to think through my behaviour more (Margaret). For some pupils the opportunity to learn from the experiences of the others in the group and to share problems was valued: Everybody was in the same situation and the group helped show me how to deal with it (John). The use of the SG diary had supported this process: When we talk about things it helps us to think about it (Andrew). Once again, the relationship between behaviour and effective learning (and vice versa) is articulated by some pupils: . . . I can probably work better if I was behaving better. If Ive gubbed up [made a mess of it] doing a test or something I probably know I could have done better (Liam); If I dont really like the work or its too hard, Ill just carry on and then get into trouble (Neil); I understand now that some of my poor behaviour has been because I get frustrated when I dont get help when I need it (Ewan). Developing understanding took time for some pupils Im just beginning to get the hang of it now and stop things Im not supposed to be doing (Margaret) and it was evident that the process was not always easy, Sometimes I tried to behave then something would happen and Id not care any more. The group helped me to care more (Harry). A minority of pupils, whilst expressing a positive outcome, were unable to account for it and a few pupils observed that, although they had gained understanding of themselves and their behaviour, it did not necessarily translate into positive outcomes, Yes but still blow up (Karen). For a minority, the outcome was not achieved: Im still not clear about why I behave the way I do (Fraser). The vast majority of responses to these two questions, however, were positive, if only in some respects.

244

J.G. Mowat

Figure 4. Responses to the Retrospective Interview in respect of the development of the personal intelligences (N = 22). A: understand yourself and your behaviour better, B: understand how your behaviour affects others.

Findings: derived from the retrospective interviews conducted with a sample of SG pupils up to two years after intervention The ndings of the retrospective interviews largely corroborate those of the initial interviews (Figure 4) and exceed expectation as one would have expected the effects of the intervention to have waned over time. Indeed, the opposite was the case and pupils were more able to express coherently the impact which the intervention had had upon them. The responses shown here were typical and exemplify very well the insight which pupils had gained into themselves and their behaviour.
It gave me self-condence. When you think of the state I was in when I started. I gradually improved. We got to the grass roots of why I was behaving the way I was. It taught me respect for people around me. Making a clown of myself people laughing at me not with me. Others are trying to learn. They dont need me disrupting them. (Billy) The group helped me a lot. Kept me out of trouble. I realised what I was doing was wrong. Realised if I stopped now, I would have a better future. I learned how to keep out of trouble. The group helped me to understand how to do this . . . Realised it wasnt just me it was affecting. Mum was getting most hurt out of it. (Craig)

In contrast, one of the pupils who claimed not to have gained insight into her behaviour expressed deep regret about having become involved with a group of older teenagers who had led her astray and hoped that her planned placement in alternative provision would lead to more positive outcomes for her. Parental responses Parental responses are derived from questionnaires issued to parents after intervention (N = 23, 44% response rate, representing 33% of SG population). Caution needs to be exercised in examining parental responses because of the relatively low response rate to the questionnaire (44%). The majority (75%) of respondents considered that involvement in the SG had led to their children developing awareness and understanding of their behaviour and how it affected others.: It made him think about his behaviour and when and why he was getting into bother (Ians Mum).

Educational Psychology in Practice

245

Some parents commented upon their childrens growing ability to think through situations and to think through the consequences of their behaviour He used to act rst, think later instead of the other way round (Neils Dad) although one parent noted that this was an area still requiring work. Parents highlighted factors which acted as impediments to change. For example, two parents expressed concern that some teachers were not supportive of their childrens efforts to improve (Mowat, 2010b). The pupils intransigent behaviour was identied by a further two parents and unaddressed learning difculties by a further parent (Mowat, 2009). Summary of ndings It is evident from pupil and related stakeholder accounts that a small majority of pupils had succeeded in developing intrapersonal intelligence, if only to a limited extent in some cases. This manifested itself in a range of ways:  pupils thinking/reecting more upon their behaviour and demonstrating greater awareness of it;  pupils developing greater insight into the values and the motivations which underlie their behaviour;  pupils developing the capacity to think through their behaviour in situ and to develop self-responsibility and self-control;  pupils expressing greater motivation to improve upon their behaviour;  pupils thinking more about the consequences of their behaviour for others. A range of impediments was also identied to progress, amongst them being:         the negative effects of peer pressure; difculties in shedding poor reputations; an inability to accept responsibility for behaviour; conict between the value systems of the school and home; inability to put into action what had been learned within the group; (a few) teachers being unsupportive of pupils efforts to improve; intransigent attitude of the pupil; unaddressed learning difculties.

Discussion of ndings and implications for practice This article commenced with an argument to the effect that behaviourist approaches within schools towards tackling the problems presented by SEBD have limitations. The study did not set out to prove that social constructivist approaches were better than behaviourist approaches, nor to prove that they worked but to test the proposition that social constructivist theory (Teaching for Understanding) could be applied within the affective eld (and, in particular, within the context of working with pupils perceived as experiencing SEBD) such that it would impact positively upon the range of outcomes previously identied. In the discussion to follow, the author has drawn not only from the ndings which emerged from discussion of this specic aspect of the study but from the

246

J.G. Mowat

wider ndings of the study. It is considered that these may help the reader to understand some of the key issues to emerge, which may help produce a more effective climate for teaching and learning. The importance of meaningful tasks which have the potential to foster understanding The need to engage pupils in meaningful tasks which not only engage their interest (and are relevant to their current and future needs (as far as can be ascertained)) but have within them the potential for deeper learning, which, in turn, can serve to foster new insights is crucial. This, in essence, is what Perkins describes as generative topics (Perkins, 1998). It is evident from pupil response to the intervention that pupils had engaged with the activities and had gained insight from participating within them. Pupils and their parents had self-referred and, for the majority of pupils within the retrospective sample, pupil outcomes had exceeded their expectations. Further, almost without exception, pupils completed the intervention (Mowat, 2007). This is testimony not only to the nature of the activities themselves but to the quality of input from SGLs.

The need to develop conceptual understanding The second important issue relates to the need to foster conceptual understanding not only in respect of pupils but in staff who are responsible for the delivery of the approach. Concepts are, in themselves, products of understanding performances but they also serve as foundations for future performances of understanding. They are both the foundations and the building blocks of understanding. This implies the need to have clarity about the nature of the understanding which is to be fostered through the approach what Perkins (1998, p. 54) describe as understanding goals and how this understanding is to be developed and demonstrated (understanding performances). These understanding goals need to be shared with pupils such that they know the desired outcomes and can develop a sense of ownership (fostering self-responsibility). Further, staff need to have familiarity with and understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of the approach and an understanding of the nature of the difculties which they are trying to address through the intervention, which means that there is a need to invest in staff training and staff development. As previously indicated, SGLs (17 in total over a seven year period, all of whom were volunteers) attended In-service training and staff new to the approach were mentored by more experienced staff (Mowat, 2007).

The need to teach for transfer Even in evaluative studies of interventions which have demonstrated a high degree of efcacy, transfer of learning to wider contexts has remained problematic (Broadhead, Hockaday, Zahra, Francis, & Crichton, 2010; Humphrey, Lendrum, Wigelsworth, & Kalmbouka, 2009). Teaching for transfer means helping pupils to understand the contexts in which they nd themselves the classroom environment, the role of the teacher, the inuence of peer pressure and making explicit the applications of new knowledge, understanding and skills to these contexts: the process of bridging

Educational Psychology in Practice

247

(Perkins & Salomon, 1989). SGLs are encouraged to share with pupils the dilemmas they face within the classroom and have an important role in modelling pro-social behaviour. The use of the SG diary (enabling pupils to reect retrospectively upon their actions to inform future actions) acts to facilitate transfer and the target-setting process also fosters communication and reection upon learning, fostering metacognition (McGuinness, 2006). All of these processes help to provide ongoing feedback to pupils upon their progress (the nal strand of the Teaching for Understanding Framework), feeding into the formative assessment loop. The role of the SGL in fostering respectful relationships The role of the SGL in fostering an ethos of caring and respect within which trusting relationships can be formed between all who participate is paramount. It is this trust which enables young people to be able to open up and speak honestly about their experiences without fear of ridicule or exposure (Mowat, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c). This is a nding which is replicated throughout the literature. The need for a whole school approach and high quality leadership Whilst the majority of teachers (gradually, over time) were supportive of the aims of SG work, it is evident from the accounts of a minority of parents and pupils that this was not always the case. It is important that school leaders should engage with their staff in formulating a vision of inclusive practice. Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson and colleagues (2006) provide a detailed analysis of the journeys taken by schools to develop inclusive practice and factors which promote this. They cite:
. . . the opportunities created for constructive dialogue by the strength of the schools communities of practice; the management style of the headteacher and the distribution of leadership in the school; an engagement with evidence and critical perspectives; and an opportunity to analyse and reect on the relationship between values and actions. (Ainscow et al., 2006, p. 190)

The author would concur totally with this statement. Inclusion does not come about through imploring people to be inclusive. It comes about through fundamental shifts in peoples values and beliefs, fostered through participation within a community of practice (Nuthall, 2002). Within such a community of practice these values and beliefs are modelled and are lived, leading staff to reconceptualise their practice, which is dependent upon high quality leadership.

Conclusion It is evident that participation within the SG had, for the majority of pupils, fostered intrapersonal intelligence and that, for the vast majority of pupils within the retrospective sample, these outcomes were sustained up to two years after intervention. The SGL played a highly important role in fostering an appropriate climate for learning, based upon the establishment of mutual respect between participants. A whole school approach and high quality school leadership are also keys to success. It is evident that if we are to make a difference to the lives of young people, we need to impact at a deep level at the level of their beliefs, values and motivations. Such an approach

248

J.G. Mowat

requires much more than a focus upon rewards and punishment, upon actions and outcomes and upon positive re-inforcement. It is dependent upon the formation of trust. It recognises that young people have to come to their own understandings, facilitated by the support of signicant others. It requires a fundamental commitment to young people and their personal well-being. Limitations of the study Might it be the case that the outcomes achieved within the study could have been achieved without intervention through a process of maturation? Consideration was given to this issue and a probe was incorporated into interview schedules asking if this might be the case. The vast majority of respondents attributed improvement to the intervention and/or to the two processes coming together and some pupils, parents and SGLs observed that participation within SGs had fostered maturation perhaps more quickly than otherwise might have been the case It kicked a bit of the carry-on in him (Williams Mum). Previous discussion of the methodology highlighted the difculties in respect of generalising from a singularity a case which is located within its own specic context and set of circumstances. These limitations have to be acknowledged. This is a small-scale study but what makes it unusual is the long-term engagement with the case over a period of ve years, offering the opportunity to understand it in its full complexity and to follow up pupil progress from the commencement of secondary schooling until the end of S4 (Secondary 4). Practitioner research brings with it its own dilemmas (some of which have been explored within the paper) and the difculties of ensuring that the ndings present a true account, as free of personal bias as can be the case. Kemmis (1980) brings to ones attention that research is, by its very nature, a product of the imagination of the researcher, framed within his or her understanding which, in turn, is shaped by his/her experience of the world. As such, no research, no matter how carefully conceived and carried out, can be considered to be totally free of bias. By drawing upon processes such as triangulation and carefully verifying data, one attempts to ameliorate these difculties. It is hoped that what this study will achieve is to cast some light on how support can be given to some of the most vulnerable young people to enable them to lead meaningful lives. Potential avenues for further exploration Broadhead et al. (2010) suggest that multi-component interventions have the potential to be more efcacious than those targeting one component only. This would suggest that it might be of value to develop the SG approach for children in tandem with examining means of providing appropriate support for parents, whilst also taking forward, within the whole school context, policies to promote positive behaviour, focussing upon both pupils and teachers (including teaching assistants). A research grant has been awarded by the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation for a research and development project to further the SG approach in Scottish schools and it is currently being developed in two local authorities,3 extending the approach into upper Primary and the transition between Primary and Secondary.

Educational Psychology in Practice

249

Notes
1. There was a group effect but the individual effect was stronger. 2. All materials required to carry out and evaluate the approach (including a guide for SGLs) can be found in the publication, Mowat (2007). 3. For further information about this project, please contact the author at joan.mowat@strath. ac.uk or access www.usingsupportgroups.org.uk.

References
Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. London: Routledge. Astington, J.W., & Baird, J.A. (2004). Why language matters for theory of mind. International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, 45(1), 78. Barnett, S.M., Ceci, S.J., & Williams, W.M. (2006). Is the ability to make a bacon sandwich a mark of intelligence?, and other issues: Some reections on Gardner s theory of multiple intelligences. In J.A. Schaler (Ed.), Howard Gardner under re: The rebel psychologist faces his critics (pp. 95114). Chicago, IL: Carus Publishing Company. Bassey, M. (1999). Case study in educational settings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boyd, B. (2009). The contribution of MI to the creation of a culture of ideas in Scottish education. In J.-Q. Chen, S. Moran, & H. Gardner (Eds.), Multiple intelligences around the world (pp. 219229). San-Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Broadhead, M.A., Hockaday, A., Zahra, M., Francis, P.J., & Crichton, C. (2010). Scallywags an evaluation of a service targeting conduct disorders at school and at home. Educational Psychology in Practice, 25(2), 167179. Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1992). Lee Canter s assertive discinpline: Positive behavior management for todays classroom. Santa Monica, CA: Lee Canter Associates. Cooper, P. (2004). Nurture groups: The research evidence. In J. Wearmouth, R.C. Richmond, & T. Glynn (Eds.), Addressing pupils behaviour: Responses at district, school and individual levels (pp. 176196). London: David Fulton Publishers. Curwin, R.L., Mendler, A.N., & Mendler, B.D. (2008). Discipline with dignity: New challenges, new solutions (3rd edition). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Developments. Deci, E.L., & Moller, A.C. (2005). The concept of competence: A starting place for understanding intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation. In A.J. Elliot & C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 579597). New York: The Guilford Press. Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2005). Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning [SEAL] . . . Improving behaviour . . . improving learning, Ref. No: DfeS0110-2005G. London: DfES. Dweck, C.S. (2000). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Fleetham, M. (2009). Does Every Child Matter in England? In J.-Q. Chen, S. Moran, & H. Gardner (Eds.), Multiple intelligences around the world (pp. 197205). San-Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (2nd edition). London: Fontana Press. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (2006a). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (2006b). Replies to my critics. In J.A. Schaler (Ed.), Howard Gardner under re: The rebel psychologist faces his critics (pp. 277344). Chicago, IL: Carus Publishing Company. Gardner, H. (2009). Birth and the spreading of a Meme. In J.-Q. Chen, S. Moran, & H. Gardner (Eds.), Multiple intelligences around the world (pp. 316). San-Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London: Continuum. Hayes, B., Hindle, S., & Withington, P. (2007). Strategies for developing positive behaviour management. Teacher behaviour outcomes and attitudes to the change process. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23(2), 161175.

250

J.G. Mowat

Humphrey, N., Lendrum, A., Wigelsworth, M., & Kalmbouka, A. (2009). Implementation of primary Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning in small group work: A qualitative study. Pastoral Care in Education, 27(3), 219239. Kemmis, S. (1980). The imagination of the case and the invention of the study. In H. Simons (Ed.), Towards the science of the singular (pp. 96142). Norwich: Centre for Applied Research in Educations. King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. London: Sage Publications. Kohn, A. (2001). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (p. 220). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Macready, T. (2010). Learning social responsibility in schools: A restorative practice. Educational Psychology in Practice, 25(3), 211220. McGlamery, M.E., Ball, S.E., Henley, T.B., & Besozzi, M. (2007). Theory of mind, attention, and executive function in kindergarten boys. Emotional and Behavioural Difculties, 12(1), 2947. McGuinness, C. (2006). Building thinking skills in thinking classrooms. In Teaching and Learning Research Brieng, no. 18. London: Teaching and Learning Research Project. Mills, G.E. (2007). Action research: A guide for teacher researchers (3rd edition). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall. Mosley, J. (1998). Quality circle time in the primary classroom: Your essential guide to enhancing self-esteem, self-discipline and positive relationships. London: LDA. Mowat, J.G. (2007). Using support groups to improve behaviour. London: Sage Publications. Mowat, J.G. (2008). Teaching for understanding within the affective eld (Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Glasgow). Mowat, J.G. (2009). The inclusion of pupils perceived as having social and emotional behavioural difculties in mainstream schools: A focus upon learning. Support for Learning, 24(4), 159 169. Mowat, J.G. (2010a). He comes to me to talk about things: Supporting pupils experiencing social and emotional behavioural difculties a focus upon interpersonal relationships. Pastoral Care in Education, 28(3), 163180. Mowat, J.G. (2010b). Inclusion of pupils perceived as experiencing Social and Emotional Behavioural Difculties (SEBD): Affordances and constraints. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(6), 631648. Mowat, J.G. (2010c). Towards the development of self-regulation in pupils experiencing Social and Emotional Behavioural Difculties. Emotional and Behavioural Difculties, 15(3), 189 206. Mueller, C., & Dweck, C. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine childrens motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 3352. Nuthall, G. (2002). Social constructivist teaching and the shaping of students knowledge and thinking. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Social constructivist teaching: Affordances and constraints (pp. 4379). San Jose, CA: JAI. Perkins, D. (1998). What is understanding? In M.S. Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for Understanding (pp. 3957). San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Perkins, D. (2000). Series foreword: Thinking on the road of life. In A.L. Costa & B. Kallick (Eds.), Habits of mind (pp. viixi). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Developments. Perkins, D., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context bound? Educational Researcher, JanuaryFebruary, 1625. Peterson, C.C. (2004). Journeys of mind: ToM development in children with autism, sensory or motor disabilities. International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, Newsletter, 1(45), 1112. Scottish Educational Research Association (SERA). (2007). Starting points for research in schools. Retrieved August 23, 2011, from http://www.sera.ac.uk/docs/2007/SERASEEDStart ingpoints.pdf Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications. Swartz, R.J. (2001). Infusing critical and creative thinking into content instruction. In A.L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (3rd edition, pp. 266274). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Educational Psychology in Practice

251

Swinson, J., & 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), 115129. Swinson, J., & Knight, R. (2007). Teacher verbal feedback directed towards secondary pupils with challenging behaviour and its relationship to their behaviour. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23(3), 241255. Wells, G. (2002). Learning and teaching for understanding: The key role of collaborative knowledge building. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Social constructivist teaching: Affordances and constraints (pp. 141). San Jose, CA: JAI. White, J. (2006). Multiple invalidities. In J.A. Schaler (Ed.), Howard Gardner under re: The rebel psychologist faces his critics (pp. 4572). Chicago, IL: Carus Publishing Company. Wright, A. (2009). Every Child Matters: Discourses of challenging behaviour. Pastoral Care in Education, 27(4), 279290. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd edition). London: Sage Publications.

Appendix 1. Summary of support group pupil interview schedule

Prompts 1 To what extent, if any, do you consider that the Support Group has helped you to be more aware of your behaviour? Are you more able to understand how you are likely to react in different situations? Thinking more about your behaviour More awareness of right and wrong Thinking through behaviour more in difcult situations Thinking more about what will happen if you behave badly Thinking more about how your behaviour affects others Understanding the consequences of your behaviour better Understanding when to calm down Understanding your feelings better and how they affect your behaviour Learning difculties related to behaviour?

2 To what extent, if any, do you consider that the Support Group has helped you to understand yourself and your feelings better? why you behave in the ways that you do Do you think you know yourself a bit better? Do you understand better why you might get into trouble? 3 To what extent, if any, do you consider that the Support Group has helped you to be more aware of how your behaviour affects others? Why? Can you tell me more? 4 To what extent, if any, has the Support Group helped you to see things from the teacher s point of view? Do you see where the teacher is coming from sometimes? Do you understand why the teacher might act in certain ways?

Effects on learning for others Adaptations to behaviour Greater awareness of the needs of others Feelings of disappointment/hurt/anger in others Greater sense of self-responsibility Understanding of the role of the teacher in creating an effective climate for learning Understanding of the role of the teacher in meeting the needs of all pupils Greater awareness of the feelings of the teacher (Continued )

252

J.G. Mowat

Appendix 1. (Continued ) Prompts 5 To what extent, if any, have the targets which you have set yourself with the help of your teacher helped you to think clearly about improving your behaviour? Why? Can you tell me more? 6 To what extent, if any, has the discussion about your pupil diary helped you to make sense of the things which have happened to you? Why? Can you tell me more? Did writing in/discussing your pupil diary make you think more about how you behaved? Did it help you to understand why you might have behaved as you did? Did it help you to understand the consequences of your behaviour for yourself and others? Did it help you to learn from the situation so that you could do better on another occasion? More condent? More anxious? More able to talk? Less able to talk? Happier? Sadder? More motivation towards learning? Less motivation towards learning? More sense of self-control? Less sense of self-control? Improved focus upon behaviour Improved focus upon learning Increased motivation Making a difference to behaviour Making a difference to learning

7 To what extent, if any, has the Support Group made any difference to how you feel about yourself? Why? Can you tell me more?

All classes? Some classes? None? 8 To what extent has the Support Group made any difference to how you behave in school? Relationship with teacher Other pupils in the class Are you getting into trouble less often? Liking for subject Type of activity Why? Can you tell me more? Condence in ability to do the work 9 To what extent, if any, has the Support Group made any difference to how you behave when you are in trouble? Ability to control anger Ability to accept blame when at fault Ability to think through behaviour more Regret at losing temper Able to say sorry and genuinely mean it Ability to learn from experiences

10 To what extent, if any, have you succeeded More than you might have expected in meeting your targets? Has the Support As you would have expected Group been a success for you? Less than you might have expected Why do you think this is? Tell me more.
*The schedule was developed as a collaborative exercise with Support Group Leaders. The prompts were derived through examination of the responses of the rst two cohorts of SG pupils to the interview schedule and applied to the subsequent cohorts. The interviewer would frame subsequent questions around the suggested prompts, as appropriate, using his or her judgement.

Educational Psychology in Practice

253

Appendix 2. Pre-Intervention Questionnaire

Tick one box only for each statement. Please respond to every statement. Positive Statements I understand my behaviour I behave well in school I am happy and relaxed about how I behave I can control my behaviour when I want to I want to improve upon my behaviour I am concerned about how my behaviour affects others I make friends easily I get on well with my friends I am usually friendly towards other pupils Other pupils are usually friendly towards me I get on well with my teachers Most of my teachers like me Most of my teachers are fair I try to show respect towards my teachers Most of my teachers treat me with respect I can talk to some of my teachers Most of my teachers care about me I feel good about myself most of the time I think of myself as being quite intelligent I consider myself to be a good learner I can work at a problem until I get it right I ask for help when I get stuck I like school Name of pupil: Negative Statements I dont understand my behaviour I dont behave well in school I am unhappy and anxious about how I behave I cant control my behaviour when I want to I dont want to improve upon my behaviour I am not concerned about how my behaviour affects others I dont make friends easily I frequently fall out with my friends I am often aggressive towards other pupils Other pupils are usually aggressive towards me I dont get on well with my teachers Most of my teachers dont like me Most of my teachers are not fair I dont treat teachers with respect Most of my teachers dont treat me with respect I cant talk to any of my teachers Most of my teachers dont care about me I dont feel good about myself most of the time I think that Im stupid I dont consider myself to be a good learner I give up when I have difficulty I dont ask for help when I get stuck I dont like school Date:

Copyright of Educational Psychology in Practice is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.