Uso de la Metodología propuesta de capítulo 3

I feel that teachers’ attitudes towards EQ, and the value they place upon EQ, are generated

largely from the ‘school: policy’ level. Part of my process in reaching this conclusion comes

from my experience of school policy, which is that it impacts teaching and learning in terms of what teachers do and how this is delivered, but also in terms of the value the senior

leadership team place upon difference facets of the curriculum. This ‘classroom: teaching and learning’ level then impacts upon individual children. These influences are demonstrated with arrows on Figure 14. Throughout this section, I reference other factors which also contributed to my conclusion that teachers’ attitudes towards EQ, and the value they place upon EQ, are generated largely from the ‘school: policy’ level. These factors include the existing literature and specific connections with my research findings.

Figure 14 Link theme: teacher attitude towards and value placed upon EQ

Individual: child Classroom:

teaching and learning School: policy

175

In terms of future professional practice, I think that it is important at the ‘school; policy’ level of my theoretical model to emphasise the importance and value the school places upon SEL. This underlines Humphrey et al.’s (2008) point that the success of the SEAL programme depends upon the social and emotional work already taking place at a school and the knowledge and skills of the small group facilitator. As a teacher, I think careful

implementation and furnishing teachers with solid practice-based evidence would go a long way to ensuring buy in from most members of the teaching staff. I perceive this to be necessary from a comment made by one of the teacher interviewees. It was apparent that evaluating children’s progress against these EQ competency descriptors was quite an

unfamiliar process for Mrs Davis (ST-2), one of the teachers interviewed. She comments that for the EQ competency of consequential thinking: ‘I think I will find that quite hard to talk about’. Additionally, the senior leadership team placing value upon an area of learning communicates to all staff that this area is a clear priority. In my experience, teacher attitudes are further influenced when an area of learning is designated as a sustained priority within the policy of the school which underpins the school’s culture. Schools are prone to frequently changing their priorities, but this should be avoided if a school is keen to ensure consistent and constant focus upon SEL.

The emphasis on policy links to the ‘classroom: teaching and learning’ level of my model, as whole school policy influences what teachers do in their classroom. My research indicates that training teachers in the delivery of a SEL curriculum and EQ skills alone would not guarantee success. My findings highlight the key role of a teacher’s wider pedagogical approach when investigating, or considering, the implementation of SEL programmes in a school. For example, on the SEI-YV, the children’s scores improved on measurements linked to relationships with others: Give Yourself, Pursue Noble Goals and Relationship Quality. The children’s SDQ results demonstrated positive progress on the Peer relations and General- self scales, indicating students did not show the usual decline with age in self-concept (Marsh, 2006). The children’s comments in the pupil interviews also suggested a positive

development in empathy and peer relations. These outcomes may have resulted from the intervention blending with my pedagogy. My pedagogical approach focuses more upon peer relationships than self through the development of children’s skills of co-operation and conflict resolution, alongside cultivating a classroom climate based upon empathy and respect. This adds to the existing knowledge on implementing a SEL curriculum and is not something which has previously been identified in the literature. My intervention cannot be

176

isolated from my pedagogical approach, and the two are mutually complementary. Kelly et al. (2004) comment on the positive feedback from teachers who are trained to deliver an EQ curriculum or intervention to their class. However, their work focused on their students learning different EQ skills, and the changes that resulted. In terms of future professional

work for teachers, I would suggest evaluating the development of teachers’ own EQ skills and

understanding in relation to themselves. This would not initially involve a curriculum or intervention for them to deliver to their students, although this could be developed over time, perhaps in conjunction with the teacher. Given the role of my pedagogy on the social and emotional development of my pupils, I feel it is essential to consider a teacher’s pedagogical stance in the successful implementation of social and emotional learning. There is also scope to investigate the result of this pedagogy on a teacher’s class, particularly when considering the impact of the teacher’s attitude on the classroom climate (Kremenitzer et al., 2008;

Rogers, 1983; Mortiboys, 2005). This links the ‘classroom: teaching and learning’ level to the ‘individual: child’ level in my theoretical model.

Goldacre (2013) and Gorard and Cook (2007) maintain that randomised controlled trials are the best way to conduct educational research. As Goldacre (2013) emphasises, the researcher needs to be sure that the intervention is causing the change. He also makes a valid point that investigating the impact of ideas before implementation is worthwhile in terms of time and money, as the idea could be ineffectual or even damaging. Gorard and Cook (2007) underline the weak technical warrant of most ‘effective practices’ (p.309) in education. They recognise that many potentially effective educational practices are embedded in complex systems with many other variables. To establish the causal role of a single practice, they recommend isolating then systematically varying this practice. I acknowledge the rationality and merit of using random controlled trials. However, classrooms are complex places and, like Brown (1992), I am not convinced that it is ever truly possible to fully isolate and test one practice. I believe my research findings highlight the impact of an individual teacher’s pedagogical approach. My pedagogy as a teacher focuses on creating a classroom culture of inclusion, kindness and respect, and building resilience. The EQ intervention was only one contributing factor to this focus. The results from the SDQ and the SEI-YV questionnaires lent more weight to changes in children’s perception of, and relationships with, peers. This would be in keeping with my pedagogical approach, which focuses more on peer relationships than self. The interview comments from the children and teachers also reflect my pedagogy. Both the pupil and teacher interviewees reported the increased action response to empathy in the class

177

as the year progressed. The children recounted the increase in their deliberate actions to include others and widen their social circles, as well as increased peer empathy in the

classroom. The children also identified the positive impact of pastoral systems such as Circle Time for increasing trust. In the interviews, the teachers described the class as cohesive and inclusive, and kindness and respect were identified as existing in the absence of the class teacher. During my research, it became clear that the context of the EQ intervention was key, and this context included my daily interactions with the pupils and my emphasis on the value of other pastoral systems. Consequently, if any teacher is involved in a trial or intervention, I do not think it is possible to separate this from their pedagogy. In the same way, if a teacher has an intervention imposed upon them with which they don’t agree, this will be

communicated to the children, even at a subconscious level. The intervention may not be as successful as it would with a teacher who is enthusiastic and values the intervention. In this

way, an individual teacher’sapproach could skew the results of the trial. To build a full and

clear picture, I maintain that future educational research should investigate and collect

evidence regarding a teacher’s approach to teaching and learning, as well as the nature of their interaction with students. This is particularly the case for primary school teachers, who spend most, if not all, of their teaching time with the same class. Humphrey et al. (2008) refer to this, stating that the success of the SEAL programme is dependent upon the existing work on social and emotional work that is already taking place in schools. My recommendation for future research is to focus at the level of the individual teacher.