Promote positive behaviour

The question posed for the research is “What strategies do Early Years Professionals use to promote positive behaviour?” The aim of the research is to review the literature surrounding the topic, identify a methodology to conduct new research within a particular setting and present the findings of what strategies the setting uses to promote such behaviour. Kay (2006) defines the term behaviour management as policies, strategies and responses used to eradicate misbehaviour and promote positive behaviour. There are different strategies that early year’s settings can implement to promote positive behaviour and this research is going to identify some of the techniques that are being used within the specific setting. Every child and parent is unique, so each individual will respond differently to different strategies. By reviewing what strategies have been adopted previously and what is currently used along with government legislation will provide a background to the research. The aim is also to identify sanctions used against negative behaviour, in order to ultimately promote positive behaviour within the setting. Roffey (2006) indicates the importance that children understanding what settings mean as ‘good’, and the behaviour that is required of them.

This is in order for them to internalise pro-social behaviour and not just fearing the negative consequence. It is important to note the government legislation surrounding this topic – The Early Years Foundation Stage Framework (EYFS) (2012) highlights that no corporal punishment of any form may be carried out on a child, and that it is offence if done so. There are no strategies defined within the document to promote positive behaviour and no guidelines on what sanctions can be used. However each early years setting will have their own behavioural policies in place, as illustrated by Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, (Ofsted), (2005). This research aims to review what is in place in the particular setting. The area of interest relates to behaviour in a classroom environment. Learning to cope with different positive and negative behaviours is a key element with all practitioners. As emphasised by Neil-Hall (2008) children are not born ‘bad’ or ‘good’ but develop a range of behaviours through growing up. These behaviours are not always positive and can be challenging to the adult responsible for care at the given time.

This research will aim to identify a variety of techniques that can be used by the practitioners in order to promote positive behaviour within the setting. The rationale for choosing the subject is an interest to identify the techniques and balance between promoting positive behaviour and dealing with negative behaviour in early years. “More than at any other age, those who work with children in the early years hold the future in their hands… Research continually emphasizes the importance of the first few years of a child’s life” (Roffey, 2006 pg.1). Early years settings are where many individual behavioural traits are formed so this time is critical in which to identify what is deemed as positive and negative behaviour. Although there are many external influences to what is seen as ‘right and wrong’ (for example culture, religion, background, location) this research will aim to identify the strategies used to promote the desired behaviour within the setting (Roffey, 2006). For the purposes of the research the ‘setting’ implies the location in which the research will/has taken place and the ‘Parent’ identifies the person in charge of the child. Literature Review

What strategies do Early Years Professionals use to promote positive behaviour? The term Positive Behaviour indicates that the child is displaying the behaviour that society desires and is behaving in a positive manner while ‘misbehaviour’ or ’problematic behaviour’ indicates that the child is displaying the behaviour that needs to be eradicated (Swale, 2006). Positive behaviour can be reinforced by rewarding the good behaviour, thus encouraging the child to repeat the behaviour. This supports theorist B F Skinners’ Behaviour Theory which states that actions can be conditioned through reinforcers. Positive reinforcers offer a good consequence in the hope to repeat certain behaviour, whereas negative reinforcers offer a negative consequence in the hope to diminish a particular behaviour, this is known as Operant Conditioning (McLeod, 2007). The idea is to give the child attention but in a positive manner and be alert to a child’s good behaviour and making sure it is recognised. McKay (2013) points out that practitioners can frequently forget to praise and often correct and criticize the negative things in life.

Furthermore, Glenn et al. (2010) states that in order to maintain positive behaviour, it is important to establish good relationships with the children, if the child respects a practitioner then they are more likely to comply. Kay (2006) points out that part of an Early Years Practitioner’s role is to teach children acceptable behaviour and recognise that each child is unique and will present different behaviour depending on their personal circumstances, cultural background, developmental stage and personality. It is important for the practitioner to strike a good relationship with both the child and the parents in order to have a full understanding of the child’s circumstances. The child will have to learn what is now expected of them within the setting and what is deemed unacceptable behaviour, because what may be acceptable behaviour at home may be deemed as unacceptable within the setting. This opinion is shared by Roffey (2006) who states practitioners need to consider that all children experience different upbringings and need to learn what is acceptable in the setting. Porter (2006) continues to explain that where certain behaviours such as violence are unacceptable behaviour, there are other ‘fairly minor’ behaviours that one as an adult must learn to expect from children depending on the age and developmental stage of the child, although these behaviours can be aggravating and even anger a practitioner, they are normal behaviours and part of growing up.

The Early Years Foundation Stage Framework (EYFS) (2012) highlights that no corporal punishment of any form may be carried out on a child, and that it is offence if done so. The EYFS explains that physical intervention is permitted if there is a risk of immediate danger or to prevent a child from hurting themselves or others. However these are the only guidelines that EYFS have given on behaviour management, there are no strategies defined to promote positive behaviour and no guidelines on what sanctions can be used. However each early years setting will have their own behavioural policies in place, as illustrated by Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) (2005). Ofsted (2005) states that most schools and colleges have behaviour policies in place, that set out their expectations clearly and in two thirds of schools the policies are implemented consistently by their members of staff.

These policies have also had a positive impact on early year’s settings, leading to a secure environment for children and this in turn increasing children’s self-confidence, which has led to a positive impact on their attitude towards learning (Ofsted, 2005). The Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (2012) recognises the need to educate children about positive ways to behave and how to control feelings and emotions. “Children talk about how they and others show feelings, talk about their own and others’ behaviour, and its consequences, and know that some behaviour is unacceptable” (EYFS Handbook, 2012, pg.26). Glenn et al. (2010) believes that the most powerful strategy in promoting positive behaviour is praise and reward, this opinion is shared by Kay (2006), Cowly (2006) and Neill-Hall (2008). Children respond better to being praised than to being reprimanded. They believe it is important to reward children with constant praise to encourage positive behaviour. Praise boosts ones self-esteem and if a child’s good behaviour is recognised through praise he/she is more likely to repeat the behaviour (Glenn et al., 2010). In contrast Rogers (2008) argues that praise can be over used and in effective if it isn’t sincere.

Praise needs to be personal and carry a purpose, it is important to explain what it is that they have done well, why it is the practitioner is proud of them, rather than just making a generic comment such as “well done”. Whereas McKay (2013) recognises that praise should be to carry out instruction to show the pupil what it is that they have done correctly and this in turn gives them the knowledge of how to repeat the behaviour. Such as “Excellent effort there Martha, you have sat with your legs crossed throughout circle time, superb listening”. This personal praise is more constructive than just “good Job”, Martha now knows that she is being praised because she listened well and sat nicely throughout circle time, hopefully leading to a repeat performance of good behaviour during circle time. Roffey (2011) supports this view and states that praise needs to be specific and genuine in order for students to recognise what they have done that is praiseworthy, otherwise praise is meaningless. Glenn et al. (2010) illustrates that by providing the child with a good role model this can lead to promoting positive behaviour.

When a child is displaying good positive behaviour, pointing this out to other children will reinforce what behaviour is expected of them and should encourage other children to follow suit in order for them to receive the same positive recognition. Swale (2006) emphasises the importance giving a child a warning prior to an activity ending, to enable the time to finish their game and to prevent any protest. A sand timer is a useful tool for children to be able to see the passing of time. An adult would become “extremely annoyed if somebody turned off the television in the middle of our favourite program, without warning” so practitioners should bare this in mind and be more empathic towards the children in their care (Swale, 2006, pg.18). Boredom can trigger misbehaviour therefore it is important to try and prevent a child from being bored. At meal times children can be expected to sit and wait for long periods of time, this can lead to misbehaviour. Not leaving children sitting and waiting for meals to arrive can prevent this, also not making children wait at the table for others to finish, having them sit in the book corner reading quietly is another option (Swale, 2006).

Swale (2006) also suggests that during free play sessions, if things start getting out of hand, rather than stopping the activity or reprimanded the child, a more positive approach would be to introduce a practitioner to join in the play and calm things down. Children can misbehave for a number of reasons, establishing the source can help eradicate that particular behaviour. (Glenn et al. 2010). A child may misbehave if they are wet and uncomfortable, hungry/thirsty, tired or cold etc. The child’s behaviour may improve once these basic needs are met which fits in with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (see appendix 1.) which states that all the basic needs such as shelter and food, need to be meet before learning can begin (Chapman, 2014). Glenn et al. (2010) recognises that when a child misbehaves it is often a form of attention-seeking because they want to get noticed. Ignoring unwanted behaviour is often a good strategy to stop the unwanted behaviour, because if a child is misbehaving to seek attention by ignoring the unwanted behaviour the child will hopefully stop.

A reaction to the unwanted behaviour is effectively giving the child the desired attention that they want, and the child is more likely to repeat the behaviour in the future, the next time that they want attention. Glenn et al. (2010) believes that in order to maintain positive behaviour sometimes it is necessary, as a last resort, to apply a sanction, otherwise known as a Punishment or Consequence. Sometimes children just won’t cooperate and comply, and it is necessary to give the child a negative consequence in order for them to stop the current behaviour and start behaving in a positive manner. Cowley (2006) endorses the use of sanctions in order to diminish the unwanted behaviour, to teach the child that the behaviour is unacceptable and that it will be punished. It is important that the child knows it’s the behaviour that is unwanted and not the child. This theory is supported by behaviourist B.F Skinner and his Operant Conditioning theory. Skinner believed that when a negative consequence is applied it weakens/diminishes the behaviour. However when a positive reinforce is applied, this strengthens behaviour and it is more likely to be repeated in order to obtain the positive reinforcement (McLeod, 2007).

Other strategies for sanctions highlighted by Cowley (2006) are: disapproval, shouting, removal, loss of privileges and the naughty place. However it is not always feasible to use a reward to manage behaviour that Cowley (2006) recognises that sometimes a punishment should be used to stop a problematic behaviour from occurring again. Cowley states “If a child has behaved in a totally inappropriate way, then she must learn that this behaviour will be punished… Your child will quickly learn not to repeat the behaviour” (Cowley, 2006, pg. 124). When using the distraction method, although this is effective in deterring a child from a potentially disruptive scene, there will come a time when a practitioner actually has to deal with the problematic behaviour rather than continuing to distract the child. For example, if a child is repeatedly throwing a tantrum when one parent leaves the room, eventually the issue will need dealing with rather than simply distracting the child’s attention away from the tantrum by the other parent time after time (Cowley, 2006).

Roffey (2011) argues that punishment can be meaningless to some people because they have already dealt with worse things in life than the punishment that is being dealt to them. Therefore going to have very little effect and is unlikely to deter the unwanted behaviour, in fact the punishment could provoke feelings of anger and aggression. However rewards can reinforce positive behaviour. As stated “If punishment worked well as a deterrent our prisons would be empty” (Roffey, 2011, pg.71). Deci’s (2000) Self-Determination Theory, a study of human motivation and personality believes that ultimately the child needs to be intrinsically motivated and behave because they want to succeed and not just to gain the reward and this is often the view of experience practitioners in EYS.

Methodology
The purpose of this assignment is to find what strategies are used within Early Years Settings (EYS, 2012) to promote positive behaviour. There are several research methods that can be used but after careful consideration the chosen methods are questionnaires and an interview. This section will explore the reasons for the chosen methods and why alternative methods were not used. Before carrying out any research it is important to consider the ethical issues surrounding an investigation. There is a responsibility to participants and sponsors of research (BERA, 2011). Permission to conduct
the research was sought via a Letter of Request (Appendix 2.) addressed to the manager of the setting. It is important to obtain consent from the manager for they are the gatekeeper to the setting in which the proposed research will take place. However the manager cannot give permission for each individual participant in the research. Voluntary informed consent will need to be obtained from them as and when it is appropriate. This outlines the key ethical considerations in view of the British Educational Research Association (BERA) guidelines (2011). The Letter of Request explained the focus of the research project, how the research was proposed and why the information was needed.

The participants’ rights to withdraw and anonymity of the participant were clearly expressed. The research was carried out within a local nursery that looks after children aged between 0-4 years old. Questionnaires (Appendix 3) were given to each member of staff to obtain the strategies that they use to promote positive behaviour. The researcher decided that the use of questionnaires for key staff members would be an ideal data collecting method, the researcher could obtain the views and opinions, but they could complete the questionnaires in their own time and it didn’t interfere with their work. Also this was a more convenient ethical option, as a consent letter (appendix 4) was attached with each questionnaire and the member of staff was asked to read and sign it before completing the questionnaire to ensure the participant understood their rights to withdraw and obtain their consent for participation in the project (BERA, 2011). All questionnaires have the same set of questions, Denscombe (2010) explains that it is important to ensure that each person completing the questionnaire has an identical set of questions, in order to maintain consistency and precision, this therefore helps make processing the answers easier.

Denscombe (2010) highlights the importance of making sure that the respondent can read and understand the questions, and considering the respondent age, intellect, language and eyesight. Timing needs to be considered, a practitioner needs to be organised and allocate enough time for preparation of your questionnaires and consider the length of time you will allocate for participants to complete the questionnaires. Lengthy questionnaires may lose the participants interest. The questionnaires were hand delivered and left with the staff for 5 days to allow enough time for completion. Open questions were used in order to obtain the staff’s points of view (Bell, 2010). Careful consideration is needed when wording the questions, it is important not to use leading questions that can prompt the answers given, for this would not be a true point of view. When seeking an opinion from a participant it is important not to use closed questions. It was decided to use an additional interview with the Behaviour Manager of the setting. This was to ensure clarification of the ideal setting. This person has worked for the company for 10 years and has worked within the childcare industry for 20 years.

It was considered best speaking with the behaviour manager because of her wealth of experience and to discover her views on successful strategies in promoting positive behaviour at this setting and any strategies that have changed over the years. Careful consideration had to be paid to the type of interview used. Bell (2010) highlights the different approaches to interviews, structured, semi-structured and unstructured. There are both advantages and disadvantages for each approach the information that is required, will enable the researcher to make the best decision on the most suitable approach for conducting research. For the purpose of this assignment a semi-structured interview (Appendix 5 & 6) was prepared whereby the topic had already been chosen and questions were asked that had been previously organized. However because it was a semi-structured interview, the questions allowed room for the interviewee’s opinions and thoughts upon the subject matter.

The researcher thought that the best format for the interview was semi-structured due to the fact that the opinions and experiences of the interviewee were required but related to a specific focus and therefore needed some focus. Due to time constraints, the prepared questions helped to prompt the interviewee while keeping the session on track (Bell, 2010). As Denscombe (2007) notes some interviews are not easy to obtain as they are time consuming for the interviewee. However by executing a structured interview (pre-planned) this will help limit time constraints and limit the interviewee from going away from the interview focus. Structured interviews are planned and are based upon specific questions. The interview is conducted face-to-face and the data given can easily be recorded (Denscombe, 2007). For the purpose of the research project this method would not suit as qualitative data is sought and will need to allow for elaboration during the interview process as the topic is surrounding behaviours. Alternatively unstructured interviews offer the interviewee freedom to express their opinions and delve further into the topic matter.

The interviewer will engage in a topic but will not ask any specific questions so as to let the interviewee give their own personal thoughts and opinions on the subject matter. As the research area is focussed on a particular topic this type of interview was not used – data can be difficult to record when using this method and the interviewee could not discuss the subject in detail. Bell (2010) points out the importance of wording questions correctly, appropriate language for the person to be interviewed should be selected carefully so that they understand what is being asked of them i.e. a practitioner would not use the same choice of language for a child that one would use for an adult or use academic language on everyday people. The questions that were used related to behaviour and were appropriate for the respondent as the practitioner is familiar with the terms and language used. If a candidate who worked outside of the education sector was to be interviewed with the same set of questions language would need adapting to the individual being interviewed.

The possibility of an observation of the 2-4 year old setting was discussed and planned, however after consideration it was decided that for this assignment and due to the time constraints, that it was best not carrying out an observation for this age range. For ethical purposes (BERA, 2011) consent forms would have to have been sent out to each child’s parents who were to be observed which would have been time consuming within the allotted time. The nature of the observation would have been to observe children and how the Early Years staff dealt with the behaviour and what strategies they would use to promote positive behaviour. However, it could not have been guaranteed that the behaviour was observable on the day of observation although this remains an option for further future studies. It would have proven difficult to have structured an observation due to unpredictability of the children’s behaviour. Unstructured observations may be more difficult to record due to the uncertainty of the direction of the observation (Bell, 2010).

Structured observations are more likely to be deemed biased as the observer has chosen the focus rather than just letting a focus emerge naturally, however you will already know the importance of the behaviour that the researcher are trying to observe (Bell, 2010). However Denscombe (2010) emphasizes that observations provide the opportunity to see events unfold and capture data as it is happening. The research for this assignment can be categorized as being from an interpretative paradigm rather than a positive paradigm, this is because the results are individuals’ opinions and views and this can differ from one professional to another. The research collected was qualitative data, that the findings were based on opinions and not factual. This view is supported by Bell (2010) who emphasizes that “qualitative research not only uses non- numerical and unstructured data but also, typically, has research questions and methods which are more general at the start, and become more focused as the study progresses.” Action and Presentation of results

From the findings of the qualitative data (Appendix 7) it can be confirmed that an interpretative paradigm was obtained. This is reflected in the various views and opinions from the staff that completed the questionnaire. Each member of staff’s answers to the questionnaires differed slightly due to different interpretation of events. This is supported by the views of Denscombe (2010) who states; “Research using qualitative methodologies- approaches that place special emphasis on the individual’s views and personal experiences” (Denscombe, 2011, pg.94). Through the results of the questionnaires it can be seen that the setting has a clear and precise focus on promoting positive behaviour by using strategies to support children, in conducting their behaviour in a positive manner. It is clear to see the staffs have used an array of strategies in order to promote positive behaviour. Some of these can be quantified below.

Fig 1. A graph to represent quantified positive strategies used

Fig 2. A graph to represent sanctions used
The data reveals there are more rewards than sanctions and this is because the setting prefers to refrain from using sanctions and tries to promote positive behaviour using positive strategies, this is emphasised by the behaviour manager on the interview tape. This coincides with the view of Glenn et al. (2010) that sanctions should be used as a last resort. Cowley (2006) believes that people respond better to rewards than sanctions, it builds self-esteem and makes an individual feel good. This is certainly the case within the setting, the interviewee states that the children respond well to rewards, praise in particular. The results showed that the strategy with the best effect on promoting positive behaviour was praise. The interviewee reveals “everything we do with behaviour management is based on the positive; even the Sanctions promote positive behaviour”. The interviewee states that the setting tries to deflect the unwanted behaviour and praise the child when they are displaying good behaviour. The setting do not use the word naughty, they do not use Time Out or a Naughty Chair, this strategies are deemed too negative by the setting and they only want to focus on the positive.

The interviewee highlights using a role model to promote positive behaviour, for example if a child was behaving particularly well, given that child lots of praise and attention, may result in others following suit. This also extends to the practitioners been a good role model, as young children are impressionable. Children copy what they see and hear (Roffey, 2006) therefore if the adults are displaying good behaviour and appropriate language, the children will hopefully imitate this behaviour. Privileges such as having a special helper are a good strategy to encourage children to behave positively, however the interviewee highlighted the importance of not forgetting or leaving out the child that is always well-behaved. As emphasised by Glenn et al. (2010). The setting ensures that there is a close partnership with parents, all of the parents are informed on a daily basis, and how their child has been at nursery on that particular day. If their child has been acting particularly out of character then the practitioner would have a chat with parent to see if everything is okay at home. As a result of this close partnership with parents, a sanction can be applied in the reporting of the unwanted behaviour to the child’s parents. The interviewee reports that in some cases a simple threat that “mummy/daddy will be very disappointed to hear that you are misbehaving” is sometimes enough to make the child behave.

The interviewee explains that a majority of the children will respond well to at least one of the strategies, and in her opinion a majority of the children respond well to praise. In the instance that all the strategies have been exhausted, and praise does not have an effect on the child, then as a last resort a behavioural plan will be introduced, and it is at this stage that we will be looking at making a referral to explore if there are deep underlying issues such as the possibility of ADHD. Victoria (2011) defines that praise and encouragement promote intrinsic motivation. It is important that a child builds on their intrinsic motivation, so that they want to behave positively in order to increase their self-esteem and regard. Rather than extrinsic motivation children behaving, just to avoid a sanction. The common view is that positive reinforcement is preferred over using negative strategies. However they do use sanctions when applicable and the common view is to remove a child from the situation, when they are misbehaving. This strategy supports Cowley’s (2006) belief that children need to learn that there are consequences for misbehaving.

The consequence in this case is being removed from the situation (which is usually an activity of their choice). There were problems encountered on receipt of the questionnaires in that only 4 out of 8 were completed. This is a common problem amongst questionnaires as reinforced by Denscombe (2010, pg.154) “Non-response is a problem”. This impacts the results, meaning there is only 50% of the total potential data to analyse. The risk with questionnaires is that the answers may be collaborated between the subjects and may not be a true reflection of individuals’ opinions or events as they actually happen. In contrast interviews provide instant information, Bell (2010) points out that interviews are more adaptable than questionnaires, they offer more freedom to elaborate and explore the questions further, whereas the questionnaire have to take the written response at face value. Some of the answers provided in the questionnaire are very vague, unlike in the interview which is very in-depth and detailed. The interviewer and interviewee were able to elaborate on the answers and even go off on tangents; this is due to the interview being semi- structured.

On reflection the questions are too repetitive, leading too much data to be analysed. Sharp (2009) emphasises the need to plan simple questions so that they flow fluently and continuous and purposeful. The interview took longer than was intended. This meant that the practitioner was pulled away from her job for a longer period, which in turn resulted in an interruption midway through the interview as another member staff needed to ask a question. The researcher did not take into consideration that the Dictaphone recorded background noise; this is due to the location of the interviewee (the nursery kitchen). Sharp (2009) indicates the importance of conducting your interview in a quiet location away from disturbances. As emphasised by Sharp (2009) it is important to refrain from asking participants leading questions during interviews.

While this was noted beforehand, due to the inexperience of the interviewer, it has been noted that on review/playback of the interview session, that leading did take place with non-scripted questioning. This should be taken into account when drawing conclusions from this study. When drawing conclusions it is important to take into consideration the interviewer effect, “what they say they do, may not always be the truth” (Denscombe, pg, 194). This view is supported by Sharp (2009) and the principle extended to questionnaires, how valid is their answers? The participants may have collaborated when answering the questions; they may answer what they think the researcher wants to know rather than their true opinions. Critical reflection

From the findings of the research it is clear that the setting is in support of promoting positive behaviour via positive strategies. This coincides with current day government legislation of reinforcing positive behaviour strategies across the education system, from preschools-secondary schools (Department for Education, 2012). In line with OFSTED (2005) most nurseries/schools have their own behaviour policy. It may be the case that the settings’ behaviour management policy may be responsible for the common view found across the questionnaires. The policy states they encourage good behaviour through the use of praise and rewards, this coincides with the results from the questionnaires and interviews, that the best strategy to promote positive behaviour is through use of praise. Kay (2006) recognises that it is crucial for early year’s settings to have behaviour management strategies in place to promote positive behaviour and that it is the role of the practitioners to teach the children what is acceptable behaviour. In the results of the research the behaviour manager confirmed “everything we do with behaviour management is based on the positive”.

Adult’s expectations can be confusing for the child because what one adult may tolerate and see as acceptable behaviour another adult may deem the behaviour as unacceptable. As noted by Kay, (2006) a child who asks a lot of questions may be viewed as being eager to learn and inquisitive, whereas another adult may determine the child disruptive and intrusive. Porter (2006, pg.16) believes “It thus seems that, like beauty, ‘misbehaviour is in the eye of the beholder’ (Kay, 2006). The policy states that the setting intends to encourage good behaviour via a number of actions, one of which is ensuring all children’s needs are met. The nursery recognise that children can misbehave if they are hungry, cold, wet, tired, bored or if the activity set isn’t suitable for their developmental needs. This matches with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (McLeod, 2007) as discussed in the literature review. The settings are working towards promoting the child’s intrinsic motivation, encouraging them to want to behave well for themselves and not for a reward. The settings behaviour management policy says “In developing children’s self – esteem, we are able to encourage children’s self–discipline and acceptance of their actions” (Appendix 8).

This reinforces Carlton’s (1998) views on autonomy. In the interviews the most common strategy used is one of praise and encouragement, this is echoed in the findings of Glenn et al. (2011) who believes that the most powerful strategy in promoting positive behaviour is praise and reward, an opinion also shared by Kay (2006), Cowly (2006) and Neill-Hall (2008) as identified in the review. Sticker charts were highlighted by all four interviewees as a positive behaviour strategy in the research findings; they are a discipline tool that assists in motivating them to learn new behaviours (Morin, no date). The sticker chart can be used as an instant way of promoting positive behaviour for all to see and in a way the child understands, as a sticker is appealing to that age-group. In contrast to Glenn’s et al. (2010) belief that in some cases the negative consequence needs to be applied to diminish the unwanted behaviour, the setting does not agree with negative sanctions and therefore does not administer them. The behaviour manager of the setting interviewed reports that the setting no longer uses time out/naughty chair, as this is deemed a negative sanction.

They believe that putting a child into time out excludes them from the group activity; the setting wants to focus on inclusion and also believe that time out can fuel the child’s frustration and anger, therefore making the situation worse. Interestingly one of the four practitioners highlighted they would place a child in a time-out as a sanction. This may be due to the setting changing their views on positive behaviour or personal interpretation of the guidelines. However the setting will apply a consequence to an unwanted behaviour where it is appropriate. The interviewee explains that if a child was to make a mess, they would have to clear up their mess before they were allowed to move on to doing another activity, therefore the consequence is to have to tidy up. The setting never refers to a child as being naughty, this opinion is shared by Swale (2006) who believes that you should never insinuate that the child is being a problem; it’s the behaviour that needs to be changed and not the child.

The importance of being a good role model was highlighted in both the questionnaires and interviews, the behaviour management policy states “The staff model good behaviour for children to learn from”. This view is also shared by Neill-Hall (2008) who describes how some theorists believe that behaviour is learnt so it is important for staff to model good behaviour and setting a good example, children will imitate what behaviour they see portrayed. As identified in the literature review Glenn et al. (2010) highlighted that pointing out positive behaviour to other children will reinforce what behaviour is expected of them. Reviewing the results it is clear to see how certain methods are used in the setting, for example sticker charts, certificates and reward charts visually demonstrate to other children how positive behaviour is rewarded. Kay (2006) pointed out the importance for the practitioner to strike a good relationship with the parents because what may be acceptable behaviour at home may be deemed as unacceptable within the setting (shown in the literature review) and in the results of the study one highlighted a strategy of informing parents when positive behaviour was see. This could aid the reinforcement of positive behaviour beyond the setting. Conclusion

This study concludes that in the present day, in Britain, there is greater emphasis on the approach of supporting positive behaviour in children as opposed to providing sanctions to diminish or reprimand negative behaviour. The setting is using strategies to support promoting positive behaviour, which is in line with Government requirements. In the literature review it was also identified that most schools and colleges have behaviour policies in place that set out their expectations clearly (Ofsted, 2005). In answer to the question “What strategies do Early Years Professionals use to promote positive behaviour?” It can be concluded that these strategies include praise and encouragement, rewards such as sticker charts, point systems, certificates and privileges such as being a ‘special helper’. These approaches are used in the hope that it will encourage children to behave accordingly and weaken the unwanted behaviour.

The data obtained through this research is aligning with current day government legislation. Research shows that there has been an increase in people’s accomplishment throughout secondary schools due to the impact that positive behaviour has had on the learning environment classrooms (Department for Education, 2012). The same study has found that praise and positive feedback has had an impact on endorsing the appropriate behaviour. Praise and encouragement was found to be the best strategy in promoting positive behaviour, this opinion was not only shared by the setting but by many different specialists including Roffey (2011), Kay (2006) and Cowley (2006). This project has highlighted the importance of praising positive behaviour and highlighted the significance of identifying a child’s good behaviour in order to promote this wanted behaviour, rather than concentrating on reprimanding a child’s misbehaviour. As identified in the literature review this concept is supported by McLeod (2007) which highlighted when a positive reinforce is applied, this strengthens behaviour and it is more likely to be repeated in order to obtain the positive reinforcement. In the findings of the research key sanctions were: removing the child from the situation, time out and the traffic light system.

These are opposed to the earlier findings of Cowley (2006) which identified sanctions include disapproval, shouting, removal, loss of privileges and the naughty place. However due to Government Legislation in force since Cowley’s research. The Early Years Foundation Stage Framework (EYFS) (2012) highlights that no corporal punishment of any form may be carried out on a child, and that it is offence if done so. This may be why the sanctions in place in the setting are more focussed to promoting positive behaviour than in previous years. This study identified the implications of using questionnaires and interviews. The questionnaire received a 50% response rate therefore was not as much data captured as anticipated. If a questionnaire was to be used again in the future consideration would be made to the amount of questions asked.

This would be less time consuming for the participant involved and as a result a shorter questionnaire may be more appealing and result in a higher response rate. If another interview had to be obtained the future research projects, careful consideration would be made when questioning the interviewee, so as to not use leading questions. Another option would be to use a focus group with several behaviour managers from a variety of settings to allow open discussion and obtain a variety of opinions, with the opportunity for the participants to discuss the topic freely and encourage debate. This study could have also benefited from an observation; the data obtained is more reliable and truthful, as recognised by Denscombe (2010). It would be interesting to see how the setting applies these strategies in the day-to-day running of the nursery. This could be explored in future research projects.

Reference List

Bell, J. (2010) Doing your Research Project. Fifth Edition. Maidenhead, Open University Press.British Educational Research Association (BERA), (2011). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. [Online] Available from: http://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-2011.pdf [Accessed 28/02/2014]. Carlton, M. P & Winsler, A, (1998).Early Childhood Educational Journal. Fostering intrinsic motivation in early childhood classrooms. 25, (3), 159-166. Chapman, A. (2014) Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. [Online] Available from: http://www.businessballs.com/maslow.htm [Accessed 14/04/2014]. Cherry, K. (2013) Hierarchy of Needs. [Online] Available from: http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/hierarchyneeds.htm [Accessed 28th March 2013]. Clark, L. (April 11th 2007) AN IPOD BRIBE FOR BAD PUPILS; Ministers’ Latest Bright Idea for Curbing Classroom Thugs: Don’t Punish, Reward. Daily Mail. [Online] Available from: Summon [Accessed 27/03/14] Community Child Care Victoria, (2011). Planning and Strategies to Promote Positive Behaviour (Babies -5 Years). [Online] Available from: http://www.gowrievictoria.org.au/Portals/12/Documents/Professional%20Development/SGLP/Planning%20and%20Strategies%20to%20Promote%20Positive%20Behaviour%20(0-5%20years)_Dec12.pdf [Accessed 12/03/2014]. Cowley, S. (2006) Getting your Little darlings To Behave. London, Continuum. Deci, E. L & Ryan, R. M. (2000) Contemporary Educational Psychology. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. [Online] 25, 54-67. Available from: http://mmrg.pbworks.com/f/Ryan,+Deci+00.pdf [Accessed 23/03/2014]. Denscombe, M. (2007) The Good Research Guide. Third Edition.
[e-book]. Maidenhead. McGraw-Hill Open University Press. Available from: My iLibrary [Accessed 28/03/2014]. Denscombe, M. (2010) The Good Research Guide. Fourth Edition. [e-book]. Maidenhead. McGraw-Hill Open University Press. Available from: My iLibrary [Accessed 21/03/2014]. Department for Education. (2012) 2013 Early Years Foundation Stage Handbook. [Online] Available from: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/assessment/eyfs/a00217599/eyfs-handbook [Accessed 17th April 2013]. Department for Education. (2012) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage 2012. [Online] Available from: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/AllPublications/Page1/DFE-00023-2012 [Accessed 17th April 2013]. Department for Education. (2014) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. [Online] Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299391/DFE-00337-2014.pdf [Accessed 03/04/14]. Driffte, C. (2008) Encouraging Positive Behaviour in the Early Years. Second Edition. London, SAGE Publications Ltd. Education Standards Analysis and Research Division, (2012) Pupil behaviour in schools in England.[Online] Report number: DFE-RR218. Department for Education. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/184078/DFE-RR218.pdf [Accessed on 21/04/14]. Fox, L, Dunlap, G & Cushing, L. (2002) Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Disorder. Early Intervention, Positive Behavior Support, and Transition to School. [Online] 10, (3) 149-157. Available from: http://ebx.sagepub.com/content/10/3/149.short [Accessed 27/03/14]. Glenn, A. & Cousins, J. & Helps, A. (2010) Behaviour in the Early Years. Second Edition. Oxon, Routledge. Kay, J. (2006) Managing Behaviour in the Early Years. London, Continuum. McKay, J. (2013) Behaviour Management in Education. [Online] Available from: http://www.behaviour.com.au/ [Accessed 112/03/2014]. McLeod, S. (2007) Skinner-Operant Conditioning. [Online] Available from: http://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html [Accessed 19th April 2013]. Morin, A. (no date) Sticker Charts: Motivate Your Pre-schooler with a Reward System. [Online] Available from: http://discipline.about.com/od/increasepositivebehaviors/a/Sticker-Charts-Mot
ivate-Your-Preschooler-With-A-Reward-System.htm [Accessed 12/04/2014]. Neill-Hall, J. (2008) Promoting Good Early Years Behaviour. [Online] Available from: http://www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/framework-good-early-years-behaviour-3698 [Accessed 27th March 2013]. Ofsted. (2005) Managing challenging behaviour. [Online] Available from: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/managing-challenging-behaviour [Accessed 05/04/14]. Porter, L. (2006) Behaviour in Schools. Second Edition. Maidenhead. Open University Press.Reference List 2012 Roffey, S. (2006) Helping with behaviour: establishing the positive and addressing the difficult in the early years. Oxon. Routledge. Roffey, S. (2011) Changing Behaviour in Schools. London. SAGE Publications Ltd. Rogers, B. (2007). Behaviour Management. Second Edition. [e-book]. London. Paul Chapman. Available from: My iLibrary [Accessed 13/03/2014]. Sharp, J. (2009) Success with your Education Research Project. [e-book] University of Worcester, Summon. Available from: My iLibray [Accessed 21/03/2014]. Swale, J. (2006) Setting the Scene for Positive Behaviour in the Early Years. Oxon, Routledge.