Reflections
I believe that the children did learn what my groupmates and I had intended them to. Most of the children could recall the ground rules we had established in the first session and the “Stop-Think-Do” framework that was taught when we quizzed them. To our delight, a few of them also reminded their peers to follow the framework when they get angry.
However, I am frankly not very optimistic about them actually applying the knowledge learnt in real life because I cannot tell if they really believe that the framework would help them to calm down and make the best possible decision, or were simply going along with it. I hope the former is true for the children, but I’m afraid that some mistakes I had made may have reduced the effectiveness of our programme significantly.
For one, I was definitely too lenient with the children in the first session. I treated them like young children and excused some of their behaviours because I thought that they probably do not know any better, which was highly unprofessional.
Then, in the subsequent sessions, I adopted a “non-interference unless something serious happens” approach because I thought my groupmates had the situation under control and did not want them to think that I do not believe in their leadership ability, which was a wrong judgement on my part because one of them told me that she felt like I did not have her back and was disappointed by the lack of support.
It clearly backfired on me and as a result, the children also did not take us seriously and would walk all over us sometimes because they saw that our group was not united and did not work well together.
We adopted three behavioural principles in our intervention programme.
First, pretend play which involves processes to regulate emotional arousal (Blair & Raver, cited in Lillard, Lerner, Hopkins, Dore, Smith & Palmquist 2013) and helps to improve self-regulation (Bergen; Bredekamp, cited in Lillard et al. 2013). The behavioural principle behind that is modelling, a form of observational learning which teaches individuals the role of consequences and allows behavioural change through imitation (Fryling, Johnston & Hayes, 2011).
Second, token economies which were found to be effective in yielding positive results when used to reduce disruptive behaviours in elementary classrooms (Filcheck & McNeil, 2004). The behavioural principle behind that is positive reinforcement which increases the frequency of desirable behaviours by identifying and then validating them for the child (Sigler & Aamidor, 2005).
Last, cues that signify a change that may lead to negative outcomes. The behavioural principles behind that are avoidance conditioning and negative reinforcement.
The latter serves as a performance stressor and has been found to be effective because the presence of aversive stimulus in a task increases participants’ attention, and consequently their performance on the task (Valenchon, Lévy, Moussu & Lansade, 2017).
I believe that the behavioural strategies and principles applied were generally effective, especially the token economy and positive reinforcement.
Most of the children, save for Parker (not real name) who I will be talking about later on, would settle down quickly and remind each other to be quiet when we promised to give them stickers or let them play their favourite game, “Duck Duck Goose” if they behave themselves during the session.
One of our ground rules was to sit down by the count of three, and while the other children obeyed and appeared to have taken it as a challenge to be the fastest, Parker would always ignore our instructions and only do so after several reminders of the rule.
A few moments later, if no one paid attention to him, Parker would then wander off from the group and one of us would have to stop him before he leaves the area.
Some of the issues we encountered during the programme may be explained by the fact that the group we worked with is actually not the group we were assigned to originally, due to miscommunication.
Thus, the topic of impulse control, which is customised for our formal charges who are very active and impulsive, is significantly less applicable for our current charges who mainly have poor communication skills. (700 words)
References
Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D.,
& Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on
children's development: A review of the evidence.
Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 1-34. doi:10.1037/a0029321
Filcheck, H. A., & McNeil, C. B. (2004). The use of token
economies in preschool classrooms: Practical and
philosophical concerns. Journal of Early and Intensive
Behaviour Intervention, 1(1), 0-13. doi:10.1037/h0100281
Fryling, M. J., Johnston, C., & Hayes, L. J. (2011). Understanding
observational learning: An interbehavioral approach. The
Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27(1), 191-203.
doi:10.1007/BF03393102
Sigler, E. A., & Aamidor, S. (2005). From positive reinforcement
to positive behaviors: An everyday guide for the practitioner.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(4), 249-253.
doi:10.1007/s10643-004-0753-9
Valenchon, M., Lévy, F., Moussu, C., & Lansade, L. (2017). Stress
affects instrumental learning based on positive or negative
reinforcement in interaction with personality in domestic
horses. PloS One, 12(5), 1-16.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170783