Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Most critical incidents in the classroom (Tripp, 1993) are not at all striking or tragic but are very much ordinary and prevalent events that occur frequently in the practice of teaching. What makes them ‘critical’ is the fact that they have prompted us to think and reflect at that given moment. In the context of teacher education, ‘critical incident analysis’ (Tripp, 1993) is a useful technique for self-reflection. Some interpret the term to mean no more than constructive self-criticism with a view to improvement (Calderhead, 1989). However, critical incident analysis explores deeper, by striving to identify the underlying issues that may have provoked strong feelings about a particular teaching situation and lead the teacher to reflect upon it in a structured way. An ‘incident’ is simply one moment, action, or response that makes you stop and think, or one that raises personal questions for you. Incidents such as these are common in the day-to-day classroom environment and as it is impossible to reflect on everything that happens, a selective focus should be applied.
I am going to explore a Critical Incident that I witnessed in the first stages of teacher training and will consider different perspectives and lines of inquiry that could be relevant to my incident. I will consider relevant theory but also consider counterarguments available through research. I will acknowledge my interpretation and how my personal experiences, beliefs, and values could affect how I have translated the incident and why, for me, this incident was ‘critical’ and caused me to pause and reflect.
For my Critical Incident Analysis, I have used the framework devised by Green Lister and Crisp (2007). This framework has been found to provide a structured approach to critical reflection and assists the integration of theory and practice and the examination of value issues.
As a new Associate Teacher working with Key Stage 1, I have fortunately had the opportunity to observe Key Stage 2, and during my first observation of year 4, I witnessed an exchange between the teacher and a pupil that immediately affected me, and caused me to pause, think and reflect. It was early in the term and due to the Coronavirus pandemic, most children had only just returned to the classroom after six months of no schooling, therefore routines and procedures which had previously been familiar to them, were still in the process of being reintroduced. The marking policy at my placement school follows ‘green for good’ and ‘pink for think’. The teacher will highlight good work in green, where children have met objectives, and highlight any mistakes in pink to urge the children to think about why it is not correct, allowing them to rectify their own mistakes. Implementing a marking policy of this nature, should increase learner autonomy and encourage a child to take charge of his learning (Holec, 1981). On this occasion, a pupil opened his book to see some work highlighted in pink. He asked the teacher, ‘Why is this pink?’
The teacher is renowned amongst colleagues and children, for his humour and witty sarcasm. For the most part, this is hugely welcomed by children and colleagues alike as he makes school fun. However, he replied to the boy in a sarcastic, condescending tone, ‘Because it is wrong!’ to which the whole class responded by laughing. I immediately felt hurt by this comment, as if I were the child it had been said to. The teacher appeared to realize that he perhaps should not have responded in such a way, possibly not pre-empting that the entire class would respond by laughing. Although they were not laughing at the boy, or the fact he’d got his work wrong and were merely laughing at the teacher and his ‘funny’ response, I feel an interaction of this nature has the potential to leave a lasting impression on a child depending on their emotional stability. Moreover, a negative emotional state has been reported to impair both learning and memory, depending on intensity and duration (Vogel and Schwabe, 2016), and can be detrimental to memory and performance. The teacher proceeded to politely remind the child of the ‘pink for think’ policy and attempted to encourage him to try and correct his mistakes. It could be argued that the child is in Year 4 and by now, should be familiar with the school’s marking policy, hence the teacher’s witty, sarcastic response. However, the school is under new leadership, and therefore, the marking policy could potentially have been implemented recently and therefore, still comparatively new to the pupils. I also do not know the child in question. There is always the possibility that he could be relatively new to the school, he may have educational needs of some description, he may be learning English as an additional language, or even have a potentially difficult background, or home life. Any of these factors would influence his emotional response to the incident, albeit on the surface, is a seemingly very minor interaction but could explain why he appeared to be unfamiliar or confused with the policy.
Coming from a strong background in Early Years, my nature is to nurture so I immediately felt uncomfortable in response to the class laughter. I have spent my career trying to help children understand that laughing at other people is unkind and can be hurtful. To counteract my initial response, I must highlight that I do not yet have any experience working with older children, therefore I am unfamiliar with humor in the classroom, and this could be an influencing factor on my emotional response.
In the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS, 2017) Personal, Social, and Emotional Development is a Prime Area of learning and development as it is fundamental to success in further areas of learning and throughout life. It helps children to become effective communicators, interact effectively, and develop positive attitudes toward themselves and others (Early Years Matters, 2020). However, it cannot happen in isolation and relies heavily on influential adults to support, encourage, and model appropriate behavior. I feel strongly about the fact that this area of learning and development does not stop at the end of the Foundation Stage and continues throughout life. Therefore, educators of any age group need a strong awareness of how their words or actions could impact a child’s emotional education and how they view themselves and the world around them. Although I do not know the child in this instance, there are several potential ways that this seemingly minor event could have a lasting impact on his self-esteem, emotional responses, and educational mindset.
The research behind Carol Dweck’s theory of growth mindset (2006) was initiated over 30 years ago but her theories have been heavily adopted by schools in more recent years. Dweck studied the attitudes of pupils and their behavior towards failure and concluded that those who were more resilient responded in a way that led to greater success. The theory is centered around the belief that learning and intellect can be enhanced; through having a growth mindset, one has a positive attitude toward learning, overcomes challenges, and learns from mistakes as opposed to feeling stressed and deflated (Tes, 2019). Dweck suggests that intellectual abilities could be advanced if students engaged in the correct behaviors for stimulating new connections in the brain. The theory proposes that mindsets can be changed from a fixed mindset to a growth mindset, and when used in schools it is the role of the teacher to facilitate the development of habits that will promote a growth mindset (Tes, 2019). Unfortunately, in this circumstance, for a brief moment, the educator failed to expedite his role in the implementation of practices that encourage a growth mindset, which could easily repress resilience in the child and dissuade engagement in future learning and development.
There are, however, ongoing debates on the notion of Dweck’s growth mindset theory (2017). Landry, Smith, and Swank (2006) argue that everyone is unique in their competencies which develop over time, at an individual pace therefore, it could be perceived that a growth mindset can collide with a fixed mindset and this is not necessarily ‘wrong’. Ramani and Brownell (2014) suggest that praising ability and intellect cannot be regarded as an imperative element for achieving self-esteem and state that this could, in retrospect, jeopardize success. In addition to this, the views of Hwang, Hung, and Chen (2014) align with Dweck’s work on self-theories and state that encouragement should not consist solely of simply praising the child for their efforts but also by providing critical guidance on what can be done to further progress. While I agree that there are huge benefits to anyone having a growth mindset, I also agree that it is not completely fundamental to academic success and there are other factors that influence a child’s ability to learn such as social and economic dynamics.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.