When Rewards and Sanctions Fail A Case Study of A Primary School Rule Breaker

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
ISSN: 0951-8398 (Print) 1366-5898 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tqse20
When rewards and sanctions fail: a case study of a

primary school rulebreaker
Dr Ruth Woods
To cite this article: Dr Ruth Woods (2008) When rewards and sanctions fail: a case study of a
primary school rulebreaker, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21:2,
181-196, DOI: 10.1080/09518390701868979
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518390701868979
Published online: 12 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3782
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tqse20
Download by: [Mirpur University of Science & Technology]
Date: 02 March 2016, At: 00:30

Vol. 21, No. 2, MarchApril 2008, 181196
RESEARCH ARTICLE
When rewards and sanctions fail: a case study of a primary school
rule-breaker
Downloaded by [Mirpur University of Science & Technology] at 00:30 02 March 2016
Dr Ruth Woods*
Canterbury Christ Church University, UK
Taylor and Francis Ltd
10.1080/09518390701868979
TQSE_A_287068.sgm
UK schools commonly employ a behavioral discipline method comprising rules, rewards

awarded when children follow the rules and sanctions when children break them. To date, this
approach has had only limited success in halting classroom disruption (Render, Padilla and
Krank, 1989; Riley & Rustique-Forrester, 2002; Gutherson & Pickard, 2006). This paper
sought explanations for this limited success through a case study of a British primary school
boy who persistently broke school rules. Participant observation, interviews and questionnaires
were used to explore his perspective over a period of over two years. The data pinpoint three
issues which were implicated in the boys antagonistic response to school discipline: emotions
(particularly anger), perceptions of fairness and trust, and the role of the peer group in
providing alternative morals, rewards and punishments which conflict with those operating in
the classroom. It is argued that behavioral discipline methods sometimes fail because they
neglect these important dimensions of childrens experience.
International
0951-8398
Research
Taylor
202008
21
ruth.woods@canterbury.ac.uk
RuthWoods
00000March-April
& Article
Francis
(print)/1366-5898
Journal2008
of Qualitative
(online)
Studies in Education
Keywords: behavioral; discipline; boys; anger; fairness; peer group; behaviorism
Introduction
In recent years, UK schools and government have expressed concerns about the amount of low
level disruption from children in the classroom and the negative impact this has on teaching and
learning (Ofsted 2005; the Steer Report 2005; Gutherson & Pickard 2006). Behaviors considered
to contribute to this disruption include wandering around the classroom when the child is supposed
to be sitting down, fiddling with equipment, calling out, and talking to peers. Teachers usually
deal with these behaviors by implementing their schools discipline policy (Gutherson & Pickard
2006), commonly a system of rules, adherence to which is encouraged by the use of rewards (such
as merit points or certificates) and sanctions (such as detention or a letter to parents). This approach
to discipline is recommended by the UK governments Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted
1993, 2005) and the Steer Report on school behavior and discipline released in October 2005, and
is incorporated into the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) training materials (see for
example DfES 2003, n.d.).
Discipline methods can be categorized according to the underlying theories of learning that
the methods reflect. One of the commonest theories underpinning contemporary discipline strategies is known as the behavioral approach (Evans, Harden, Thomas and Benefield, 2003; Davis,
Florian et al. 2004). Behavioral models use principles of reinforcement and punishment to reduce
maladaptive or inappropriate behaviours and increase adaptive behaviours (Davis, Florian et al.
2004, 24). While the rules, rewards and sanctions approach draws on ideas about choice and individual responsibility (see DfES 2003, n.d.), the emphasis on rewards and sanctions following
*Email: ruth.woods@canterbury.ac.uk
ISSN 0951-8398 print/ISSN 1366-5898 online
2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09518390701868979
http://www.informaworld.com
182
R. Woods
conforming and nonconforming behaviors respectively makes the approach basically a behavioral
one. As such it owes its origins to behaviorism, a psychological theory of learning developed by
Ivan Petrovich Pavlov and Burrhus Frederick Skinner, amongst others, in the first half of the twentieth century (Harr 2006). It is Skinners ideas that are most relevant here. He coined the term
operant conditioning, which basically refers to the idea that a persons (or animals) behavior is
modified by its consequences (Mackintosh 1996). The four main types of modification are termed
punishment, positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement and extinction, but we need only
concern ourselves with punishment and positive reinforcement here. Both of these are said to
modify the behavior they follow, but in opposite directions. Punishment occurs when a behavior
is followed by a sanction (such as detention), and this sequence is thought to make that behavior
less likely to be performed in future. Positive reinforcement occurs when a behavior is followed
by a reward (such as a merit point), and such a behavior is thought more likely to be repeated
(Banyard & Grayson 2000). These behaviorist principles are clearly manifested in the approach
to school discipline outlined above, the idea obviously being that teachers reward behaviors that
conform with school rules, making these behaviors more likely to be repeated, whilst punishing
behaviors that break school rules, making these behaviors less likely to be repeated. In this way,
a students conformity to school rules should increase, and levels of disruption should decrease,
over time.
After enjoying a period of popularity, behaviorist theory has been heavily criticised by
psychologists (Gilgen 1996). Among the best known of these critiques is Chomskys (1959)
famous argument that humans can create and comprehend utterances that they have never heard
and that they therefore cannot have learned via conditioning, a point which Chomsky (1967)
argued applied not only to language but to other areas of cognition also. Another classic critique
came from Bandura, whose Bobo doll studies demonstrated that children could learn behaviors
based on observation and the reward and punishment of others rather than the self, which, it was
argued, necessitated some sort of mental model of the behavior (see Stuart-Hamilton 1999).
Chomsky, Bandura and others thus drew attention to learning that could not be explained in terms
of conditioning, implying that at best behaviorism offers an incomplete account of learning.
Yet behavioral approaches based upon the theory continue to be widely employed and
supported in the UK education system. A number of studies indicate that they can be effective in
reducing classroom disruption and offline behavior. Render, Padilla and Krank (1989) reviewed
several studies which found that Canters Assertive Discipline approach, which emphasizes
rewards and consequences, decreased the number of discipline problems (e.g. Bauer 1982; Allen
1984; Ward 1984; all cited in Render et al. 1989). In a careful review of studies on interventions
used with children with emotional and behavioral difficulties, Evans, Harden, Thomas and
Benefield (2003) concluded that there was some evidence that behavioral approaches to discipline were effective in reducing disruptive behavior. Similarly, Davis et al. (2004) concluded
after considering several review articles that behavioral approaches seemed to increase on-task
behavior among children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties or with attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder.
However, the behavioral approach to discipline is not without problems. Evans et al. (2003)
note that the benefits of the approach may quickly be lost once the intervention has ended, and
that there is a lack of research on the long term effects of the approach. Furthermore, even where
behaviorist approaches have reduced disruption, substantial discipline problems may remain (see
e.g. Render et al. 1989). A possible insight into the only partial success of behavioral methods
emerges from Riley and Rustique-Forresters (2002) research in schools in Lancashire in the
north of England. Many teachers there considered sanctions to be ineffective with disaffected
students, who failed to modify their behavior in response to consequences, and often did not seem
to understand why they were being punished in the first place.
183
Riley and Rustique-Forresters findings suggest that some students are not responding as
expected to sanctions. Similarly, some teachers reported to Gutherson and Pickard (2006) that
sanctions did not deter pupils, and in some cases may even act as a reward. In the words of one
teacher in their study, What we see as a deterrent is often enjoyable for students, e.g. exclusion
promotes street credibility etc. (p. 28). Such comments raise the question of how precisely
students themselves understand and therefore respond to sanctions. Addressing this question has
at least two potential benefits. First, it may help educators to gain a better understanding of why
rules, rewards and sanctions do not always work to eliminate disruptive behavior in the classroom. Second, it responds to a growing call among researchers to take note of childrens and
young peoples perspectives in research on discipline methods and problems (Waksler 1996;
Evans et al. 2003; Davis et al. 2004; Gutherson & Pickard 2006).
This paper considers childrens own perspectives on rules, rewards and sanctions by describing a case study of one British primary school boy who persistently broke school rules. Drawing
on ethnographic and interview data which focus on his responses to sanctions, I will argue that
behavioral discipline methods are flawed because they neglect three key dimensions of childrens
experience: emotions, a sense of justice, and their relationships with peers.
Methodology
Subject
The subject of this case study was Zak, a British boy whose ethnicity was Somali and his religion Islam. The case study focuses on his time in primary school years 4 and 5 (which spanned
autumn 2001 to summer 2003), when he was aged 9 and 10 years.1 Zak was selected for this
case study partly because he was articulate and passionate about his experiences of school discipline, and partly because his year 5 teacher, Mrs Samson, named him as one of the six children
in her class she told off most often. Zak also featured in two of the six incidents recorded by
Mrs Samson when requested to document over seven consecutive school days all incidents in
which a child in her class complained to her about other children. In one incident, Zak swore at
other children, and in the other, he got into a fight. These data indicate that Zak was a boy who
often broke school rules.
Setting
All material relating to Zak was collected at his school, Woodwell Green, during PhD research
examining childrens relations with peers and adults at school. Woodwell Green is a large
primary school in west London, with three classes, each of approximately 25 to 30 children, in
each year group. Classes run from reception (which children enter at age four) to year 6 (ages 10
to 11), after which children move onto secondary school. There is also a nursery connected to the
school. In its latest inspection in 2001, Ofsted described the school as being situated in a socially
and economically deprived area. It praised the school for being welcoming to children from all
kinds of cultural backgrounds and for a high quality of teaching; Woodwell Green pupils achieve
above average National Curriculum results in comparison to similar schools.
Woodwell Green is situated in a multicultural area and this is reflected in the ethnicities and
religions of the children. At the time of the research, 38% of the children attending the school
were of Indian ethnicity, 25% English, 8% Somali, 8% Pakistani, and the remaining 18% were
made up of numerous other ethnicities, including Arab, Afghanistani, Black African, Bangladeshi
and mixed race, according to school records. There was also a diversity of religions represented;
27% of the children were Sikh, 26% were Muslim, 22% were Christian, 11% were Hindu and
13% were nonreligious, according to school records.
184
R. Woods
Zaks teachers during the research were Miss Chahal (year 4) and Mrs Samson (year 5) and
his classes were called 4C and 5S respectively. His classmates remained roughly the same in
both years aside from the relatively high rates of migration characterizing the local area. Over the
18 months I spent with Zaks class, seven of the 31 children in the class left and another seven
joined. Classmates who feature quite prominently in this case study are Faizel, Mohamed, Amar
and Farhan (all Pakistani Muslim boys) and Idris (Arab Muslim boy).
Procedures
This case study draws on a questionnaire, individual and group interviews, and participant observation. The questionnaire was administered to all children in 5S (and children in other year
groups) and asked about childrens experiences of telling tales and getting told off. Eight group
interviews were conducted to explore the views of Zak and his classmates on a range of issues
including school discipline, and four of these group interviews are drawn on in this paper. Some
were tape-recorded; others were transcribed verbatim during the interview. They lasted approximately 30 minutes each. Zak and his classmates also participated in interviews about moral
dilemmas, lasting approximately 20 minutes each. These interviews were with individual children, in order to gather systematic data amenable to quantitative analysis (not reported here; see
Woods, 2005). Participant observation at Woodwell Green was conducted by the author throughout one school year (running from September 2001 to July 2002). Every week two days were
spent with Zaks year 4 class (ages 8-9), one to two days in a variety of other classes, three playand lunchtimes in the school playgrounds and canteen, and two days at Woodwell Greens after
school club. Participant observation in the playgrounds, canteen and after school club continued
for three months of the subsequent school year (while tasks and interviews were conducted during
lesson times), and more occasionally during the following four months. Notes were made during
or immediately after each session, and transcribed into more detailed fieldnotes at the end of each
day. A single day in school usually generated between 5,000 and 10,000 words of fieldnotes.
Ethnographic and interview methods were employed for three reasons. Firstly, the rich,
qualitative data such methods generate can do some justice to the complexity of childrens
lives, complexity which is often missed with quantitative methods. Secondly, these methods
enable the researcher to attend to childrens own perspectives, an aspect of research that has
frequently been neglected in the past (Waksler 1996; Evans et al. 2003; Davis et al. 2004;
Gutherson & Pickard 2006). Thirdly, and following on from the second reason, an in depth
account of a child in his/her social context makes it possible to demonstrate that any given
childs beliefs, emotions, and actions are as reasonable and warranted by their experience as
our own (Toren 1999).
Ethical issues
Like all children in the research, Zaks parents gave their consent for his involvement. Zaks
consent was also gained for all tasks. I thanked children for participation in tasks with a sticker
or sweet, depending on age (older children finding a sticker too babyish).2 When it came to writing
up the research, I explained to Zak and his friends that although they would be represented by
pseudonyms, nevertheless their identity could probably be guessed by adults at Woodwell Green
who had worked with them, some of whom Zak and his friends criticized in interviews. The boys
acknowledged the possibility of recognition but generously decided that they would nevertheless
like me to use the data, for two reasons. Firstly, by the time of writing up the thesis from which
this case study is drawn, they were in year 6, and shortly to leave Woodwell Green for secondary
school. Secondly, they felt that their views were not understood by the teachers and that my writing
185
about them might help other boys like them in the future. Zaks teachers also kindly gave consent
for me to observe in their classrooms, and to use those ethnographic extracts in which they play
a part in this case study.
Data and analysis
Responses to consequences
All classrooms at Woodwell Green had a list of rules, rewards and consequences (the term widely
used to mean sanctions at the school) on the wall, which were agreed between teacher and class
at the start of the school year. See figure 1 for the rules, rewards and consequences from Zaks
year 5 class, 5S. As one would expect from a behavioural discipline model, teachers at Woodwell
Green gave rewards to children when they followed school rules or produced good work, and
consequences when children broke the rules. A behaviourist would predict that the implementation of rewards and consequences would lead to greater conformity with the rules, but this did not
seem to be the case with Zak. To begin to understand why, we need to look more closely at how
he reacted when he received consequences for breaking school rules.
The following two ethnographic extracts give some insight into Zaks typical response. The
first extract follows a lunch break in year 4 when Zak and his friends had been giving bundles,
which is when several children pile on top of a child lying on the ground. Zohraiz, a boy in another
class on the receiving end of a bundle, told his teacher, who sent for those involved directly after
lunch. The second occurred the day after a class vote on their favorite year 4 teacher, in which
Zak voted for Mrs Smith, a student teacher who was working with 4C at the time.
Figure 1. 5Ss rules, rewards and consequences
1. Zohraiz comes in with a note asking for Zak, Faizel, Mohamed, Amar and Idris to come and see
Mrs Samson. Miss Chahal [the boys class teacher] is rather short with them. You know what youve
done, she says, and they slope out. We can hear shouting but not the exact words. After a while, all
the boys arrive back except Zak, who doesnt appear again until later. Later, Zak returns. Miss Chahal
is sitting in his seat using the guillotine. He stands beside her and says, slightly sulkily, Miss where
shall I sit? Miss Chahal wordlessly hands him the paper scraps, which he dutifully takes to the bin.
Then she moves and he sits down. Later on, the children have been instructed to write messages in
code. I walk around the class and Zak stops me to show me what he is writing: This is the worst day
of my life.
2. Having told the children to hurry up and sit down, Mrs Smith [a student teacher working in Zaks
class] shouts, Zak and Idris, its always you two! [although there were other children still on their
feet too]. Shortly after getting told off, Zak, slouching against the wall beside me, says sulkily, I hate
everyone in this class. What about your friends? I ask mildly, smiling at him. I hate them all, he
replies. Then he asks me why Miss Chahal didnt say my name when they had the vote for teachers
OUR CLASS RULES
REWARDS
CONSEQUENCES10
We never hurt anybody on the

inside or the outside
We always listen when others
speak
We always do what we are asked
to do straight away
We always look after everything
we use at school
We always do things safely and
sensibly
A tick against your name. When

you get 2 ticks you get 1
housepoint. Each tick earns you 1
merit star. 10 merit stars = a treat.
Stickers
Certificates
See another teacher
Tell Mum and Dad
1. Warning
2. Miss 1 minute of play
3. Miss 2 minutes of play
4. Go to the quiet table
5. Exit the room
6. Speak to Mum and Dad
Figure 1.
5Ss rules, rewards and consequences.
186
R. Woods
yesterday. Because Im not a teacher, I reply. Id have voted for you, says Zak. I say Im glad
I wasnt in the vote. Zak says he wishes he hadnt voted for anyone. I ask if he wishes he hadnt voted
for Mrs Smith because she just told him off. He nods, smiling slowly, and I smile back. I hope we
dont have her in year 5, he says.
On these two occasions, Zak seemed to feel resentment and hatred after receiving consequences
for rule-breaking. He was explicit about these emotions in February of year 5, when during a wet
play he performed a rap for me that he and his classmate Idris had written.3 I asked him to write
it out for me and he responded enthusiastically. Zak loved rap music, and on another occasion
performed Lose Yourself by Eminem to me, ignoring jibes and laughter from some of the girls
who were around at the time. Below is the rap as Zak wrote it down.4 Zak and Idris rap appears
on the left hand side (the first line of their rap as written being, Advisory lyrics), with extracts
from Lose Yourself on the right (taken from Lose Yourself lyrics, n.d.). The lines of Eminems
rap that Zak seems to have drawn inspiration from are in bold.
Advisory lyrics
Lose Yourself by Eminem
RANGE
No more games, Ima change what you

call rage
Tear this mothafuckin roof off like 2 dogs
caged
I was playin in the beginning, the mood
all changed
Mom, I love you, but this trailers got
to go
I cannot grow old in Salems Lot
So here I go its my shot.
Feet fail me not this maybe the only
opportunity that I got
Mum I love you but this has to go.

Ive bin played in the begging with Miss Chahal
Ive had my fun.
Here is my short. Mum I cant grow old as in your
next world FC is the only opportunity Ive got.
You better lose me.
Ive hated school but this is what we called Range.
Every set my mind on fire.
Having read the rap, I asked Zak what range meant, and he said, When you hate school innit?
Is it like anger? I asked. Yeah, he replied. Zak takes up Eminems desire to escape his situation; for Zak the situation is school and his only opportunity to escape is football (FC). A month
after Zak wrote out this rap, I arranged with his teacher Mrs Samson for everyone in his class to
complete a questionnaire which included open-ended questions on childrens experiences of
school discipline. We planned that I would distribute the questionnaire directly after lunch, and
it happened that that very lunchtime, Zak and his friends Mohamed and Farhan approached their
classmate Louise and sang a song about sex to her (Love me, sex for 50p, condoms are expensive, but babies are for free), which they pretended was a message from Amandeep, another
classmate. Louises friend Simran threatened to tell Mr Gardner, the head teacher. Here are my
fieldnotes on what followed:
Farhan and Zak come up to the girls and me and on learning of Simrans intention become very angry
and distressed, shouting at the girls and telling us that Mohamed told them to say it. Farah is antagonistic,
shouting over and over, If Mohamed told you to kill your mum would you do it? At first they ignore
it, but eventually their classmate Anil, who has wandered over and has a slight grin on his face, says
yes he would and Farhan agrees. Ohh! exclaim Farah and Kiran. How can a boy turn down a triple
dare? Farhan says forcefully to me. Zak is angry and says he doesnt want to get in trouble with
Mr Gardner. Later in the lunch break, Mohamed comes up to me and shouts that he didnt do it, it was
Zak and Farhan, and that he doesnt want to get in trouble. I tell him theres nothing I can do to help.
In the classroom after lunch, Simran and Louise tell Mrs Samson. She acts furious, and asks Louise,
who is by her side, what happened. Then she calls Farhan, Zak and Mohamed up. She shouts at them
and says theyll get a letter home, and apologises to Amandeep [who she blamed initially]. A couple
of children, including Amar, have their hands up. Hands down! Mrs Samson thunders. Amars
187
hand sinks but he calls out that Mohamed didnt do it. There is an exchange between Mrs Samson
and the three boys that I cant hear, then she reiterates that theyll get letters home and that they now
have to go and sing what they sang to Louise to Miss Brooks [deputy head; Mr Gardner is not in
school today], and Louise is to take them there. The three boys stand in the classroom doorway, their
chins dipped, sullen and pouting, looking out with big gloomy eyes. Louise is very reluctant to take
them. Be brave, Mrs Samson says to her and off they go.
They come back shortly; Miss Brooks is in a meeting. Mrs Samson says shell pursue it tomorrow.
Dont think youre off the hook! At this point, the children start filling in my questionnaire on
school discipline. Zak especially remains in a rage for the rest of the afternoon. In the middle of writing the questionnaire, he tells me he hates Simran and Louise and that, and that he wont forgive
them for whats happened. This is bad, he adds. Soon after, Mrs Samson sends Zak to the toilets to
calm down, saying she wants to see his handsome smile when he got back. I dont see his response
to that; he is already disappearing down the corridor. When lining up at home time, Zak mutters to
me about how much he hates school.
This is what Zak wrote in his questionnaire (the questions are in bold):
1) Write about a time you told the teacher on someone.
What was it about? They never listen. The teachers are stupid except: Mrs Cairns, Mrs Ashley and
Mrs Smith. Someone was racist. Sam in year 3
Why did you tell the teacher? I hated them but I thought it was best thing to do. And now I should
fight because they never listen.
2) Write about a time someone told the teacher on you.
What was it about? Me, Farhan and Mohamed sang a rude song. She told bad ways lies too. (it was
Louise) Then we got in trouble. And sing it to Miss Brooks.
Why did they tell the teacher? They are idiots
3) Write about a time you got in trouble or told off at school.
How did you feel? Not angry but worst
What happened? My life got upside down. I am going murder Anjele, Louise, Simran and Amrita.
4) What does angry mean? Write about a time you were really angry at school.
Angry means When your life gets upside down.
I was angry when When this happened [arrow to question 2]
In this questionnaire, Zak wrote that he felt angry when he got in trouble, and when asked to name
an occasion when he felt angry, he wrote about what had just happened. His fellow protagonists,
Farhan and Mohamed, gave similar responses (see Woods, 2005, for more details). To put this
finding into context, this questionnaire was completed by 28 girls and 24 boys in years 5 and 6.
Six boys (including Zak, Mohamed and Farhan) and four girls wrote that they felt angry, cross or
mad when they were told off. Other common responses for children in this age group were sad,
unhappy, upset, crying or depressed (13 girls, 15 boys), ashamed and upset, angry, sad or disappointed with myself (4 girls, 1 boy), embarrassed (5 girls, no boys), or claiming that they had
never been told off (4 girls, 1 boy).5 It was thus much more common for children to write that
they felt sad than angry. These emotional differences in responses to discipline are neglected in
the behaviorist theory that underlies rewards and consequences. Can they help to explain why Zak
does not respond to school discipline in the predicted manner?
Anger and Resistance
Psychologists and neurologists have argued that emotions include a tendency toward action, such
that different emotions tend to lead to distinct kinds of behavior (Barrett & Campos 1987, 562;
188
R. Woods
Damasio, 2000, 52-3). So children who respond to school discipline with different emotions are
likely to behave differently also. This issue can be explored further by focusing upon two very
different responses given by Woodwell Green children when asked how they felt when they got
told off: ashamed and angry. What sorts of actions do these emotions typically afford?
According to Barrett and Campos (1987, 565), the experience of shame enables the person to
[b]ehave appropriately; learn/maintain social standards; communicate submission to others and
to others standards. Shame is an emotion which is directed at the self, and as such it is indeed
plausible that it will result in conformity and acceptance of the punishment or reprimand. Anger,
in contrast, is directed at others. For example, Fischer and Manstead (1996, 240) state that anger
is associated with the appraisal of a negative event caused by another person who is held responsible for this. Zak is explicit about his anger being directed outwards, writing, I am going
murder Anjele, Louise, Simran and Amrita. A child who feels angry towards specific others
upon being told off is likely to assign those others responsibility and blame for the suffering the
child undergoes. As such, the child does not see him/herself as the locus of the problem and is
thus unlikely to engage in the kinds of reparatory and conforming behaviors that are required for
obedience to school rules.
If a child who responds to consequences with anger does not conform, what does s/he do?
Barrett and Campos (1987, 565) argue that anger enables the person to [a]ttain difficult goals;
learn to overcome obstacles and achieve goals; communicate power/dominance.6 These are
responses not of compliance but resistance. This became evident during an interview with Zak
and his friend Faizel in year 5, to which I brought a copy of the classroom rules, rewards and
consequences as they were displayed on their classroom wall (see Figure 1). Here is what Zak and
Faizel had to say about consequences:
Faizel:
Zak:
Faizel:
Zak:
Faizel:
Faizel:
Zak:
RW:
Zak:
RW:
Zak:
RW:
Missing a minute of playtime, do you think thatll help the children? Itll just make them
more angry with the teacher.
Thats what I was saying.
Exiting the room, whats the point of that? Actually exiting the room is much much better,
you dont even have to do any work then.
No mate, you have to get lines, you have to do lines.
Not always.
Miss, speak to my mum and dad, what goods that gonna do?
She speaks to my mum and dad, I miss football for three weeks.7 Now Im more angry. Im
gonna make her pay for that.
How are you gonna make her pay?
Just tell the truth. Thats what you should do, like Mohamed did last year, with Miss Chahal.
What did he do?
He started crying, Faizel, remember Mohamed last year? And he said I hate you, I hate you,
I wanna leave this school and go to a different school, I hate you. Everyone in the class was
laughing at him. Miss how would you feel if everyone was laughing at you and the teacher
was making fun out of you?
Id hate it.
For Zak, what his anger affords is revengeIm gonna make her pay for thatand he offers
Mohameds angry outburst at his year 4 teacher as an example. I had not been in class at the time
of this incident but Mohameds classmates had excitedly filled me in in the playground afterwards. Mohameds outburst clearly made an impression on Zak, who saw it as a way of getting
back at the teachers. For Zak and perhaps also Mohamed, therefore, anger affords resistance.
Their angry response to the consequences that are supposed to teach them to follow school rules
propels them further into the disruptive behaviors that are against the rules. In an interview around
the same time, two of the boys well-behaved classmates, Simran and Sandeep, described
precisely this phenomenon. Simran had just suggested that teachers should not make transgressing boys miss everything (e.g. swimming, class treats).

RW:
Sandeep:
Simran:
Sandeep:
Simran:
189
If they miss everything, are they more or less likely to be good?

Um less.
They make them both because less because they learned their lesson but more because
theyre getting more and more angry.
Its the other way round.
Uhoh yeah!
Sandeep and Simran agreed that consequences can work to alienate disruptive boys like Zak
rather than bring them into line, because they provoke the boys anger. But why do the boys
respond angrily? The answer to this question may lie in Zaks perceptions of trust and fairness.
Trust and fairness
Zak and his friends frequently told me that they felt that their teachers were unfair, biased against
them when making judgements about whether they had broken school rules. For example, the
following group interview took place when Zak and his classmates Faizel, Mohamed and Amar
had been in year 5 for about a month. I asked them which teachers they preferred to tell problems
to and which they did not get on with, and they immediately began to talk about teachers being
biased against them.
Miss I dont trust Mrs Samson [their class teacher] cos she dont trust us, what I mean
is like Miss she knows us lot are bad yeah so she sends us straight to Mr Gardner [head
teacher] so Id rather just have a fight.
Mohamed: Miss fights always come in football.
RW to Zak: So who would you rather tell?
Zak:
Miss if its just a little thing like someone push me then I wont say anything but if its
like someone being racist then I will, but the reason I dont tell Mrs Samson is cos she
just sends me to Mr Gardner and I dont trust Mr Gardner.
RW:
Why not?
Zak:
Cos Miss, Miss hes unfair. Miss just because, you know people that never done nothing yeah, hes gonna say send a letter home, just cos I done stuff in the past yeah, he
thinks Im gonna do it in the present and in the future.
Zak:
Zak said the same of the deputy head, then, after an interruption, continued:
Zak:
RW:
Zak:
Miss I got more. Miss I only trust myself, I trust my friends, I trust Faizel and
Mohamed and Amar, and I trust Farhan a bit cos I tell him my secrets.
Why do you only trust your friends?
Miss because, Miss cos they were like encouraging me, or if Im doing a good thing
theyll encourage me, if I do a bad thing theyll stop it.8
When I asked him for examples, Zak said that taking a penalty was a good thing, while fighting
was a bad thing, adding, I stopped Mohamed today at fighting because he was fighting today
with Ali. I was trying to stop him. He said that this can sometimes get him into trouble because
adults think he is involved in the fight; Miss because Im stopping it right, you know the teachers, they always think Ive done the wrong thing. Zak describes his peer relations as characterized by trust, while his teachers are suspicious of him and therefore treat him unfairly. His friends
Faizel and Mohamed agreed that the teachers were prejudiced against them:
Faizel:
Mohamed:
RW:
Mohamed:
And Mrs Samson always takes Joshuas side innit.

Yeah cos he plays with girls and stuff like that.
Why do you think that Mrs Samson takes Joshuas side?
Miss thinks that Faizel tells lies and Miss thinks that Joshua tells the truth.
In a subsequent interview I held with Zak and Faizel, the two boys expanded on this point. Faizel
commented that he hated his classmate Joshua, and I asked why. The boys told me about a time
in class when Mohamed got in trouble:
190
R. Woods
Zak:
Faizel:
Zak:
Faizel:
Zak:
This is what happened yeah, Zena [a girl in the boys class] yeah, I dont know if she got
hit by MohamedShe didnt yeah, he just touched her shoulder.
Miss the thing about girls yeah, you just touch them and they go running to the teacher,
and I had my hand up yeah, I was gonna tell her the truth yeah, but she said put your hand
down. The teacher asked Joshua what happened.
Miss the thing about Joshua is that Miss trusts him, but he doesnt tell the truth.
Mohamed only said, dont ask Joshua yeah cos hes the girls friend, and Miss sent him
to Miss Brooks [deputy head].
The point Zak and his friends are making is that the teachers seem to judge them not neutrally,
but through the lenses of their reputations as rule-breakers, such that they are treated with disbelief and suspicion. In fact, their concerns about bias went far beyond individual reputations,
touching in addition upon sexism and nepotism, as was apparent when I asked Zak, Faizel, Idris
and Amar what they thought the word fair meant. Here are some of their definitions:
Faizel:
Amar:
Idris:
I dont think they [the teachers] know what fair means. They should look it up in the
dictionary.
Miss you know like if we like swear at a like a girl, Miss just pretend like I sweared at a
girl, I sweared at a girl and she started swearing at me, and we [inaudible] thats not fair,
cos were the one that gets told off, because, because the girl, Miss youre like, youre like
a teacher, youre a girl innit, and you believe girls, you cant, you dont believe boys.
Miss do you know what? I had the same cos I had a fight with Jacob, and do you know
Miss Smith, thats his mum that is. So Miss I had a fight with him yeah, because he was
being, but when its, its her son yeah Miss, [inaudible] Miss I was in a fight with Jacob
yeah thats her son yeah, she lets him stay and have fun, yeah, a-and she made me have a
detention, for no reason.
These definitions indicate that not only do Zak and his friends feel that teachers are prejudiced
against them on the basis of their reputations, they also believe that teachers can be sexist, guilty
of nepotism and also racist (for examples of the latter belief, see Woods, 2005, 2007). These
issues make it difficult for the boys to trust their teachers, as Zak explained when he was in year
6.9 Miss, trusting teachers is a very big thing Miss. You dont trust your teachers and they dont
trust you, Zak explained, adding that he trusted his friends. When I told Zak and Faizel I had
written that they felt the teachers were biased against them, they both eagerly told me several
more recent examples. Their full endorsement a year on suggests that their perception is enduring. Moreover, these views were borne out in an interview with their well-behaved classmates
Simran and Sandeep in year 5:
Why do you think some people in your class get in trouble a lot and others dont at all
really?
Simran: Miss this is an honest comment. Miss you know the ones who are the really really bad
ones, the teachers always look upon them, they look at them.
Sandeep: Miss, cos the teacher, when they get told off once the teachers always looking at them.
RW:
It is striking that Zaks classmates also understood their teacher to be biased against children with
a reputation for breaking school rules.
The peer group
In one interview, Zak argued that consequences should be abandoned altogether:
Zak:
RW:
Zak:
RW:
Miss can I tell you one thing about consequences?

Yeah, go on.
Miss, children never learn by if children go to the quiet table, exit the room or speak to
mum and dad, shall I tell you why?
Yeah, go on.

Zak:
RW:
Zak:
191
Miss if you dont give them consequences yeah, Miss theyll start to like the teacher yeah,
and start to get better. Thats what happened in Miss Williams class [when Zak was in
year 2] cos she never used to give us consequences. She used to say whats good about
fighting? Nothings good about fighting! And I never got in any fights when I was in year 2.
But dont you like fighting?
Miss when someone punches you, youre still angry yeah, but you still gonna remember
what your teacher told you. Cos you learned your lesson, from last time.
Zak argued that if a teacher did not give him consequences, he would start to like and listen to
her, a view he reiterated in an interview in year 6, stating that if teachers talked with transgressing
children about what they had done wrong, the good side comes through. However, by the time
of this interview, I had spent over a year observing Zak and his peers in the school playground,
and witnessing the role of verbal and physical aggression in playground dominance hierarchies
(Woods 2006). So I challenged his claim that no consequences meant no transgressions, pointing
out, But you two [Zak and Faizel] are powerful in the playground partly because you sometimes
hit other boys. Zak confirmed and justified this, saying, Miss if you want respect you have to
earn it. He thus acknowledged that an act which elicits sanctions in one setting (the classroom)
has its own rewards in another (the playground). Zak and his friends Faizel and Mohamed
commanded respect from their peers in the playground partly because of their willingness to act
aggressively. To conform to school rules would be to cease in such behaviors, and without a wider
sea change in boys playground behavior and perceptions, it would mean a loss of status for Zak
relative to his peers. As long as aggression remains a primary medium through which dominance
and status are produced among boys at school, aggressive acts will often be simultaneously
punished (via teachers sanctions) and rewarded (via peers respect). The possibility of behaviors
being associated with such contradictory valences is not adequately addressed by behavioral
theory. And it is not just aggressive acts that are contradictory in this way. Receiving sanctions
such as detentions can raise a boys prestige with his peers in itself (Adler, Kless & Adler 1992;
Evans 2003, 2006; Gutherson & Pickard 2006), thus operating simultaneously as a sanction and
a reward.
Not only can the peer group reward behaviors which are against school rules, but children
may also develop a moral system of their own, one which does not follow the contours of the
schools moral system as encapsulated in the rules on the classroom wall. Recall Zaks conclusion
that since his teacher always assumed he had done the wrong thing, Id rather just have a fight.
In rejecting classroom rules and consequences, Zak and his friends do not reject moral values
altogether. Instead, they seem to invest in their own system of fairness and retribution. For example, Zak criticized classroom rule 1 (We never hurt anybody on the inside or the outside),
saying, If someone punches you, what do you do, just back off or something? So you think
you should hit back? I asked. Yeah, thats fair, thats fair, Zak replied. In a later group interview when I asked Zak and his friends, If someone hit you, what would you do, and why? Zak
replied that if he was hit by a boy (though not by a girl), he would hit back, rather than tell a
teacher which is what the rules state that children should do. Here is his explanation:
RW:
Zak:
Why, why, why wouldnt it help to tell a teacher?

Because, because what the hell can the teachers do, theyre gonna just gonna say walk
away, how can you walk away when someone hits you? Walk away. Yeah right, all the
pain insides gonna tell you to walk away, I dont think so Miss.
In this rhetorically powerful statement, Zak argues in favor of taking playground aggression into
his own hands rather than letting a teacher resolve the situation and mete out consequences.
Although hitting is against school rules, he sees it as appropriate, even good, behavior for some
children, as became clear during an interview in year 5, which involved a series of questions about
a hypothetical situation in which one child (in this case, Jenny) hit another (Priya):
192
RW:
Zak:
RW:
Zak:
RW:
Zak:
RW:
Zak:
R. Woods
How do you think Priya is feeling?
Miss she cant stop herself, she has to hit.
Why cant she stop herself?
She has to hit, she has to get her own back. But Miss, if shes a good student yeah, she wont
hit her back, shell tell Miss.
Is that better or worse than hitting her?
Miss it depends, if shes a good girl shell tell Miss, if shes a bad girl [trails off] Miss if
she smacks her back thatll be good. Cos Miss you know Jenny, Jennys quite thick, Priyas
gonna say you smacked me first, youre gonna be in most trouble, but dont tell of me and
I wont tell of you for the smacking, just tell everything else.
Do people do that quite a lot, so they wont get in trouble?
Not quite a lot, sometimes.
In this extract, Zak outlines two sets of moral values surrounding hitting in school; the school
rules (upheld by the good student) and another morality epitomized by the bad student for
whom hitting back is good. His use of the terms good and bad in this seemingly contradictory way indicates his awareness of two different ways of understanding hitting, and his sympathy
with the view that in some cases, hitting is indeed the right thing to do. The ability to understand
acts like hitting through the lenses of two different moralities can only complicate Zaks response
to school discipline, yet this complexity is not recognized in the behavioral system of rules,
rewards and sanctions.
Discussion
Zak is clearly a child who is not responding in the desired way to the behavioral discipline system
of rules, rewards and sanctions. Why not? This exploration of Zaks perspective has identified
three key issues which are neglected by behavioral approaches to discipline: emotional responses,
trust and fairness, and the peer group. The significance of each is considered in turn below.
Firstly, behavioral discipline models do not seem to take account of childrens emotions,
apparently assuming either that these are not relevant or that emotions conducive to reparation
and conformity, such as sadness and shame, will inevitably result from sanctions. This case study
demonstrates that children do not always respond to consequences in this way, and that angry
responses in particular seem to be more conducive to rebellion and resistance than to conformity.
The data also suggest that some forms of disciplining in the classroom are particularly likely to
evoke angry feelings. Recall Zaks vivid account of Mohamed crying and shouting at Mrs Chahal
in year 4. Miss how would you feel if everyone was laughing at you and the teacher was making
fun out of you? he asked me. Id hate it, I repliedand who wouldnt? Humiliation as a means
of control and punishment is likely to increase the humiliated childs anger and sense of injustice.
Lewis, Romi, Qui & Katz (2005) consider deliberately embarrassing misbehaving students to be
an aggressive method of classroom discipline. They found that in Australia, China and Israel,
students who reported higher levels of their own misbehavior also reported higher levels of
aggressive teacher behavior. While this study does not address cause and effect (i.e. were teachers
aggressive because of the misbehavior or was misbehavior more likely with aggressive teachers?)
it nevertheless raises important questions about the emotional and behavioral repercussions of
aggressive discipline tactics such as humiliation.
Secondly, and following on from the point about emotions, at least part of Zaks anger
emanates from a sense of unfairness. He sees his teachers as responding to children on the basis
of reputation, such that just cos I done stuff in the past yeah, he thinks Im gonna do it in the
present and in the future. The result seems to be mutual suspicion and distrust between Zak and
his teachers. Zaks emphasis on fairness is not surprising; childrens concerns with this issue have
been well documented (see e.g. Piaget 1932) and several studies have found an association
between anger and perceived injustice (Karniol & Heiman 1987, cited in Fabes, Eisenberg, Smith
193
& Murphy 1996; Scher 1997; Mikula, Scherer & Athenstaedt 1998, both cited in Eisenberg,
2000). Yet in spite of this solid research base, behavioral models of discipline seem to elide both
the importance of fairness and trust in childrens responses to consequences, and the possibility
that teachers implementing rewards and consequences might show systematic biases. I return to
this possibility shortly.
The third issue neglected in the behavioral approach is the alternative set of rewards, punishments and moral values that children can develop through their relations with peers, and that may
conflict with those on classroom walls. In some cases, such alternative moralities may also reign
outside the school gates (Blatchford 1998; Evans 2003, 2006). Thus, children do not respond to
classroom rules, rewards and sanctions in a vacuum, but are informed by other rules and values
operating in other locations and relationships. A behavior (such as hitting) which elicits a sanction
in one setting may elicit a reward (respect from ones peers, retribution) in another. The behavioral approach fails to allow for the possibility that one act or event can signify in multiple ways,
hugely complicating the response it will elicit in a particular child. While this issue is not easily
resolved, initiatives designed to improve school discipline are unlikely to succeed if they fail to
investigate and take into account contradictions between values and morals inside and outside the
classroom.
As the above discussion amply illustrates, Zaks experiences reveal a range of important
issues and concerns that are not addressed by the basic version of behaviorism underlying the
rules, rewards and sanctions system of discipline. Zak does not respond passively and mechanically to consequences such as a letter home to his parents about his misdemeanors; his response
is informed by his emotions, his sense of morality and justice, and his relationships with teachers
and peers. This case study demonstrates that children and their lives are far more complex than
the simplistic rules, rewards and consequences framework recognizes.
This article contributes to a growing body of research that seeks to illuminate the perspectives
of children and young people (see for example Thorne 1993; Goodwin 1995; Hey 1997; Renold
2001, 2004). This attention to childrens perceptions does not require us to accept uncritically
everything they say (Waksler 1996). In this paper I assume that the child is embedded in a set of
relations, each with its own history, such that to understand the child, one must also know something of these relations. For example, Zak and his friends and classmates state that their teachers
are biased against them in that they watch them more closely and tend to assume that they have
broken the rules even when they havent. I can acknowledge that this is how Zak sees things, and
that his perception is warranted by his history of relations, without naively accepting Zaks
account as a simple truth. Instead, his perceptions invite further research to explore the dynamics
between teachers and disruptive children, and how these dynamics both inform and result from
the perceptions of those involved. Such research could tell us whether teachers do operate the
discipline system through a lens of suspicion against certain children, and whether this contributes
to an antagonistic, mutually distrustful relationship between teachers and particular children.
Certainly psychological research suggests that this is plausible. Hymel, Wagner and Butler (1990)
review evidence that both children and adults interpret the same act differently depending on who
performed it. For example, Hymel (1986) found that American elementary school children gave
their friends more credit for a prosocial act than they gave children who were not their friends.
Findings like this led Hymel et al. (1990, 158) to conclude that social behavior is perceived in a
biased fashion as a function of prior attitudes and beliefs about the actor. Given these findings,
it would not be so surprising to discover that teachers were somewhat biased against disruptive
children. This may be particularly likely in a classroom setting, where the teacher is responsible
for managing the class as a whole. In this situation it of course makes perfect sense to spend more
time watching children you believe to be disruptive than those you believe to be well-behaved
a phenomenon Simran and Sandeep claimed to have observed in their own classroom.
194
R. Woods
To conclude, this case study has portrayed Zak caught in a vicious circlehis feelings of
anger and his perceptions of unfairness at the receiving end of teachers sanctions lead him to feel
that he cannot trust teachers and their discipline system so he rebels and acts on a different set of
moral valuesa peer-based moral system which contravenes school rules and hence results in
more of the consequences that enrage him. His angry emotional response to sanctions, his strong
perception of unfairness and distrust, and his investment in aggression as a good thing in the peer
group all contribute to his lack of conformity to school rules, and hence aid our understanding of
why the behavioral discipline method of rules, rewards and sanctions so popular in the UK does
not always work. These findings invite future research to reveal how widespread Zaks concerns
are and how childrens perceptions of unfairness unfold in their relations with teachers. Such
research promises to aid our understanding of children who break school rules and to find more
effective ways of working with them than the behavioral approach.
Acknowledgements
The research reported here was financially supported by an ESRC PhD studentship held by the
author at Brunel University. I am very grateful to the children and adults at Woodwell Green for
their generosity in allowing me to work with and write about them. Many thanks to Carl Parsons,
Simon Ellis, Nir Oren and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful advice on earlier versions
of this article.
Notes
1. All names in the article are pseudonyms, where possible selected by the person represented. The name
of the school is also a pseudonym.
2. I see the practice of giving children who participated in the research a small gift not as a reward reminiscent of the schools behavioral discipline system, but as a form of exchange promoting good will
between me and my participants.
3. Most of the children in the class were writing raps at this time for their class assembly. Zak later told
me that he and Idris were not allowed to perform their rap for the assembly, and had to perform one
written by another child instead.
4. Throughout this case study I have corrected obvious spelling mistakes in written material by Zak to aid
clarity.
5. There were more emotion terms than children because some children wrote more than one term for how
they felt.
6. This analysis is an oversimplification in that I dont deny that emotions like resentment, guilt, shame,
sadness and anger can coincide. Nevertheless, children are likely to vary in the extent to which they
experience each in particular situations.
7. Zaks mum had grounded him from an out-of-school football club he attended for three weeks after
Mrs Samson spoke to her about a recent incident.
8. Here, Zak provides a strongly behaviorist analysis of his friends actions, thereby making the important
point that teachers are not the only ones meting out rewards and sanctions. The potential conflict between
what teachers and peers see as positive and negative behavior is considered further later in this paper.
9. This was during an interview in which I told the boys what I wanted to write about them and asked for
their permission to do sosee chapter 1 of Woods (2005). Mohamed had left the school by this time so
I could not ask him.
10. Mrs Samson was the only teacher at Woodwell Green I knew who used the terms positive consequences and negative consequences instead of rewards and consequences respectively. In this article I have retained the more conventional terms rewards and consequences to aid clarity.
Notes on contributor
Ruth Woods is a senior lecturer in developmental psychology at Canterbury Christ Church University. Her
research interests lie in how children constitute ideas about ethnicity, friendship, gender and morality
195
through their engagement with other people, and in combining methodologies and theoretical insights from
different areas of social science.
References
Adler, P.A., A.J. Kless, and P. Adler. 1992. Socialization to gender roles: Popularity among elementary
school boys and girls. Sociology of Education 65: 169187.
Banyard, P. and A. Grayson. 2000. Introducing psychological research. 2nd edition. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave.
Barrett, K.C., and J.J. Campos. 1987. Perspectives on emotional development II: a functionalist approach
to emotions. In Handbook of Infant Development, ed. J.D. Olofsky 555578. (2nd edition). New York:
John Wiley.
Blatchford, P. 1998. Social life in school: pupils experience of breaktime and recess from 7 to 16 years.
London: Falmer Press.
Chomsky, N. 1959. A review of B.F. Skinners Verbal Behavior. Language 35: 2658.
Chomsky, N. 1967. Preface to A review of B.F. Skinners Verbal Behavior. In Readings in the Psychology
of Language, eds L.A. Jakobovits and M.S. Miron 142143. NJ: PrenticeHall.
Damasio, A. 2000. The feeling of what happens: body, emotion and the making of consciousness. London:
Vintage.
Davis, P., L. Florian, M. Ainscow, A. Dyson, P. Farrell, P. Hick, N. Humphrey, P. Jenkins, I. Kaplan, S.
Palmer, G. Parkinson, F. Polat, R. Reason, R. Byers, L. Dee, R. Kerscner, and M. Rouse. 2004. Teaching
strategies and approaches for children with special educational needs: a scoping study. DfES Research
Report RR516. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/programmeofresearch/projectinformation.cfm?proje
ctid=13972&resultspage=1
DfES 2003. Behaviour management: introductory training for school support staff. http://www.teachernet.
gov.uk/_doc/4970/Unit%202_Behaviour.pdf.
DfES n.d. Primary behaviour. http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id= 3890.
Eisenberg, N. 2000. Emotion, regulation and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology 51:
665697.
Evans, G. 2003. Fur coat no knickers: money and manners in a modern manor. Unpublished PhD thesis.
Brunel University, West London.
Evans, G. 2006. Educational failure and working class white children in Britain Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Evans, J., A. Harden, J. Thomas, and P. Benefield. 2003. Support for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) in mainstream primary classrooms: a systematic review of the effectiveness
of interventions. In Research evidence in education library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science
Research Unit, Institute of Education. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx? page=/reel/review_
groups/EPPI/EBD/EBD_intro.htm.
Fabes, R.A., N. Eisenberg, M.C. Smith, and B.C. Murphy. 1996. Getting angry at peers: associations with
liking of the provocateur. Child Development 67: 942956.
Fischer, A.H., and A.S.R. Manstead. 1996. Emotion. In The social science encyclopedia, eds A. Kuper and
J. Kuper 239240. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
Gilgen, A.R. 1996. Behaviourism. In The social science encyclopedia, eds A. Kuper and J. Kuper 5152.
2nd edition. London: Routledge.
Goodwin, M.H. 1995. Co-construction in girls hopscotch. Research on Language and Social Interaction
28: 261281.
Gutherson, P., and L. Pickard. 2006. Systemic study of interventions to manage behaviour: Key data.
Training Advice Consultancy (funded by CfBT). http://www.cfbt.com/research/researchlibrary/
completedresearchprojects/91034.aspx.
Harr, R. 2006. Key Thinkers in Psychology. London: Sage.
Hey, V. 1997. The Company she Keeps: An Ethnography of Girls Friendships. Buckingham, UK: Open U.P.
Hymel, S. 1986. Interpretations of peer behavior: Affective bias in childhood and adolescence. Child
Development 57: 43145.
Hymel, S., E. Wagner, and L.J. Butler. 1990. Reputational bias: view from the peer group. In peer
rejection in childhood, eds., S.R. Asher and J.D. Coie, 156185. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lewis, R., S. Romi, X Qui, and Y.J. Katz. 2005. Teachers classroom discipline and student misbehavior in
Australia, China and Israel. Teaching and Teacher Education 21: 729741.
196
R. Woods
Lose Yourself lyrics n.d. http://www.sing365.com/music/Lyric.nsf/Lose-Yourself-lyrics-Eminem/FB4D7

38405DA79DE48256C450012D2AF.
Mackintosh, N.J. 1996. Classical and operant conditioning. In The Social Science Encyclopedia, eds A.
Kuper and J. Kuper 121122. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
Ofsted 1993. Achieving good behaviour in Schools. HMSO.
Ofsted 2005. Managing challenging behaviour. http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=pubs.summary&id=3846.
Piaget, J. 1932. The Moral Judgement of the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Render, G.F., J.N.M. Padilla, and H.M. Krank. 1989. Assertive Discipline: a Critical Review and Analysis.
Teachers College Record 90: 607630.
Renold, E. 2001. Learning the hard way: boys, hegemonic masculinity and the negotiation of learner
identities in the primary school. British Journal of Sociology of Education 22: 369385.
Renold, E. 2004. Other boys: negotiating non-hegemonic masculinities in the primary school. Gender
and Education 16: 247266.
Riley, K.A., and E. Rustique-Forrester. 2002. Working with disaffected students. London: Paul Chapman.
Steer, Sir A. 2005. Learning behaviour: the report of the practitioners Group on school behaviour and
discipline. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/behaviourandattendance/about/learning_behaviour.cfm.
Stuart-Hamilton, I. 1999. Key ideas in psychology. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Thorne, B. 1993. Gender play: girls and boys in school. Buckingham, England: Open U.P.
Toren, C. 1999. Mind, materiality and history: explorations in Fijian ethnography. London: Routledge.
Waksler, F.C. 1996. The little trials of childhood and childrens strategies for dealing with them. London:
Falmer.
Woods, R. 2005. A study of intersubjectivity in childrens meaning-making at a multicultural London
primary school. Unpublished PhD thesis, Brunel University. West London.
Woods, R. 2006. Understanding boys aggression: information processing or relational meaning-making?
Linda Tosh Annual Memorial Lecture, University of Dundee, 5 May.
Woods, R. 2007. Children defining and experiencing racism in 21st century Britain. Paper presented at Centre
for Research on Nationalism, Ethnicity and Multiculturalism Conference on Nationalism and National
Identities today: Multidisciplinary perspectives, University of Surrey. 1213 June.

When Rewards and Sanctions Fail A Case Study of A Primary School Rule Breaker

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

When Rewards and Sanctions Fail A Case Study of A Primary School Rule Breaker

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education

ISSN: 0951-8398 (Print) 1366-5898 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tqse20