Bullying is an issue in schools that has been extensively researched over the past decades.

The
chosen article by (Morcom, 2015) explains why bullying is an issue for schools in particular; posing
that schools are a place for social and emotional development as well as academic development,
that the negative impacts of bullying often extend into adulthood, and that “the peer group
constitutes one of the most important contexts for child development and socialization and is critical
in the formulation of values and social norms for behaviour”. Therefore, the hypothesis (Morcom,
2015) makes is that if bullying is viewed as a social issue, and emphasis is placed on peer influence
and relations rather than bully-victim relations; students will develop better prosocial behaviours.

The effects of bullying are felt across entire schools, including in the KLA of Science. There are high
proportions of group work due the practical nature of the subject, and his means some students may
be at higher risk of exclusion from peer groups. Also, in Science, answers are based on the most
current research and commonly perceived as right or wrong (until proven otherwise) with very little
room for variation. Due to this, students may be exposed to ridicule if they do not produce the
correct answers. A study by (Hillman, 2015) shows that bullied students achieved significantly lower
Maths and Science test results in year 8 students, and lower test scores in Reading, Maths and
Science for year 4 students.

(Morcom, 2015) uses Vygotsky’s sociocultural theories and Rogoff’s planes of sociocultural change to
analyse the effects of implementing social and emotional learning on bullying. The study was a
qualitative, longitudinal study over the span of a year where the classroom teacher was the
researcher. Data was collected through journal entries from students, interviews with the students
and parents, sociograms (to document friendship groups and changes to them), school behaviour
records, and classroom resources. The deputy principal was also chosen to be an ‘critical friend’ who
the students could speak to in place of the teacher if necessary, and to add observations to the study
from an impartial standpoint.

Data was cross-referenced, annotated and organised on a weekly basis to allow the researcher to
identify any emerging themes. This system of identifying emergent themes as they appear matches
with the phases of meta-ethnography explained in (Ullman, 2015) where a researcher reads case
studies relevant to their field of interest, collects and identifies emergent themes, assesses and
synthesises the similarities and differences between the emergent themes. However, (Morcom,
2015) only looks for emergent themes in her own case study, rather than in literature. She does
however, recognise similar case studies and their findings, by referencing them and explaining how
they have influenced her study. (Morcom, 2015) states that these studies were effective, but a large
number of students were unaffected by the program implemented by ((Cross, 2010) cited in
(Morcom, 2015)) as a research project. This drove the researcher to work directly with these
unaffected students. The work of Vygotsky and Rogoff guided the researcher towards using a peer
group centred, social and emotional learning approach to develop prosocial behaviours. This is due
to that it had been identified earlier that if bullying is recognised as a social issue, social networks i.e.
peer groups can play a large role in promoting prosocial behaviours. (Morcom, 2015)’s decision to
scaffold the students’ social and emotional learning herself comes from Vygotsky’s theory relating to
the zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which in short, states that there is a difference in how well
a student can learn on their own in comparison to when they are guided by more advanced peers or
an adult. She also stresses the importance of teacher modelling in the development of prosocial
behaviour.

(Morcom, 2015) then goes on to say “The challenge for the teacher/researcher was to establish
social knowledge (interpsychological) in the minds of the students (intrapsychological) so they
enacted the prosocial values underpinning the five class agreements.” This is in line with (Rogoff’s)
three planes of sociocultural change theory which poses that for sociocultural change to occur, it
must occur on three planes. The personal, interpersonal and community planes. The researcher
attempted to meet the challenge of instigating long lasting sociocultural change by having students
agree, along with herself, on five classroom rules to promote prosocial behaviour on the community
and interpersonal planes. Students were also strategically placed in social groups. Students were
allowed to nominate the members of the group, but it was the final decision of the
teacher/researcher as to the placement of students in these groups.

The findings of (Morcom, 2015)’s study focused on the case of a student called Lindsay, as significant
change in his bullying behaviour over the course of the study were observed. He began to recognise
that his original peer group, made up of his friends Denis and Michael (also serial bullies) were
influencing his behaviour. While Lindsay remained friends with these students, his behaviour and
that of his friends changed over the course of the study. At the beginning of the study, Lindsay states
in his journal (found in (Morcom, 2015)) that while he is annoyed at not being in a group with his
friends, he is going to ‘be good’. In the middle of the study, Lindsay’s journal shows that he is slowly
developing empathy for his classmates and wants to help succeed as well as himself. This seen in an
excerpt from his log; where he says that if someone is having trouble making friends, you should
engage with them and they should be introduced to others, as well as that you need to think of their
feelings and be fair to them. At the end of the study, Lindsay says that he learned how to sort out his
(bullying) problems by listening to other people. This change in behaviour and thought shows that
Lindsay has appropriated prosocial behaviour of the course of the study. It is also noted by (Morcom,
2015) that all students, including Lindsay are no longer having incidents recorded in the school
behaviour records.

(Morcom, 2015) concludes by noting that positive relationships with peers are paramount in
addressing bullying. The researcher’s emphasis on Lindsay shows sampling as described in (Ullman,
Questions to Ask Yourself When Evaluating a Report of a Qualitative Study, 2015) which suggests
that when analysing a qualitative study to identify any emphasis on a particular case and take note
of the type of sampling used. In the case of (Morcom, 2015), Lindsay’s case shows clearly that social
and emotional learning has a profound effect on addressing bullying, as his change in behaviour and
thought is clearly documented through his journals over the course of the study. However, the
researcher does not showcase any cases where the program was not as effective. This may be
because all students showed vast improvement, but this is difficult to believe. In a well-rounded
argument, one must show both the positive and negative sides. (Morcom, 2015) clearly shows a
vivid description giving the reader a sense of the change in multiple individuals through interviews
and the students’ own journals. Because the researcher’s information came largely in the students’
words themselves, it is reasonable to assume that member checking has occurred at least indirectly.
This is not, however, explicitly stated in the report. (Ullman, Questions to Ask Yourself When
Evaluating a Report of a Qualitative Study, 2015) discusses description of the behaviour of the
participants and member checking being an important part of analysing the finding of a qualitative
study. (Morcom, 2015) poses that because many participants showed significant improvement in
exhibiting prosocial behaviour, the hypothesis (mentioned in the first paragraph of this essay) was
supported, and subsequently becomes a recommendation. Identifying and determining whether
finding support or reject the hypothesis of a study is also highlighted in (Ullman, Questions to Ask
Yourself When Evaluating a Report of a Qualitative Study, 2015) as being part of a good study
analysis.
The learning activity chosen is a year 11 science experiment developed by NASA and found in (). Its
purpose is to give students an understanding that Oxygen is highly reactive and reactions involving
Oxygen are usually highly exothermic (these reactions release heat). Students are to demonstrate
this by measuring the increase in temperature over time as steel wool is oxidised to form Iron Oxide.
As steel wool has a protective coating to prevent rust, this layer must first be removed with vinegar
as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1: List of Materials ()

This list is of the materials needed to observe temperature change in steel wool as it is oxidised.
The experiment is a good introduction to the exothermic nature of chemical reactions involving
Oxygen.

Figure 2: Method ()

This method represents the stripping and exposure to water of steel wool. This should form Iron
Oxide (common rust) and emit heat. Students will measure the change in temperature to
demonstrate this.

One may think it would be difficult to incorporate social and emotional learning into this task, or in
Science in general. However, () suggests that students write their observations and answer questions
to guide their learning in their ‘astro journal’. () recommends this be done individually or at most, in
pairs. However, to incorporate social and emotional learning, it may be considered that students
discuss the experiment and answer questions together. As (Morcom, 2015) states that the peer
group is paramount in social and emotional learning, students can use this task to learn from each
other constructively. The 5 classroom rules developed by (Morcom, 2015) could also be
implemented to ensure students engage in giving each other constructive criticism; a valuable life
skill particularly important in the field of Science. Just as in (Morcom, 2015), questions may be
guided by the teacher, indeed this is suggested in (). The pairs and groups in which students are to
work can be decided by the teacher to encourage the formation of new social groups and thus
better influence sociocultural change. By working on this task and the related questions together,
change on the personal, interpersonal planes can occur, and by subsequently discussing the task as a
class, change can occur on the community level, as posed by (Rogoff). The questions associated with
the task can also be modified to better facilitate social and emotional learning. See figure 3 for some
examples of questions suggested by ()

Figure 3: Suggested questions for students based on the learning task ()

These questions relate to the learning task and require students to think critically about the
observations they made during the task and the scientific reasons for these observations

A study by (Gokare) found that students who worked collaboratively outperformed students who
worked individually in answering critical thinking based test questions. There was no significant
difference between students who worked collaboratively and those who worked individually when
answering drill style questions. This indicates that to encourage knowledge retention and social and
emotional learning, teachers should avoid asking drill style questions and focus more on questions
that require critical thinking. Therefore, the questions above in figure 3, while already requiring
some level of critical thinking, could be modified to require deeper or further critical thinking.

To summarise the points covered in this essay: The peer group is paramount in developing prosocial
behaviour (Morcom, 2015). Working collaboratively with peers increases scores on critical thinking
based tests (Gokare). As such, group work and whole class discussion is to be encouraged, students
should listen and learn from one another and questions should focus on developing critical thinking
skills (Gokare). Implementing these ideas in the classroom through the chosen task, or almost any
task, will enable sociocultural change on (Rogoff)’s personal, interpersonal and community planes of
change. By effecting sociocultural change, bullying can be addressed across the KLA of Science and
across whole schools. Additionally, the reduction in test scores of bullied students shown in (Hillman,
2015) may be reversed in consequence.