University of Sunderland

School of Education
EDPM01 – Development of Learning: A Case Study
2022
Module Leader: Susan Eriksson

Trainee name Puja Shivlani

A Hybrid Case Study of a Small Group, Pull-Out Behavioural Intervention for
Title of study
Year 10 Students in a Secondary School in the UAE
PAT name Sarah Reed
Word count (excluding
end references and 3,973 words
appendices)

Feed Forward Targets

Please check the feedback you received from your proposal and copy the bullet points for
improvement over to the table below (add more if needed). Then reflect on the extent to
which you have addressed them in this assignment.

How you have addressed them in this

Bullet points for improvement from proposal
assignment
Be clear what exactly the intervention is and I have described several parts of it with
1
how and why it was designed that way. relevant literature supporting its decisions.
Continue to read widely and use literature to I have read lots of journals and books to
2
develop your points. develop my points.
I have consciously critiqued the literature and
Critically analyse the literature (including the
3 found studies that show the opposite
research methods literature)
perspective also.
Introduction

This case study was conducted in an inclusive Secondary school in the United Arab Emirates where

approximately 50% of the students are British. It is one of the few schools in the country recognised by the

Council of British International Schools, and results from the Programme for International Student Assessment

rank it as one of the top Secondary schools in the UAE.

An in-house designed behaviour intervention, called the ‘ASPIRE’ programme, was used for a group of seven

students in Year 10. These students were chosen because they were described as not meeting their behavioural

expectations, such as having a negative attitude, low levels of engagement with the lessons, and not achieving

their full academic potential. The ASPIRE programme is important currently because the students had just a few

months till their GCSE exams to change their attitude, and hopefully, subsequent academic grades.

The exact learning issue of this programme was to support the group of students to show more positive

behaviours in class, such as actively asking for help or support when needed, positively contributing to class

discussions, and exhibiting positive behaviour for learning. The Head of Year (HoY) and the Assistant Head of

Year 10 (AHoY) carried out the behaviour intervention in a small group setting (pull-out) for approximately 10

minutes every few weeks. Teachers were informed to praise the students for any small behavioural progress

during this time (Busch et al., 2013) and encouraged to be as positive as possible with them (Taghvaienia &

Zonobitabar, 2020). The purpose of this case study is to identify how effective the ASPIRE programme was to

improve the behaviours of the group of seven students since the intervention started last month.

To analyse if a behaviour management programme used is effective, three aspects of the actual behaviour will

be considered. Firstly, the past, or the specific causes or triggers of the poor behaviour in school. Secondly, the

most important part of an effective behaviour intervention programme, and this is where most of the Literature

Review section will focus on. Thirdly, the future, or how the presence (or lack) of an effective behaviour

intervention programme affects a child’s life as they step into adulthood. By looking at research on these three

aspects of behaviour separately, it may be easier to see the gaps in current research or to identify any missing

parts of effective behaviour intervention.

Literature Review

Causes of Poor Behaviour in School

While there may be countless causes of poor behaviour in school, some research explores its relationship with

academic performance. Hwang et al. (2021) found no significant relationship between school grades and
engagement for secondary students in South Korea. However, this study was based in a country that has a strong

emphasis on academic grades and a collective identity (Seong & Chang, 2021), which may influence the results.

In contrast, Baker et al. (2003) found a significant correlation between attention-seeking behaviours, aggression,

and social withdrawal, with a toddler’s developmental score1. Baker et al.’s study was powerful as it may

indicate a child’s emotional distress from realising that they are unable to keep up with their peers from a young

age and has powerful applications for how teachers should react to such students.

Therefore, it may be a child’s emotional well-being that influences their engagement levels and subsequent

behaviours in school. For instance, Green and Price (2016) found that students who bullied other children were

more likely to have experienced significant problems in their relationships from an early age. Additionally,

Cowie and Myers (2018) suggest that bullies have an increased risk for mental health issues such as anxiety,

depression, eating disorders and other psychosomatic symptoms. Checa et al. (2019) also found an influence of

maternal parenting style on behaviour and academic grades. Therefore, all three of them (i.e., behaviour,

academic grades and emotional well-being) seem to be connected, but further research is required to further

explore the relationship between them.

Effective behaviour management interventions

Recent research may suggest that the most influential techniques to make a behavioural intervention successful

are to have a positive relationship with the person leading the intervention, have whole-school involvement and

explain why students should behave a certain way.

It may be very important that the person leading a behavioural intervention is someone with whom the students

have a good relationship. For instance, Thornberg et al. (2020) recommend having a fair, caring and supportive

teacher had a positive effect on student engagement with the school. Furthermore, a thematic analysis by Krane

et al. (2016) suggests that there should also be mutual responsibility in student-teacher relationships, problems

should be solved by discussions together and teachers should adapt to students’ academic and personal needs.

On the other hand, Taghvaienia and Zonobitabar (2020) may have narrowed down the list from seemingly

unrelated qualities to a single unifying one. They studied 49 Iranian girls who had a mild to moderate depression

diagnosis2 and found that students that had sessions with teachers who focused on the positive improvements

they had made, made significantly more process than their counterparts. Results indicate that the most crucial

quality for a leader of a behavioural intervention may be to regularly focus on the positive improvements made.

1
Based on the Bayley Scale of Infant Development II (Bayley, 1993; c.f. Baker et al., 2002)
2
According to the Beck Depression Inventory-II (c.f. Taghvaienia and Zonobitabar, 2020)
All three studies seem to suggest the importance of the person leading the behavioural intervention programme

to be likeable.

Another technique for an effective behaviour management intervention may be to get whole-school

involvement. In a meta-analysis of 33 studies, Busch, de Leeuw, de Harder and Schrijvers (2013) suggested that

the effectiveness of a behaviour intervention was often based on the whole school, and even involvement from

the community, including parents. Furthermore, Nixon et al. (2012) also stress the importance of parent

involvement from a young age in a study trying to prevent obesity in children aged between 4-6 years. However,

the applicability to other areas and older children is questionable, as children at that age need significant adult

support to create long-lasting lifestyle changes. However, Cross et al. (2018) studied an anti-bullying

intervention and found it lost its effectiveness in the second year, which suggests that behaviour interventions

need to be revised and updated regularly to ensure they are relevant and applicable to all the students (supported

by Busch et al., 2013). However, Cowie and Myers (2018) suggest that creating a school policy is one of the

most difficult things they can do, as it requires whole school involvement, constant communication with

stakeholders, and consistently showing mutual respect.

Finally, the third technique for an effective behaviour management intervention may be to empower and educate

the students themselves. Yolanda et al. (2019) motivated obese students by using a trans-contextual model 3

which explained the importance of exercise and healthy eating logically. Similarly, Nixon et al.’s research

described above also used Social Learning Theory (first coined by Bandura, 1977; c.f. Nixon et al., 2012) to

motivate students and both studies found effective results. However, teaching a student what to do resembles a

classroom experience and they might not create a positive relationship during the intervention and forget about

the harmful effects of their behaviour. Conversely, Marzo et al. (2019) instead created a facial ageing app to

show teenagers in Malaysia what they would look like if they started to smoke. However, while this kind of

method of educating children is usually very effective and would usually go straight into their long-term

memory (Heath & Heath, 2008), most of the participants in Marzo et al.’s study were non-smokers. Therefore,

research on interventions should be focused on the people who act oppositely, to assess their effectiveness.

Long-term effects of unresolved behaviours

Behaviours in childhood may sometimes lead to similar behavioural patterns in the future also. Longitudinal

studies may be one of the most effective ways to study the long-term effects of undesirable behaviours as they

follow the same children into adulthood. In such a study by Hong, Tillman and Luby (2015), they analysed over

3
Created by Hagger et al. (2003)
250 children to examine behavioural patterns when they were 3-5 years old and then again when they were 7-9

years old. Results indicated that if they displayed defiant behaviours, peer problems and deceitfulness to name a

few in pre-school, it greatly predicted conduct disorder when they were two years later. Similarly, significant

international research suggests the use of childhood and adolescent behaviours for early identification of

criminal behaviour when they are adults (Dubow et al., 2014 in New York; Forsman et al., 2016 in Sweden;

Farrington, 2019 in London). Furthermore, Farrington (2019) suggests family structure, parenting style, verbal

intelligence, and prevalence of risk-taking behaviours as predictors of aggressive behaviours in childhood and

adulthood.

Recent research seems to suggest a child can be labelled for life, based on their behaviour from as little as 3

years (Hong et al., 2015 & Baker et al., 2003). Ramey (2016) implies that a child’s school can have a big part to

play in where a child ends up in adulthood. According to Ramey, if schools use severe punishment, the child

may be more likely to have close ties to the criminal justice system in adulthood. However, if a child instead

goes for therapy, they are more likely to have closer ties to the mental health system instead. Additionally,

Dwisarini (2020) suggests that parenting style can also play a significant role in motivating the child to do

better. Therefore, children do not need to be labelled from a young age, and with the correct guidance from the

school and parents at home, all children may learn to succeed in the future.

Based on the Literature Review above, research indicates that behaviour in school not only has strong relations

to a students’ childhood, but also the kind of adult they grow up to be. Furthermore, interventions using a

positive approach, including positive relationships and an emphasis on praise, have been successful in numerous

cases highlighted above. This therefore suggests the need for more positive interventions as a catalyst for

improving behaviour outcomes.

Method

This experiment is a hybrid design due to limited access to actual data because of many reasons, including the

reduced timetable during Ramadan, mock GCSE exams, COVID outbreak and Eid holidays. Therefore, there

were only 4 weeks to collect my actual data.

A case study will be used, because, as defined by Hamilton and Corbett-Whittier (2013), it is “an approach to

research (…) that aims to capture the complexity of relationships, beliefs, and attitudes within a bonded unit” (p

10). As behaviour is such a vague topic with so many factors that may influence it, a case study may be the most
effective form of research to truly understand its intervention programmes also. Furthermore, to triangulate,

three clear sources of data will be used.

First, two or three sessions of silent observation of the ASPIRE programme to understand the structure of the

programme and the continuity between the targets and progression would have been useful. The benefits of

being a silent observer as a researcher area it allows access to the relationship between the AHoY and the

students, helped understand the student’s perspective and allows for an enhanced ability to be reflexive in the

experiment (as suggested by Corti et al., 2015).

Second, analysing behavioural data for the seven students that had accessed the ASPIRE Programme would

have been ideal. Students’ behavioural points would be calculated each week by tallying up the number of house

points (positive points) against the number of Level 1s (negative points). Paired samples t-tests would be used to

compare their average weekly behavioural points before the behavioural intervention, and then during the 6-

week observation period of the ASPIRE programme. Other forms of behavioural praise or reprimand actions

would also be checked across the teacher portal.

Third, it would be useful to interview the AHoY who implements the ASPIRE programme intervention.

Interviews were chosen as it allows the researcher to explore the unique relationship between different factors

(Cohen, Manion & Morrison., 2011). The interviews were conducted using a semi-structured approach on three

occasions (before, during and after the programme). These interviews would have allowed the researcher to

capture her perspective on the benefits of the structured intervention on students’ behavioural progress. Semi-

structured interviews were specifically chosen as they have a combination of open-ended and close-ended

questions, allowing the researcher to elicit data from the experience of the AHoY and data-guided by other

research in the case study (Galletta, 2013).

This is an ethical study according to the BERA guidelines (2018) because apart from the semi-structured

interviews, everything would have happened anyway. Furthermore, the HoY and AHoY gave their verbal

consent to participate in the study and were repeatedly reminded about their right to withdraw from the research

at any point. Furthermore, the identity of the school and students is kept confidential, and an anonymous

pseudonym will be used when discussing individual progress. However, as it is a qualitative research project, it

may be vulnerable to some form of bias (Coleman, 2021), especially from being a participant observer and

working with some of these students in a professional capacity. Nevertheless, the researcher will try to remain as

unbiased as possible, and as this study is about the whole school and not the individual students, researcher bias

hopefully will not have a significant impact on the data.

Results

Due to the various reasons listed above, the behavioural intervention had been delayed by at least a few weeks.

For this reason, this research had to take a hybrid approach, and while the behavioural intervention was

observed for 4 weeks, the results may have been more accurate if there was more time to observe the rest of the

sessions.

First, only one session of the ASPIRE behavioural programme was silently observed, as more teachers were off

with COVID and the AHoY often had to cover Form time in the mornings and catch up with the students during

unstructured times throughout the week. The session started with the AHoY asking the group of three students

to fill out a form about their strengths and weaknesses (academic or non-academic). Then, after a brief

discussion about their plans and aspirations, the AHoY described the programme. The AHoY always spoke in a

positive tone (as suggested by Taghvaienia & Zonobitabar, 2020) and they seemed to settle on two targets:

asking for help when needed and positively contributing to lessons. The AHoY mentioned she would meet the

remaining four students later in the week, and they would come up with the third target together, which turned

out to be exhibiting positive behaviour for learning. The AHoY then sent out an email to all the teachers, asking

them to award house points if any of the seven students meet any of the three targets in their lessons (see

Appendix 2).

Second, students’ behavioural points were calculated before and after the ASPIRE programme (see Table 1).

The students of the ASPIRE programme still engaged in some misbehaviours, such as playing music from a

speaker in class or forgetting to do their homework during the 4-week observation period. However, on average,

students’ behaviour performance was worse before (M = -0.81, SD = 0.89) than during the behavioural

intervention (M = 0.21, SD = 1.81). The improvement, 1.02 behaviour points, was statistically significant, t (6)

= 0.26, p < .001 (see Table 1). Furthermore, three out of the seven students received at least one post-card home,

and Student 7 received three post-cards home. Additionally, Student 7 was also chosen as “Tutee of the Month”,

a very prestigious award that goes to one student per month in the Year group.

Third, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the AHoY before (see Appendix 1) and during

(Appendix 3) the ASPIRE programme where she shares her perspectives on the programme. While only one

session was observed (with Students 4, 5 and 7), the researcher works with most of these students through the

Inclusion team and has also seen an improvement in behaviours, engagement, and academic performance. The
AHoY describes the programme as being a success, and despite some instances of low-level misdemeanours,

most of the students, and their teachers, have reported positive feedback.

Table 1. Average behavioural points before and after the ASPSIRE programme intervention.

Discussion

Significant research tends to suggest that humans show similar patterns of behaviour from a young age, which

rarely if ever, change (Baker et al., 2003; Dubow et al., 2014; Hong et al., 2015; Forsman et al., 2016).

Therefore, it may make one wonder if it even makes sense for an educator to run a behaviour intervention for

their students when they only see each other for such little time, as, according to Farrington (2019), personality,

intelligence levels and parenting style plays a crucial role. However, through the three ‘windows’ into the

ASPIRE programme: observing one introductory session, two semi-structured interviews with the AHoY and

data analysis of the behavioural points on the teacher portal, it is apparent it has been an overall success so far.

Through this behavioural intervention programme, students’ average behavioural points per week increased by

1.02, taking students getting almost one negative point every week (-0.81) to a positive value (0.21) by the end

of the 4-week observation period (Table 1).

In the case study, the first strength was that the AHoY used a significant amount of positivity. The positivity

was shown in the relationship she had with the students and the language she used during the semi-structured

interviews and on the behaviour management portal. The AHoY’s encouraging relationship was evident from

the way she was interacting with them during the first session observation. Additionally, in the interviews, she

spoke about the students respectfully, and they wanted to impress her. This was shown when she was describing

how a student came up to her and said “oh, miss, you know, my English teacher said this about me” (Appendix

3). The AHoY seemed genuinely pleased about his progress, and the boy sounded excited to meet his goals

(supported by Thornberg et al., 2020). The teachers would even regularly give out house points and sent

postcards home to a few of the parents. Furthermore, even some of the Level 1 reports to a student were phrased

positively, as seen on the behavioural management portal, “[Student 1] was seen (…) playing online games

multiple times in the lesson. A real disappointment as [Student 1] has done nothing but impress me recently”.
The teacher ended her message on a positive note, which can motivate ‘Student 1’ to do better later

(Taghvaienia and Zonobitabar., 2020). Furthermore, by focusing on the positive and not giving a severe

punishment, the school staff are encouraging the student to grow to be healthy adults who seek out support

when required (Ramey, 2016).

Furthermore, the AHoY did an excellent job of involving all the staff in Secondary school to be a part of this

research (see Appendix 2). The students in the intervention had received house points and praises from various

teachers and support staff. Significant research suggests the importance of having the whole school act as one

unified organisation to help develop the skills of the students (Busch et al., 2013). By involving more

stakeholders, the AHoY, perhaps unknowingly, followed the correct guidelines (outlined by Cross et al., 2018)

to make it a successful intervention. Nevertheless, creating a sustainable behavioural intervention plan is one of

the most challenging things one can do in a school (Cowie and Myers, 2018). As student behaviour is so

subjective, abstract and influenced by a range of factors, there is not a clear-cut way to run, or update, a

sustainable behavioural intervention. As the ASPIRE programme seemed like such a success for the four weeks

it was observed, one can only hope for similar success for the remainder of the intervention and the following

years with regular and relevant updates.

Another strength of the case study is how it is regularly updated. The AHoY identified how the behaviour

intervention used in the previous year “never really went off the ground” (Appendix 1). As a result, the current

one was updated to make it simpler and more relevant (as suggested by Cowie & Myers, 2018). Furthermore,

the HoY and AHoY were thinking of the intervention for the following year in the middle of the current one

(Appendix 3) by including more traditional methods such as a report card or homework club. Even the school

policies (behavioural and non-behavioural) were regularly updated just four months ago on the official school

website, as recommended by Cross et al. (2018). The AHoY had also mentioned bringing in other teachers to

talk about mindset and different ways to study (Appendix 1). By teaching students how their behaviours and

actions have consequences, students are more likely to relate to the intervention as they feel responsible for their

behaviour (Yolanda et al., 2019). The other talk was about teaching the students to explore the same academic

content in a new and interesting manner. By learning different ways to study, it may be easier for students to

remember them (Heath & Heath, 2008; Marzo et al., 2019). However, it was unclear when these talks would be

happening.

As this intervention happened during a busy part of the academic year, it was difficult to analyse the ASPIRE

programme. Only one introductory session was observed, and the workshops by the different teachers were
missed out. Furthermore, it would have been interesting to see if there were any changes in the academic

performance of the students before and after the programme (as suggested by Baker et al., 2003; Dwisarini,

2020; but contradicted by Hwang et al., 2021). Additionally, another limitation of this case study is that there

was limited parental involvement and the wider community, despite significant research promoting its benefits

(Nixon et al., 2012; Busch et al., 2013; Checa et al., 2019). Lastly, research has suggested that students who are

not behaving appropriately may also be suffering from mental health problems such as anxiety (Baker et al.,

2003; Green & Price, 2016; Cowie & Myers, 2018). Similarly, the students in this programme may have

benefited from a self-help weekly task or a structured weekly or bi-monthly session with the counsellor.

However, given the strength of the available data and with additional support from the literature, the ASPIRE

programme seems to have been an overall success. The data was triangulated across the three methods (silent

observer, semi-structured interviews and behaviour analysis) to ensure the results are as valid and reliable as

possible.

Conclusion

To conclude, the purpose of this case study was to explore the relationship between academic research and real-

life data to shed some light on how schools can build a successful behavioural intervention programme. Based

on the limited observations, the school studied may create an effective behavioural intervention, the ASPIRE

programme, as there was a significant increase in the average number of behavioural points a student from the

programme received and the positive comments and feedback from the interviews. The ASPIRE programme

was built on a good rapport with the AHoY and the students (Krane et al., 2016; Thornberg et al., 2020),

focused on the positive behaviours involved (Taghvaienia & Zonobitabar, 2020), involved the whole school

(Busch et al., 2013), and it was updated regularly. However, to improve, the programme may benefit from

parental involvement (Nixon et al., 2013), support from the wider community (Busch et al., 2013) and structured

sessions with a mental health practitioner (Ramey, 2016; Green & Price, 2016). From a researcher’s perspective,

it may also be beneficial to see if the changes in behaviour led to any changes in academic attainment (Baker et

al., 2003; Hwang et al., 2021). Nevertheless, the qualitative and quantitative data collected suggest a significant

improvement in student behaviour based on the intervention and underlined the advantages of implementing it.
References

Baker B L, McIntyre L L, Blacher J, Crnic K, Edelbrock C and Low C (2003). Pre-school children with

and without developmental delay: behaviour problems and parenting stress over time, Journal of

Intellectual Disability Research, 47 (4), pp. 217-230.

Suhlim H, Waller R, Hawes D J and Allen J L (2021). The influence of antisocial behaviour and callous-

unemotional traits on trajectories of school engagement and achievement in South Korean children,

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50 (4), pp. 788-802.

Green D & Price D (2016). Multiple Perspectives on Persistent Bullying: Capturing and Listening to Young

People’s Voices. London: Routledge.

Rana M (2014). Parent-child emotional relationship as a predictor of aggression in girls, Indian Journal of

Health and Wellbeing, 5 (6), pp. 687-691.

Cross D, Shaw T, Epstein M, Pearce N, Barnes A, Burns S, Waters S, Lester L & Runions K (2018). Impact

of the ‘Friendly Schools’ whole-school intervention on transition to secondary school and adolescent

bullying behaviour, European Journal of Education, 53 (4), pp. 495-513.

Cowie H & Myers C A (eds., 2017). School Bullying and Mental Health : Risks, Intervention and

Prevention. Taylor & Francis Group, London. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [7 th June

2022].

Nixon C A, Moore H J, Douthwaite W, Gibson E L, Vogele C, Kreichauf S, Wildgruber A, Manios Y,

Summerbell C D et al. (2012). Identifying effective behavioural models and behaviour change

strategies underpinning preschool- and school-based obesity prevention interventions aimed at 4-6-

year-olds: a systematic review, Obesity Reviews, 13 (1), pp. 106-117.

Norlina A N, Suhaila I N, Mohammed F, Abdul R A, Imran A, Ismail I M (2019). The effectiveness of

smoking prevention module towards knowledge and smoking refusal skills among adolescents in

Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia, Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 20 (11), pp. 3353-

3359.

Marzo R, Bhattacharya S, Ravichandran S, Lakshmanan P, Jefferey V, Moralitheran P, Ahmad A & Naidu

J. (2019). Educating school students and gauging their perception about the harmful effects of

smoking using a ‘facial ageing app’ (mobile application): An experience from Malaysia, Journal of

Education and Health Promotion, 8 (1), p 250.

Heath C & Heath D (2007). Made to stick: why some ideas survive and others die. New York, Random

House.

Yolanda D, Reimers A K, Alesi M, Scifo L, Borrego C C, Monteiro D, Kelso A. (2019). Effects of school-

based interventions on motivation towards physical activity in children and adolescents: protocol for

a systemic review, Systemic Reviews, 8 (1), p 113.

Thornberg R, Forsberg C, Chiriac E H & Bjereld Y (2020). Teacher-student relationship quality and student

engagement: a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study, Department of Behavioural Sciences

and Learning, pp. 1-20.

Krane V, Ness O, Holter-Sorenson N, Karlsson B & Binder P (2017). ‘You notice that there is something

positive about going to school’: how teachers’ kindness can promote positive teacher-student

relationships in upper secondary school, International Journal of Adolescence & Youth, 22 (4), pp.

377-389.

Taghvaienia A & Zonobitabar A (2020). Positive intervention for depression and teacher-student

relationship in Iranian high school students with moderate / mild depression: a pilot randomized

controlled trial, Child Adolescence Psychiatry & Mental Health, 14 (25), pp. 25-28.

Dubow E F, Huesmann L R, Boxer P & Smith C (2014). Childhood predictors and age 48 outcomes of self-

reports and official records of offending, Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 24 (4), pp. 291-304.

Hong J S, Tillman R & Luby J L (2015). Disruptive behaviour in preschool children: distinguishing normal

misbehaviour from markers of current and later childhood conduct disorder, Journal of Paediatrics,

166 (3), pp. 723-730.

Farrington D P (2019). The development of violence from age 8 to 61. Aggressive Behaviour, 45, pp. 365-

376.

Forsman H, Brannstrom L, Vinnerljung B, Hjern A (2016). Does poor school performance cause later

psychosocial problems among children in care? Evidence from national longitudinal data, Child,

Abuse & Neglect, 57, pp. 61-71.

Ramey D M (2016). The influence of early school punishment and therapy / medication on social control

experiences during young adulthood, Criminology, 54 (1), pp. 113-141.

Seong H & Chang E (2021). Profiles of perfectionism, achievement emotions, and academic burnout in

South Korean adolescents: testing the 2x2 model of perfectionism. Learning and Individual

Differences, 90, pp. 1-12.

Corti K, Reddy G, Choi E & Gillespie A (2015). The researcher as experiment subject: using self-

experimentation to access experiences, understand social phenomena and stimulate reflexivity,

Integrative Psychological and Behavioural Science, 49, pp. 288-308.

Galleta A (2013). Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and Beyond: From Research Design to Analysis

and Publication, New York University Press, New York. Available from: ProQuest EBook Central

[10th June 2022].

Cohen L, Manion L & Morrison K (2011). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.
Appendix 1

Semi-structured interview transcript before the intervention

Researcher: So, how exactly does this programme work?

AHoY: the students will first fill out a form on what they think their strengths and areas of development are.

And then they will have a discussion with me where they will set targets, and then they will get house points

based on those targets. The discussion is a good part of it, and when me or ‘the HOY’ spoke to them and we can

ask them questions about their targets instead of just a ‘hey, how’s it going?’. Then, we will have [a Maths

teacher] giving them a talk about fixed and growth mindsets, [a Science teacher] talking about how to study and

we are potentially looking at other staff speakers to come in and have chats with them.

R: Okay, umm, how did you pick the students, the group of seven students for the ASPIRE programme. How

did you pick the specific seven?

A: Yeah, so we umm based them on a combination of behavioural points, so like Level 1s and looking at that

side of things. and also the students that were struggling academically and needed a bit of a boost. Not

necessarily even like academically, but struggling with relationships with teachers, and having that as a barrier

to their success. So, umm, some of the students are not the weakest in the year group by any means, however,

umm, because of their attitude and engagement in lessons, it kind of acts as a barrier for doing as well as they

should be. So it is kind of a combination of lots of different factors that went into it.

R: and why did you choose this behaviour programme specifically? Was it based on something that has

happened before in the school or based on something you’ve read?

A: So, there was a combination of, you know, so much literature about positive reinforcement and positive

praise benefiting students. I am new to the school this year, but [the HoY] said they had done like a mentoring

scheme [in Year 9] that never really went off the ground. They wanted to go through it. We didn’t necessarily

want to go down – or we wanted to see whether the traditional report group would be more effective or less

effective than a praise-based system. I think there’s definitely positives to both.

R: Okay, that’s all my questions. Thank you!

A: No worries!
Appendix 2

Email by AHoY to All Secondary Teachers to award house points if any of the 7 students (from the ASPIRE

Programme) follow the behavioural targets discussed from the first meeting.
Appendix 3

Semi-structured interview transcript before the intervention

Researcher: So we are currently reaching the end of the fourth week of the ASPIRE programme intervention.

Do you think all, if not most, of the students made good progress from the programme?

AHoY: Yeah, I think that it’s definitely something that we would like to continue, and we should have more of a

structured approach with because of, obviously, they’ve had everything. We’ve had the exam period, the

Ramadan hours, and everything kind of disrupted the flow of the school year recently. But, I think when we

continue it next year, I think it will definitely show more progress with a bit more structure. However, there has

been lots of really nice reports from teachers with improvements in engagement and improvements with attitude

in lessons, which is a real big positive, especially since it has only been 4 weeks.

R: is this related to the email you sent out saying if they are engaging in classrooms, give them a house point?

A: Uh-uh

R: is that how you would define engagement in a classroom, or is it -?

A: Yeah, I think, it obviously depends on the lesson. So a subject like PE is definitely going to have a different

engagement to maybe like an English lesson. But I think we have kind of focused it on if they are volunteering

answers, asking questions, kind of actively engaging with what the task is, or what the topic of discussion is

within the lesson.

R: oh, perfect. And did you hear any positive feedback from the students themselves, or the teachers?

A: Yes, I think from the students’ words, for example, [Student 7] getting Student of the Month. She was so

proud of herself. And it’s been really nice to see some of the boys being picked up for improvements, kind of,

come to me, be like, “oh, miss, you know, my English teacher said this about me” or

R: yeah, aww

A: so seeing that has been really lovely. And some of the teachers, I think, there’s been a few positive reports on

a lot of them doing coursework, for example, in English. A few positive reports on some good effort and work

going into that. Equally, it’s not been like a complete fix. There’s still been a few reports of, like, the opposite to

that. And for the students –

R: but that’s just real life…

A: yeah, 100%. And for the students, it’s been good to see them feeling more pride in themselves. Because

something we identified from the start. Umm, we kind of chatted to them about, what are you prod of? What are

you proud of in Year 10? What are you proud of outside of school? And they struggled to be able to identify
those areas that they feel pride in, which is sad. So, I think, even for that element of it, for them being able to

identify it themselves, has been really positive.

R: what do you think you would like to do differently if you run this programme next year?

A: I think next year, we will probably try and incorporate a combination of this programme and a more

traditional, reports-based point system. Definitely with the run-up to their exams, kind of giving them a bit more

ownership of a report, or something to hand in to their teachers. Just something a bit more physical to them, just

so they are constantly reminded however focused or more of a positive, “I have shown this”, instead of “so-and-

so didn’t misbehave today” – tick. So I think having a combination of the two. But we just wanted to trial it and

see if we saw any differences between an old-school report, or like a more –

R: so when are you thinking of more structure for next year, are you thinking of a report also?

A: so, like I said, a combination of them both. I think it would benefit the students to give something physical to

the teachers every lesson as a reminder. Just to get them to think about it, and almost a reset at the start of every

lesson as well.

R: Yeah, like a conscious, effort, like I’m being tracked.

A: definitely. However, I do think the target should be like a – a positive, affirmation almost. Like I have shown

this. I have actively engaged in lesson. Or like - . so if they are getting those ticks, they have like a positive

come out of it. Rather than, “do not misbehave”, or “do not talk back”. That would be a good way to do it. But

again, we are just going to trial different things and we see how they work.

R: I think even earlier, we spoke about there being like a “homework club” so they can catch up on missing

academic work, as well.

A: Yes!

R: which I thought was a really nice idea.

A: Yes, exactly. I think a lot of them struggle a little bit with accessing the work especially in the classroom.

And then when they are alone, it’s like double as difficult. From the students you work with [in the inclusion

team], you probably know that better than anyone. That, as soon as they are left without a prompt, sometimes,
it gets more difficult. So I think putting that in as well. It might not even be those students that are selected for

it. So there’s definitely more that we think could benefit from a bit more guidance. So that’s something we

might look at next year. An after-school session, 45 minutes maybe, not even an hour, just to give them a bit of

“okay, I know I’ve got this due, I’ve got a solid bit of time where there’s a member of staff to answer any

questions, to keep me on task”. I think that would be beneficial for them.

R: And, my last question, a lot of behaviour, like we have discussed, ties into their academic performance. But

research also indicates the impact from the wellbeing perspective, maybe not being safe or happy at home or in

school. Did you have any involvement from the counsellors on this, or not consciously?

A: yeah, not consciously. A few of the students on that list do regularly speak with the counsellors. So, that’s a

conversation that we have with them kind of quite regularly anyway. But, some things that have been flagged up

before, like low self-esteem, or low- kind of feelings in themselves. Like I said, they struggled to find

somethings they felt proud of, things like that. So that was a conversation we had at the start. I think again, that

could be a really important thing to bring in next year as well. Having more of a direct link maybe with them.

R: yeah, and everything also has to be confidential as well, between the counsellor and the student.

A: Exactly, yeah. So just like one session a week or something, that could work.

R: oh sorry, I do have one more question.

A: yes, sure!

R: so you teach quite a few of these students in Biology also. What changes have you seen through this

programme?

A: Oh, I’ve personally seen quite a lot of changes, especially with [Student 3, 4, 6, 7 and 1]. Them knowing that

– also knowing that I was taking an interest in terms of wanting to promote them and support them and push

them up rather than bring them down. I think that really helped. But definitely, far more engagement, from the

boys. [Student 7, the girl] has never been really an issue for me. However, she’s really been getting involved in

asking questions, and volunteering answers, which has been really really good. And, their test results, I think as

much as – they are still going to struggle with exams and things like that. However, I could tell like, they had

revised and put effort in them. A lot of them also did improve on previous years, which was a big boost for

them, moving into Year 11.

R: Oh, that’s good. Great, that’s all my questions. Thank you!

A: Thank you!