Teaching Assistants managing behaviour – who knows how they do it? A review of literature

Abstract

This article revisits a previous publication which questioned how Teaching Assistants (TAs) manage behaviour in mainstream English primary schools (Clarke and Visser, 2016). That paper highlighted the lack of specific research in the area and noted, that despite increases in research on TAs work, there remained a lack of understanding in relation to how TAs supported children’s non‐academic or ‘soft skills’. Following on from that, this article details the findings of a doctoral research project that investigated factors that constrained and supported TAs’ management of behaviour. Using the findings from that research, this article offers answers to the to the question I outlined in the previous publication ‘Teaching Assistants managing behaviour – who knows how they do it?’ (Clarke and Visser, 2016). Concepts including TAs’ understanding of their ‘place’, the impact of agency and how consistency in a range of areas influenced the agency TAs experienced in managing behaviour will be discussed.

Teaching assistants managing behaviour – who knows how they do it? Agency is the answer

“…Supporting Abrams’s () findings, my research highlights the ‘multiple’ and interrelated factors that impact on TAs’ agency in managing behaviour. It affirms the argument of others (Howes, ; Giangreco et al ., ; Rubie‐Davies et al ., ; Graves, , ; Blatchford et al ., ; Giangreco, ; Clarke and Visser , ) calling for further research into TAs’ ‘soft skills’. Developing an understanding of how TAs support children’s non‐academic development may be a starting point to develop conversations in schools that afford TAs greater clarity in their roles and relationships and, as a result – greater agency.…”

“…Research on TAs’ work has seen a significant increase, in the main utilising data collected for the ‘formidably extensive’ (Fletcher‐Campbell, ) Deployment and Impact of Support Staff report (Blatchford et al ., ). Nevertheless, there has been little investigation of how children’s ‘soft‐skills’ including behaviour are supported, despite calls for research in this area (Howes, ; Giangreco et al ., ; Rubie‐Davies et al ., ; Graves, ; Sharples et al ., ; Clarke and Visser, , ). The paucity of specific study is concerning given expectations in government publications that TAs play a key role in managing behaviour (DfES, , , ; DfE, , ).…”

The role of teaching assistants in managing behaviour in inclusive Catalan schools

“…Themes and findings from prior research (e.g. Clarke and Visser 2016;Harris and Aprile 2015;Rubie-Davies et al 2010;Walker and Snell 2017) were additionally considered in the development of the coding scheme. Consensus on the final coding scheme, shown in Table 1, was reached via a process of debate and validation among members of the research team.…”

Paint pot washers or pedagogues? Is gender an issue for teaching assistants?

“…Sharples, Webster and Blatchford (2015) described research into TAs' impact on 'soft' non-academic development as 'thin', suggesting that evidence was rooted in 'impressionistic data' rather than empirical research. This continues to be the case with calls to address 'key deficiencies in this body of research' (Clarke and Visser 2016;2016a;Giangreco, Suter, and Doyle, 2010;Graves, 2013;Rubie-Davies, Blatchford, Webster, Koutsoubou and Bassett, 2010).…”