What Makes an Excellent Teacher? Insights From Junior High School Students With a History of Disruptive Behavior

Abstract

Evidence of the powerful relationship between what teachers do and how effectively their students learn has led to reforms aimed at improving the quality of teaching. Most jurisdictions are now paying increased attention both to the initial and ongoing education of teachers, as well as methods to assess, reward and improve quality teaching. Predominant among these methods are frameworks that define observable elements of pedagogical practice for which there is evidence of benefit for student learning, engagement, and behavior. However, we contend that even the best of these do not go far enough, as they do not explicitly consider students with disability, even those students with so-called “high-incidence” disabilities enrolled in everyday classrooms—such as those with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Developmental Language Disorder—whose classroom behavior often indicates that their learning needs are not being met. In this manuscript, we report findings from in-depth interviews with 50 Grade 7–10 students with a history of disruptive and disengaged behavior from three secondary schools serving disadvantaged communities. Responses to the question “what makes an excellent teacher” were coded into four categories. Three of the four categories (emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support) reflect internationally accepted domains of quality teaching, while the fourth, teachers’ temperament and personality, was added to gauge accuracy of the common belief that this is the element students care most about. Analysis yielded novel results with the majority of students emphasizing instructional support practices that are not well represented in most measures of quality teaching. We argue that these practices represent an essential—but often absent—“top layer” of clarity and accessibility that is necessary for “quality teaching” to be inclusive teaching.

A Systematic Literature Review of the Teaching Considerations and Practices Provided to Children in an Education Setting with Comorbid Disability and Developmental Trauma

“…Overwhelmingly, the literature ( n = 9) posits that classroom teachers feel ill-equipped to manage the diverse needs of children with diagnosed conditions, developmental delay, psychopathology, socio-emotional behavioural conditions, and atypical development including sensory, communicative, physical, adaptive, cognitive, and motor domains. The implications for children who arrive at school with significant developmental delays and mental and physical health disabilities are that teachers and school-based social workers are ill-equipped to meet their specific needs in the mainstream classroom [ 26 ]. In the study conducted by Simpson et al [ 43 ] it was found that the intersection that exists between the discernment of disability and the features of abuse and neglect is complex, interferes with assessment outcomes, and requires highly skilled practitioners to have effective communication skills to determine what is impacting on the child.…”

“…Two studies [ 26 , 40 ] discussed the high degree of quality teaching practice required to cater to the emotional, social, and behavioural needs of students with high-incidence disabilities, such as ADHD, learning disorders, and autism, as the majority of these students are educated in a mainstream classroom where integration is the norm, and an absence of genuine inclusion is apparent [ 49 ]. Graham et al [ 26 ] highlighted the relational approach being assumed by a teacher aide to support students to experience inclusion as opposed to integration. A student’s social and emotional needs are more likely to be addressed when a close connection and trusting relationship can exist in the classroom with a key adult [ 48 ].…”

“…This often unintentionally occurs when teachers comply with behavioural approaches rather than trauma-sensitive responses to challenging behaviours. There is, therefore, a need for school-based participatory action research and a commitment to staff learning about interpersonal trauma, instructional biases, and a whole-of-school approach to a cultural shift towards trauma-informed positive behavioural support [ 26 ]. Research has demonstrated that when schools adopt change processes and focus on building staff and student resilience, student drop-out rates decline, and recidivism rates of challenging behaviours reduce as revictimisation is lowered [ 51 , 52 ].…”

“…The instructional elements of a teacher’s pedagogical practice are often the most considered factor in determining practice quality, as this is assumed to most benefit a student’s academic and/or social and behavioural development [ 25 ]. Graham et al [ 26 ] discuss that a student’s test scores are a poor conceptualisation of teacher practice quality and tend to ignore the complex relationships that exist between academic achievement, individual difference, and classroom composition. According to Morris-Mathews et al, [ 27 ], a core weakness includes a lack of focus on clear and structured instruction and differentiation necessary to identify and promote practices that are of quality for students with high-incidence disabilities who are present in the classroom but poorly served.…”

“…This constitutes a significant gap in classroom service delivery for students with disabilities and complex trauma. A common school of thought that underpins some practice frameworks for quality teaching practice is Danielson’s assumption [ 27 ], whereby the belief is that “all students have the expertise necessary to design and direct their own learning” ([ 26 ] p. 74), argue that this places some students with disabilities and mental health concerns at a distinct disadvantage when teaching approaches and strategies are employed that require students to plan, organise, and be self-directive with their learning. Due to core difficulties with executive functioning, cognitive processing, and emotional regulation, these students require teacher-directed learning that is task-analysed and deliverable in small sequential and repetitive steps with significant relational investment by the teacher.…”